Home-Grown Indigenous Vegetables and Risk Mitigation Strategies for Enhancing Food and Nutrition Security Among Small-Scale Farming Households: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Achieving food and nutrition security remains a significant challenge for small-scale farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, indigenous vegetables offer a promising solution to this challenge. This systematic review used four databases and retrieved 38 studies published over the past 20 years for synthesis. These studies highlight the growing importance of indigenous vegetables grown in home gardens as a sustainable solution to improve livelihoods and dietary diversity. Indigenous vegetables are well-suited to local conditions, nutritionally rich, and were associated with improved household food availability and income. However, farmers face various risks, including environmental, technological, economic, institutional, and social risks, which threaten their production. To overcome risks, farmers adopt strategies such as training, cooperatives, improved storage, and better seed varieties. Indigenous vegetable cultivation also empowers women and marginalised groups who play key roles in home gardening. Despite their benefits, indigenous vegetables remain overlooked in mainstream markets and policies. The review recommends that policymakers and stakeholders must provide support to promote indigenous vegetables through training and market integration, helping farmers commercialise their produce, while simultaneously enhancing food and nutrition security. Further research is needed to explore the profitability of indigenous vegetable production, analyse supply value chains, and investigate processing and manufacturing opportunities to support their market potential and sustainability.

1. Introduction

The challenge of food and nutrition security remains a serious concern globally. Most countries worldwide are affected by high levels of starvation and malnutrition [1]. This situation may be due to various reasons, such as a shortage of essential water and its good sources, as well as a decline in soil fertility [2]. Furthermore, the greenhouse gas emissions affect food production and nutrition in crops, fruits, and vegetables [3]. Food security is a state in which every individual has reliable physical, social, and economic access to enough safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and personal preferences, and to support their healthy and active lifestyle [4]. Nutrition is defined as a key component of food security, encompassing access to a balanced diet, including factors such as clean sanitation, healthcare, appropriate caregiving, and feeding habits [5]. By estimation, the number of food-insecure people in the world increased from 691 to 783 million (7.9 to 9.2%) in 2021 [6].

In Africa, malnutrition is widespread, driven by factors such as unemployment that lead to poverty and inequality [7]. Some of the driving factors behind the issue of food and nutrition security include population growth, soil degradation, and poor farming practices. For instance, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) experiences a soil degradation of about 12 million hectares annually, which illustrates a loss of approximately 20 million tons of production (grains) annually [8]. Based on the findings by the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) in 2022, Africa accounts for about 20% of undernutrition, with 26% of people experiencing food insecurity in Southern Africa and approximately 78% in Middle Africa [9]. Most people in SSA have little intake of fruits and vegetables, which illustrates an unhealthy diet (reduced intake of nutrients like minerals, vitamins, and other compounds) that can result in various diseases [10].

Despite low vegetable consumption in SSA, indigenous vegetables play a significant role in promoting both food and nutrition security. Indigenous vegetables are crops that have been produced, harvested, and consumed for a long time (over 100 years) in Africa [11]. The vegetables can survive under harsh conditions, such as extreme weather patterns, which enhance health outcomes for poor people at lower cost [12]. Furthermore, indigenous vegetables contain essential nutrients that are essential for maintaining human health while reducing the impact of diseases [13]. Some of the diseases treated by consuming indigenous vegetables include high blood pressure and gallbladder diseases [14], diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases [15]. Therefore, indigenous vegetables have become increasingly important because of the valuable contributions they make to the economy, public health, nutrition, and the environment.

Although the importance and contribution of indigenous vegetables are recognised, their production is still subject to various risks. Extreme weather events such as floods, high temperatures, drought, and unpredictable rainfall are among the limiting factors for indigenous vegetable production [16]. Approximately 50% of the harvest is lost along the value chain during the production and processing of indigenous vegetables [17]. This loss is attributed to the lack of technologies and techniques, which leads to poor harvest and management. Moreover, some of the constraints that lead to a loss of harvest include outbreaks of diseases (fungi) and pests [13]. Indigenous vegetables also face market-related challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, limited access to markets, and product pricing [18]. These challenges retard the supply of and the contribution of these nutritious vegetables.

To manage indigenous vegetable production risks, farmers employ multiple strategies. Generally, small-scale farmers use fertiliser to increase their crop yields while managing risks related to pests and diseases and poor soil nutrition. However, Akinola et al. [15] observed that indigenous vegetables are easy to grow, as their production requires fewer inputs than non-native varieties. Furthermore, they are well-suited to harsh growing conditions, as they naturally withstand poor soils, dry spells, pests, and diseases. Farmers sell their products through cooperative groups, which lower their exposure to market risk and unfavourable prices, as the cooperative’s collective bargaining power is much greater than that of an individual entrepreneur [19]. Additionally, they reduce risks by selling their produce through partnerships with local markets and informal vendors, and by diversifying their sales outlets. Moreover, marketing strategies can improve farmer participation and income; however, ongoing issues such as inadequate infrastructure and limited access to markets continue to pose significant obstacles [11].

Despite increasing recognition of the potential of indigenous vegetables, little research has been conducted on them. Moreover, there is little information on the risks of growing indigenous vegetables, the management strategies employed, and their contribution to food and nutrition security. Therefore, this study aims to systematically review the existing literature to pinpoint the link between challenges, mitigation risks, and the contribution of indigenous vegetables produced by small-scale farmers in SSA. Additionally, it will review the contribution of indigenous vegetables to food (availability, accessibility, utilisation, and stability) and nutrition security.

Insights from this systematic review will help disseminate information about the importance of indigenous vegetables and the different species produced in SSA. Moreover, it will generate information to help understand indigenous vegetables’ health impact and their contribution to livelihoods through household food and income generation. Information generated by this review will assist policymakers in shaping and revising policies that are reliable for the promotion of indigenous vegetables.

Conceptual Framework

This review is grounded upon frameworks that promote the adoption of growing indigenous vegetables in home gardens to achieve sustainable livelihood. These frameworks include the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and the sustainable livelihoods framework (SLF). These frameworks form substantial grounds for this review as the issue of food and nutrition security is persistent and interventions are necessary to mitigate its impact.

The theory of planned behaviour, invented to explain the reasons for the adoption of certain interventions, plays a pivotal role in this review. The perceived benefits and ease of use of a certain technology influence the decision to adopt or not to adopt. In this case, the ease of cultivation of indigenous vegetables, their medicinal and nutritional benefits, increased food availability, and low-input requirements promote the cultivation of these vegetables. Despite the willingness to adopt the cultivation of these vegetables, several capital assets have a great influence on their adoption. These capital assets are determined by different challenges such as climate change, cost of inputs, and the income the household receives. In turn, these assets influence the cultivation of indigenous vegetables in home gardens, which have the potential to support food and nutrition security, ensuring sustainable livelihood. The conceptual framework showing the link of these frameworks to the scope of this review is outlined in Figure 1.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy, Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

2.1.1. Search Strategy

This study employed a systematic approach to the literature review, utilising databases, namely (1) ScienceDirect, (2) PubAg, (3) Wiley Online Library, and (4) UNIZULU Online Library. This database selection relies on their strong relevance to small-scale farming, food security, and agricultural research. Together, these databases provide a good foundation for understanding the intersection of food production and food security among small-scale farmers. Filters used for this review contain keywords, region, years, language, document type, access type, subject area, publication title, and database. Reports obtained from ScienceDirect totalled 253, PubAg (272), Wiley Online Library (178), and UNIZULU Online Library (116). Reports obtained totalled 819, and 121 duplicates were removed, leaving only 698 for screening.

Table A1. Step-by-step conduction of the search from the databases employed in this review.

Database	Filter/Search Query	Specification of Search	Retrieved
ScienceDirect	Keywords	“Risk mitigation” AND “home gardens” AND “food security” AND “nutrition” AND “indigenous vegetables” AND “small-scale farmers” OR “small scale farmers”	164,024
	Region	“Risk mitigation” AND “home gardens” AND “food security” AND “nutrition” AND “indigenous vegetables” AND “small-scale farmers” OR “small scale farmers” AND “Sub-Saharan Africa” OR “SSA”	107,689
	Years	2005–2024	80,147
	Language	English	77,367
	Article type	Review articles and Research articles	62,828
	Subject areas	Agricultural and Biological Sciences	6596
	Publication title	Global food security; Agriculture, Ecosystem & Environment; Journal of Agriculture & Food Research	504
	Access type	Open access and open archive	253
PubAg	Keywords	“Risk mitigation” AND “home gardens” AND “food security” AND “nutrition” AND “indigenous vegetables” AND “small-scale farmers” OR “small scale farmers”	3387
	Region	“Risk mitigation” AND “home gardens” AND “food security” AND “nutrition” AND “indigenous vegetables” AND “small-scale farmers” OR “small scale farmers” AND “Sub-Saharan Africa” OR “SSA”	4320
	Years	2005–2024	4127
	Availability	Open access	272
Wiley Online Library	Keywords	“Risk mitigation” AND “home gardens” AND “food security” AND “nutrition” AND “indigenous vegetables” AND “small-scale farmers” OR “small scale farmers”	468
	Region	“Risk mitigation” AND “home gardens” AND “food security” AND “nutrition” AND “indigenous vegetables” AND “small-scale farmers” OR “small scale farmers” AND “Sub-Saharan Africa” OR “SSA”	205
	Years	2005–2024	192
	Publication type	Journal	178
UNIZULU Online Library (Ultimate Search)	Keywords	“Risk mitigation” AND “home gardens” AND “food security” AND “nutrition” AND “indigenous vegetables” AND “small-scale farmers” OR “small scale farmers”	8333
	Region	“Risk mitigation” AND “home gardens” AND “food security” AND “nutrition” AND “indigenous vegetables” AND “small-scale farmers” OR “small scale farmers” AND “Sub-Saharan Africa” OR “SSA”	64,190
	Years	1 January 2005–31 December 2024	51,979
	Source type	Academic Journals and Reviews	40,044
	Access type	Full texts, peer-reviewed	24,496
	Geography	Sub-Saharan Africa	2783
	Publisher	Wiley-Blackwell; Taylor & Francis ltd; Springer nature	1096
	Databases	Academic Search Complete	553
	Subject: Thesaurus term	Economic development; systematic reviews; food security; agricultural productivity; sustainable development; agriculture;	116

Source: Authors’ compilation (2025).

in Appendix A shows the step-by-step conduct of the search. Figure 2 shows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram illustrating the systematic literature search and selection process across four databases (ScienceDirect, PubAg, Wiley Online Library, and UNIZULU Online Library).

2.1.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria are crucial, as they define the requirements that studies must meet to be included or excluded from the review. This review included only studies focusing on SSA, conducted between 2005 and 2024, published in English, open access, and research articles and reviews, as well as studies relevant to home gardening of indigenous vegetables, small-scale farmers, production risks, and risk mitigating strategies. Studies that deviated from these requirements were excluded.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for reviewing the role of indigenous vegetable home gardens.

Inclusion	Exclusion
Sub-Saharan Africa	Not focusing on SSA
Conducted between the years 2005 to 2024	Conducted outside of the years 2005 to 2024
Text documented published in the English language	Text documented in languages other than English
Open access	Not open access
Research articles and reviews	Book chapters, books, abstracts and conference proceedings
Studies relevant to the theme around indigenous vegetable home gardening, small-scale farmers, production risks, risk mitigation strategies, food and nutrition security	Not relevant to the theme around indigenous vegetable home gardening, small-scale farming, production risks, risk mitigation strategies, food and nutrition security

Source: Authors’ compilation (2025).

give details of the inclusion and exclusion criteria for assessing the role of home-grown indigenous vegetables and risk mitigation strategies in enhancing food and nutrition security among small-scale farmers in SSA.

Each inclusion criterion is made based on specific grounds. Sub-Saharan Africa was chosen as it is the largest region in Africa. The researchers selected the years 2005 to 2024 to cover evidence from two decades, from the Millennium Development Goals era to the Sustainable Development Goals era. The review included articles published in English, as it is a medium of instruction worldwide [20]. The preference for open-access articles was motivated by the need to have easy access to articles. Book chapters, books, abstracts, and conference proceedings were excluded by the researchers in the review because they contain information collected from different articles. This rejection of these types of reports was performed to avoid duplication of information, leading to the capturing of inaccurate results. Study relevance is required to reduce the deviation in the retrieved reports from the overall aim of the study.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria in this review were applied in the screening phases (title and abstract screening and full-text screening) which was conducted by four authors to reduce bias and enhance credibility of the findings. During the title and abstract screening, 620 reports were removed, leaving 78 reports eligible for full-text screening. After full-text screening, the researchers deemed 38 articles to have met all inclusion criteria. However, inter-rater agreement for study screening and quality appraisal was not formally calculated. Disagreements were resolved through discussion among the four reviewers until consensus was reached. All articles meeting the inclusion requirements were subjected to quality testing by the researchers using a 10-point CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) checklist. This checklist contributed to the systemic procedure of assessing study quality to ensure that everyone reaches the same conclusion. The CASP checklist is appropriate for all types of study designs including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods, ensuring all included studies are assessed indiscriminately. All authors carried out the quality check to ensure the feasibility and rigour of the studies included. The overall scores were then averaged for each article, ensuring that the included articles meet the quality required by the review. The acceptable threshold score was put at 5 out of 10 upwards. This score was preferred as the minimum to ensure that only studies that met the basic quality were included, while those with a lower score were excluded.

2.2. Ten-Point Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist

Quality testing is essential for assessing the validity and reliability of a study, revealing its capacity to produce generalisable and clear results consistent with its aim, objectives, and the results. The 10-point CASP checklist is a tool developed by the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, which originated in Oxford in 1993. It intends to help individuals systematically assess the trustworthiness, relevance, and results of published studies, enabling evidence-based decision-making in health and social care.

Table 2. Ten-point Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist.

Code	Question	Response (0 = No, 0.5 = Hard to Tell, 1 = Yes)	Comment
Q1	Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research?
Q2	Is a qualitative methodology appropriate?
Q3	Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?
Q4	Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research?
Q5	Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?
Q6	Has the relationship between the researcher and participants been adequately considered?
Q7	Have ethical issues been taken into consideration?
Q8	Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?
Q9	Is there a clear statement of findings?
Q10	How valuable is the research?

Source: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2018).

shows the CASP checklist question structure.

As a general rule, studies that score less than 5 points on the CASP checklist are excluded from a study due to potential poor quality and impact. Figure 3 depicts the averages of scores for each question from all the studies included in this review, available in

Table A2. Quality testing scores for all included studies.

Author (Year)	Ref. No.	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Total
Abdul-Rahaman (2023)	[33]	1	0	1	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	1	1	8
Adamtey et al. (2016)	[25]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	10
Akinola & Sofoluwe (2012)	[80]	1	0	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	1	1	1	8
Amann et al. (2021)	[32]	1	0.5	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	1	1	1	8.5
Amponsah et al. (2023)	[34]	1	0	1	0.5	1	0.5	0.5	1	1	1	7.5
Appiah-Otoo et al. (2024)	[36]	1	0.5	1	1	1	0.5	1	1	1	1	9
Asante et al. (2024)	[39]	1	0.5	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	1	1	1	8.5
Bankole et al. (2023)	[27]	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	6
Bojago & Abrham (2023)	[81]	1	1	1	1	1	.5	0.5	1	1	1	9
Bosompem et al. (2024)	[44]	1	0.5	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	1	1	1	8.5
Britwum & Demont (2022)	[35]	1	0.5	1	0	1	0	0.5	1	1	1	7
Chipeta et al. (2024)	[82]	1	0.5	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	1	1	1	8.5
Clarke et al. (2017)	[37]	1	0	1	0	1	0	0.5	1	1	1	6.5
Condé et al. (2024)	[45]	1	0	1	0	1	0	0.5	1	1	1	6.5
Daba et al. (2023)	[40]	1	1	1	0	1	0	0.5	1	1	1	7.5
Desire et al. (2021)	[43]	1	0	1	0	1	0	0.5	1	1	1	6.5
Feukeng et al. (2024)	[74]	1	0.5	1	0	1	0	0.5	1	1	1	7
Fukah et al. (2024)	[83]	1	0	1	0	1	0	0.5	1	1	1	6.5
Giller (2020)	[78]	1	0.5	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9.5
Godding et al. (2023)	[84]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	10
Hadebe et al. (2017)	[23]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	10
Hansen et al. (2022)	[85]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	10
Ignowski et al. (2023)	[86]	1	0.5	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9.5
Low et al. (2017)	[31]	1	0.5	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9.5
Mcmullin et al. (2021)	[87]	1	0.5	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9.5
Mgolozeli, et al. (2022)	[88]	1	0.5	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9.5
Mkhize et al. (2023)	[26]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	10
Mohammed et al. (2023)	[75]	1	0.5	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9.5
Mondo t al. (2021)	[28]	1	0.5	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9.5
Mwangi et al. (2020)	[30]	1	0.5	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	9.5
Omotayo & Aremu (2024)	[41]	1	0.5	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	0.5	5
Talucder et al. (2024)	[89]	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0.5	1	1	8.5
Vanlauwe et al. (2019)	[24]	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0.5	1	1	8.5
Wakaba et al. (2022)	[90]	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	7
Wanjuu et al. (2019)	[76]	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0.5	1	1	7.5
Wongnaa et al. (2024)	[42]	1	1	1	1	1	0.5	1	1	1	1	9.5
Zakari et al. (2023)	[29]	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	8
Zmija et al. (2020)	[38]	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0.5	1	1	7.5

Source: Authors’ compilation (2025).

.

Figure 4 illustrates the CASP quality check of the included studies in this review. The scores for each study included are shown in Table A2 in Appendix A. This helps assess the credibility of information contained in the review to enhance scientific rigour.

2.3. Data Recording, Management, and Analysis

The researchers managed the data gathered for this review through EndNote version 21.2. The preference for EndNote is because of its simplicity in organising, storing, citing, and sharing references, which makes the research workflow more manageable [21]. All collected references were placed in a dedicated folder and backed up on Microsoft OneDrive to keep them safe and easy to retrieve. Once the references were organised, the researchers coded the data and analysed it using Microsoft Excel from Office 365. Microsoft Excel has strong capabilities in organising, cleaning, and visualising data, as well as user-friendly features like formulas and PivotTables that support in-depth analysis [22]. To ensure the quality of this review, researchers carefully assessed each study. This careful documentation supports transparency and enables others to follow or replicate the research process if needed. The PRISMA checklist was completed for this review and in available in Supplementary Materials.

3. Results

Results obtained are outlined below in both the bibliometric analysis for study structures and quality and thematic results for in-depth observations. Given the diversity of study designs, contexts, and outcome measures, formal meta-analysis was not conducted. Instead, a narrative synthesis organised by categories is provided.

3.1. Bibliometric Analysis

3.1.1. The Origin of Publications

The origin of the publications indicates the relevance of the problem investigated in a specific country or region. Results from this review (Figure 3) show that the SSA region has the most articles (21%), followed by Ghana and Kenya (16% each), Ethiopia (10%), South Africa and Uganda (5% each), and the remaining areas with one publication each, as shown in Figure 5.

3.1.2. Year of Publication Trends

The year of publication trends help show changes in publishers’ interest over time, often highlighting when a subject became more relevant or received increased attention. The trend can also reveal gaps in where there is little research, pointing to opportunities for further study. The findings presented in Figure 6 indicate that interest in the study topic was high in 2023 and 2024, with ten publications each, followed by 2021 and 2022, with four studies each. The years 2017 and 2020 follow with three studies each. The years with the fewest publications were 2019 (two), and 2012 and 2016 (one each).

3.1.3. Analysis of the Publisher, Journal and Citations Data

Publishers, journals, and citations each play distinct yet interconnected roles in the credibility and depth of a review or any publication. Publishers ensure the quality and ethical standards of dissemination, while journals provide the disciplinary focus, scope, and peer-review structure that contribute to overall research quality. Citations, on the other hand, reflect the impact, relevance, and scholarly engagement of a given work. Used in conjunction, these attributes help reviewers assess the reliability, impact, and relevance of the literature, which contributed to the validity and generalisability of the review’s findings, depicted in Figure 7 below.

Findings from this review indicate that the publisher with the most citations is Elsevier, with five journals and a total of 1 618 citations. Wiley is the second publisher with the most citations (380), followed by Taylor & Francis (38), De Gruyter (17), and Nature Portfolio with the least citations (9). These results show that the publisher with the greatest impact based on this review’s data is Elsevier.

3.2. Thematic Analysis

3.2.1. Indigenous Vegetables Cultivated in Home Gardens

Indigenous vegetables cultivated in home gardens across SSA play a crucial role in enhancing household food and nutrition security, supporting climate-resilient agriculture and preserving cultural traditions.

Table 3. Species on each dietary group.

Crop Category	Total Number of Species	Sources
Leafy Vegetables	25	[22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]
Legumes/Pulses	8	[23,24,25,26,30,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]
Cereals/Grains	6	[23,25,39,40]
Tubers/Roots	6	[22,23,24,25,41,42,43,44,45]
Nuts/Seeds	3	[23,37]
Spices/Herbs	3	[23,24]
Miscellaneous	3	[22,23,27]

Source: Synthesis of the systematic review data (2025).

summarises various dietary groups of indigenous vegetables cultivated in home gardens in the included studies. The complete presentation of the results is presented in

Table A3. Indigenous vegetables cultivated in SSA in the included studies.

Species	Common Name	Sources
Leafy Vegetables
Abelmoschus esculentus	Okra	[45,89]
Acanthus montanus	Ezi Agu	[89]
Ageratum conyzoides	Ekwu eyu	[89]
Allium sativum	Garlic, Tungulusumu	[28,89]
Amaranthus Cruentus L.; dubius; graecizans L.; hybridus L.; spinosus L.; viridis	Amaranth leaves	[39,41,85,89]
Basella alba	Malabar spinach	[89]
Bidens pilosa L.	Uqadolo; Blackjack, Mchicha wa fisi	[41,89]
Brassica juncea/oleracea	Ethiopian Mustard, Kale, Sukuma wiki	[41,45,81,89]
Celosia argentea	Lagos spinach, Sokoyokoto	[89]
Chenopodium album	Lamb’s quarters	[41]
Cleome gynandra L.	Cat’s whiskers, African cabbage	[41,89]
Corchorus olitorius L.	Jute mallow, Jew’s mallow, Tossa jute	[41,88,89]
Cucumis sativus	Cucumber	[45]
Cucurbita pepo/moschata	Pumpkin	[28,41,45,89]
Lagenaria siceraria	Bottle gourd, Calabash	[45,89]
Gynandra spp.	African cabbage	[89]
Hibiscus sabdariffa	Roselle	[28,89]
Lactuca sativa	Lettuce	[89]
Launaea cornuta/taraxacifolia	Bitter Lettuce, Wild lettuce	[89]
Momordica charantia	Bitter gourd, African cucumber	[89]
Moringa olifera	Moringa leaves	[27,28,89]
Solanum macrocarpon/indicum/nigrum/aethiopicum/americanum/torvum/scabrum	African eggplants, nightshades, Turkey berry	[28,41,85,89,90]
Solenostemon rotundifolius	Country potato	[89]
Telfairia occidentalis	Fluted pumpkin, Ugu	[89]
Trichosanthes cucumerina L.	Snake gourd	[89]
Vernonia amygdalina/cinerea	Bitter leaf, Orubu egu	[89]
Syzygium guineense	Bedesa	[89]
Legume/Pulse
Cajanus cajan	Pigeon pea	[41,89]
Lablab purpureus	Hyacinth bean	[24]
Macrotyloma geocarpum	Kersting’s groundnut or Doyi, Ground bean	[89]
Mucuna pruriens	Velvet bean, Monkey tamarind, Mukuna	[28,89]
Phaseolus vulgaris	Common bean	[24,87]
Parkia biglobosa	African locust bean, Dawadawa	[89]
Tylosema esculentum	Marama bean	[41,89]
Vigna radiata/unguiculata/subterranean/vexillata	Mung bean, Cowpea, Bambara groundnut, Rich Zombi pea, Wild cowpea	[27,28,34,39,40,41,43,82,83,89]
Cereal/Grain
Digitaria exilis	White fonio	[89]
Eleusine coracana	Finger millet	[89]
Eragrotis tef	Trotter Teff	[89]
Oryza glaberrima	African rice	[89]
Pennisetum glaucum	Pearl millet	[41,89]
Sorghum bicolor	Sorghum, Great millet	[23,33,41,89]
Tuber/Root
Colocasia esculenta	Taro, Amadumbe, Bifunu	[28,41,89]
Dioscorea cayenesis-rotundata complex	Guinea yam; Boyna; Buri; Air yam; Yellow yam; Cluster yam; Bush yam	[28,45,80,89]
Ipomoea batatas/aquatica Forsk.	Sweet potato, Ekwu nwuda	[30,42,89]
Manihot esculenta	Cassava, Mhogo, Manioc	[28,41,44,84,89]
Xanthosoma sagittifolium	Cocoyam, Tannia, Ede	[28,89]
Solanum tuberosum	Potato	[28,41,85,89,90]
Nut/Seed
Cucumeropsis edulis	White seed melon	[89]
Sesamum indicum/radiatum	Sesame, Benniseed	[43,89]
Ricinodendron heudelotii	Njansang	[89]
Spice/Herb
Allium sativum	Garlic, Tungulusumu	[28,89]
Piper guineense	Edo pepper, Benin pepper	[89]
Zingiber officinale	Canton Ginger, Tangawizi	[28,89]
Miscellaneous
Borassus aethiopicum	African fan palm	[89]
Cyphostemma adenocaule	Swahili	[89]
Crotalaria L. spp.	Rattlepods	[85,89]
Dendrohyrax bulbifera/cbyssinica	Danan, Diambi	[45]

Source: Synthesis of the systematic review data (2025).

. The vegetable group including leafy vegetables such as amaranth, jute mallow, and African nightshade was most frequently studied in contrast to nut/seed and spice/herb, leaving room for more research to be conducted on the least relevant groups.

3.2.2. Risks Faced by Small-Scale Farmers in Growing Indigenous Vegetables and Associated Risk Mitigation Strategies

Small-scale farming households in SSA face a variety of risks that threaten their agricultural productivity, food security, and livelihoods. The authors discussed and agreed on category definitions before coding. These risks were then classified as (1) environmental, (2) technological, (3) economical, (4) institutional, and (5) social.

Table 4. Risks and mitigation strategies employed by small-scale farming households in SSA in growing indigenous vegetables.

Risks	Risk Mitigation Strategies	Reference
Environmental
Low sorghum productivity (climate change, pests, low soil fertility)	Improved varieties of sorghum (ISV); seeds, synthetic fertilisers, rock phosphate, farmyard manure, compost, pesticides, water, irrigation	[23,24]
Poor soil fertility, soil erosion, poor rainfall, pests/diseases	Soil improvement (mineral fertiliser), crop rotation, animal manure, natural fallow	[24,25]
Soil erosion and nutrient depletion	Mulching technology	[25]
Declining soil fertility, soil erosion	Erosion reduction, vermicomposting, urine/excreta collection	[24,25]
Climate change and water stress, erratic rainfall, and droughts	Climate-smart agriculture (small-scale irrigation), water-saving technologies, mulching, drought-resistant crops, intercropping, short-cycle crops	[23,26]
Pests and pathogens (cassava brown streak disease)	Disease-resistant varieties, crop rotation	[27]
Post-harvest loss (aflatoxin, mould, spoilage)	Adoption of lifting, pod stripping, shelling, sorting devices; discarding inferior pods; public awareness of aflatoxin	[28,29]
Low production	Adoption of improved potato varieties; developing drought-/heat-/disease-resistant varieties	[30]
Sweet potato ‘seed systems’ are underdeveloped	Promotion and development of Orange Fleshed Sweet Potato	[31]
Technological
Post-harvest losses (spoilage, aflatoxin)	Efficient lifting, pod stripping, shelling, and sorting devices	[28]
Need for improved decision-making	Integrated decision support system	[32]
Need for improved crop adaptation	Developing varieties for drought/heat/disease resistance	[30]
Economical
Small loan amounts, short duration, cash security	Participation in village savings loan association	[33]
High food prices	Home garden techniques (growing indigenous vegetables on pots, sacks, and tyres)	[34]
Bulky cassava, low farm gate prices, and price volatility	Cassava value addition chains	[35]
Inadequate market information, middlemen	Improve access to electronic media/mobile phones, farmer associations	[36]
Low market access, low profitability	Training, commercialisation, value chain improvements	[34,35]
Institutional
Poor road networks	Value addition chains (improving infrastructure and access)	[35]
Absence of standardised marketing rates	Farmer associations, improved market information	[36]
Land access, inheritance, policy compliance	Inheritance, government land policies, and training for certification standards	[37,38]
Compliance with food quality/certification	Training, cooperative access, policy adherence	[37]
Social
Climate stressors and high impoverishment	Joint household decision-making	[39]
Population pressure	Farmer training, improved crop varieties	[40]

Source: Synthesis of the systematic review data (2025).

presents a summary of the common risks encountered and the corresponding mitigation strategies employed at the household level to enhance resilience and adaptive capacity in growing indigenous vegetables.

3.2.3. Contribution of Indigenous Vegetables to Food and Nutrition Security

The cultivation of indigenous home-grown vegetables through home gardens and small-scale farms plays a pivotal role in advancing food and nutrition security, particularly in resource-constrained settings. By leveraging traditional knowledge and low-input agricultural practices, communities can increase the availability and accessibility of diverse, nutrient-rich foods.

Table 5. The contribution of home-grown indigenous vegetables towards food and nutrition security.

Contribution	Description and Outcome	Sources
Food security	Indigenous vegetable production contributes to a steady and resilient supply of essential foodstuffs for households. This was associated with household food availability and reduced vulnerability to food shortages.	[29,30,41]
Nutrition security	Indigenous vegetable enhances dietary diversity and provides essential micronutrients (iron and vitamin A) that address common nutritional deficiencies. This contributes to nutritional outcomes, promoting health (reduced anaemia prevalence and cholesterol levels).	[29,30,41]
Climate resilience	These vegetables are adaptable to local environmental conditions, requiring fewer inputs and thriving under stress conditions. This may support resilience to climate change and promotes sustainable agricultural systems.	[27,40,42]
Inclusion and empowerment	The cultivation of indigenous vegetables is closely linked to the empowerment of women and marginalised groups, who are often the primary custodians of home gardens and local vegetable production. Their active participation not only boosts household food security and nutrition but also fosters social inclusion and economic opportunities.	[28,43]
Cultural identity and knowledge preservation	The preservation of traditional agricultural practices and culinary uses associated with indigenous vegetables further reinforces cultural identity and food sovereignty, ensuring that valuable indigenous knowledge is transmitted across generations. This results in strengthened cultural identity, intergenerational knowledge transfer and food sovereignty.	[44,45]

Source: Synthesis of the systematic review data (2025).

shows the contribution of growing indigenous vegetables in home gardens by small-scale farmers. Findings from the table show that the integration of indigenous vegetables support multiple aspects of livelihood. This leads to the development of resilient, sustainable, and nutritionally secure food systems in vulnerable communities.

4. Discussion

This review collected information from four databases and retrieved 38 articles, drawing evidence from 2005 to 2024. The review collected data to explore the role of home-grown indigenous vegetables and risk mitigation strategies in enhancing food and nutrition security among small-scale farmers in SSA. The retrieved data was coded and analysed using Microsoft Excel 365, which offers user-friendly features such as graphs and tables that aid in-depth analysis. Results include the origin of publications, publication year trends, and the publishers, journals and the number of citations analysis. Empirical findings include the different indigenous vegetables cultivated in home gardens, the risks faced by farmers, mitigation strategies, and the contribution of these vegetables to food and nutrition security.

Articles collected by this review had a quality score that ranged from five to ten. While this was to maximise evidence coverage, higher-quality studies (8–10) were able to count for most of the review objectives in contrast to lower-quality studies (5–7.5). This suggests that high-quality studies consist of adequate information, necessary to support the aim of the study, which may support the scientific credibility of studies.

The publication’s origin indicates the significance of the issue or initiative in the area. Sub-Saharan Africa emerged as the main publication focus although this may depict regional scope of available studies rather that a true indication of research dominance. This implies that publication counts may reflect research capacity rather than problem severity. This finding is particularly because SSA faces significant challenges like poverty, food shortages, and health struggles that affect everyday lives [46,47]. The years 2023 and 2024 account for the most publications around the review theme. When it comes to publishers, journals, and citations analysis, this review shows that Elsevier had a greater impact (denoted by citations) than the other publishers. This finding shows that this publisher offers a comprehensive background on the subject matter.

In SSA, several indigenous vegetables are cultivated in home gardens from different Genus such as Amaranthus, Bidens, Brassica, Cleome, Colocasia, Ipomoea, Moringa, Mucuna, Sesamum, Solanum, Vigna and many more, as shown in Table 3. These vegetables are eaten in various ways, including when prepared alone, incorporated into other dishes, or after processing. Despite the indigenous vegetables’ dietary inclusion, they face many risks in the supply chain. However, small-scale farmers have ways to mitigate the risks. These common risks can be grouped into (1) environmental, (2) technological, (3) economic, (4) institutional, and (5) social risks. These categories align with the broader agricultural economic theory known as the agricultural risk theory. This theory explores the way in which farmers perceive and manage risks with frameworks that are developed to assist in the comprehension of interactions between different risks. This helps to inform policy responses as observed and agreed upon by all authors.

Environmental risks include threats related to natural events or environmental changes [48]. These include climate change, soil erosion, reduced soil fertility, water unavailability, pests, and pathogens that reduce crop yields and threaten the livelihoods of small-scale farming households. These risks reduce crop yields and threaten the livelihoods of small-scale farming households [49]. The review revealed that small-scale farmers employ different strategies to address the environmental risks. The strategies include the introduction of improved seed varieties, fertiliser, pesticides, proper storage facilities, water-saving technologies, crop rotation, and intercropping [50]. These strategies are mostly part of climate-smart agricultural practices, helping boost their cultivation and yields. These strategies are also implemented in areas where risks, such as climate change [51], water unavailability [52], and soil degradation [53], are prevalent.

Technological risk refers to challenges arising from limited access to or failure of farming technologies [54]. For small-scale farmers, this could mean outdated tools or a lack of access to modern irrigation, transportation, and storage facilities, which can limit productivity, thus making them vulnerable to shocks, and cause post-harvest losses. Traditional farming technologies are deemed less efficient than modern ones, as they require excessive labour and time [55]. Farmers using traditional farming methods face challenges in accessing markets efficiently due to lower yields, limited storage and transport, and reduced product quality compared to modern techniques [56]. To mitigate these risks, the review found that small-scale farmers employ several strategies, including the formation of farmer cooperatives and associations, training to meet certification standards, market participation, and value addition chains to improve infrastructure, such as storage, and to enhance market compatibility. Moreover, services such as digital services through mobile platforms along with participation in farmer cooperatives can help to bridge the gaps. These strategies also improve the income received by the farming household as well as the increase food availability. Cooperatives play a significant role through promoting knowledge sharing, improving farmers market engagement and enabling joint investment in updated equipment. The introduction of farmers’ cooperatives helps farmers afford the essential inputs to meet expected production levels [57]. Moreover, cooperatives help with the storage and transportation infrastructure of produce to markets, ensuring they arrive in good condition [58]. Collectively, these interventions help to reduce related risks while contributing to better food and nutrition security among farming households.

Economic risk involves uncertainties in prices, markets, or costs that affect farm income [59]. These include sudden drops in crop prices or increased input costs, which can make it hard for small-scale farmers to earn a stable living. Other economic risks include small or inadequate loan amounts, insufficient market information and access, price instability, and low profitability. These are usually associated with the yield obtained from the farm [60], the seasonality of produce [61], and the dynamic nature of farming, as it is interlinked with uncertainties [48]. To overcome these risks, farmers participate in village savings and loan associations, plant in pots, sacks, and tyres, develop value addition chains, train farmers to participate in the commercialisation of produce, and improve access to electronic media/mobile phones, and farmer associations. Commercialisation of these products could lead to their recognition and enhance the income generation for many farming households [62].

Institutional risks relate to policies, regulations, or a lack of support from institutions [63] which hinder small-scale farmers from effectively accessing productive markets, essential support systems, and productive resources. These problems stem from poor institutional support and ineffective policies which in turn to affect their ability to adapt and grow [64]. Examples include poor extension services, market regulations, insecure land tenure and the absence of inclusive financial regulations. These issues reflect broader failures and are associated with poor coordination and little investment between farming groups and government institutions [65]. Studies in Table 4 suggest addressing these problems by revising policies and developing farmers’ cooperatives and road networks to improve food system and farmers’ resilience. As a solution, farmers usually enter collective action (cooperatives), policy adherence, and training. These solutions enhance farmers’ capacity to cultivate and reduce post-harvest losses, with the aim of achieving food security and income generation and sustaining their livelihoods. These institutional factors have a considerable impact on the farmer’s access to the market and the arrival of goods to the market [66]. When institutions do not provide sufficient support, it can result in social problems such as community conflicts or worsening health issues, making life even more challenging for small-scale farming families [67].

Social risks cover social and demographic factors that limit small-scale farmers’ capacity to produce and utilise indigenous vegetables for financial reasons [48]. Community disputes and local conflicts have the potential to interrupt farm access, labour availability, input supply, and, in certain cases, result in loss or abandonment of plots [68]. Each of the above-mentioned factors have a negative impact on production, reducing the total expected yields and increasing post-harvest losses. Furthermore, health crises such as pandemic waves disrupt labour, market access, and extension services [69], forcing households to reallocate time and income away from cultivation and processing of these vegetables. Demographic shifts such as youth migration to towns or shrinking household labour reduce the human resources needed for labour-intensive crops, including indigenous vegetables which can influence the choice on the type of crops grown. These pathways indicated are commonly observed across small-scale farmers’ context, affecting the production and marketability of indigenous vegetables [13]. Joint household decision-making is recommended due to the observation that when men and women share cropping decisions, inputs, and income use, households tend to diversify production [70]. Besides diversification, they sometimes invest more in nutritious crops and make more resilient choices. Improved varieties are recommended where studies show they reduce risks, for instance, through pest and disease resistance, drought tolerance, and short production cycle [71]. This further helps to lower the risk of crop failure and increase the feasibility of value addition. To illustrate the link between risks and strategies, Table 4 has been made to ensure that each risk is linked with the mitigation strategy employed.

Risk management enables small-scale farming households to secure better food and nutrition for their families and communities [72,73]. The cultivation of indigenous vegetables, therefore, contributes significantly to households’ livelihoods, not only through income but also by ensuring access to adequate, nutritious food. Through their production, indigenous vegetables provide a reliable and diverse supply of essential foods, thus helping to improve dietary quality and address common nutrient deficiencies [74,75,76]. Indigenous vegetables’ natural adaptability to local climates also supports sustainable farming and resilience against environmental challenges [77], thus ensuring a stable supply of nutritious food. Beyond nutrition, the cultivation of indigenous vegetables empowers women and marginalised groups, who often manage home gardens, creating opportunities for economic growth and social inclusion [78]. Furthermore, preserving traditional farming and cooking practices connected to indigenous vegetables helps maintain cultural identity and may support the preservation of valuable indigenous knowledge through generations. This review illustrates that indigenous vegetables serve as a valuable resource for food and nutrition security.

5. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

This review aimed to explore the role of home-grown indigenous vegetables in enhancing food and nutrition security and risk mitigation strategies among small-scale farmers in SSA over the past 20 years. The quality check was conducted with a permissive quality threshold which may have led to the inclusion of studies with higher risk of bias. It is therefore recommended that future reviews should consider sensitivity analyses restricted to high-quality studies. From the results synthesised in this review, it was found that a variety of indigenous vegetables were produced in home gardens to sustain livelihoods. In the vegetables cultivated, leafy vegetables were most frequently studied, with little information discovered for root/tubers and legumes, showing disparities in indigenous vegetable cultivation. When it comes to their cultivation and marketing, small-scale farming households face several risks, which are classified into environmental, technological, economic, institutional, and social risks. Each of these risks includes challenges that adversely affect the total production of the farming household. In the face of challenges, small-scale farmers develop numerous mitigation strategies, such as farmer cooperatives, training, storage measures, and the use of improved seed varieties, to sustain their cultivation. Indigenous vegetable cultivation, if supported, could contribute significantly to food and nutrition security through the diverse availability of food from their production and income generated from selling them. This review underscores the need for policymakers, the government, and stakeholders to intervene to provide training for farmers participating in indigenous vegetable cultivation. Trainings can include production skills and processing and marketing of their produce. At the same time, workshops and community meetings could enhance farmers’ indigenous farming skills and knowledge transformation. Moreover, supportive frameworks that will support cultivation of indigenous vegetables are necessary to support farmers with aid they require. This strategy would provide small-scale farmers with a chance to commercialise their produce and make enough income to support their families and simultaneously ensure food and nutrition security. Furthermore, the promotion of the cultivation of indigenous vegetables could reduce their stigmatisation as food for the poor. Further research could investigate the profit efficiency of cultivating indigenous vegetables and examine agro-processing opportunities for these commodities. Moreover, the variance between risks profiles and mitigation strategies by agro-ecological zones, market integration, and farm size should be examined.

6. Limitations

This review faced some limitations which pose an impact towards the quality of the study. These limitations include the open-access selection which may have excluded relevant studies from subscription journals, potentially under-representing African-led research. This limitation eventually leads to bias, likely favouring studies showing positive effects, as these are more often published in high-impact open-access journals. This review was further limited by the absence of inter-rater reliability metrics, negatively affecting the consistent assessment of screening and appraisal. In terms of results, the risk typology was developed inductively from included studies, making the inclusion criteria a barrier to adequate evidence-based information. However, further validation in other SSA contexts may strengthen its generalisability. Moreover, most included studies were observational and did not control confounding factors such as household wealth, education, or market access. Causal relationships between indigenous vegetable cultivation and food security outcomes cannot be firmly established from this evidence base.