Participation in a mutual fund covering losses due to pest infestation: analyzing key predictors of farmers’ interest through machine learning
In: International Food and Agribusiness Management ReviewSearch for other papers by Lisa Höschle in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Samuele Trestini in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Elisa Giampietri in
Current site
Google Scholar
In the context of intensified Halyomorpha halys infestations in Italy, this paper provides a very first investigation of key factors that drive fruit growers’ intention to participate in a mutual fund (MF) compensating production losses due to this invasive insect. Data were collected in Veneto Region in Italy, where many farmers suffered H. halys attacks, and interest in the development of innovative risk management tools is growing. The study investigates how behavioral (risk attitude, risk perception) and personality factors (self-efficacy, locus of control) explain farmers’ intention to participate in the MF, additionally controlling for a large number of primary control data (e.g. farmers’ perceptions and characteristics, farm characteristics). The study assumes approximate sparsity and applies the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), a machine learning technique which represents an original approach for research on risk management. Our empirical analysis reveals that farmers’ intention to participate in the MF is driven by an interplay between the perceived risk of production loss, the benefits from participation in the fund, and the farm age, rather than by socio-economic characteristics of the farm. Results provide valuable insights for policymakers and local stakeholders to implement a mutual fund close to the farmers’ needs.
-
Bandura, A. and R. Wood. 1989. Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56(5): 805. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.56.5.805
-
Baylis, K., Heckelei, T. and H. Storm. 2021. Machine learning in agricultural economics. In Handbook of Agricultural Economics 5: 4551-4612. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hesagr.2021.10.007
-
Belloni, A., V. Chernozhukov, I. Fernández-Val and C. Hansen. 2013. Program evaluation and causal inference with high-dimensional data. Econometrica 85(1): 233-298. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA12723
-
Cao, R., A. Carpentier and E. Zurich. 2011. Measuring farmers’ risk aversion: the unknown properties of the value function. Paper prepared for presentation at the EAAE 2011 Congress: Change and Uncertainty, Challenges for Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 30 August-2 September 2011.
-
Chernozhukov, V., C. Hansen and M. Spindler. 2016. High-dimensional metrics in R. Available at: http://R-Forge.R-project.org. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1603.01700
-
Coletta, A., E. Giampietri, F.G. Santeramo, S. Severini and S. Trestini. 2018. A preliminary test on risk and ambiguity attitudes, and time preferences in decisions under uncertainty: towards a better explanation of participation in crop insurance schemes. Bio-based and Applied Economics 7(3): 265-277. https://doi.org/10.13128/bae-7679
-
Cordier, J. and F.G. Santeramo. 2019. Mutual funds and the income stabilisation tool in the EU: retrospect and prospects. EuroChoices 19(1): 53-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12210
-
Dohmen, T., A. Falk, D. Huffman, U. Sunde, J. Schupp and G.G. Wagner. 2011. Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association 9(3): 522-550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x
-
Elkind, P.D. 2008. Perceptions of risk, stressors, and locus of control influence intentions to practice safety behaviors in agriculture. Journal of Agromedicine 12: 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10599240801985167
-
Enjolras, G. and P. Sentis. 2011. Crop insurance policies and purchases in France. Agricultural Economics 42(4): 475-486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2011.00535.x
-
European Commission (EC). 2013. Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. Official Journal of the European Union L 347, 20.12.2013: 487-548.
-
European Commission (EC). 2017. Regulation (EU) 2017/2393 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2017 amending Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (EU) No 1306/2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy, (EU) No 1307/2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy, (EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and (EU) No 652/2014 laying down provisions for the management of expenditure relating to the food chain, animal health and animal welfare, and relating to plant health and plant reproductive material. Official Journal of the European Union L 350, 29.12.2017: 15-49.
-
European Commission (EC). 2020. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/465 of 30 March 2020 on emergency measures in support of fruit and vegetables producer organisations in the Italian regions of Emilia Romagna, Veneto, Trentino Alto-Adige, Lombardia, Piemonte and Friuli Venezia Giulia in view of the damage caused to their production by the Asian brown marmorated stink bug (Halyomorpha halys). Official Journal of the European Union L 98, 31.3.2020: 26-29.
-
Farrin, K., M.J. Miranda and E. O’Donoghue. 2016. How do time and money affect agricultural insurance uptake? A new approach to farm risk management analysis. USDA Economic Research Report No. 40. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs
-
Friedman, J., T. Hastie and R. Tibshirani. 2010. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. Journal of Statistical Software 33(1), 1.
-
Giampietri, E., X. Yu and S. Trestini. 2020. The role of trust and perceived barriers on farmer’s intention to adopt risk management tools. Bio-based and Applied Economics 9(1): 1-24. https://doi.org/10.13128/bae-8416
-
Graskemper, V., X. Yu and J.H. Feil. 2021. Farmer typology and implications for policy design – an unsupervised machine learning approach. Land Use Policy 103: 105328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105328
-
Graskemper, V., X. Yu and J.H. Feil. 2022. Values of farmers-evidence from Germany. Journal of Rural Studies 89:13-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.11.005
-
Hastie, T., J. Qian and K. Tay. 2021. An introduction to glmnet. Available at: https://glmnet.stanford.edu/articles/glmnet.html
-
Haye, T., T. Gariepy, K. Hoelmer, J.P. Rossi, J.C. Streito, X. Tassus and N. Desneux. 2015. Range expansion of the invasive brown marmorated stinkbug, Halyomorpha halys: an increasing threat to field, fruit, and vegetable crops worldwide. Journal of Pest Science 88(4): 665-673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-015-0670-2
-
Hellerstein, D., N. Higgins and J. Horowitz. 2013. The predictive power of risk preference measures for farming decisions. European Review of Agricultural Economics 40: 807-833. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbs043
-
Iyer, P., M. Bozzola, S. Hirsch, M. Meraner and R. Finger. 2020. Measuring farmer risk preferences in Europe: a systematic review. Journal of Agricultural Economics 71(1): 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12325
-
Knapp, L., Wuepper, D. and R. Finger. 2021. Preferences, personality, aspirations, and farmer behavior. Agricultural Economics 52(6): 901-913. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12669
-
Lee, J.C., A.J. Dreves, A.M. Cave, S. Kawai, R. Isaacs, J.C. Miller, S. van Timmeren, S. and D.J. Bruck. 2015. Infestation of wild and ornamental noncrop fruits by Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 108(2): 117-129. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/sau014
-
Lesmeister, C. 2015. Mastering machine learning with R: master machine learning techniques with R to deliver insights for complex projects (1st ed.). Packt Publishing Ltd.
-
Liesivaara, P. and S. Myyrä. 2017. The demand for public-private crop insurance and government disaster relief. Journal of Policy Modeling 39(1): 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2016.12.001
-
MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, J.A. Royle, K.H. Pollock, L.L. Bailey and J.E. Hines. 2018. Fundamental principals of statistical inference. In: D.I. MacKenzie, J.D. Nichols, J.A. Royle, K.H. Pollock, L.L. Bailey and J.E. Hines (eds.). Occupancy estimation and modeling (2nd ed.). Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 71-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407197-1.00004-1
-
Maruejols, L.L., L. Höschle and X. Yu. 2022. Vietnam between economic growth and ethnic divergence: a LASSO examination of income-mediated energy consumption. Energy Economics 114: 106222.
-
Menapace, L., G. Colson and R. Raffaelli. 2013. Risk aversion, subjective beliefs, and farmer risk management strategies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95(2): 384-389. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aas107
-
Menapace, L., G. Colson and R. Raffaelli. 2016. A comparison of hypothetical risk attitude elicitation instruments for explaining farmer crop insurance purchases. European Review of Agricultural Economics 43(1): 113-135. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbv013
-
Meraner, M. and R. Finger. 2019. Risk perceptions, preferences, and management strategies: evidence from a case study using German livestock farmers. Journal of Risk Research 22(1): 110-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1351476
-
Meuwissen, M.P., Y.D. Mey and M. van Asseldonk. 2018. Prospects for agricultural insurance in Europe. Agricultural Finance Review 78: 174-182. https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-04-2018-093
-
Möhring N., S. Gaba and R. Finger. 2019. Quantity based indicators fail to identify extreme pesticide risks. Science of the Total Environment 646: 503-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.287
-
Nielsen, T., A. Keil and M. Zeller. 2013. Assessing Farmers’ risk preferences and their determinants in a marginal upland area of Vietnam: a comparison of multiple elicitation techniques. Agricultural Economics 44: 255-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12009
-
Ogurtsov, V.A., M.A. Van Asseldonk and R.B. Huirne. 2009. Purchase of catastrophe insurance by Dutch dairy and arable farmers. Review of Agricultural Economics 31(1): 143-162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2008.01430.x
-
Rotter, J.B. 1966. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 80(1): 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
-
Santeramo, F.G. 2019. I learn, you learn, we gain. Experience in crop insurance markets. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 41(2): 284-304. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppy012
-
Scaccini, D., M. Falagiarda, F. Tortorici, I. Martinez-Sañudo, P. Tirello, Y. Reyes-Domínguez, A. Gallmetzer, L. Tavella, P. Zandigiacomo, C. Duso and A. Pozzebon. 2020. An insight into the role of Trissolcus mitsukurii as biological control agent of Halyomorpha halys in Northeastern Italy. Insects 11(5): 306. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11050306
-
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff and S. Lichtenstein. 1982. Why study risk perception? Risk Analysis 2: 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01369.x
-
Storm, H., K. Baylis and T. Heckelei. 2020. Machine learning in agricultural and applied economics. European Review of Agricultural Economics 47(3): 849-892. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz033
-
Sun F., D. Abler and X. Yu. 2021. Crop allocation and increasing returns to fertilizer use in China. Land Economics 97(2): 491-508. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.97.2.491
-
Trestini, S., E. Pomarici and E. Giampietri. 2017a. Around the economic sustainability of Italian viticulture: do farm strategies tackle income risks? Quality – Access to Success 18: 461-467.
-
Trestini, S., E. Giampietri and V. Boatto. 2017b. Toward the implementation of the income stabilization tool: an analysis of factors affecting the probability of farm income losses in Italy. New Medit 16(4): 24-30.
-
Trestini, S. and E. Giampietri. 2018. Re-adjusting risk management within the CAP: evidence on implementation of the income stabilisation tool in Italy. In: M. Wigier and A. Kowalski (2018) The common agricultural policy of the European union-the present and the future, EU member states point of view, no 73.1, IAFE-NRI, Warsaw, Poland.
-
Van Winsen, F., Y. de Mey, L. Lauwers, S. Van Passel, M. Vancauteren and E. Wauters. 2016. Determinants of risk behaviour: effects of perceived risks and risk attitude on farmer’s adoption of risk management strategies. Journal of Risk Research 19(1): 56-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.940597
-
Wang H., L. Maruejols and X. Yu. 2021. Predicting energy poverty with combinations of remote-sensing and socioeconomic survey data in India: evidence from machine learning. Energy Economics 102: 105510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105510
-
Wąs, A. and P. Kobus. 2018. Factors differentiating the level of crop insurance at Polish farms. Agricultural Finance Review 78(2): 209-222. https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-06-2017-0054
-
Wuepper, D. and L. Sauer. 2016. Explaining the performance of contract farming in Ghana: the role of self-efficacy and social capital. Food Policy 62: 11-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.05.003
-
Ye, T., Y. Liu, J. Wang, M. Wang, and P. Shi. 2017. Farmers’ crop insurance perception and participation decisions: empirical evidence from Hunan, China. Journal of Risk Research 20(5): 664-677. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1118151
-
Zapponi, L., F. Tortorici, G. Anfora, S. Bardella, M. Bariselli, L. Benvenuto, I. Bernardinelli, A. Butturini, S. Caruso, R. Colla, E. Costi, P. Culatti, E. Di Bella, M. Falagiarda, L. Giovannini, T. Haye, L. Maistrello, G. Malossini, C. Marazzi, L. Marianelli, A. Mele, L. Michelon, S.T. Moraglio, A. Pozzebon, M. Preti, M. Salvetti, D. Scaccini, S. Schmidt, D. Szalatnay, P.F. Roversi, L. Tavella, M.G. Tommasini, G. Vaccari, P. Zandigiacomo and G. Sabbatini-Peverieri. 2021. Assessing the distribution of exotic egg parasitoids of Halyomorpha halys in Europe with a large-scale monitoring program. Insects 12(4): 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040316
-
Zhang, X and X. Yu. 2021. Short supply chain participation, and agrochemicals’ use intensity and efficiency: evidence from vegetable farms in China. China Agricultural Economic Review 13(4): 721-735. https://doi.org/10.1108/CAER-05-2020-0108
Supplementary Materials
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Full Text Views | 281 | 153 | 16 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 316 | 187 | 17 |
Participation in a mutual fund covering losses due to pest infestation: analyzing key predictors of farmers’ interest through machine learning
In: International Food and Agribusiness Management ReviewSearch for other papers by Lisa Höschle in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Samuele Trestini in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Elisa Giampietri in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
In the context of intensified Halyomorpha halys infestations in Italy, this paper provides a very first investigation of key factors that drive fruit growers’ intention to participate in a mutual fund (MF) compensating production losses due to this invasive insect. Data were collected in Veneto Region in Italy, where many farmers suffered H. halys attacks, and interest in the development of innovative risk management tools is growing. The study investigates how behavioral (risk attitude, risk perception) and personality factors (self-efficacy, locus of control) explain farmers’ intention to participate in the MF, additionally controlling for a large number of primary control data (e.g. farmers’ perceptions and characteristics, farm characteristics). The study assumes approximate sparsity and applies the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), a machine learning technique which represents an original approach for research on risk management. Our empirical analysis reveals that farmers’ intention to participate in the MF is driven by an interplay between the perceived risk of production loss, the benefits from participation in the fund, and the farm age, rather than by socio-economic characteristics of the farm. Results provide valuable insights for policymakers and local stakeholders to implement a mutual fund close to the farmers’ needs.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Full Text Views | 281 | 153 | 16 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 316 | 187 | 17 |
