IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/inrasl/207985.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The adoption of innovative cropping systems under price and production risks: a dynamic model of crop rotation choice

Author

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

Abstract

We investigate the role played by both production and market risks on farmers’ decision to adopt long rotations considered as innovative cropping systems. We build a multi-period dynamic farm model which arbitrates each year between conventional and innovative rotations. With discrete stochastic programming, the production risk is accounted for as an intra-year risk, yearly farming operations being declined according to a decision tree where probabilities are assigned. The simulations for a sample of 13 farmers who are currently experimenting this innovation in south-western France, show that substantive sunk costs act as incentives to remain in the long rotation when the farmer is supported for his engagement. They also show that both a high risk aversion and a highly positive market trend tend to slow down the conversion towards innovative systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Ridier, Aude & Chaib, Karim & Roussy, Caroline, 2012. "The adoption of innovative cropping systems under price and production risks: a dynamic model of crop rotation choice," Working Papers 207985, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:inrasl:207985
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.207985
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/207985/files/WP%20SMART-LERECO%2012-07.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.207985?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. Quang Nguyen & Colin Camerer & Tomomi Tanaka, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences Linking Experimental and Household Data from Vietnam," Post-Print halshs-00547090, HAL.
    2. Marra, Michele & Pannell, David J. & Abadi Ghadim, Amir, 2003. "The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 215-234.
    3. Isik, Murat & Khanna, Madhu & Winter-Nelson, Alex, 2001. "Sequential Investment In Site-Specific Crop Management Under Output Price Uncertainty," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Blazy, Jean-Marc & Tixier, Philippe & Thomas, Alban & Ozier-Lafontaine, Harry & Salmon, Frédéric & Wery, Jacques, 2010. "BANAD: A farm model for ex ante assessment of agro-ecological innovations and its application to banana farms in Guadeloupe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(4), pages 221-232, May.
    5. Graeme J. Doole & David J. Pannell, 2008. "Optimisation of a Large, Constrained Simulation Model using Compressed Annealing," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 188-206, February.
    6. Jean-Paul Chavas, 2008. "On the economics of agricultural production ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(4), pages 365-380, December.
    7. Abadi Ghadim, Amir K. & Pannell, David J., 1999. "A conceptual framework of adoption of an agricultural innovation," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 145-154, October.
    8. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    9. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer & Quang Nguyen, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 557-571, March.
    10. Trebeck, David B. & Hardaker, J. Brian, 1972. "The Integrated Use Of Simulation And Stochastic Programming For Whole Farm Planning Under Risk," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 16(2), pages 1-12, August.
    11. Carpentier, Alain & Gohin, Alexandre & Letort, Elodie, 2011. "Accounting for agronomic rotations in crop production: A theoretical investigation and an empirical modeling framework," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103431, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. David A. Hennessy, 2006. "On Monoculture and the Structure of Crop Rotations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 900-914.
    14. Szvetlana Acs & Paul Berentsen & Ruud Huirne & Marcel van Asseldonk, 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 393-411, July.
    15. Apland, Jeffrey & Hauer, Grant, 1993. "Discrete Stochastic Programming: Concepts, Examples And A Review Of Empirical Applications," Staff Papers 13793, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    16. David B. Trebeck & J. Brian Hardaker, 1972. "The Integrated Use Of Simulation And Stochastic Programming For Whole Farm Planning Under Risk," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 16(2), pages 115-126, August.
    17. Kenneth A. Baerenklau & Keith C. Knapp, 2007. "Dynamics of Agricultural Technology Adoption: Age Structure, Reversibility, and Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 190-201.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Canales, Elizabeth & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery & Peterson, Jeffrey, 2015. "Estimating farmers’ risk attitudes and risk premiums for the adoption of conservation practices under different contractual arrangements: A stated choice experiment," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205640, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Ridier, Aude & Chaib, Karim & Roussy, Caroline, 2016. "A Dynamic Stochastic Programming model of crop rotation choice to test the adoption of long rotation under price and production risks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(1), pages 270-279.

    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. Ridier, Aude & Chaib, Karim & Roussy, Caroline, 2016. "A Dynamic Stochastic Programming model of crop rotation choice to test the adoption of long rotation under price and production risks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(1), pages 270-279.
    2. Wu, Haixia & Ge, Yan & Li, Jianping, 2023. "Uncertainty, time preference and households’ adoption of rooftop photovoltaic technology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    3. Aniseh S. Bro, 2020. "Climate Change Adaptation, Food Security, and Attitudes toward Risk among Smallholder Coffee Farmers in Nicaragua," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-17, August.
    4. Wu, Haixia & Li, Jianping & Ge, Yan, 2022. "Ambiguity preference, social learning and adoption of soil testing and formula fertilization technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    5. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Chiputwa, Brian & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Do Changing Probabilities or Payoffs in Lottery-Choice Experiments Affect Risk Preference Outcomes? Evidence from Rural Uganda," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(2), May.
    6. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    7. Sophie Clot & Charlotte Y. Stanton & Marc Willinger, 2017. "Are impatient farmers more risk-averse? Evidence from a lab-in-the-field experiment in rural Uganda," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(2), pages 156-169, January.
    8. Rieger, Matthias, 2015. "Risk aversion, time preference and health production: Theory and empirical evidence from Cambodia," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 1-15.
    9. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    10. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    11. Chenchen Yang & Jianhua Wang, 2019. "Evaluation of Policies on Inappropriate Treatment of Dead Hogs from the Perspective of Loss Aversion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-20, August.
    12. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    13. Nguyen, Quang & Villeval, Marie Claire & Xu, Hui, 2012. "Trust and Trustworthiness under the Prospect Theory: A Field Experiment in Vietnam," IZA Discussion Papers 6851, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Menkhoff, Lukas & Sakha, Sahra, 2014. "Multiple-item risk measures," Kiel Working Papers 1980, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    16. Bernd Hardeweg & Lukas Menkhoff & Hermann Waibel, 2013. "Experimentally Validated Survey Evidence on Individual Risk Attitudes in Rural Thailand," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(4), pages 859-888.
    17. Jindrich Matousek & Tomas Havranek & Zuzana Irsova, 2022. "Individual discount rates: a meta-analysis of experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 318-358, February.
    18. Anna Conte & Peter G Moffatt & Mary Riddel, 2019. "The Multivariate Random Preference Estimatorfor Switching Multiple Price List Data," University of East Anglia School of Economics Working Paper Series 2019-04, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    19. Ward, Patrick S. & Singh, Vartika, 2013. "Risk and Ambiguity Preferences and the Adoption of New Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from Field Experiments in Rural India," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150794, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Risk and Uncertainty;

    JEL classification:

    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
    • D0 - Microeconomics - - General
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation

    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:inrasl:207985. 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/inrapfr.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.