IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v73y2025i3p292-308.html

Classifying agricultural risk management strategies: A cluster analysis approach

Author

Listed:
  • Marius Michels
  • Hendrik Wever
  • Tim Ölkers
  • Jonas Adrian Rieling
  • Richard Barenbräuker
  • Oliver Mußhoff

Abstract

This study develops a comprehensive typology of farmers' risk management strategies, simultaneously considering both market‐based (e.g., insurance) and on‐farm instruments (e.g., high equity ratios). Using Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) clustering on data collected from 228 German farmers in Saxony during 2022, we identify two distinct farmer types with different approaches to risk management. Our analysis reveals that risk predictability is associated with instrument choice, while resource availability moderates management responses. This relationship manifests in distinct patterns: Large‐scale professional farmers develop comprehensive systems combining formal risk management instruments with infrastructural solutions, particularly for highly predictable risks, reflecting their market exposure and resource capacity. In contrast, small‐scale diversified farmers opt for more flexible approaches that allow for adaptation to both predictable and less predictable risks while aligning with their resource constraints. The results have implications for agricultural policy, insurance companies, farmers, and advisory services, indicating that effective risk management support should acknowledge the rationality of different approaches and focus on reducing implementation barriers specific to different farm types rather than promoting standardized solutions. Cette étude développe une typologie complète des stratégies de gestion des risques des agriculteurs, en considérant simultanément les instruments basés sur le marché (par ex. : assurances) et les instruments à la ferme (par ex. : ratios de fonds propres élevés). En utilisant le clustering PAM (Partitioning Around Medoids) sur des données recueillies auprès de 228 agriculteurs allemands en Saxe en 2022, nous identifions deux types distincts d'agriculteurs avec des approches différentes de la gestion des risques. Notre analyse révèle que la prévisibilité des risques est associée au choix des instruments, tandis que la disponibilité des ressources modère les réponses en matière de gestion. Cette relation se manifeste par des schémas distincts : les grands exploitants agricoles professionnels développent des systèmes complets combinant des instruments formels de gestion des risques avec des solutions structurelles, notamment pour les risques hautement prévisibles, reflétant leur exposition au marché et leur capacité en ressources. En revanche, les petits exploitants diversifiés privilégient des approches plus flexibles qui permettent une adaptation à la fois aux risques prévisibles et moins prévisibles tout en tenant compte de leurs contraintes en ressources. Les résultats ont des implications pour les politiques agricoles, les compagnies d'assurance, les agriculteurs et les services de conseil, indiquant que le soutien efficace à la gestion des risques devrait reconnaître la rationalité des différentes approches et se concentrer sur la réduction des obstacles spécifiques à la mise en œuvre pour différents types d'exploitations, plutôt que de promouvoir des solutions standardisées.

Suggested Citation

  • Marius Michels & Hendrik Wever & Tim Ölkers & Jonas Adrian Rieling & Richard Barenbräuker & Oliver Mußhoff, 2025. "Classifying agricultural risk management strategies: A cluster analysis approach," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 73(3), pages 292-308, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:73:y:2025:i:3:p:292-308
    DOI: 10.1111/cjag.70006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.70006
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/cjag.70006?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:bla:canjag:v:73:y:2025:i:3:p:292-308. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.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.