Bangladesh is recently transforming its sectoral composition to industry but still the economy is based on the process of agricultural development (Miah et al. 2020). Though the modern economy is essentially smitten by industry, agriculture remains the lifeblood for several farming economies like Bangladesh. The agriculture sector of the country is trying to adapt to growing demand. It remains dynamic with alternative management practices and technological innovation. But the actual potentials of the sector are always restricted by the loss of cultivable land. Other factors such as increasing temperature and inefficient water use also play a role. Additionally, there is the spread of pests and unusual diseases. Poor quality seeds and incorrect application of fertilizer and pesticides further limit the sector. Lastly, a lack of credit support to farmers adds to the challenges. Thus, it needs adjustment with completely different planning and development programs. There are many issues within the agricultural sector. Still, there isn’t spare agricultural machinery within the agricultural sector.
Table of Contents
Conservation Agriculture (CA)
Conservation agriculture (CA) can reduce the production losses and enhance the agricultural potentialities to cope up with the recent challenges. According to FAO (2007), CA is a concept for resource-saving agricultural crop production. It strives to realize acceptable profits along with high and sustained production levels. At the same time, it protects the environment. It requires to minimize soil disturbance, retention of crop residuals, and rotation of crop.
To get maximum benefit in terms of productivity and sustainability, CA involves multiple interactions of socio-economic, environmental, and survival factors. The socio-economic factors include training and education (Palash et al., 2024), economic benefits (Miah et al., 2023) are crucial for CA adoption in Bangladesh. The adoption of CA in Bangladesh is essential for bringing sustainability by increasing productivity (Mobarak, 2022), reducing energy use, proper land management and climate actions (Krupnik et al., 2022) at large scale. However, it is not beyond barriers and challenges to adopt CA in Bangladesh, including logistic constraints such as, labor and technology shortage (Krupnik et al., 2022) and policy constraints (Rana, 2023). Thus, the adoption of CA in Bangladesh is influenced by socio-economic factors. Environmental and physical factors of the farmers also play a role. The farmers’ choice is not only based on the main effects. It also requires multiple-way interactions to capture their choice of CA strategies in Bangladesh.
Choice of Conservation Agriculture in Bangladesh
In Bangladesh, agriculture significantly contributes to growth and economic well-being. However, its share within the total economic value has reduced. The increasing dependence of the farmers on unsure monsoon makes agriculture productivity vulnerable. Global climate change effects impact various sectors of economic development. These include water resources, forestry, agriculture, fisheries, and health (IPCC, 2007). For that reason, an adaption strategy may be crucial. It could help farmers deal with acute weather. It also addresses associated environmental condition variations. Moreover, the present information of farm-household decision in Bangladesh is extremely general and not discourses, i.e., not effectively differentiated by varieties of farm-household, social context or form of technology. Most studies have centered on determinants of adoption of easy technologies (e.g., improved varieties, plant food use) mistreatment typical socio-economic adoption theories. There’s now substantial empirical proof from the sphere of behavioral economic science. It shows that people’s choices are influenced by psychological factors. These include the use of shortcuts, reliance on biases and stereotypes, self-control issues, and social preferences. However, the implications for adoption of property farming technologies haven’t been investigated in Bangladesh. Few studies have included aspects of behavioral economic science in farmer decision-making. These studies are conducted in developed countries. There’s currently a chance to lead the analysis of behavioral economics. This includes both theoretical and practical insights. It focuses on farm-household decision-making, especially in the context of technology adoption.
Earlier Studies on the Choice of Conservation Agriculture
Farmers’ choices on adopting agricultural innovations are vital for increased agricultural production and farmers’ financial gain. In developing countries, farmers’ adaptation decision of new technology is historically determined by factors like credit availableness, access to data, risk attitudes, farm size, farm residency, human capital, the provision of inputs and transport infrastructures (Feder et al., 1985). Some studies demonstrate culture also plays a crucial role in farmers’ choices to adopt new technology (Palis 2006; Belshaw 2013). Several studies found that the decision is mostly affected by soil quality, selling and transportation facilities, native demand for crops, and farm owner’s socio-economic characteristics (Hasanuzzaman et al. 2014). In rural India, farmers’ decision-making capabilities are found to be increased by the provision of data through information and technology (ICT) (Ali & Kumar 2011). Ali and Kumar’s (2011) study showed users of the new ICT considerably improved farmers’ deciding compared to non-users. Moser & Barrett (2006) showed that learning from extension agents has a vital influence. Learning from different farmers also greatly influences farmers’ adoption choices. However, the method of learning about the new technology relies on social factors. Farmers’ perception and perspective towards risk also play a role (Conley & Udry 2001; Liu 2013). In developing countries, farmers’ choices are influenced by land possession and gender. Specifically, a study by Twyman et al. (2015) showed that gender is a vital for agricultural farm practices decision. Women’s negotiation power is related to their education. It also stems from financial gain and assets. These factors had positive effects on the intra-household allocation of resources. They resulted in raised farming outcomes (Doss 2013). Farmers’ perceptions of temperature change are important. Their attitudes towards uncertainty also influence choices on technology adoption. Risk preferences are a factor as well (Koundouri, Nauges & Tzouvelekas 2006; Acquah 2011; Liu 2013). Farmers’ perceptions are connected to their confidence in technology and its use. They are also related to perceived web edges, farm size, and their academic levels (Adrian, Norwood & Mask 2005). Moreover, farmers’ technology adoption choices additionally rely upon their access to monetary markets, significantly in credit markets. Lack of credit is a vital hindrance in technology adoption in each developed and developing countries (Petrick 2005; Blancard et al. 2006; Giné & principle 2009; Shiferaw, Okello & Reddy 2009). This limited literature review can try to summarize some key aspects of theories in behavioral social science. It also suggests how they might be used to enhance the adoption of CA technologies.
References
Acquah, H. (2011). Farmers perception and adaptation to climate change: a willingness to pay analysis, Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 150-161.
Adrian, A., Norwood, S. & Mask, P. (2005). Producers’ perceptions and attitudes toward precision agriculture technologies. Computers and electronics in agriculture, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 256-271.
Ali, J. & Kumar, S. (2011). Information and communication technologies (ICTs) and farmers’ decision-making across the agricultural supply chain, International Journal of Information Management, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 149-159.
Belshaw, C. (2013). Under the Ivi tree: society and economic growth in rural Fiji, Routledge, London, UK.
Blancard, S., Boussemart, J., Briec, W. & Kerstens, K. (2006). Short-and long-run credit constraints in French agriculture: A directional distance function framework using expenditure-constrained profit functions, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 351-364.
Doss, C. (2013). Intrahousehold bargaining and resource allocation in developing countries, The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 52-78.
Feder, G., Just, R.E. & Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey, Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 255-298.
Giné, X. & Yang, D. (2009). Insurance, credit, and technology adoption: field experimental evidencefrom Malawi, Journal of Development Economics, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 1-11.
Hasanuzzaman, M., Hossain, M. & Saroar, M. (2014). Diversity and preference of agricultural crops in the cropland agroforests of southwestern Bangladesh, International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 364-372.
IPCC (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and vulnerability. The contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden P.J., & Hanson (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 976.
Koundouri, P., Nauges, C. & Tzouvelekas, V. (2006). Technology adoption under production uncertainty: theory and application to irrigation technology, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 657-670.
Krupnik, T.J., Hossain, M.K.., Timsina, J., Gathala, M.K., Sapkota, T.B., Yasmin, S., et al. (2022). 4. Adapted Conservation Agriculture Practices Can Increase Energy Productivity and Lower Yield-Scaled Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Coastal Bangladesh. Frontiers in agronomy, doi: 10.3389/fagro.2022.829737
Liu, E. (2013). Time to change what to sow: Risk preferences and technology adoption decisions of cotton farmers in China, Review of Economics and Statistice, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 1386-1403.
Miah M.D., Hasan R. and Uddin H. (2020). Agricultural Development and the Rural Economy: The Case of Bangladesh. In: Barai M. (eds) Bangladesh’s Economic and Social Progress. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Miah, M.M., Richard, W., Bell., et al. (2023). 3. Conservation agriculture practices improve crop productivity and farm profitability when adopted by Bangladeshi smallholders in the Eastern Gangetic Plain. Outlook on Agriculture, doi: 10.1177/00307270221150830
Mobarak. H.M. (2022). Higher Profitability of WheatMungbean-Rice System Through Conservation Agriculture Practice in Sub-Tropical Climate of Bangladesh. doi: 10.54026/aart/1033
Moser, C. & Barrett, C. (2006). The complex dynamics of smallholder technology adoption: the case of SRI in Madagascar’, Agricultural Economics, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 373-388.
Palash, M.S., Hasan, A.K., Hasan, M.M., et al. (2024). 1. Unveiling drivers of conservation agriculture amidst climate challenges: A coastal Bangladeshi case study. Heliyon, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38001
Palis, F.G. (2006). The role of culture in farmer learning and technology adoption: a case study of farmer field schools among rice farmers in central Luzon, Agriculture and Human Values, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 491-500.
Petrick, M. (2005). Empirical measurement of credit rationing in agriculture: a methodological survey, Agricultural Economics, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 191-203.
Rana, M.M. (2023). Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Crop Productivity and Economic Return for the Smallholders of Bangladesh: A Systematic Review. doi: 10.24925/turjaf.v11i10.2009-2015.6053
Riera, P., Giergiczny, M., Penuelas, J. and Mahieu, P. (2012). A choice modelling case study on climate change involving two-way interactions, Journal of Forest Economics, Volume, 18 Pages, 345–354.
Shiferaw, B.A., Okello, J. & Reddy, R.V. (2009). Adoption and adaptation of natural resource management innovations in smallholder agriculture: reflections on key lessons and best practices, Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 601-609.
Twyman, J., Useche, P. & Deere, C. (2015). Gendered perceptions of land ownership and agricultural decision-making in Ecuador: Who are the farm managers?, Land Economics, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 479-500.
About the Author
