Bibliometric synthesis of technological interventions and their impact on chickpea cultivators’ income
Keywords:
Chickpea, Farmer income, Sustainable development, Technology adoption bibliometric analysisAbstract
In the present study, a bibliometric analysis exploring how technological advancements have influenced chickpea farmers’ income over the past five decades. Using data sourced from Dimensions.ai, key words such as “Impact”, “Technology”, “Income”, and “Chickpea” were employed to retrieve 1329 relevant documents published between 1974 and 2024. The findings indicate that human society has been a leading thematic area in publications focusing on technological effects on farmers’ livelihoods. A significant portion of the studies aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 2 Zero Hunger, underscoring the role of chickpea as a nutrition-sensitive and climate-resilient crop. The United States emerged as a major contributor to this body of research, often forming collaborative clusters with other nations. Institutions such as Wageningen University and Research and the International Food Policy Research Institute were frequently cited, reflecting their thought leadership in the domain. Journals like Agricultural Systems and Agricultural Economics served as prominent publication sources. The analysis emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary and international collaboration in understanding and enhancing the economic returns from technological adoption in chickpea farming.
References
Adesina AA and Baidu-Forson J. 1995. Farmers’ perceptions and adoption of new agricultural technology: Evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea. West African Agricultural Economics 31(1): 1–9.
Adesina AA and Zinnah MM. 1993. Technology characteristics, farmers’ perceptions and a d o p t i o n decisions: A tobit model application in Sierra Leone. Agricultural Economics 9(4): 297–311.
Altieri MA and Toledo VM. 2011. The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. Journal of Peasant Studies 38(3): 587–612.
Baas J, Schotten M, Plume A, Côté G and Karimi R. 2020. Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies 1: 377–386.
Birthal PS and Singh MK. 1995. Structure of rural income inequality: A study in western Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 50(2): 168–175.
CGIAR. 2015. Drought-Tolerant Chickpea: A resource for farmer livelihoods in semi-arid tropics. Available at: https://www.cgiar.org.
FAO. 2019. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for sustainable agriculture. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/I8995EN/i8995en.pdf
Feder G, Just RE and Zilberman D. 1985. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change 33(2): 255–298.
Hazell P and Wood S. 2007. Drivers of change in global agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363(1491): 495-515.
Hook DW, Porter SJ, Draux H and Herzog CT. 2021. Real-time bibliometrics: Dimensions as a resource for analyzing aspects of COVID-19. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 5: 1–14.
Krishna V and Qaim M. 2007. Does access to credit enhance productivity? A case study of the impact of the Kisan Credit Card scheme in India. Agricultural Economics 36(2): 245–253.
Manda J, Gardebroek C, Kuntashula E and Alene AD. 2018. Impact of improved legume varieties on food security in Eastern Zambia: A doubly robust analysis. Agricultural Economics 49(2): 141–154.
Meinzen-Dick R, Adato M, Haddad L and Hazell P. 2004. Science and poverty: An interdisciplinary assessment of the impact of agricultural research. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER). 2018. Impact Assessment Study of Precision Agriculture Project in India. Retrieved from http://www.ncaer.org/publication_details.php?pID=587
Nkonya E, Pender J, Jagger P, Sserunkumo D, Kaizzi C and Ssali H. 2004. Strategies for sustainable land management and poverty reduction in Uganda. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
Press Information Bureau, Government of India. 2021. e-NAM: Improving Farmers’ Income and Market Access. Retrieved from https://pib.gov.in/pibv2/print.aspx?print=printandid=130644
Pretty J. 2007. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363(1491): 447–465.
Pritchard A. 1969. Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation 25: 348–349.
Roemer RC and Borchardt R. 2015. Meaningful metrics: A 21st-century librarian’s guide to bibliometrics, altmetrics, and research impact. American Library Association, Chicago, IL.
Rosenzweig C, Elliott J, Deryng D, Ruane AC, Müller C, Arneth A, Boote KJ, Folberth C, Glotter M, Khabarov N et al. 2013. Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(9): 3268–3273.
United Nations. 2015. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
van Eck NJ and Waltman L. 2017. Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics 111(2): 1053–1070.
Wheeler T and von Braun J. 2013. Climate change impacts on global food security. Science 341(6145): 508–513.
Yang P, Wang L, Chen M, Fang J, Liu S, Wang H and Qin L. 2023. Review on drip irrigation: Impact on crop yield, quality, and water productivity in China. Water 15(9): 1733.
