Determinants of risk behaviour: effects of perceived risks and risk attitude on farmer’s adoption of risk management strategies

Winsen, Frankwin van; Mey, Yann de; Lauwers, Ludwig; Passel, Steven Van; Vancauteren, Mark; Wauters, Erwin

doi:10.1080/13669877.2014.940597

Cited by 140 publications

(170 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

130

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to determine the role of risk aversion on life satisfaction, we developed a psychometric scale reflecting risk attitudes, based on a number of attitudinal statements reflecting the importance of general farming related risks. The statements draw on a variety of previous work (see Bard and Barry, ; Pennings and Garcia, ; Xu et al ., ; Winsen et al ., ) and are designed to assess farmers’ attitudes towards general farming related risks. Factor analysis is used to reduce these data to a latent construct reflecting farmers’ degree of risk aversion.…”

Section: Risk Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Worth the Risk? The Behavioural Path to Well‐Being

Howley¹,

Dillon²,

Heanue³

et al. 2016

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is increasing interest in the ‘economics of happiness’, reflected in the volume of articles appearing in mainstream economics journals exploring the major determinants of self‐reported well‐being. We contribute by exploring the factors influencing how satisfied farmers are with their quality of life. We find that farm income, subjective perceptions relating to the adequacy of household income, debt, health and personal characteristics such as age and relationship status are significantly associated with farmers’ self‐reported life satisfaction. While significantly associated with farm income, farm structural variables such as farm size, farm type and the presence of a farm successor were not found to be significantly related with life satisfaction. Our results also suggest that farmers who are more risk averse enjoy significantly lower levels of both life satisfaction and farm income than their more risk seeking or risk neutral counterparts. We suggest that, in the same way that risk aversion inhibits farmers from making choices that could lead to an increase in their income, it may also constrain farmers (and the wider public at large) from engaging in certain types of behaviours that could lead to an increase in their self‐reported quality of life. Finally, we find that while farm income is significantly related to self‐reported life satisfaction, the direct correlation between these variables is weak, suggesting that farmer life satisfaction can be distinct from business success.

show abstract

Section: Risk Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Worth the Risk? The Behavioural Path to Well‐Being

Howley¹,

Dillon²,

Heanue³

et al. 2016

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Veterinarians play a major role as key informants on the BS for cattle holders; indeed, they consider their veterinary practitioner as the main source of information and adopt BSM based on veterinary advices (Gunn, Heffernan, Hall, McLeod, & Hovi, ; Heffernan, Nielsen, Thomson, & Gunn, ; Sayers et al., ). On the other hand, veterinarians also represent an important risk factor in terms of disease spread, as many studies have listed visitors, and more specifically professional visitors such as veterinarians, as a key risk factor in terms of bio‐exclusion (Anderson, ; Brennan & Christley, ; Canadian Food Inspection Agency, ; Maunsell & Donovan, ; Mee, Geraghty, O'Neill, & More, ; NADIS, ; Nöremark, Frössling, & Lewerin, ; Sayers et al., ; van Schaik et al., ; van Winsen et al., ). Meanwhile, an ongoing survey implemented in Belgian cattle farms (unpublished data) confirmed that most cattle holders were not feeling comfortable in asking their veterinarians to wear clean and/or specific work clothes or boots when visiting their premises; they prefer relying on their professionalism in that regard.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rural veterinarian's perception and practices in terms of biosecurity across three European countries

Renault

Humblet

Moons

et al. 2017

Transbound Emerg Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The implementation of biosecurity measures in the animal health and production context is quite broad and aims at limiting the risk of introduction and spread of diseases. Veterinarians play a major role in biosecurity as key informants on the subject for cattle holders, key players in terms of disease prevention/control and eradication programs, as well as key risk factor in terms of disease dissemination. Many biosecurity studies have highlighted professional visitors such as veterinary practitioners as representing a high-risk factor in terms of disease introduction in animal facilities but, to date, very few studies have focused on the implementation level of biosecurity measures by veterinarians. An online survey was implemented in three European countries (Belgium, France and Spain) to assess the behaviour of rural veterinarians towards biosecurity, as well as their implementation level of the biosecurity measures. A descriptive analysis of data and a scoring system were applied to assess the implementation level of measures. The influence of different factors on the implementation level of biosecurity measures was investigated through a negative binomial regression model. The study identified different strengths, weaknesses, possible constraints and solutions in terms of veterinary perspectives. Veterinarians are considered as key informants by the farmers and could therefore play a more active role in terms of guidance and improvement of biosecurity at farm level. Based on the survey outcomes, two factors seemed to influence significantly the implementation level of measures: the country where he/she practices and the veterinarian's perception level of biosecurity. The biosecurity stages with the lowest application level, therefore representing the biggest threats, were bio-exclusion (increasing the risk of disease introduction) and biocontainment (increasing the risk of inter-herd transmission).

show abstract

“…Such selection criterion limits the representativeness, as the included farms are more likely to have improved their BS levels to eradicate the disease. In addition, only a few studies investigated the reasons why cattle farmers do not implement BSM (Brennan & Christley, ; Gunn et al., ; Heffernan, Nielsen, Thomson, & Gunn, ; Hoe & Ruegg, ; Ritter et al., ; Toma et al., ; van Winsen et al., ). The present study was more representative for all Belgian cattle farms and investigated the reasons of non‐implementation, which are key elements to better understand the farmers’ decision‐making process and the constraints to address in order to effectively improve BS level of cattle farms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biosecurity practices in Belgian cattle farming: Level of implementation, constraints and weaknesses

Renault

Damiaans

Sarrazin

et al. 2018

Transbound Emerg Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last few years, a shift from curative towards preventive medicine occurred in the livestock sector. This led to an increased importance of biosecurity to better control infectious diseases by preventing their introduction and/or reducing their spread. Farmers are the main responsible actors of biosecurity measures (BSM). Existing studies report a low implementation level of BSM by the cattle farmers. Barriers such as cost, usefulness, importance, workload and lack of knowledge were investigated but the decision-making process of farmers related to a given BSM is not yet clarified. The objectives of this study were to (i) assess the level of implementation of BSM in cattle farms, (ii) assess the correlation between the importance that farmers give to a BSM and its effective implementation and (iii) identify the main reasons of non-implementation. A randomized survey was implemented in Belgium from December 2016 up to April 2017 with face-to-face interviews conducted in 100 Belgian farms. A descriptive analysis of data was performed using Microsoft Excel and Stata14 . Chi-square and Spearman's rank correlation tests, respectively, allowed comparing implementation levels in dairy herds vs. beef herds and investigating the correlation between the importance that farmers give to a BSM and its implementation level. Biosecurity measures were poorly implemented to prevent disease introduction through direct contact and almost not to avoid indirect transmission. Some measures showed a significant difference in terms of implementation level between beef and dairy herds. A positive correlation was highlighted between the importance that farmers give to a BSM and its actual effective implementation. Perceived lack of efficiency, feasibility and usefulness are the reasons most often mentioned for non-implementation. Other factors potentially influencing the decision-making process should be further investigated and clarified. Evidence-based studies would be useful to convince the farmers of the need of implementing BSM.

show abstract

Determinants of risk behaviour: effects of perceived risks and risk attitude on farmer’s adoption of risk management strategies

Cited by 140 publications

References 64 publications

Worth the Risk? The Behavioural Path to Well‐Being

Worth the Risk? The Behavioural Path to Well‐Being

Rural veterinarian's perception and practices in terms of biosecurity across three European countries

Biosecurity practices in Belgian cattle farming: Level of implementation, constraints and weaknesses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About