INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 1356

Reconceptualizing Functional Components of Agriculture: From

Static System Models to Complex Adaptive Frameworks in the Era

of Agriculture 4.0

Tri Martial

, Fajrillah

, May Handri

Fakultas Science dan Technology, Universitas Tjut Nyak Dhien

2,3

Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora, Universitas IBBI

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51584/IJRIAS.2025.10100000120

Received: 15 October 2025; Accepted: 21 October 2025; Published: 12 November 2025

ABSTRACT

The classical conceptual model of agricultural functional components, which divides the system into the domains

of Farming, Agri-Support, and Agri-Milieu, is no longer adequate for representing the realities of contemporary

agri-food systems. The modern agricultural landscape has been fundamentally reshaped by dual disruptions: the

digital revolution (Agriculture 4.0), which positions data as a strategic asset, and the ecological imperative

(Climate-Smart Agriculture/CSA), which demands resilience and sustainability. This study argues that the static

and mechanistic model creates a significant conceptual gap because it fails to capture dynamic interactions,

feedback loops, and emergent properties of current systems. Through a critical deconstruction of the classical

model and a synthesis of the literature on Agriculture 4.0 and CSA, this article proposes a paradigm shift. The

goal is to move from a siloes functional component model toward a Complex Adaptive System (CAS)

framework. The CAS framework views agriculture as a dynamic network of interacting agents, where digital

technology functions as an instrumental means to achieve sustainability objectives. Adopting the CAS lens

carries profound implications, requiring a shift from top-down policymaking to adaptive governance and

transforming the role of practitioners from mere producers to complexity managers an essential step for building

food systems that are productive, resilient, and sustainable.

Keywords: Modern Agriculture, Agriculture 4.0, Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA), Complex Adaptive System

(CAS), Functional Components, Sustainability, Resilience, Technological Disruption.

INTRODUCTION

The agricultural sector plays a fundamental role in ensuring global food security, economic stability, and the

achievement of sustainable development goals. Amidst increasing global population pressures and the growing

challenges of climate change, modern agriculture is required to go beyond the paradigm of productivity alone.

This sector must transform into a system that is not only productive, but also resilient, resource-efficient, and

ecologically sustainable. Along with the evolution of these challenges, the way scientists and practitioners

understand and model agricultural systems has also undergone significant developments [1][2][3].

Early conceptual models, such as those represented in the diagram “Functional Components of a Modern

Agriculture,” sought to map agricultural systems holistically. These models were a breakthrough at the time

because they recognized that agriculture is a complex system that goes beyond mere on-field cultivation

activities (farming). They comprehensively divided the system into three main domains: the farming activities

themselves (Farming), the supporting systems (Agri-Support), and the surrounding socio-economic-political

environment (Agri-Milieu).

However, the 21st-century agricultural landscape has been fundamentally reshaped by the convergence of two

unprecedented disruptive forces. First, the digital revolution, known as Agriculture 4.0, has introduced

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 1357

technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), Artificial Intelligence (AI), big data analytics, and robotics.

These technologies not only automate tasks but also transform every operational and managerial aspect of

agriculture, turning data into a strategic asset [4].¹ Second, the global climate crisis has become an imperative

that compels the adoption of new approaches such as Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA), which explicitly aims

to balance increased productivity, strengthened adaptation, and the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions

[5][6].

This dual disruptive force does not merely add new components to the old model but fundamentally transforms

the nature of relationships and interactions among all existing components. Technology is no longer just a tool

within the Agri-Support subsystem; it has become a digital infrastructure layer that envelops and integrates the

entire system. For example, real-time data generated from on-field sensors (Farm Businesses) now serves as

direct input for AI analysis (Research), the results of which instantly inform operational decisions back on the

farm. This blurs the discrete boundaries depicted in classical models and replaces them with fast, continuous

feedback loops [3]. Likewise, sustainability is no longer merely an outcome of Policies within the Agri-Milieu;

it has become a core operational function embedded within Farming practices themselves, where techniques

such as no-till farming directly serve as climate mitigation tools [7].

Based on this new reality, a significant conceptual gap has emerged. The classical functional model, with its

static, mechanistic, and compartmentalized nature, has proven inadequate to capture the dynamic interactions,

feedback loops, and emergent properties arising from the convergence of technological disruption and ecological

pressure. This article argues that a paradigm shift is needed. The goal is to bridge this gap by proposing a

transition from a static functional component model to a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) framework, which is

better suited to represent and analyze the realities of contemporary agrifood systems.

Research Methods

LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY

This study uses a systematic literature review approach to synthesize the relationship between Agriculture 4.0

and Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) within the framework of complex adaptive systems (CAS). The literature

search process was conducted through academic databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect,

using the following main keywords: “Agriculture 4.0,” “Climate Smart Agriculture,” “Complex Adaptive

Systems,” and “Agent-Based Modeling.”

The inclusion criteria covered scientific articles published between 2010 and 2025 that discussed aspects of

digitization, resilience, and system complexity in the context of agri-food. Articles that met the criteria were then

categorized thematically to identify patterns, gaps, and points of convergence between technological and

ecological paradigms. This synthesis process aimed to build a conceptual basis for the development of modern

agricultural models based on complex adaptive systems [8][9].

Deconstruction of the Classical Functional Model: Critical Analysis and Identification of Gaps

Before proposing a new framework, it is essential to conduct a critical deconstruction of the classical functional

model that serves as the starting point of this study. The diagram “Functional Components of a Modern

Agriculture” holds undeniable historical value. It represents an important manifestation of systemic thinking in

its time, successfully expanding the focus beyond mere on-farm production activities to a broader ecosystem

encompassing commercial, non-commercial, political, economic, and cultural domains. The inclusion of

components such as “Traditions & Values” and “General Education” reflects a deep understanding that

agriculture is, in essence, a socio-technical system.

However, the main critique of this model lies in its static and mechanistic nature. It views agriculture as a

machine with separable parts that can be analyzed independently, rather than as a living organism that

continuously evolves and adapts. Essentially, the model is a snapshot of a system, and thus fails to capture the

dynamics of change, adaptation, and evolution over time. Modern literature consistently emphasizes that

agrifood systems, especially in developing countries, are highly dynamic, non-linear, and often exist in non-

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 1358

equilibrium states due to market shocks, climate change, and policy shifts [10][11].

The compartmentalization depicted by the clear dividing lines between components can also be misleading. In

reality, the interactions and feedback loops among components are key to understanding system behavior. For

example, the boundary between the Political and Commercial domains obscures the fact that price and tax

policies (Political) directly shape the viability of Farm Businesses (Farming) and the strategies of Marketing,

Processing, and Distribution (Commercial Agri-Support). These interactions are bidirectional and continuous,

rather than linear and separate cause-and-effect relationships.

Furthermore, the model is notably absent of several components that are now central to the functionality of

modern agriculture. First, there is no explicit representation of data as a functional asset. In the era of Agriculture

4.0, data is no longer a byproduct but a fundamental input, process, and output that drives precision decision-

making. Second, ecological functions such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and watershed

management are not represented as core functions of the agricultural system. The classical model tends to treat

them as externalities or secondary objectives of environmental policy, whereas approaches such as Climate-

Smart Agriculture (CSA) explicitly position ecological resilience and climate mitigation as primary pillars on

par with productivity [6][12][13][9].

Figure 1. Classic Functional Model of Modern Agriculture

To systematically highlight these gaps, the following table presents a comparison between the interpretation of

components in the classical mechanistic paradigm and their reinterpretation within the contemporary adaptive

systems paradigm.

Table 1. Comparative Analysis of Functional Agriculture Component Paradigms

Component

(from Diagram)

Interpretation in Classical

Paradigm (Mechanistic)

Reinterpretation in Contemporary Paradigm

(Adaptive System)

Farming (Farm

Businesses)

Production entities aiming to

maximize yield and profit in

isolation.

Socio-ecological units managing complexity to

simultaneously produce food, profit, and ecosystem

services, while continuously adapting to market and

climate shocks.

Agri-Support

(Research &

Extension)

Linear, top-down activities:

research generates technology,

which is then disseminated to

farmers through extension

services.

Dynamic, multi-directional learning networks: data

from the field informs AI models in real-time, creating

continuous feedback loops between practice,

innovation, and local knowledge.

Agri-Support

(Marketing &

Processing)

Post-harvest processes serving

as channels to distribute

products from producers to

consumers.

Digitally integrated value chains, where consumer

demands for traceability, food safety, and sustainability

standards actively reshape production practices at the

upstream level.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 1359

Agri-Milieu

(Political)

Top-down policies designed

by the government to regulate

the sector (e.g., subsidies,

tariffs, land regulations).

Complex multi-actor arena where policies must

navigate trade-offs among national food security,

social equity, global climate commitments (SDGs),

and the economic interests of multiple stakeholders.

Agri-Milieu

(Economic)

External market factors

(commodity prices, foreign

trade) affecting agricultural

profitability.

A tightly connected global economic system where

shocks in one part of the world (e.g., pandemics,

geopolitical conflicts, energy crises) can cause rapid

and unpredictable cascading effects across the entire

food system.

This table clearly illustrates that each component in the classical model needs to be redefined to reflect the

complexity, connectivity, and dynamism of modern agriculture. This gap is not merely a semantic issue but a

fundamental conceptual barrier to designing effective policies and innovations in the 21st century.

New Paradigm of Modern Agriculture: The Convergence of Digitalization and Sustainability

To address the identified conceptual gaps, a synthesis of the two dominant paradigms shaping modern agriculture

is necessary: Data- and technology-centered Agriculture 4.0, and resilience- and sustainability-focused Climate-

Smart Agriculture.

Digital and Data Centric Components: The Architecture of Agriculture 4.0

Agriculture 4.0, or the fourth agricultural revolution, represents a fundamental shift from mechanical and

precision farming toward intelligent, connected, and autonomous farming systems. It is not merely about using

digital technology in isolation, but about integrating cyber-physical systems that enable seamless data flow and

decision-making between the physical world (fields, crops, livestock) and the digital world (analytics platforms,

AI models). Agriculture 4.0 can be seen as an evolution of Precision Agriculture, enhanced with internet

connectivity, cloud computing capacity, and artificial intelligence to manage complexity and variability on an

unprecedented scale [4][5].

The functional architecture of Agriculture 4.0 is supported by several interconnected core technology pillars:

1. Sensors and the Internet of Things (IoT): Distributed sensor devices in fields, on machinery, or even

on livestock continuously collect real-time data on various critical parameters. This includes soil moisture

and nutrient levels, microclimate conditions, crop health, and livestock behavior and physiological status.

IoT technology enables this data to be wirelessly transmitted to central platforms for analysis.

2. Big Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence (AI): The massive and diverse volume of data collected

by IoT sensors is processed using advanced algorithms. AI and machine learning are employed to identify

patterns, make predictions (e.g., yield forecasts, pest and disease outbreak projections), and provide

recommendations for optimization (e.g., irrigation schedules and volumes, precision fertilization doses).

3. Robotics and Autonomous Systems: Autonomous tractors, drones, and field robots perform agricultural

tasks with high precision based on instructions from analytical platforms. Applications include selective

weeding, targeted pesticide spraying, and fruit harvesting according to ripeness. This not only enhances

efficiency but also reduces reliance on human labor and the large-scale use of chemical inputs.

The convergence of these technologies gives rise to new functions not identified in classical models, such as

data management and cybersecurity, predictive analytics, and automated decision-making. These functions

transform farmers from mere producers into active information managers.

Ecological and Climate Resilience Components: The Imperative of Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA)

While Agriculture 4.0 provides technological tools, Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) provides a framework of

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 1360

goals and principles. CSA is an integrated approach designed to guide the transformation of agricultural systems

in addressing dual challenges: ensuring food security and responding effectively to climate change. CSA is not

a rigid, one-size-fits-all set of practices; rather, it is an approach for identifying, evaluating, and implementing a

portfolio of technologies and practices that best fit the local agro ecological, social, and economic context.

The core functionality of CSA is built on three mutually reinforcing pillars, often referred to as the “triple win”:

1. Sustainably Increased Productivity: Consistently increasing agricultural yields and incomes to achieve

food and nutritional security without degrading the natural resource base. The goal is to produce more

from less land with minimal environmental impact.

2. Enhanced Adaptation and Resilience: Reducing the vulnerability of farming systems and farmer

livelihoods to short-term climate shocks (e.g., droughts, floods, heatwaves) as well as long-term changes

(e.g., shifting rainfall patterns, rising average temperatures).

3. Reduced/Removed Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: Lowering the carbon footprint of agricultural

activities (e.g., methane emissions from livestock, nitrous oxide from fertilizers) and, where possible,

enhancing agriculture’s role as a carbon sink through practices such as agroforestry and increasing soil

organic matter.

The relationship between Agriculture 4.0 and CSA is not separate but a strong symbiosis. A deeper analysis

shows that Agriculture 4.0 provides instrumental means data, precision, and automation—critical for

implementing CSA pillars at scale and effectively. Conversely, CSA offers a normative framework and

sustainability objectives that guide the vast potential of digital technologies, ensuring they do not focus solely

on short-term productivity maximization, which risks exacerbating ecological problems and creating over-

complex and fragile systems.

As an illustration, achieving the second CSA pillar, “Enhanced Resilience” to drought, requires highly precise

irrigation practices. These practices are realized through Agriculture 4.0 technologies, such as soil moisture

sensors (IoT) that indicate when and where water is needed, weather forecast data (big data) that assist in

scheduling, and automated drip irrigation systems (actuators) that deliver the exact amount of water directly to

the root zone. Similarly, to achieve the third CSA pillar, “Reduced Emissions,” one strategy is to reduce the

overuse of nitrogen fertilizers, which are a major source of N₂O emissions. This is efficiently accomplished

through Variable Rate Technology (VRT), a core Agriculture 4.0 application that uses sensor data and GPS to

apply fertilizer only where and in the amount the crops need. Thus, the successful implementation of CSA

heavily depends on the capabilities provided by Agriculture 4.0, making these two paradigms two sides of the

same coin in defining modern agriculture [7][12].

Toward A Complex Adaptive System Framework For Modern Agriculture

Mathematical and Computational Power of CAS Models

One of the main advantages of the Complex Adaptive System (CAS) framework is its ability to be modeled

mathematically and computationally using an agent-based modeling (ABM) approach. This approach allows

the representation of agricultural systems as a collection of autonomous agents such as farmers, markets,

government agencies, and environmental elements that interact with each other based on certain rules and

collectively produce emergent behavior [14][15].

Illustratively, the simple dynamics of an adaptive system can be written with the following equation:

t+1

+ α(I

− O

)

Where:

• S

represents the system’s state at time t (e.g., resource stock or productivity level),

• I

denotes the total inflows from agent interactions (such as innovation, information, or capital inputs),

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 1361

• O

indicates outflows or losses (such as degradation, inefficiency, or emissions), and

• α is an adaptive coefficient that reflects the system’s sensitivity to environmental feedback.

Through ABM simulations, thousands of agents can be modeled to reproduce the intricate feedback loops of

real-world agricultural systems. This computational approach allows researchers to visualize emergent

properties such as resilience, inequality, or systemic collapse that cannot be captured by linear models. Hence,

ABM provides a practical tool for testing policy interventions, forecasting adaptation trajectories, and designing

governance mechanisms under uncertainty [15].

Although the synthesis of Agriculture 4.0 and CSA provides a more accurate picture of modern agricultural

functionality, understanding it merely as two sets of new components added to the system is still insufficient.

The real challenge lies in understanding how these digital and ecological components dynamically interact with

complex, unpredictable, and often non-linear social, economic, and political systems. For this purpose, the

theoretical framework of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) offers a far more powerful analytical lens

[8][9][14][15].

CAS is defined as a system composed of many diverse autonomous agents, where each agent makes decisions

based on its own internal rules or mental models and interacts with other agents as well as with its environment.

From these decentralized local interactions, coherent collective behaviors and macro-level patterns emerge,

known as emergent properties. The system is not static; it continuously learns and adapts in response to internal

and external changes [10][16][8][14].

Figure 2. Dynamic Network Model of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

In the context of agri-food systems, the key characteristics of CAS can be identified as follows:

• Agents: Actors within the system, such as farmers, consumers, agribusiness companies, research

institutions, policymakers, and even non-human entities like pests or pathogens. Each agent has different

goals and strategies.

• Interactions: Relationships and flows between agents, which can include market transactions,

dissemination of information and technology, policy regulations, competition for resources (land, water),

and nutrient flows within the ecosystem.

• Adaptation: The ability of agents to change their behavior. Farmers may alter planting practices in

response to market price signals or new drought patterns; consumers may change food preferences due

to health or environmental awareness; governments may adjust subsidy policies in response to the

adoption of new technologies.

• Emergent Properties: System-level phenomena that cannot be predicted solely by analyzing individual

agents. Examples include the resilience (or vulnerability) of regional food systems to shocks, unexpected

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 1362

mass adoption of technologies, or the emergence of large-scale disease outbreaks. These properties

“emerge” from millions of local interactions.

• Feedback Loops: Interactions within the system often create feedback loops. For instance, increased

fertilizer use by many farmers (agent decisions) can lead to water pollution at the watershed level (system

outcome), which then triggers public protests and stricter environmental regulations (responses from

other agents), which in turn forces farmers to adjust their fertilization practices again.

Adopting a CAS lens means we must shift the visualization of the functional model from a static, box-and-pie

diagram to a more dynamic representation, such as a dynamic network diagram. In this new model:

• Nodes represent key components or capacities within the system, such as “Digital Technology,” “Climate

Resilience,” “Global Markets,” “National Policy,” “Local Knowledge,” and “Financial Capital.”

• Edges represent the relationships and flows of information, money, materials, and influence between

nodes. These edges are not static; their thickness, color, or direction can change over time to indicate the

strength or nature of the dynamic relationships.

For example, a subsidy policy for agricultural sensors (the “National Policy” node) could strengthen technology

adoption (the “Digital Technology” node), which in turn improves water-use efficiency and enhances resilience

(the “Climate Resilience” node). However, this dynamic may also inadvertently create negative emergent

properties, such as increased dependence on foreign technology suppliers, heightened cyber security risks, or

widening the digital divide between large and small farmers—a phenomenon identified as a potential over-

complexification trap. The CAS framework allows us to map and analyze these multi-dimensional interactions

and their unintended consequences [8][9][14][15].

Implications And Future Research Directions

The paradigm shift from a static component model to a complex adaptive system framework has profound

implications for stakeholders in the agricultural sector and opens up a pressing new research agenda.

For policymakers, the main implication is the need to move from siloes policymaking (e.g., agricultural policies,

environmental policies, and digital policies designed separately) toward an adaptive governance approach.

Within a CAS framework, policies are no longer seen as final technical solutions implemented top-down.

Instead, policies should be designed as “interventions” or “experiments” that can be continuously monitored.

Policymakers need to build robust feedback mechanisms to assess how the system responds to these

interventions and be prepared to adjust or revise policies based on emerging evidence.

For practitioners, including farmers and agribusiness managers, their role shifts from being “technical recipe

implementers” to “complexity managers.” Success is no longer measured solely by the ability to maximize

yields, but by the capacity to navigate uncertainty and manage trade-offs. They are required to integrate data

flows from multiple sources field sensors, global market signals, climate forecasts, government regulations to

make adaptive and timely decisions.

The adoption of a CAS framework also opens a range of interdisciplinary and critical future research agendas:

1. Modeling and Simulation: How can we develop agent-based models and other simulations to map the

dynamics of agri-food systems? Such models can help anticipate emergent properties, such as ecological

tipping points or supply chain crises, before they occur.

2. Resilience-Efficiency Trade-off Analysis: What is the inherent trade-offs between technology-driven

efficiency and overall system resilience? Research needs to identify ways to avoid the “over-

complexification trap,” where increased technological complexity inadvertently creates new

vulnerabilities.

3. Policy Design for Adaptation: How can policies are designed to foster adaptive capacity at the farmer

level without prescribing one-size-fits-all solutions? This involves research on incentives, peer-to-peer

learning networks, and data-sharing platforms.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 1363

4. Inclusion and Equity: How can we ensure that the transition to Agriculture 4.0 integrated with CSA is

inclusive and does not widen the gap between capital-intensive large-scale farmers and resource-

constrained smallholders? Urgent research is needed to understand adoption barriers and design strategies

for a just transition [1].

CONCLUSION

This study has traced the evolution of the conceptual understanding of modern agriculture, beginning with a

critical deconstruction of the classical functional model, which is static and mechanistic. It has been shown that,

while historically valuable, this model is no longer adequate to capture the realities of contemporary agri-food

systems shaped by dual disruptive forces: the digital revolution (Agriculture 4.0) and the climate sustainability

imperative (CSA). Through the synthesis of these two paradigms, a symbiotic relationship emerges in which

digital technologies provide the means to implement sustainability objectives with precision and at scale.

However, the central argument of this study is that a truly holistic understanding requires going a step further:

adopting the Complex Adaptive System (CAS) framework. Understanding modern agriculture can no longer

be reduced to a list of separate functional components. Instead, it must be understood as a dynamic network of

interacting autonomous agents, where collective behavior, continuous adaptation, and unpredictable emergent

properties are defining features. Modern agriculture is a continuously evolving system at the complex

intersection of technology, ecology, economy, and society.

Adopting the CAS lens is not merely an academic exercise. It is an essential conceptual prerequisite for

navigating inherent uncertainties, managing unavoidable trade-offs, and ultimately designing policy

interventions and technological innovations capable of building a food system that is truly productive, resilient,

and sustainable for future generations.

REFERENCES

1. R. Fragomeli, A. Annunziata, and G. Punzo, “Promoting the Transition towards Agriculture 4.0: A

Systematic Literature Review on Drivers and Barriers,” Sustain. , vol. 16, no. 6, 2024, doi:

10.3390/su16062425.

2. A. Raihan, “A review of recent advances, challenges, and potential future directions of climate-smart

agriculture,” Int. Conf. Clim. Agric., no. May, 2024.

3. S. S. M. S. S. A. Akram, “Application Of Modern Techniques In Agriculture Production: A

Comprehensive Review Section A-Review Paper Eur,” Eur. Chem. Bull., vol. 12, no. 13, pp. 1722–

1731, 2024, doi: 10.53555/ecb/2023.12.Si13.278.

4. P. K. , Paul, “Agricultural 4.0: The Root for Agricultural Transformation— A Scientific Review,”

Int. J. Inf. Sci. Comput., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2024, doi: 10.30954/2348-7437.1.2024.2.

5. G. Sponchioni, M. Vezzoni, A. Bacchetti, and M. Pavesi, “The 4.0 revolution in agriculture: a multi-

perspective definition,” XXIV Summer Sch. “Francesco Turco” – Ind. Syst. Eng., pp. 143–149,

2018.

6. W. B. Group, “Climate-smart agriculture,” 2024.

7. X. Chen, “The role of modern agricultural technologies in improving agricultural productivity and

land use efficiency,” Front. Plant Sci., vol. 16, no. September, pp. 1–19, 2025, doi:

10.3389/fpls.2025.1675657.

8. J. H. Holland, “Complex Adaptive Systems,” Daedalus, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 17–30, 1992, [Online].

Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20025416.

9. J. H. Miller and S. E. Page, “Complex adaptive systems: An introduction to computational models

of social life,” Complex Adapt. Syst. An Introd. to Comput. Model. Soc. Life, no. August 2008, pp.

1–263, 2009, doi: 10.1080/01488370802162558.

10. J. Thompson et al., “Agri-food System Dynamics: pathways to sustainability in an era of

uncertainty,” STEPS Work. Pap. 4, no. January 2017, p. 79, 2007.

11. J. Thompson et al., “Agri-food System Dynamics: pathways to sustainability in an era of

uncertainty,” STEPS Work. Pap. 4, p. 79, 2007.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025

www.rsisinternational.org

Page 1364

12. J. W. Jeff Schahczenski, Mark Schonbeck, AGRICULTURE AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Policy

Imperatives and Opportunities to Help Producers Meet the Challenge, no. November. 2019.

13. H. Renting et al., “Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review of conceptual approaches and

prospects for an integrative transitional framework,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 90, no. SUPPL. 2, pp.

S112–S123, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.014.

14. M. A. Janssen, E. Ostrom, M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom, “Empirically Based , Agent-based models,”

Ecol. Socienty, vol. 11, no. 2, 2006, [Online]. Available:

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art37/%0A%0A.

15. C. A. Filatova, T., Verburg, P. H., Parker, D. C., & Stannard, “Spatial agent-based models for socio-

ecological systems: challenges and prospects,” Environ. Model. Softw., vol. 45, pp. 1–7, 2013, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.03.017.

16. M. C. Nesheim, M. Oria, and P. T. Yih, A framework for assessing effects of the food system. 2015.