..........................
Chapter 2 Literature review
2. Literature review
2.1. Agricultural technology
Agriculture has been modified significantly from the previous many years. It has beensuccessful in diminishing cost of food (even though in several regions those food expenses areset aside synthetically high by means of sustainable strategies), nourishing a rising inhabitants,setting free labor from the farm as well as giving an increasingly better option of food all theway through the year to regulars. Technology has contributed a most important element inthese improvements, as well as it is also dealing with nowadays by showing incorporatedmeans, ecological as well as communal apprehensions (Lemos, Lo, Nelson, Eakin, & Bedran-Martins, 2016). All at once, agriculture should be pointed out in the perspective of otherimprovements in the world financial system.
Agriculture is affected by “globalization, agricultural policy reform and tradeliberalization”. Better public consciousness as well as importance for constant growth alsocontrols the means as the agriculture is viewed. Dealings between agriculture along with theenvironment are currently the most important constituents determining agro food strategies inthe entire OECD regions (Locke & Grove, 2016). Agriculture is more and more controlled byimprovements that are challenging plus threats. In order to make sure that agriculture createsadequate food whereas with respect to the “environment, farmers need the right incentives,knowledge, and technology”. It also describes that “coherent policies need to be in place,agricultural, environmental, trade and R&D policies in particular” (Luis & Bravo-Ureta, 2017).It is very important to support strategy assessments on vigorous, deep-rooted systematicprocedures with the intention that the assessments are defensible as well as can be described tothe entire stakeholders.
..........................
2.2. Natural resource management practices
A strong element of study has evaluated the involvement of NRM systems to familywelfare and farm revenue (Barrett, Christian, et al., 2017; Kassie, Teklewold, Marenya, et al.,2015). On the other hand, the similar intensity of concentration has not been provided tocomprehending the method through which NRM technologies make better farm revenue,furthermore it is a significant matter with the intention of designing as well as implementingcost effectual involvements (Lutz et al., 2014; Pretty et al., 2016, 2011). It is also pointed outpreviously; “the interest here is on understanding the role of managerial performance andtechnology in increasing farm income as a consequence of NRM interventions” (Moktan,Norbu, & Choden, 2016).
Efforts for the purpose to measure the influence of NRM on technical efficiency comprisethe research by Odoul et al. (2011) that paid attention on the implementation of soil along withwater maintenance technologies amongst “smallholder farmers” in central Africa. Manyresearchers did not discover a considerable influence on technical efficiency. Comparableoutcomes were established by (Pan, Smith, & Sulaiman, 2018) at the time of analyzingpreservation technologies utilized by rice farmers in Zimbabwe. In order to cope with achievablepreconceptions, the researchers utilized panel data for farmers by means of preservation orconservative farming. In comparison, Dung et al. (2011) proposed that “the adopters of zerotillage and direct seeded rice had a higher level of TE than non-adopters”. Frey et al. (2012)contrasted that “silvopastoral and conventional cattle ranching
