21.09.2015 Views

The Journal of Research ANGRAU

Contents of 41(1) 2013 - acharya ng ranga agricultural university

Contents of 41(1) 2013 - acharya ng ranga agricultural university

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

ABIRAMI et al<br />

Socio-economic Impact: A cursory look at<br />

the Table 1 indicates that 46.67 per cent <strong>of</strong> beneficiary<br />

farmers had medium level <strong>of</strong> socio-economic impact,<br />

followed by high (28.33%) and low level <strong>of</strong> socioeconomic<br />

impact (25.00%). <strong>The</strong> result was the<br />

cumulative effect <strong>of</strong> all the factors contributed to the<br />

socio-economic impact. <strong>The</strong> reason for high level <strong>of</strong><br />

socio-economic impact might be particularly due to<br />

majority <strong>of</strong> the farmers obtained fine knowledge about<br />

SRI and adopted SRI technique fairly in their field.<br />

As a result they received more income and asset<br />

acquisition. Medium level <strong>of</strong> socio-economic impact<br />

might be due to partial adoption <strong>of</strong> technology and<br />

inefficient management <strong>of</strong> labour. That results in more<br />

cost <strong>of</strong> cultivation. Low level <strong>of</strong> socio-economic<br />

impact might be due to poor adoption & SRI<br />

technology.<br />

b) Relationship between pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> beneficiary<br />

farmers and the socio-economic impact<br />

An attempt has been made to find out the<br />

association between independent variables and<br />

dependent variables through correlation coefficient<br />

(r) values. <strong>The</strong> results are presented in Table 2.<br />

Table 2. Correlation coefficient between pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> beneficiary farmers and the socio-economic impact<br />

N= 120<br />

S. No Independent Variables ‘r’ values<br />

1. Age<br />

2. Education<br />

3. Land Holding<br />

4. Farming Experience<br />

5. Information sources utilization<br />

6. Training Received<br />

7. Economic Motivation<br />

8. Scientific Orientation<br />

9. Innovativeness<br />

10. Risk Orientation<br />

-0.2119 NS<br />

0.4014**<br />

0.3870**<br />

0.3537**<br />

0.3793**<br />

0.4815**<br />

0.5241**<br />

0.6113**<br />

0.5927**<br />

0.6084**<br />

** Significant at 0.01 level <strong>of</strong> probability NS = Non Significant<br />

<strong>The</strong> results presented in the Table 2 clearly<br />

indicate that almost all computed ‘r’ values <strong>of</strong><br />

education, land holding, farming experience,<br />

information sources utilization, training received,<br />

economic motivation, scientific orientation,<br />

innovativeness and risk orientation with socioeconomic<br />

impact were found positively significant<br />

relationship at 0.01 level <strong>of</strong> probability. Whereas, age<br />

with socio-economic impact had non-significant and<br />

negative relationship.<br />

From this study it could be concluded that<br />

higher the education, higher the land holding, higher<br />

the experience in farming, higher the information<br />

sources utilization, higher the training received,<br />

higher the economic motivation, higher the scientific<br />

orientation, higher the innovativeness and higher the<br />

risk orientation, the higher would be the socioeconomic<br />

impact.<br />

<strong>The</strong> probable reason for age, not influencing<br />

the socio-economic impact can be explained that<br />

89

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!