Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. sp4 (2025): Recent Advances in Agriculture by Young Minds - III

Risk aversion model for small and marginal farmers in the Cauvery Delta Zone, Tamil Nadu

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.7106
Submitted
7 January 2025
Published
03-11-2025

Abstract

Agriculture in India largely depends on the monsoon. As a result, the production of food grains fluctuates year after year. Although the ownership of agricultural land in India is fairly widely distributed, there is some degree of concentration of landholding. A farmer is often required to make decisions under various vulnerable and uncertain conditions, which stem from social uncertainties, natural hazards, market fluctuations and changes in state policies. Risk aversion is the tendency to avoid risk and have a low risk tolerance. The districts of Thanjavur, Tiruvarur and Nagapattinam in the Cauvery Delta Zone were selected for the study due to their risk-prone areas and crops affected by natural calamities. The total sample size for the study was 366 and it was estimated by the Cochran’s sample size formula and the samples were selected by using a proportionate random sampling technique. The standardized coefficient of demise of an elder in the family (P1) was 0.797, dissension among family members (P2) was 0.829, parental control on decision making (P3) was 0.681 and location of farmlands in risk-prone areas (P4) was 0.604 and represents the partial effect of the personal factor. The hurdles in the procurement process (M1) were 0.519, lack of infrastructure facilities in the markets (M2) was 0.774, increase in transportation charges (M3) was 0.685 and timely unavailability of procurement centres (M4) was 0.542 and together represented the partial effect of the market factor. These factors not only increase the transaction costs for farmers but also reduce their bargaining power, delay the sale of produce and in some cases compel distress sales. Although risk management strategies are adopted more frequently by farmers with higher risk aversion, the overall differences across groups are relatively small. This suggests that many farmers, regardless of their individual risk tolerance, remain exposed to similar structural challenges. Beyond individual coping strategies, systemic reforms are needed. Strengthening rural infrastructure, improving procurement processes and ensuring timely market access can reduce risks, stabilize incomes and enhance resilience for farmers in risk-prone areas.

References

  1. 1. Akhtar S, Li G, Ullah R, Nazir A, Iqbal MA, Raza MH, et al. Factors influencing hybrid maize farmers' risk attitudes and their perceptions in Punjab Province, Pakistan. J Integr Agric. 2018;17(6):1454–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-
  2. 3119(17)61796-9
  3. 2. United Nations. World population prospects 2022. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2022.
  4. 3. Abdullah M, Li C, Ghazanfar S, Rehman A, Ghazanfar B, Saud S. Problems faced by rice growing farmers and their behavior to the government policies: A case from Pakistan. J Biol Agric Healthcare. 2013;3(16):1–9.
  5. 4. Agro-Economic Research Centre. Farmer suicides in Tamil Nadu. AERC Research Study No. 160. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi; 2017. University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai-600005, Tamil Nadu.
  6. 5. Murugan K, Sivagnanam KJ. Agrarian crisis and farmer's suicide scenario in Tamil Nadu. Res J Humanit Soc Sci. 2018;9(4):819–23. https://doi.org/10.5958/2321-5828.2018.00137.7
  7. 6. Islam D, Rahman A, Sarker NI, Sarker SR, Jianchao L. Factors influencing rice farmers' risk attitudes and perceptions in Bangladesh amid environmental and climatic issues. Pol J Environ Stud. 2021;30(1):635–44. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/120365
  8. 7. Wheeler R, Lobley M. Managing extreme weather and climate change in UK agriculture: Impacts, attitudes and action among farmers and stakeholders. Clim Risk Manag. 2021;32:100313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.1003
  9. 13
  10. 8. Press Information Bureau. Categorisation of Farmers. In: Agriculture Census 2015-16. New Delhi; 2019.
  11. 9. Supe SV. Factors related to different degrees of rationality in decision making among farmers of Buldana District [PhD thesis]. Akola: Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth; 1969.
  12. 10. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Babin BJ, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Education; 2010.
  13. 11. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  14. 12. Hooper D, Coughlan J. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2008;6(1):53–60.
  15. 13. Grothmann T, Patt A. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ Change. 2005;15(3):199–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.01.002
  16. 14. Lopez Marrero T. An integrative approach to study and promote natural hazards adaptive capacity: A case study of two flood-prone communities in Puerto Rico. Geogr J. 2010;176(2):150–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.20
  17. 10.00353.x
  18. 15. Duong TT, Zhao K, Bardsley DK, Garnett J, Li T. A global review of farmers’ perceptions of agricultural risks and risk management strategies. Agriculture. 2019;9(1):10. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9010010
  19. 16. Shah J, Alharthi M. Risk sources in agriculture and farmers’ behavior in risky prospects: A systematic review. Manag Sustain Arab Rev. 2024;3(2):169–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/MSAR-02-2023-0006
  20. 17. Li L, Huang Y, Linfei. Linking farmers’ risk perception, livelihood diversification and adoption of climate-smart agriculture technologies in the Guanzhong Plain of China. Water. 2023;15(12):2228. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15122
  21. 228
  22. 18. Atta C, Micheels ET. Identifying risk in production agriculture: An application of best-worst scaling. Int Food Agribusiness Manag Rev. 2020;23(2):233–48. https://doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2019.0133

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.