Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Full Research Article

Agricultural Extension Services and Use Intensity of Soil and Water Conservation Technologies among Youth Farmers in Drylands of Machakos County, Kenya

H
Hezron Rasugu Mogaka1
0000-0003-1375-5739
S
Scholastica Kavata Mutungi1,*
0009-0002-9015-8575
F
Florence Kaumi Kirimi1
0000-0001-5117-667X
C
Charles Nyambane Onyari2
0000-0002-2004-9579
F
Franklin N. Nyabuga3
0000-0002-4795-376
L
Lydia Muriithi2
0009-00-27299-2061
S
Shadrack Kiprotich1
0000-0001-6451-6477
1Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Embu, P.o Box 6-60100, Embu, Kenya.
2Department of Water and Agricultural Resource Management, University of Embu, P.o Box 6-60100 Embu, Kenya.
3Department of Biological Sciences, University of Embu, P.o Box 6-60100, Embu, Kenya.

ABSTRACT

Background: Effective extension services have the potential to bridge adoption gaps in soil and water conservation (SWC) technologies and ultimately minimize farmers’ vulnerability to climate-related risks in agricultural production. However, information on the effectiveness of agricultural extension services (AES) in supporting the adoption of sustainable practices such as SWC technologies, remains limited in many parts of Kenya, despite being provided to farmers for decades. The aim of this research was to determine youth farmers’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of extension services and the factors that influence their use and use intensity of SWC technologies. The effectiveness of AES was measured using eleven variables.

Methods: Data were collected from 396 youth farmers using a semi-structured questionnaire through a cross-sectional survey with a multistage stratified sampling procedure. We used descriptive statistics and Tobit regression model for data analysis.

Result: The study found that AES among youth farmers in drylands of Machakos County were perceived as ineffective. The frequency of receiving extension services, the main source of information, tools used in delivering AES and the level of extension education influenced use and use intensity of SWC technologies. The results underscore the need for targeted interventions that increase the frequency of extension services, diversify information sources and improve the tools and training provided to youth farmers.

INTRODUCTION

The agri-food sector is currently  facing significant challenges, as the global population is projected to surpass 9 billion by 2050, necessitating a 70% increase in agricultural and food production to meet the growing demand (Ben Ayed and Hanana, 2021; Selvakumar and Sivakumar, 2021). Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has a young and rapidly growing population, with an annual growth rate of 2.6%, notably surpassing the global average of 1.5% (Byaro et al., 2023). The industry does not appeal to the younger generation, who frequently move to cities in pursuit of better opportunities (Girdziute et al., 2022). Climate-related challenges in Kenya’s drylands, including drought, erratic rainfall and floods have intensified water stress, reduced soil fertility and constrained agricultural productivity (Mutungi et al., 2025).
       
In response to these challenges, many developing economies, including Kenya, the government and development partners are promoting climate-smart agricultural practices and one of the main components of these practices are SWC measures (Abegaz et al., 2024; Saraswati et al., 2022). In Machakos County, terracing, mixed cropping, cover cropping and agroforestry are widely practiced (Mwadalu et al., 2023). However, these measures will only be fully effective when they are consistently integrated into the household’s farming operations where the youth actively participate. Despite the promotion of SWC, a smaller proportion of farmers’ cultivated pieces of land are being treated with appropriate SWC practices (Belayneh, 2023). Numerous studies on the use of agricultural technologies have found that, alongside other demographic and socioeconomic factors, institutional constraints and incomplete information hinder the use of agrarian technologies (Kyalo et al., 2025).
       
Agricultural extension services influence  farmers’ attitudes, facilitate access to markets and support sustainable resource management (Prajapati et al., 2025). However, in Kenya, AES are provided by the government through a top-down approach that is widely criticized for being inflexible and non-participatory and their effective-ness has further declined over the years due to low budgetary allocations, dwindling public sector resources and decentralization to county governments (Kyambo et al., 2021). Moreover, ineffective extension linkages, insufficient and inappropriate agricultural technologies for farmers and inadequate extension agents hinder agricultural extension systems from delivering high-quality advisory services that are crucial for promoting sustainable development (Kassem et al., 2021).
       
Youth engagement in agriculture holds the potential for driving innovation, integrating technology and promoting sustainable practices that could transform traditional farming landscapes. Engaging and empowering youth in agricultural extension programs is crucial for the long-term growth of rural communities and the overall development of the agricultural sector (Geza et al., 2021). The aging population of African farmers in general and Kenya in particular undermines food security and the transfer of agricultural productivity enhancement knowledge and technologies, as they are less inclined and slower to adopt new technologies compared to younger farmers (Dave, 2020). In contrast, youth are argued to possess traits such as energy, resilience, innovation, adaptability and willingness to embrace new ideas, which are essential for adopting agricultural management practices and technologies (Devkota et al., 2023). Therefore, this study seeks to assess the effectiveness of agricultural extension services and effectiveness determinants supporting use and use intensity of SWC technologies among youth farmers aged from fifteen to thirty-five years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area
 
The study was carried out in Yatta Sub-County, located in Machakos County within the arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) of lower Eastern Kenya, an area with limited information on effectiveness of AES despite these services being offered for decades. The area is positioned on a plateau at an altitude of 1,700 meters above sea level and falls under agro-climatic zone IV, classified as a semi-arid zone. It covers an area of 1,062 square kilometers and has an estimated population of 172,583 people (KNBS, 2019). Geographically, Yatta Sub-County lies between latitudes 1o37'S and 1o45'S and longitudes 37o15'E and 37o23'E. Administratively, the Sub-County comprises five Wards: Ndalani, Kithimani, Matuu, Katangi and Ikombe. The region experiences a bimodal rainfall pattern, with long rains occurring from March to May (approximately 400 mm) and short rains from October to December (around 500 mm). Subsistence farming is the primary economic activity and means of livelihood, with most residents engaging in small-scale agricultural practices such as crop cultivation and livestock rearing. In addition, the region’s food system is characterized by frequent crop failure occasioned with more frequent and severer climate extremes particularly droughts (Mutuku, 2020). Field data were collected during 2024 cropping season as part of academic research undertaken at the University of Embu.
 
Research design, sample size and sampling technique
 
This study employed a cross-sectional survey design focusing on youth farmers in Yatta Sub-County, Machakos County. A sample of 396 youth farmers aged from 15 to 35 years was taken based on Watson formula (Watson, 2001). A multistage sampling strategy was employed to choose youth respondents to participate in the study. In the first stage, Machakos County was purposively selected to represent lower Eastern Kenya due to the promotion of SWC technologies in the County (Mwadalu et al., 2023). Additionally, AES have been provided to farmers in the area for a long period by the government, private sector, non-governmental organizations, as well as producer and farmer organizations. In second stage, Yatta Sub-County was purposively selected due to its vulnerability to extreme weather and heavy reliance on subsistence farming, highlighting the critical need to assess the effectiveness of agricultural extension services in enhancing farmers’ resilience and productivity. The sub-county also has a substantial youth population engaged in agriculture, with approximately 75% of youth involved in farming on full-time basis (Mwendwa, 2016). In the third stage, three Wards: Kithimani, Matuu and Ndalani were randomly selected from the five Wards in Yatta Sub County. Subsequently, two sub-locations were randomly selected from each of these Wards, resulting in six sub-locations: Kithimani, Matuu, Ndalani, Kaluluini, Kithendu and Mavoloni. Finally, proportionate to size formula was applied by dividing the number of youth farmers in each selected sub-location by the total number of youth farmers across all six sub-locations and multiplying the result by total sample size to determine the number of youth farmers to be sampled from each sub-location.
 
Data collection instruments
 
The study utilized semi-structured questionnaire programmed in Kobo Toolbox to gather data from youth farmers. The questionnaire focused on utilization of twelve SWC technologies and effectiveness of AES in supporting use intensity of the technologies. The perceived effectiveness of AES was assessed using various variables based on  the recommendations of Maake and Antwi (2022) which align with established standards for extension and advisory services in agriculture. Questions on AES measurements were presented on a five-point Likert scale: where, 1 = Very ineffective, 2 = Ineffective, 3 = Average, 4 = Effective and 5 = Very effective (Table 1). The proportions of very ineffective and ineffective were combined to be classified as ineffective, while the average responses were categorized as moderately effective. Additionally, the proportions of effective and very effective were merged and classified as effective.

Table 1: Description of explanatory indicators in the regression model.


 
Model specification
 
Tobit regression model was used to analyse determinants of use and use intensity of SWC technologies among youth farmers. Tobit model consists of both discrete and continuous components, making it suitable for simultaneously analyzing the decision to use agricultural practices and the extent of their utilization. The dependent variable that was used in Tobit model is the proportion of land area under SWC technologies. The respondents were assigned 1 if users and zero for non-users. Where a user is a youth farmer who has utilized at least one of the technologies whereas non-users did not implement any of the technologies. Model specification is as follows:
 
Yi = β0 + βX1 + β2X2 + .... + bnXn + ɛ 
Where,
Yi = Utilization intensity.
X1, X2,…, Xn = Explanatory variables.
β1, β2…βn = Coefficients of independent variables.
ɛ = Error term.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effectiveness of agricultural extension services
 
There were variations in responses on effectiveness of AES, among youth farmers (Table 2). The services were perceived as ineffective in 7 out of 11 variables as shown by proportion of respondents, exceeding 50%, who rated these services as either ineffective or very ineffective. For instance, with a mean of 1.82 (SD = 1.02) majority of respondents (77.53%) considered equity in service delivery to different groups, including youth farmers, as ineffective. Similarly, mean score of 2.25 (SD = 1.19) indicates that (67.93%) viewed the availability of AES on demand as ineffective highlighting the difficulty youth farmers faced in accessing these services when they were needed most. Additionally, flexibility in responding to youth farmers’ ever-changing needs was seen as ineffective by 67.42% of youth farmers suggesting a lack of flexibility in adapting to the rapidly evolving challenges faced by youth in agriculture. In terms of providing and facilitating access to advice on sustainable agricultural production including conservation of natural resources, the mean score of 2.64 (SD = 1.29) indicates that over half of the respondents (51.01%) found the services ineffective in addressing these critical concerns. The impact on changes in productivity was rated with a mean of 2.40 (SD = 1.29), signaling that AES were not particularly successful in directly enhancing farm productivity, with 59.85% of respondents perceiving them as ineffective in this regard. Approximately 83.59% of youth farmers considered the approaches used by extension services to be relevant, suggesting that, although there are areas for improvement, many youth farmers found the methods employed in delivering extension services to be closely aligned with their needs and farming practices. In general, the effectiveness of AES was perceived as effective in 2 variables, as shown by the combined proportion of respondents who rated the services as effective and very effective and ineffective in 7 variables, based on the combined proportion of respondents who rated them as ineffective and very ineffective.

Table 2: Perceived effectiveness of agricultural extension services.


 
Use and use intensity of SWC technologies
 
The results on the determinants of the effectiveness AES influencing utilization rate of SWC technologies are presented in Table 3. The findings of this study indicate that the frequency of receiving agricultural extension services significantly influences the use of SWC technologies among youth farmers. Specifically, there was a negative relationship suggesting that as the frequency of receiving extension services decreases, for instance when services are provided less frequently such as annually or rarely, the likelihood of utilizing the technologies also declines. Conversely more frequent access to extension services for instance weekly or monthly visits is associated with higher usage levels. This implies that consistent and timely provision of extension services plays a critical role in encouraging youth farmers to use the technologies. Results of this study are in congruence with those of Khumalo et al., (2025) and Tamiru et al., (2023) who found that regular access to extension services facilitated the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices by providing continuous technical support, which in turn enhanced productivity and contributed to improved food and nutrition security.

Table 3: Parameter estimates of Tobit regression model.


       
The main source of information was found to positively correlate with the use of SWC measures among youth farmers. The results showed that youth farmers who rely on digital social media were more likely to adopt and implement soil and water conservation technologies. These platforms provide timely, accessible and interactive content that empowers farmers with knowledge, skills and practical advice on sustainable agricultural practices. This suggests the growing role of digital platforms in extension. The finding aligns with that of Eze et al., (2021) who found that the use of mobile apps such as WhatsApp and Facebook for delivering extension services facilitated significant increases in agricultural productivity, including lowland rice production, vegetable production and upland rice production.
       
The use of visual and hands on tools by extension service providers influenced utilization of SWC measures among youth farmers. Tools such as demonstration kits which include practical tools and materials for showcasing agricultural technologies, significantly enhance farmers’ understanding and confidence in implementing new practices. By providing tangible evidence of effectiveness, these demonstration kits bridge the gap between research and practical application, fostering a more engaging and educational experience for farmers. This emphasizes the importance of experiential learning. This corroborates findings of Hussain and Maharjan (2025) who found that on-farm demonstrations significantly influences adoption of agricultural technologies.
       
Equity in service delivery of AES was positively correlated with uptake of SWC technologies among youth farmers. This suggests that when AES are delivered equitably, ensuring that all youth farmers regardless of their socio-economic background have access to information, resources and support, they are more likely to utilize SWC technologies. This finding corroborates the results of Sattar et al., (2024) who found that equitable access to agricultural services significantly enhances technology adoption among smallholder farmers. It further indicated that when services are tailored and made accessible to underserved groups, such as youth farmers, adoption rates for agricultural innovations increase, leading to improved productivity and sustainability in farming.
       
Alignment of AES with farmer’s priorities and needs was found to significantly influence utilization of SWC techniques among youth farmers. When AES programs are tailored to address the needs, challenges and goals of farmers, they are more likely to be adopted. This alignment ensures that services offered are relevant increasing their willingness to implement the technologies. This findings agrees with those of Hameed and Sawicka (2023) who reported that aligning extension services to farmers needs promoted adoption of sustainable practices and emphasizes the importance of understanding farmers perceptions and priorities to design extension programs that are relevant and effective. The relevance includes the extent to which the SWC technologies solve the farmers’ immediate concerns such as food security and increased income besides ease of use and low investment costs.
               
Facilitation of access to technology, including the provision of such technologies where possible, was found to be a significant measure of the effectiveness of AES which significantly influences the utilization of SWC measures among youth farmers. This implies that enhancing AES to focus not only on disseminating knowledge but also on ensuring the availability and accessibility of relevant technologies can drive utilization of SWC technologies. Correspondingly, Danso-Abbeam (2022) reported that access to extension services  plays a pivotal role in bridging the gap in the use of  SWC measures, ultimately enhancing productivity and sustainability among farmers. Learning about extension education positively impacted youth farmers’ adoption and use of SWC measures. Youth farmers who participated in extension education programs demonstrated a greater likelihood of implementing effective soil and water conservation practices, highlighting the importance of agricultural extension services in enhancing the adoption of sustainable farming techniques. This showed that capacity-building has a long-term effect. The study was in line with that of Kipkogei et al., (2025) who indicated that extension education positively influenced microcredit access and agricultural technology adoption, which in turn contributed to increased income for maize farmers in Kenya.

CONCLUSION

In general, AES were perceived as ineffective among youth farmers in drylands of Machakos County, as indicated by effectiveness measures such as equity in service delivery, availability of AES on demand, flexibility in responding to farmers’ ever-changing needs, providing and facilitating access to advice on sustainable agricultural production, focus on human and social capital development, facilitating access to technology and impact on changes in productivity. This suggests that AES were not fully meeting the needs of youth farmers in terms of accessibility, relevance and flexibility.  However, agricultural extension services were deemed effective in two aspects; quality of extension services and use of approaches relevant to beneficiaries. Through the Tobit regression model, the study identified key indicators that influencing use and use intensity of SWC technologies. These indicators include the frequency of receiving extension services, the main source of information, the tools used in delivering AES and the level of extension education. The results underscore the need for targeted interventions that increase the frequency of extension services, diversify information sources and improve the tools and training provided to youth farmers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The study wishes to thank all youth farmers in Machakos County for their willingness to participate in accomplishing research objectives.
 
Disclaimers
 
The authors’ views and conclusions in this work are not associated with their linked institutions. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of their information. Similarly, authors remain committed to addressing any potential errors that may still be present, but they are not liable for any direct or indirect damage.
 
Informed consent
 
There was no coercive requirement for the respondents to participate and their responses were entirely optional.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors claim no conflicts of interest exist to publish this work. Research design, data collection, analysis, publication decision and production were independent of funding or assistance.

REFERENCES


  1. Abegaz, A., Abera, W., Jaquet, S., Tamene, L. (2024). Adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices (CSAPs) in Ethiopia. Climate Risk Management. 45: 100628. doi: 10.1016/ j.crm.2024.100628.

  2. Belayneh, M. (2023). Factors affecting the adoption and effective- ness of soil and water conservation measures among small-holder rural farmers: The case of Gumara watershed. Resources, Conservation and Recycling Advances. 18: 200159. doi: 10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200159.

  3. Ben Ayed, R. and Hanana, M. (2021). Artificial intelligence to improve the food and agriculture sector. Journal of Food Quality. 2021(1): 5584754. DOI: 10.1155/2021/5584754.

  4. Byaro, M., Kinyondo, A. and Lemnge, D.A. (2023). Does sub-saharan Africa’s rapid population growth have positive or negative effects on aggregate domestic investment? World Affairs. 186: 806-824. DOI: 10.1177/00438200231168288.

  5. Danso-Abbeam, G. (2022). Do agricultural extension services promote adoption of soil and water conservation practices? Evidence from Northern Ghana. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research. 10: 100381. doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2022. 100381.

  6. Dave, M.J. (2020). Youth Involvement in Soil Fertility Management in Embu and Vihiga Counties, Kenya.

  7. Devkota, N., Joshi, A., Khanal, G., Mahapatra, S.K., Gautam, N., Paudel, U.R., Bhandari, U. (2023). Awareness on agricultural entrepreneurship among youth farmers: An empirical study from Western Nepal. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies. 13: 812-830.

  8. Eze, A. V., Ezeh, A. N. and Eze, E. O. (2021). Extension Agents’ use of mobile phone applications for agricultural extension service delivery in ebonyi state agricultural development programme, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension. 25(1): 48-58. DOI: 10.4314/jae.v25i1.6.

  9. Geza, W., Ngidi, M., Ojo, T., Adetoro, A.A., Slotow, R., Mabhaudhi, T. (2021). Youth participation in agriculture: A scoping review. Sustainability. 13: 16. DOI: 10.3390/su13169120.

  10. Girdziute, L., Besuspariene, E., Nausediene, A., Novikova, A., Leppala, J., Jakob, M. (2022). Youth’s (Un) willingness to work in agriculture sector. Frontiers in Public Health. 10: 937657.

  11. Hameed, T. and Sawicka, B. (2023). Role of agricultural extension in adoption of sustainable agriculture practices. Anbar Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 21(1): 250-260.

  12. Hussain, N. and  Maharjan, K.L. (2025). Impact of on-farm demonstrations on technology adoption, yield and profitability among small farmers of wheat in Pakistan-An experimental study. Agriculture. 15: 214.

  13. Kassem, H.S., Alotaibi, B.A., Muddassir, M., Herab, A. (2021). Factors influencing farmers’ satisfaction with the quality of agricultural extension services. Evaluation and Program Planning. 85: 101912. DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021. 101912.

  14. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. (2019). Kenya population and housing census analytical reports. Nairobi: Government Press.

  15. Khumalo, N.Z., Sibanda, M. and Mdoda, L. (2025). The effect of heterogeneous adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices on household food and nutrition security of small- scale urban crop farmers in eThekwini Municipality. PLOS Climate. 4: e0000551.

  16. Kipkogei, S., Han, J., Mwalupaso, G., Tanui, J., Brenya, R. (2025). The synergistic effects of microcredit access and agricultural technology adoption on maize farmer’s income in Kenya. PloS One. 20: e0316014.

  17. Kyalo, A.M., Mogaka, H., Kirimi, F.K., Kizito, K., Ndirangu, S.N., Onyari, C.N., Muriithi, L., Elvin, O.N., Mutungi, S.K., Kiprotich, S. (2025). Exploring socio-economic characteristics on adoption intensity of biochar among farming households in sub-humid regions of western Kenya.

  18. Kyambo, O., Kilungo, D.J. and Amwata, D.D.A. (2021). The influence of selected socio-economic factors on farmers’ awareness of devolution of agricultural extension services in Kitui county, Kenya. American Journal of Agriculture. 3(1): 1-20.

  19. Maake, M.M.S. and Antwi, M.A. (2022). Farmer’s perceptions of effectiveness of public agricultural extension services in South Africa: An exploratory analysis of associated factors. Agriculture and Food Security. 11: 34. DOI: 10. 1186/s40066-022-00372-7.

  20. Mutuku, H.M. (2020). Tree Cover Perpectives and Climate Change Resilience in the drylands of Matungulu Sub-County, Machakos County, Kenya. Nairobi: Kenyatta University.

  21. Mutungi, S.K., Mogaka, H.R., Kirimi, F.K., Onyari, C.N., Muriithi, L., Otara, E.N., Kiprotich, S., Njiru, M.M., Kyalo, A.M., Kamau, E.A. (2025). Factors influencing youth farmers’ use of soil and water conservation technologies in drylands of machakos county, Kenya. Journal of Global Innovations in Agricultural Sciences.

  22. Mwadalu, R., Kisiwa, A., Elema, M., Gathara, M. (2023). Potential of soil and water conservation technologies for dryland agriculture and forestry. Journal of Applied Biosciences. 181: 18925-18939. doi: 10.35759/JABs.181.5.

  23. Mwendwa, J. (2016). Influence of social economic factors on youth engagement in agricultural project activities in yatta sub-county, machakos county Kenya. MA Thesis, University of Nairobi. 

  24. Prajapati, C.S., Priya, N.K., Bishnoi, S., Vishwakarma, S.K., Buvaneswari, K., Shastri, S., Tripathi, S., Jadhav, A. (2025). The role of participatory approaches in modern agricultural extension: Bridging knowledge gaps for sustainable farming practices. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 47: 204-222. DOI:10.9734/jeai/2025/v47i23281.

  25. Saraswati, L., Prijono, S. and Prasetya, B. (2022). Influence of various soil and water conservation methods on the moisture balance at coffee plant root zone. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 56: 325-330. doi: 10.18805/ IJARe.AF-703.

  26. Sattar, M.N., Macfadyen, S., Rahman, M.W., Tahi Tiza, F. (2024). Delivery of services and agricultural technologies through farmers’ hubs. Development in Practice. 34: 782-795.

  27. Selvakumar, S. and Sivakumar, K. (2021). Conservation agriculture: A way for soil water conservation. Agricultural Reviews. 42: 474-477. doi: 10.18805/ag.R-2045.

  28. Tamiru, H., Bussa, B. and Geneti, T. (2023). Assessment of soil and water conservation practices and its implication on soil physicochemical properties, at West Guji Zone, Gelana Woreda, Southern Ethiopia. Agricultural Science Digest-A Research Journal. 43: 346-350. doi: 10.18805/ ag.DF-456.

  29. Watson, G. (2001). A study of CTLA formula values. Journal of Arboriculture. 27(6): 289-297.
Published In
Agricultural Science Digest
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
0
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Full Research Article

    Agricultural Extension Services and Use Intensity of Soil and Water Conservation Technologies among Youth Farmers in Drylands of Machakos County, Kenya

    H
    Hezron Rasugu Mogaka1
    0000-0003-1375-5739
    S
    Scholastica Kavata Mutungi1,*
    0009-0002-9015-8575
    F
    Florence Kaumi Kirimi1
    0000-0001-5117-667X
    C
    Charles Nyambane Onyari2
    0000-0002-2004-9579
    F
    Franklin N. Nyabuga3
    0000-0002-4795-376
    L
    Lydia Muriithi2
    0009-00-27299-2061
    S
    Shadrack Kiprotich1
    0000-0001-6451-6477
    1Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Embu, P.o Box 6-60100, Embu, Kenya.
    2Department of Water and Agricultural Resource Management, University of Embu, P.o Box 6-60100 Embu, Kenya.
    3Department of Biological Sciences, University of Embu, P.o Box 6-60100, Embu, Kenya.

    ABSTRACT

    Background: Effective extension services have the potential to bridge adoption gaps in soil and water conservation (SWC) technologies and ultimately minimize farmers’ vulnerability to climate-related risks in agricultural production. However, information on the effectiveness of agricultural extension services (AES) in supporting the adoption of sustainable practices such as SWC technologies, remains limited in many parts of Kenya, despite being provided to farmers for decades. The aim of this research was to determine youth farmers’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of extension services and the factors that influence their use and use intensity of SWC technologies. The effectiveness of AES was measured using eleven variables.

    Methods: Data were collected from 396 youth farmers using a semi-structured questionnaire through a cross-sectional survey with a multistage stratified sampling procedure. We used descriptive statistics and Tobit regression model for data analysis.

    Result: The study found that AES among youth farmers in drylands of Machakos County were perceived as ineffective. The frequency of receiving extension services, the main source of information, tools used in delivering AES and the level of extension education influenced use and use intensity of SWC technologies. The results underscore the need for targeted interventions that increase the frequency of extension services, diversify information sources and improve the tools and training provided to youth farmers.

    INTRODUCTION

    The agri-food sector is currently  facing significant challenges, as the global population is projected to surpass 9 billion by 2050, necessitating a 70% increase in agricultural and food production to meet the growing demand (Ben Ayed and Hanana, 2021; Selvakumar and Sivakumar, 2021). Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has a young and rapidly growing population, with an annual growth rate of 2.6%, notably surpassing the global average of 1.5% (Byaro et al., 2023). The industry does not appeal to the younger generation, who frequently move to cities in pursuit of better opportunities (Girdziute et al., 2022). Climate-related challenges in Kenya’s drylands, including drought, erratic rainfall and floods have intensified water stress, reduced soil fertility and constrained agricultural productivity (Mutungi et al., 2025).
           
    In response to these challenges, many developing economies, including Kenya, the government and development partners are promoting climate-smart agricultural practices and one of the main components of these practices are SWC measures (Abegaz et al., 2024; Saraswati et al., 2022). In Machakos County, terracing, mixed cropping, cover cropping and agroforestry are widely practiced (Mwadalu et al., 2023). However, these measures will only be fully effective when they are consistently integrated into the household’s farming operations where the youth actively participate. Despite the promotion of SWC, a smaller proportion of farmers’ cultivated pieces of land are being treated with appropriate SWC practices (Belayneh, 2023). Numerous studies on the use of agricultural technologies have found that, alongside other demographic and socioeconomic factors, institutional constraints and incomplete information hinder the use of agrarian technologies (Kyalo et al., 2025).
           
    Agricultural extension services influence  farmers’ attitudes, facilitate access to markets and support sustainable resource management (Prajapati et al., 2025). However, in Kenya, AES are provided by the government through a top-down approach that is widely criticized for being inflexible and non-participatory and their effective-ness has further declined over the years due to low budgetary allocations, dwindling public sector resources and decentralization to county governments (Kyambo et al., 2021). Moreover, ineffective extension linkages, insufficient and inappropriate agricultural technologies for farmers and inadequate extension agents hinder agricultural extension systems from delivering high-quality advisory services that are crucial for promoting sustainable development (Kassem et al., 2021).
           
    Youth engagement in agriculture holds the potential for driving innovation, integrating technology and promoting sustainable practices that could transform traditional farming landscapes. Engaging and empowering youth in agricultural extension programs is crucial for the long-term growth of rural communities and the overall development of the agricultural sector (Geza et al., 2021). The aging population of African farmers in general and Kenya in particular undermines food security and the transfer of agricultural productivity enhancement knowledge and technologies, as they are less inclined and slower to adopt new technologies compared to younger farmers (Dave, 2020). In contrast, youth are argued to possess traits such as energy, resilience, innovation, adaptability and willingness to embrace new ideas, which are essential for adopting agricultural management practices and technologies (Devkota et al., 2023). Therefore, this study seeks to assess the effectiveness of agricultural extension services and effectiveness determinants supporting use and use intensity of SWC technologies among youth farmers aged from fifteen to thirty-five years.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Study area
     
    The study was carried out in Yatta Sub-County, located in Machakos County within the arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) of lower Eastern Kenya, an area with limited information on effectiveness of AES despite these services being offered for decades. The area is positioned on a plateau at an altitude of 1,700 meters above sea level and falls under agro-climatic zone IV, classified as a semi-arid zone. It covers an area of 1,062 square kilometers and has an estimated population of 172,583 people (KNBS, 2019). Geographically, Yatta Sub-County lies between latitudes 1o37'S and 1o45'S and longitudes 37o15'E and 37o23'E. Administratively, the Sub-County comprises five Wards: Ndalani, Kithimani, Matuu, Katangi and Ikombe. The region experiences a bimodal rainfall pattern, with long rains occurring from March to May (approximately 400 mm) and short rains from October to December (around 500 mm). Subsistence farming is the primary economic activity and means of livelihood, with most residents engaging in small-scale agricultural practices such as crop cultivation and livestock rearing. In addition, the region’s food system is characterized by frequent crop failure occasioned with more frequent and severer climate extremes particularly droughts (Mutuku, 2020). Field data were collected during 2024 cropping season as part of academic research undertaken at the University of Embu.
     
    Research design, sample size and sampling technique
     
    This study employed a cross-sectional survey design focusing on youth farmers in Yatta Sub-County, Machakos County. A sample of 396 youth farmers aged from 15 to 35 years was taken based on Watson formula (Watson, 2001). A multistage sampling strategy was employed to choose youth respondents to participate in the study. In the first stage, Machakos County was purposively selected to represent lower Eastern Kenya due to the promotion of SWC technologies in the County (Mwadalu et al., 2023). Additionally, AES have been provided to farmers in the area for a long period by the government, private sector, non-governmental organizations, as well as producer and farmer organizations. In second stage, Yatta Sub-County was purposively selected due to its vulnerability to extreme weather and heavy reliance on subsistence farming, highlighting the critical need to assess the effectiveness of agricultural extension services in enhancing farmers’ resilience and productivity. The sub-county also has a substantial youth population engaged in agriculture, with approximately 75% of youth involved in farming on full-time basis (Mwendwa, 2016). In the third stage, three Wards: Kithimani, Matuu and Ndalani were randomly selected from the five Wards in Yatta Sub County. Subsequently, two sub-locations were randomly selected from each of these Wards, resulting in six sub-locations: Kithimani, Matuu, Ndalani, Kaluluini, Kithendu and Mavoloni. Finally, proportionate to size formula was applied by dividing the number of youth farmers in each selected sub-location by the total number of youth farmers across all six sub-locations and multiplying the result by total sample size to determine the number of youth farmers to be sampled from each sub-location.
     
    Data collection instruments
     
    The study utilized semi-structured questionnaire programmed in Kobo Toolbox to gather data from youth farmers. The questionnaire focused on utilization of twelve SWC technologies and effectiveness of AES in supporting use intensity of the technologies. The perceived effectiveness of AES was assessed using various variables based on  the recommendations of Maake and Antwi (2022) which align with established standards for extension and advisory services in agriculture. Questions on AES measurements were presented on a five-point Likert scale: where, 1 = Very ineffective, 2 = Ineffective, 3 = Average, 4 = Effective and 5 = Very effective (Table 1). The proportions of very ineffective and ineffective were combined to be classified as ineffective, while the average responses were categorized as moderately effective. Additionally, the proportions of effective and very effective were merged and classified as effective.

    Table 1: Description of explanatory indicators in the regression model.


     
    Model specification
     
    Tobit regression model was used to analyse determinants of use and use intensity of SWC technologies among youth farmers. Tobit model consists of both discrete and continuous components, making it suitable for simultaneously analyzing the decision to use agricultural practices and the extent of their utilization. The dependent variable that was used in Tobit model is the proportion of land area under SWC technologies. The respondents were assigned 1 if users and zero for non-users. Where a user is a youth farmer who has utilized at least one of the technologies whereas non-users did not implement any of the technologies. Model specification is as follows:
     
    Yi = β0 + βX1 + β2X2 + .... + bnXn + ɛ 
    Where,
    Yi = Utilization intensity.
    X1, X2,…, Xn = Explanatory variables.
    β1, β2…βn = Coefficients of independent variables.
    ɛ = Error term.

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    Effectiveness of agricultural extension services
     
    There were variations in responses on effectiveness of AES, among youth farmers (Table 2). The services were perceived as ineffective in 7 out of 11 variables as shown by proportion of respondents, exceeding 50%, who rated these services as either ineffective or very ineffective. For instance, with a mean of 1.82 (SD = 1.02) majority of respondents (77.53%) considered equity in service delivery to different groups, including youth farmers, as ineffective. Similarly, mean score of 2.25 (SD = 1.19) indicates that (67.93%) viewed the availability of AES on demand as ineffective highlighting the difficulty youth farmers faced in accessing these services when they were needed most. Additionally, flexibility in responding to youth farmers’ ever-changing needs was seen as ineffective by 67.42% of youth farmers suggesting a lack of flexibility in adapting to the rapidly evolving challenges faced by youth in agriculture. In terms of providing and facilitating access to advice on sustainable agricultural production including conservation of natural resources, the mean score of 2.64 (SD = 1.29) indicates that over half of the respondents (51.01%) found the services ineffective in addressing these critical concerns. The impact on changes in productivity was rated with a mean of 2.40 (SD = 1.29), signaling that AES were not particularly successful in directly enhancing farm productivity, with 59.85% of respondents perceiving them as ineffective in this regard. Approximately 83.59% of youth farmers considered the approaches used by extension services to be relevant, suggesting that, although there are areas for improvement, many youth farmers found the methods employed in delivering extension services to be closely aligned with their needs and farming practices. In general, the effectiveness of AES was perceived as effective in 2 variables, as shown by the combined proportion of respondents who rated the services as effective and very effective and ineffective in 7 variables, based on the combined proportion of respondents who rated them as ineffective and very ineffective.

    Table 2: Perceived effectiveness of agricultural extension services.


     
    Use and use intensity of SWC technologies
     
    The results on the determinants of the effectiveness AES influencing utilization rate of SWC technologies are presented in Table 3. The findings of this study indicate that the frequency of receiving agricultural extension services significantly influences the use of SWC technologies among youth farmers. Specifically, there was a negative relationship suggesting that as the frequency of receiving extension services decreases, for instance when services are provided less frequently such as annually or rarely, the likelihood of utilizing the technologies also declines. Conversely more frequent access to extension services for instance weekly or monthly visits is associated with higher usage levels. This implies that consistent and timely provision of extension services plays a critical role in encouraging youth farmers to use the technologies. Results of this study are in congruence with those of Khumalo et al., (2025) and Tamiru et al., (2023) who found that regular access to extension services facilitated the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices by providing continuous technical support, which in turn enhanced productivity and contributed to improved food and nutrition security.

    Table 3: Parameter estimates of Tobit regression model.


           
    The main source of information was found to positively correlate with the use of SWC measures among youth farmers. The results showed that youth farmers who rely on digital social media were more likely to adopt and implement soil and water conservation technologies. These platforms provide timely, accessible and interactive content that empowers farmers with knowledge, skills and practical advice on sustainable agricultural practices. This suggests the growing role of digital platforms in extension. The finding aligns with that of Eze et al., (2021) who found that the use of mobile apps such as WhatsApp and Facebook for delivering extension services facilitated significant increases in agricultural productivity, including lowland rice production, vegetable production and upland rice production.
           
    The use of visual and hands on tools by extension service providers influenced utilization of SWC measures among youth farmers. Tools such as demonstration kits which include practical tools and materials for showcasing agricultural technologies, significantly enhance farmers’ understanding and confidence in implementing new practices. By providing tangible evidence of effectiveness, these demonstration kits bridge the gap between research and practical application, fostering a more engaging and educational experience for farmers. This emphasizes the importance of experiential learning. This corroborates findings of Hussain and Maharjan (2025) who found that on-farm demonstrations significantly influences adoption of agricultural technologies.
           
    Equity in service delivery of AES was positively correlated with uptake of SWC technologies among youth farmers. This suggests that when AES are delivered equitably, ensuring that all youth farmers regardless of their socio-economic background have access to information, resources and support, they are more likely to utilize SWC technologies. This finding corroborates the results of Sattar et al., (2024) who found that equitable access to agricultural services significantly enhances technology adoption among smallholder farmers. It further indicated that when services are tailored and made accessible to underserved groups, such as youth farmers, adoption rates for agricultural innovations increase, leading to improved productivity and sustainability in farming.
           
    Alignment of AES with farmer’s priorities and needs was found to significantly influence utilization of SWC techniques among youth farmers. When AES programs are tailored to address the needs, challenges and goals of farmers, they are more likely to be adopted. This alignment ensures that services offered are relevant increasing their willingness to implement the technologies. This findings agrees with those of Hameed and Sawicka (2023) who reported that aligning extension services to farmers needs promoted adoption of sustainable practices and emphasizes the importance of understanding farmers perceptions and priorities to design extension programs that are relevant and effective. The relevance includes the extent to which the SWC technologies solve the farmers’ immediate concerns such as food security and increased income besides ease of use and low investment costs.
                   
    Facilitation of access to technology, including the provision of such technologies where possible, was found to be a significant measure of the effectiveness of AES which significantly influences the utilization of SWC measures among youth farmers. This implies that enhancing AES to focus not only on disseminating knowledge but also on ensuring the availability and accessibility of relevant technologies can drive utilization of SWC technologies. Correspondingly, Danso-Abbeam (2022) reported that access to extension services  plays a pivotal role in bridging the gap in the use of  SWC measures, ultimately enhancing productivity and sustainability among farmers. Learning about extension education positively impacted youth farmers’ adoption and use of SWC measures. Youth farmers who participated in extension education programs demonstrated a greater likelihood of implementing effective soil and water conservation practices, highlighting the importance of agricultural extension services in enhancing the adoption of sustainable farming techniques. This showed that capacity-building has a long-term effect. The study was in line with that of Kipkogei et al., (2025) who indicated that extension education positively influenced microcredit access and agricultural technology adoption, which in turn contributed to increased income for maize farmers in Kenya.

    CONCLUSION

    In general, AES were perceived as ineffective among youth farmers in drylands of Machakos County, as indicated by effectiveness measures such as equity in service delivery, availability of AES on demand, flexibility in responding to farmers’ ever-changing needs, providing and facilitating access to advice on sustainable agricultural production, focus on human and social capital development, facilitating access to technology and impact on changes in productivity. This suggests that AES were not fully meeting the needs of youth farmers in terms of accessibility, relevance and flexibility.  However, agricultural extension services were deemed effective in two aspects; quality of extension services and use of approaches relevant to beneficiaries. Through the Tobit regression model, the study identified key indicators that influencing use and use intensity of SWC technologies. These indicators include the frequency of receiving extension services, the main source of information, the tools used in delivering AES and the level of extension education. The results underscore the need for targeted interventions that increase the frequency of extension services, diversify information sources and improve the tools and training provided to youth farmers.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    The study wishes to thank all youth farmers in Machakos County for their willingness to participate in accomplishing research objectives.
     
    Disclaimers
     
    The authors’ views and conclusions in this work are not associated with their linked institutions. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of their information. Similarly, authors remain committed to addressing any potential errors that may still be present, but they are not liable for any direct or indirect damage.
     
    Informed consent
     
    There was no coercive requirement for the respondents to participate and their responses were entirely optional.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

    The authors claim no conflicts of interest exist to publish this work. Research design, data collection, analysis, publication decision and production were independent of funding or assistance.

    REFERENCES


    1. Abegaz, A., Abera, W., Jaquet, S., Tamene, L. (2024). Adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices (CSAPs) in Ethiopia. Climate Risk Management. 45: 100628. doi: 10.1016/ j.crm.2024.100628.

    2. Belayneh, M. (2023). Factors affecting the adoption and effective- ness of soil and water conservation measures among small-holder rural farmers: The case of Gumara watershed. Resources, Conservation and Recycling Advances. 18: 200159. doi: 10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200159.

    3. Ben Ayed, R. and Hanana, M. (2021). Artificial intelligence to improve the food and agriculture sector. Journal of Food Quality. 2021(1): 5584754. DOI: 10.1155/2021/5584754.

    4. Byaro, M., Kinyondo, A. and Lemnge, D.A. (2023). Does sub-saharan Africa’s rapid population growth have positive or negative effects on aggregate domestic investment? World Affairs. 186: 806-824. DOI: 10.1177/00438200231168288.

    5. Danso-Abbeam, G. (2022). Do agricultural extension services promote adoption of soil and water conservation practices? Evidence from Northern Ghana. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research. 10: 100381. doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2022. 100381.

    6. Dave, M.J. (2020). Youth Involvement in Soil Fertility Management in Embu and Vihiga Counties, Kenya.

    7. Devkota, N., Joshi, A., Khanal, G., Mahapatra, S.K., Gautam, N., Paudel, U.R., Bhandari, U. (2023). Awareness on agricultural entrepreneurship among youth farmers: An empirical study from Western Nepal. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies. 13: 812-830.

    8. Eze, A. V., Ezeh, A. N. and Eze, E. O. (2021). Extension Agents’ use of mobile phone applications for agricultural extension service delivery in ebonyi state agricultural development programme, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension. 25(1): 48-58. DOI: 10.4314/jae.v25i1.6.

    9. Geza, W., Ngidi, M., Ojo, T., Adetoro, A.A., Slotow, R., Mabhaudhi, T. (2021). Youth participation in agriculture: A scoping review. Sustainability. 13: 16. DOI: 10.3390/su13169120.

    10. Girdziute, L., Besuspariene, E., Nausediene, A., Novikova, A., Leppala, J., Jakob, M. (2022). Youth’s (Un) willingness to work in agriculture sector. Frontiers in Public Health. 10: 937657.

    11. Hameed, T. and Sawicka, B. (2023). Role of agricultural extension in adoption of sustainable agriculture practices. Anbar Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 21(1): 250-260.

    12. Hussain, N. and  Maharjan, K.L. (2025). Impact of on-farm demonstrations on technology adoption, yield and profitability among small farmers of wheat in Pakistan-An experimental study. Agriculture. 15: 214.

    13. Kassem, H.S., Alotaibi, B.A., Muddassir, M., Herab, A. (2021). Factors influencing farmers’ satisfaction with the quality of agricultural extension services. Evaluation and Program Planning. 85: 101912. DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021. 101912.

    14. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. (2019). Kenya population and housing census analytical reports. Nairobi: Government Press.

    15. Khumalo, N.Z., Sibanda, M. and Mdoda, L. (2025). The effect of heterogeneous adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices on household food and nutrition security of small- scale urban crop farmers in eThekwini Municipality. PLOS Climate. 4: e0000551.

    16. Kipkogei, S., Han, J., Mwalupaso, G., Tanui, J., Brenya, R. (2025). The synergistic effects of microcredit access and agricultural technology adoption on maize farmer’s income in Kenya. PloS One. 20: e0316014.

    17. Kyalo, A.M., Mogaka, H., Kirimi, F.K., Kizito, K., Ndirangu, S.N., Onyari, C.N., Muriithi, L., Elvin, O.N., Mutungi, S.K., Kiprotich, S. (2025). Exploring socio-economic characteristics on adoption intensity of biochar among farming households in sub-humid regions of western Kenya.

    18. Kyambo, O., Kilungo, D.J. and Amwata, D.D.A. (2021). The influence of selected socio-economic factors on farmers’ awareness of devolution of agricultural extension services in Kitui county, Kenya. American Journal of Agriculture. 3(1): 1-20.

    19. Maake, M.M.S. and Antwi, M.A. (2022). Farmer’s perceptions of effectiveness of public agricultural extension services in South Africa: An exploratory analysis of associated factors. Agriculture and Food Security. 11: 34. DOI: 10. 1186/s40066-022-00372-7.

    20. Mutuku, H.M. (2020). Tree Cover Perpectives and Climate Change Resilience in the drylands of Matungulu Sub-County, Machakos County, Kenya. Nairobi: Kenyatta University.

    21. Mutungi, S.K., Mogaka, H.R., Kirimi, F.K., Onyari, C.N., Muriithi, L., Otara, E.N., Kiprotich, S., Njiru, M.M., Kyalo, A.M., Kamau, E.A. (2025). Factors influencing youth farmers’ use of soil and water conservation technologies in drylands of machakos county, Kenya. Journal of Global Innovations in Agricultural Sciences.

    22. Mwadalu, R., Kisiwa, A., Elema, M., Gathara, M. (2023). Potential of soil and water conservation technologies for dryland agriculture and forestry. Journal of Applied Biosciences. 181: 18925-18939. doi: 10.35759/JABs.181.5.

    23. Mwendwa, J. (2016). Influence of social economic factors on youth engagement in agricultural project activities in yatta sub-county, machakos county Kenya. MA Thesis, University of Nairobi. 

    24. Prajapati, C.S., Priya, N.K., Bishnoi, S., Vishwakarma, S.K., Buvaneswari, K., Shastri, S., Tripathi, S., Jadhav, A. (2025). The role of participatory approaches in modern agricultural extension: Bridging knowledge gaps for sustainable farming practices. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 47: 204-222. DOI:10.9734/jeai/2025/v47i23281.

    25. Saraswati, L., Prijono, S. and Prasetya, B. (2022). Influence of various soil and water conservation methods on the moisture balance at coffee plant root zone. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 56: 325-330. doi: 10.18805/ IJARe.AF-703.

    26. Sattar, M.N., Macfadyen, S., Rahman, M.W., Tahi Tiza, F. (2024). Delivery of services and agricultural technologies through farmers’ hubs. Development in Practice. 34: 782-795.

    27. Selvakumar, S. and Sivakumar, K. (2021). Conservation agriculture: A way for soil water conservation. Agricultural Reviews. 42: 474-477. doi: 10.18805/ag.R-2045.

    28. Tamiru, H., Bussa, B. and Geneti, T. (2023). Assessment of soil and water conservation practices and its implication on soil physicochemical properties, at West Guji Zone, Gelana Woreda, Southern Ethiopia. Agricultural Science Digest-A Research Journal. 43: 346-350. doi: 10.18805/ ag.DF-456.

    29. Watson, G. (2001). A study of CTLA formula values. Journal of Arboriculture. 27(6): 289-297.
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Agricultural Science Digest

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)