IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmer perceptions of risk in 2017


  • Nathanael M. Thompson
  • Courtney Bir
  • Nicole J. Olynk Widmar


Agribusinesses seeking to serve farmer clientele, as well as those buying products from the farm for processing or transport, need to understand the factors impacting on‐farm decision making. A best–worst choice experiment was employed to determine farmer perceptions of five general risk areas: production, marketing, financial, human, and legal risks. Results indicate, on average, farmers were more concerned with traditional farm business risks (production, financial, and marketing risks) relative to human and legal risks when managing their farm businesses. However, significant heterogeneity in perceptions of risk areas was observed. A latent class model identified three segments of producers that were characterized by preferences for traditional farm business risks, well‐balanced preferences for all five risks, and a large preference share for human risks. Understanding how different farm types and managers with varying demographics prioritize risk areas is helpful for targeting specific risk management programming and support services to relevant farm audiences. [EconLit citations: Q1].

Suggested Citation

  • Nathanael M. Thompson & Courtney Bir & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar, 2019. "Farmer perceptions of risk in 2017," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(2), pages 182-199, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:35:y:2019:i:2:p:182-199
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.21566

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Reimer, Aaron & Downey, W. Scott & Akridge, Jay T., 2009. "Market Segmentation Practices of Retail Crop Input Firms," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 12(1), pages 1-34, February.
    2. Vera Bitsch & Nicole J. Olynk, 2007. "Skills Required of Managers in Livestock Production: Evidence from Focus Group Research," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4), pages 749-764.
    3. Alexander, Corinne E. & Wilson, Christine A. & Foley, Daniel H., 2005. "Agricultural Input Market Segments: Who Is Buying What?," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 23(2), pages 1-20.
    4. Wolf, Christopher A. & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2013. "Dairy Farmer Policy Preferences," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-15, August.
    5. Adjemian, Michael & Brorsen, B. Wade & Hahn, William & Saitone, Tina L. & Sexton, Richard J., 2016. "Thinning Markets in U.S. Agriculture," Economic Information Bulletin 232928, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Komarek, Adam M. & De Pinto, Alessandro & Smith, Vincent H., 2020. "A review of types of risks in agriculture: What we know and what we need to know," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:wly:agribz:v:35:y:2019:i:2:p:182-199. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley Content Delivery). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.