IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risk, labour and climatic uncertainty in crop rotation optimization


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


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

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    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, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 28(1), pages 17-36, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Crop Production/Industries;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    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:ags:eaae14:183036. 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: (AgEcon Search). 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.