IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae14/183036.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risk, labour and climatic uncertainty in crop rotation optimization

Author

Listed:
  • Dayde, Charlotte
  • Roussy, Caroline
  • Chaib, Karim
  • Ridier, Aude

Abstract

The goal of this article is to give some guidelines when modeling farmers’ rotation choices through optimization models. To improve the accuracy of such models, researchers can i) sophisticate the utility function or ii) specify the production function and the constraints of the model. Based on an interactive approach involving farmers, a preliminary discrete determinist model is built and tested under changing crops prices. Then, two discrete stochastic modeling approaches are compared; in the first one, yield risk is accounted as main source of income variability and, in the second one, risk is incorporated as a stochastic constraint of monthly inaccessible field days. Results show that risk aversion little affects rotation choice. A stochastic labour constraint accounting for field inaccessibility has considerable more impact on crops choice, especially in presence of imperfect labour market.

Suggested Citation

  • Dayde, Charlotte & Roussy, Caroline & Chaib, Karim & Ridier, Aude, 2014. "Risk, labour and climatic uncertainty in crop rotation optimization," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183036, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae14:183036
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.183036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/183036/files/EAAE-2014_Dayde.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.183036?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaplowitz, Michael D. & Hoehn, John P., 2001. "Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 237-247, February.
    2. G Lien & JB Hardaker, 2001. "Whole-farm planning under uncertainty: impacts of subsidy scheme and utility function on portfolio choice in Norwegian agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(1), pages 17-36, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jan Hanousek & Randall K. Filer, 2001. "Consumers' Opinion of Inflation Bias Due to Quality Improvements in Transition in the Czech Republic," Development and Comp Systems 0110009, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. CARPENTIER, Alain & GOHIN, Alexandre & SCKOKAI, Paolo & THOMAS, Alban, 2015. "Economic modelling of agricultural production: past advances and new challenges," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 96(1), March.
    3. Gürlük, Serkan & Ward, Frank A., 2009. "Integrated basin management: Water and food policy options for Turkey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2666-2678, August.
    4. Libor Dusek & Lubomir Lizal (ed.), 2011. "CERGE-EI Tackles Transition," CERGE-EI Books, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague, edition 1, number b05, May.
    5. Acs, Szvetlana & Berentsen, Paul B.M. & Huirne, Ruud & van Asseldonk, Marcel, 2009. "Effect of yield and price risk on conversion from conventional to organic farming," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-19.
    6. Hanousek, Jan & Filer, Randall K, 2004. "Consumers' Opinion of Inflation Bias Due to Quality Improvements," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(1), pages 235-254, October.
    7. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Martiskainen, Mari & Hook, Andrew & Baker, Lucy, 2020. "Beyond cost and carbon: The multidimensional co-benefits of low carbon transitions in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    8. Nyassoke Titi Gaston Clément & Jules Sadefo-Kamdem & Louis Aimé Fono, 2019. "Dynamic Optimal Hedge Ratio Design when Price and Production are stochastic with Jump," Working Papers hal-02417401, HAL.
    9. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
    10. Susanne Neuner & Thomas Knoke, 2017. "Economic consequences of altered survival of mixed or pure Norway spruce under a dryer and warmer climate," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 519-531, February.
    11. Wening Sarwosri, Arieska & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "Can crop diversification of perennial crop by smallholder farmers explained by risk attitudes and time preferences?," EFForTS Discussion Paper Series 28, University of Goettingen, Collaborative Research Centre 990 "EFForTS, Ecological and Socioeconomic Functions of Tropical Lowland Rainforest Transformation Systems (Sumatra, Indonesia)".
    12. Alistair Munro, 2020. "Using experimental manipulation of questionnaire design and a Kenyan panel to test for the reliability of reported perceptions of climate change and adaptation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 1081-1105, October.
    13. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2021. "On Adding-Up as a Validity Criterion for Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(3), pages 587-601, November.
    14. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O. & Plieninger, Tobias & Turner, Nancy J. & Alexander, Karen A., 2014. "Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 145-156.
    15. Ridier, Aude & Ben El Ghali, Mohamed & Nguyen, G. & Kephaliacos, Charilaos, 2013. "The role of risk aversion and labor constraints in the adoption of low input practices supported by the CAP green payments in cash crop farms," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 94(02), pages 195-219, June.
    16. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 2002. "The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 13-31, February.
    17. Svedsater, Henrik, 2007. "Ambivalent statements in contingent valuation studies: inclusive response formats and giving respondents time to think," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(1), pages 1-17.
    18. Lien, Gudbrand & Hardaker, J. Brian & Asseldonk, Marcel A.P.M. van & Richardson, James W., 2009. "Risk programming and sparse data: how to get more reliable results," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 101(1-2), pages 42-48, June.
    19. Balaine, Lorraine & Gallai, Nicola & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos, 2020. "Trading off environmental goods for compensations: Insights from traditional and deliberative valuation methods in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    20. Antoine Leblois & Philippe Quirion & Benjamin Sultan, 2013. "Price vs. weather shock hedging for cash crops: ex ante evaluation for cotton producers in Cameroon," Working Papers hal-00796528, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eaae14:183036. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.