A rural livelihood is a simple structure and a complex web of strategies and circumstances, primarily revolving around agriculture while diversifying into non-farm activities to sustain a living (Mphande, 2016). Agriculture has been the cornerstone of South Africa’s rural livelihoods for many decades. However, this reliance on agriculture is not necessarily a matter of choice but a consequence of historical injustices. The Natives Land Act of 1913 inflicted severe socioeconomic imbalances by dispossessing black South Africans of their land, leading to widespread poverty. As defined by the Encyclopedia Britannica, poverty is lacking a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions when people cannot meet their basic needs. Understanding what constitutes these basic needs within the rural context requires an approach marked by empathy and sensitivity.

Humans have four core basic needs essential for survival, identified and documented by philosophers over the decades. These needs, rooted in the work of Maslow (1954), who explored human motivation and personality through a holistic, dynamic, and cultural lens, have become foundational to understanding livelihood development. Section 27(1) of the South African Constitution further enshrines health care, food, water, and social security as fundamental rights for all citizens (South African Constitution, 1996). The focus on agricultural food systems is particularly relevant to rural communities regarding sustainable livelihood development. Underutilized indigenous and traditional food crops (UITFCs) are critical in this framework. By enhancing food security and providing nutritional and medicinal benefits, UITFCs directly fulfill these basic needs, especially in marginalized areas where access to conventional food sources may be limited. Integrating UITFCs into agri-food systems supports rural livelihoods and aligns with the constitutional mandate to ensure food security and overall well-being for all South Africans.

Socioeconomic status (SES) represents the social and economic position of an individual, household, or community about others, often measured by unifying factors such as education and income. The American Psychological Association defines SES as an individual or group’s social standing or class. In this study, the focus is on communities that were historically disadvantaged and characterized by low SES. These communities, marked by gravel roads, inadequate infrastructure, and poor transport systems (despite some governmental interventions), face significant challenges that impact their livelihood strategies. Understanding the SES of the municipalities involved in this study is crucial to exploring the correlation between their socioeconomic conditions and the study’s overarching objective. This objective is to promote underutilized indigenous and traditional food crops (UITFCs) as a vital tool for strengthening agri-food systems and enhancing rural livelihoods. By addressing the SES of these communities, we can better comprehend the barriers and opportunities for integrating UITFCs into their agricultural practices. This approach supports the improvement of socioeconomic conditions and aligns with the broader goal of sustainable rural development.

In South African rural areas, disparities exist to varying degrees. According to Nyathi et al. (2024), these disparities are marked by poverty and high unemployment. Added to this is inequality, which is deeply rooted in the legacy of apartheid. Fofana et al. (2024) allude to the interconnectedness of poverty, unemployment, and inequality as the triple challenge. In the fourth quarter of 2024, the unemployment rate was 31,9% (Statistics South Africa, 2025). Vulnerable groups, such as the rural poor with a lack of access to quality education, access to resources, and other basic services, are often at the receiving end of the existing disproportionalities, defaulted entrapping them in the triple threat challenge. Within the agricultural context, two different groups of farmers dominate two opposite ends of the sector; the first are smallholder farmers that operate on a small scale in the former homeland areas, primarily for subsistence purposes and sometimes sell the surplus.

On the other hand, there are privileged commercial farmers, mainly dominated by whites and a small group of privileged blacks in the commercial space. Due to this stark divide, Sihlobo (2023) describes South Africa’s dual agricultural sector as a state of two agricultures whose disparities are anchored in the historical context of apartheid (before democracy), as well as systemic factors and lack of effective land reform (post-1994). These challenges worsen the socioeconomic status of rural farmers, synonymously known as smallholder or subsistence farmers, whose livelihoods are often characterized by access to quality education (if any at all), lack of job opportunities, poor infrastructure, and underdevelopment. It is worth noting that the SES of communities also determines their ability to improve their farming enterprises. By understanding the socioeconomic status of rural communities under investigation, we can better comprehend the barriers and opportunities for integrating UITFCs into their agricultural practices. This approach supports the improvement of socioeconomic conditions and aligns with the broader goal of sustainable development.

Despite South Africa being recognized as food secure at a national level, the country continues to face significant challenges, including hunger, malnutrition, disease, and persistent rural poverty (Fanzo, 2023). This paradox of food insufficiency has been extensively studied and confirmed in various research, such as Mavengahama et al. (2013), which highlights its close ties to hunger, poverty, and micronutrient deficiencies. As Havas and Salman (2011) point out, food is not just sustenance but a vital energy source, and limited access directly impacts health outcomes. In South Africa, the rural poor are disproportionately affected by food insecurity and poverty, conditions closely linked to household socioeconomic status, as indicated by factors like food expenditure, income, and employment status (Chakona and Shackleton, 2019).

Poverty, as articulated, can be understood from two perspectives: the insufficiency of monetary resources and the chronic lack of essential resources needed to meet basic human needs, such as nutrition. The second perspective is powerlessness, where individuals are subject to forces beyond their control, such as oppressive authorities. Similarly, Chambers (2013) describes how the rural poor often find themselves caught in the ‘deprivation trap,’ a concept that encapsulates five clusters of disadvantages that converge to confine people in enduring hardship. Among these clusters, poverty is narrowly defined as the lack of assets, while powerlessness, physical weakness, vulnerability, and isolation – broaden the scope of poverty’s impact. Although the deprivation trap is relevant in various contexts today, it was initially conceived to represent the unique challenges faced in rural settings.

The study was conducted in the northern region of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Province. KZN is known for its diverse agricultural landscape, including commercial farming (such as sugarcane and cash crops) and small-scale farming practices. This diversity makes it an ideal location to study different farming systems and the integration of underutilized indigenous and traditional food crops (UITFCs). KZN province spans approximately 94,361 km², making it nearly the size of Portugal. Three district municipalities were selected for their distinctive farming systems, which prominently feature the cultivation of sugarcane, cash crops, and indigenous food crops. These municipalities include Ilembe, King Cetshwayo, and uMkhanyakude.

Table 1 provides an overview of the existing socioeconomic conditions within the three district municipalities studied. An analysis of the developmental models used to assess these municipalities reveals significant challenges, particularly in delivering satisfactory services to residents, especially those in rural areas. High crime rates are prevalent, likely exacerbated by the high unemployment levels exceeding 30% in each district municipality, compared to the national rate of 32.9% (SAGNA, 2024). Despite these challenges, agriculture remains a primary economic driver across all three districts. In the uMkhanyakude District Municipality, unemployment rates are alarmingly high, with poverty rates between 72.1 and 88.6% (Mthembu and Hlophe, 2020). This severe economic hardship compels many rural residents to rely heavily on subsistence agriculture and government support grants. The district’s population is predominantly illiterate, unemployed, and impoverished, placing the municipality among the top 10 in South Africa with the highest multi-dimensional poverty index (MPI). The King Cetshwayo District Municipality, which has the third-largest population in KwaZulu-Natal and the highest gross domestic product (GDP) after eThekwini Metro, is a growing economic hub. This district’s Richards Bay Industrial Development Zone (RBIDZ) has attracted significant international investment, particularly in the mining and agricultural sectors. According to COGTA (2020), agriculture in King Cetshwayo is dualistic, consisting of both subsistence and commercial farming. Commercial farms primarily focus on sugarcane and forestry, the mainstay of emerging and established farmers. In contrast, subsistence farming dominates the Traditional Council Lands, primarily occupied by the economically disadvantaged. Ilembe, the smallest district municipality in KwaZulu-Natal, covers an area of 3,269 km². Much of the land in Ilembe is under the jurisdiction of tribal authorities and is characterized by commercial and subsistence farming. Agriculture is the primary economic sector in this area, providing livelihoods for a significant portion of the population (as shown in Table 1).

The study employed a mixed-methods approach, integrating qualitative and quantitative data collection to understand the research topic comprehensively. This approach is based on the premise that combining these techniques enhances the depth of knowledge and strengthens the validity and credibility of the findings (Creswell, 2014). In line with the recommendations of Saunders et al. (2012), individuals were selected for the study based on their knowledge and experience in agriculture, as their insights are crucial for addressing the research objectives. A simple random sampling technique was employed to ensure that all participants had an equal chance of selection. The total population across the district municipalities was 2,286,620, and the sample size was determined using the online survey tool Calculator.net.

Sample calculation:

Where:

z is the z score.

ε is the margin of error.

N is the population size.

p̂ is the population proportion.

Confidence level = 95%.

Margin of error = 5%.

Total population = 2,286,620.

Sample size needed (min) = 195.

Glasow (2005) defines a survey as a systematic data collection method from a sample of units. To achieve a 95% confidence level that the actual value falls within ±5% of the measured value, at least 195 measurements were required. Accordingly, this study employed a survey to gather quantifiable data, distributing 195 questionnaires to participants. The survey design was designed as a structured questionnaire and was developed to collect quantitative data on the socioeconomic status of rural households, their patterns of use, and knowledge of underutilized indigenous and traditional food crops (UITFCs). In addition to the survey, the researchers utilized focus group discussions (FGDs) to explore participants’ lived experiences with underutilized indigenous and traditional food crops (UITFCs) within their agri-food systems. The design of the FGDs was to gather in-depth qualitative insights into the lived experiences of rural farmers regarding UITFCs. An interview schedule allowed flexibility in discussion while ensuring consistency across groups. The guiding questions for the FDGs centered on the significance of UITFCs on livelihood development, extension services, and the hunger question. FGDs are based on the premise that reality is subjective, with experiences varying across individuals and over time, and that perceptions hold significance only within specific contexts (Burns and Grove, 2007). Six FGDs were conducted as part of this study. A descriptive analysis presented the findings without making inferences based on probability theory. A Pearson Chi-Square test was conducted using Microsoft Excel (v.2016) to support statistical inference regarding associations between selected variables, with significance evaluated at the 0.05 probability level (p ≤ 0.05). A thematic analysis was conducted using WebQDA software to identify patterns in the theoretical claims derived from participants (rural farmers). WebQDA is recognized as a user-friendly, cloud-based solution that facilitates coherent organization and management of qualitative data, offering rapid and reliable analytical clarity (Machado and Vieira, 2020).

To operationalize and measure socioeconomic status (SES) and the integration of UITFCs, the following mixed methods-aligned measurement, indicators/variables, and tools were used in the study:

The various quantitative SES indicators presented in Table 2 were gathered through survey questionnaires and summarized in Table 3. The analytical tools employed include descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations. A conceptual correlation matrix (Table 4) was also developed to highlight key relationships between the SES variables and UITFCs.

In the context of livelihoods, it is vital to know the demography of the unit of analysis to fully comprehend the characteristics and socioeconomic conditions of the inferred population. Table 6 summarizes the results collected from respondents across the three district municipalities.

The findings presented in Table 3 revealed a gender balance among household heads in the sampled population, contrasting existing literature on the cultivation of underutilized indigenous and traditional food crops (UITFCs). Previous studies, such as those by Onomu et al. (2023), have highlighted a strong correlation between UITFCs and women, typically emphasizing their predominant role in cultivating these crops. However, the equal involvement of men and women in UITFC production in this study challenges the conventional belief that women are the primary cultivators of UITFCs. This finding also raises important, yet often overlooked, questions about the accessibility of resources such as land between men and women involved in UITFC farming. A similar study conducted in the Vhembe District of South Africa found that women were primarily responsible for the production and utilization of UITFCs (Ntlanga et al., 2023). The contrast in findings suggests a need for further research into gender dynamics and resource allocation in the context of UITFC cultivation. Approximately 72% of household heads were over 40, while 27% were 39 or younger. Most individuals had low literacy levels, typically limited to primary school education. This low level of education can be understood in the context of South Africa’s history, where systemic injustices historically denied many people of color access to educational opportunities. Corroborating this finding is Sihlobo (2023) and Fofana et al. (2024), who have stressed the historical injustices as one of the contributing factors to the many socioeconomic challenges South Africa’s smallholder farmers face. The combination of inadequate education and restricted resource access likely explains why these participants rely on cultivating underutilized indigenous and traditional food crops (UITFCs) as a livelihood strategy. This situation is further evidenced by the high unemployment rate, with over 50% of the population unemployed and 64% earning less than R4000.00 monthly.

Table 3 presents data from the three districts where the research was conducted, revealing that 98% of household heads reported growing underutilized indigenous and traditional food crops (UITFCs). This finding contrasts with the assertion in studies such as Shelembe et al. (2024), which often describe UITFCs as “overlooked and underutilized by households and farmers despite their potential contribution to household food security” in rural KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). The sociodemographic factors detailed in Table 3 suggest that UITFC cultivation is a strategic response by subsistence farmers in rural communities to address household-level hunger. This strategy challenges the common stigma associated with UITFCs, which are often disparaged with terms like ‘food for the poor’ and ‘low status.’ Such stigmatization is particularly noted with wild vegetables such as Amaranthus and Bidens pilosa, which, despite their nutritional benefits, are frequently regarded as weeds. Contrary to these negative perceptions, our findings indicate that 99% of farmers recognize the nutritional value of wild vegetables. Munialo et al. (2024) highlight the significant nutrient contributions of various UITFCs. Furthermore, 74% of farmers preferred UITFCs over exotic crops (26%). This preference is attributed to several factors: UITFCs are perceived as highly nutritious, require fewer production inputs compared to exotic crops, and are generally available year-round, although some are seasonal. The consistent availability, easy access (92%), and nutritional benefits of UITFCs align with the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) pillars of food security (FAO, 1996). According to Munialo et al. (2024), diversifying crops to include UITFCs can enhance sustainable food systems within African communities.

Despite the growing recognition of the benefits of underutilized indigenous and traditional food crops (UITFCs), it can be deduced from the findings presented in Table 3 that there are concerns surrounding their production. Approximately 53% of participants reported difficulties growing UITFCs, noting that they are more challenging and take longer to cultivate than exotic crops. In contrast, the remaining 47% found UITFC cultivation relatively easy. The literature on UITFC production challenges is limited, as research has predominantly focused on integrating these crops into mainstream agri-food value chains. For instance, Zhang and Dannenberg (2022) explored the opportunities and challenges indigenous food plant farmers face in integrating into agri-food value chains in Cape Town. An interesting finding from this study is the role of extension services in promoting UITFCs across the three district municipalities. Results indicate a positive trend, with 92% of farmers reporting valuable information from extension officers on UITFCs. This support is crucial, given that extension services in South Africa are tasked with advancing agricultural development through science, technology, innovation, and indigenous knowledge in alignment with Agenda 2063 (African Union Commission, 2015) and the Academy of Science of South Africa’s (ASSAf) report on revitalizing agricultural education and training (ASSAf, 2017).

Understanding the reality of many South Africans requires a consideration of the historical injustices wrought by apartheid. Apartheid created a profound socioeconomic divide, leading to the persistent triple challenges of poverty, unemployment, and inequality (Tregenna and Tsela, 2008). To elucidate the complexity of rural farmers’ experiences, we examine rural livelihoods through the following themes revealed in our focus groups: the deprivation trap, hunger and poverty, Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS), research development, and co-creation of knowledge. These themes are illustrated in the causal loop diagram shown in Figure 1. The causal loop diagram synthesizes the qualitative themes from the focus group discussions (FGDs). The components of the causal loop diagram were thematically derived from recurring patterns and narratives shared by participants during the FDGs.