IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v122y2013icp42-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cognitive mapping: A method to elucidate and present farmers’ risk perception

Author

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

Abstract

Assumptions on the perceptions of risks, made in agricultural economics literature, are recognized to be over-simplistic. For example most studies assume that risks are independent and static, while in reality most risks are interlinked and dynamic. We propose an alternative method to identify and present risk perception, closer to the actual comprehension of risk by farmers. Grounded theory is used to investigate the perceptions of risk by farmers while avoiding prior assumptions. Main findings are: (i) farmers have difficulty to rank or score probability and impact of risks in a (semi)quantitative manner; (ii) farmers attach different meanings to risk, when the focus shifts between, uncertain event, probability or value at stake and; (iii) farmers perceive risks as being interrelated. Based on these findings, we propose that farmers' risk perception can be best understood as a network of interrelated notions of uncertain events, their effects and uncertain outcomes. Furthermore, cognitive mapping is suggested to elucidate and present these networks. We test cognitive mapping, exploring dairy farmers’ risk perception, and demonstrate the appropriateness of this methodology for capturing the complexity and context of perceived risk. Advantages are: (i) the qualitative approach, (ii) the focus on interrelations and context, (iii) the applicability at farm level, (iv) the farmer-driven rather than researcher-driven perspective, and (v) the elucidation of the polyvalent use of the risk concept. Cognitive maps can be used as a communication tool, a risk management tool, and a tool to stimulate bi-directional learning amongst farmers, policy makers, researchers and extension agents.

Suggested Citation

  • van Winsen, Frankwin & de Mey, Yann & Lauwers, Ludwig & Van Passel, Steven & Vancauteren, Mark & Wauters, Erwin, 2013. "Cognitive mapping: A method to elucidate and present farmers’ risk perception," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 42-52.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:122:y:2013:i:c:p:42-52
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2013.08.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X13000978
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.08.003?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adital Ben-Ari & Keren Or-Chen, 2009. "Integrating competing conceptions of risk: A call for future direction of research," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(6), pages 865-877, September.
    2. Eden, Colin, 2004. "Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 673-686, December.
    3. Woodward, Richard T., 1998. "Should Agricultural And Resource Economists Care That The Subjective Expected Utility Hypothesis Is False?," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20941, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Just, Richard E., 2003. "Risk research in agricultural economics: opportunities and challenges for the next twenty-five years," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 123-159.
    5. David E. Buschena, 2003. "Expected Utility Violations: Implications for Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1242-1248.
    6. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    7. Aven, Terje, 2010. "On how to define, understand and describe risk," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(6), pages 623-631.
    8. Smith, Kevin & Barrett, Christopher B. & Box, Paul W., 2000. "Participatory Risk Mapping for Targeting Research and Assistance: With an Example from East African Pastoralists," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(11), pages 1945-1959, November.
    9. Bitsch, Vera, 2005. "Qualitative Research: A Grounded Theory Example and Evaluation Criteria," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 23(1), pages 1-17.
    10. Georgiou, Ion, 2009. "A graph-theoretic perspective on the links-to-concepts ratio expected in cognitive maps," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(2), pages 834-836, September.
    11. Hardaker, J. Brian & Lien, Gudbrand, 2010. "Probabilities for decision analysis in agriculture and rural resource economics: The need for a paradigm change," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 345-350, July.
    12. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
    13. Matthew Rabin & Richard H. Thaler, 2013. "Anomalies: Risk aversion," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 27, pages 467-480, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    15. James G. March & Zur Shapira, 1987. "Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1404-1418, November.
    16. Tegarden, David P. & Sheetz, Steven D., 2003. "Group cognitive mapping: a methodology and system for capturing and evaluating managerial and organizational cognition," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 113-125, April.
    17. Susanne Rippl, 2002. "Cultural theory and risk perception: a proposal for a better measurement," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 147-165, April.
    18. Ronald A. Howard, 1989. "Knowledge Maps," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 903-922, August.
    19. Georgakopoulos, Georgios & Ciancanelli, Penelope & Coulson, Andrea & Kaldis, Panayiotis, 2008. "Stewardship and Risk: An Empirically Grounded Theory of Organic Fish Farming in Scotland," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(2), pages 1-16, July.
    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. Kieran M. Findlater & Terre Satterfield & Milind Kandlikar, 2019. "Farmers’ Risk‐Based Decision Making Under Pervasive Uncertainty: Cognitive Thresholds and Hazy Hedging," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(8), pages 1755-1770, August.
    2. Feyisa, Ashenafi Duguma & Maertens, Miet & de Mey, Yann, 2023. "Relating risk preferences and risk perceptions over different agricultural risk domains: Insights from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    3. Erwin WAUTERS & Frankwin van WINSEN & Yann de MEY & Ludwig LAUWERS, 2014. "Risk perception, attitudes towards risk and risk management: evidence and implications," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 60(9), pages 389-405.
    4. Evgenia Micha & Owen Fenton & Karen Daly & Gabriella Kakonyi & Golnaz Ezzati & Thomas Moloney & Steven Thornton, 2020. "The Complex Pathway towards Farm-Level Sustainable Intensification: An Exploratory Network Analysis of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Perception," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Jiahong Yuan & Xiaoyu Li & Zilai Sun & Junhu Ruan, 2021. "Will the Adoption of Early Fertigation Techniques Hinder Famers’ Technology Renewal? Evidence from Fresh Growers in Shaanxi, China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, September.
    6. Mastenbroek, Astrid & Gumucio, Tatiana & Nakanwagi, Josephine, 2024. "Gender, agricultural risk perceptions, and maize seed systems: A case study of drought-tolerant maize varieties in Uganda," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    7. Micha, Evgenia & Fenton, Owen & Daly, Karen & Kakonyi, Gabriella & Ezzati, Golnaz & Moloney, Thomas & Thornton, Steven F, 2019. "Mapping the pathways towards farm-level sustainable intensification of agriculture: an exploratory network 3 analysis of stakeholders’ views," SocArXiv 2rqjd, Center for Open Science.
    8. Komarek, Adam M. & De Pinto, Alessandro & Smith, Vincent H., 2020. "A review of types of risks in agriculture: What we know and what we need to know," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    9. de Mey, Yann & Wauters, Erwin & Lips, Markus & Schmid, Dirk & Vancauteren, Mark & Van Passel, Steven, 2014. "Farm household risk balancing in Switzerland and Belgium: an econometric and survey approach," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 186678, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Viet Hoang, 2021. "Impact of Contract Farming on Farmers’ Income in the Food Value Chain: A Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Study in Vietnam," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
    11. Louis Tessier & Jo Bijttebier & Fleur Marchand & Philippe V. Baret, 2021. "Cognitive mapping, flemish beef farmers’ perspectives and farm functioning: a critical methodological reflection," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 1003-1019, December.
    12. Sacchelli, S. & Fabbrizzi, S., 2015. "Minimisation of uncertainty in decision-making processes using optimised probabilistic Fuzzy Cognitive Maps: A case study for a rural sector," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 31-40.
    13. Viet Hoang & Vinh Nguyen, 2023. "Determinants of small farmers' participation in contract farming in developing countries: A study in Vietnam," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 836-853, July.
    14. Castilla-Rho, Juan & Kenny, Daniel, 2022. "What prevents the adoption of regenerative agriculture and what can we do about it? Lessons from a behaviorally-attuned Participatory Modelling exercise in Australia," OSF Preprints asxr2, Center for Open Science.
    15. Viet Hoang & An Nguyen & Carmen Hubbard & Khanh-Duy Nguyen, 2021. "Exploring the Governance and Fairness in the Milk Value Chain: A Case Study in Vietnam," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-22, September.
    16. Daniel C. Kenny & Juan Castilla-Rho, 2022. "What Prevents the Adoption of Regenerative Agriculture and What Can We Do about It? Lessons and Narratives from a Participatory Modelling Exercise in Australia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-30, August.
    17. Kabir, Md. Jahangir & Cramb, Rob & Alauddin, Mohammad & Gaydon, Donald S., 2019. "Farmers’ perceptions and management of risk in rice-based farming systems of south-west coastal Bangladesh," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 177-188.
    18. Verspecht, Ann & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido & Buysse, Jeroen, 2014. "Extreme weather events in Belgium: calamity fund and on-farm strategies hand in hand?," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183050, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Wang, Lingling & Watanabe, Tsunemi, 2019. "Effects of environmental policy on public risk perceptions of haze in Tianjin City: A difference-in-differences analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 199-212.
    20. Khalilzadeh, Jalayer, 2018. "Demonstration of exponential random graph models in tourism studies: Is tourism a means of global peace or the bottom line?," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 31-41.

    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. Egil Matsen & Bjarne Strøm, 2006. "Joker: Choice in a simple game with large stakes," Working Paper Series 8307, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
    2. Helga Fehr-Duda & Thomas Epper, 2012. "Probability and Risk: Foundations and Economic Implications of Probability-Dependent Risk Preferences," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 567-593, July.
    3. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    4. Abuabara, Leila & Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2021. "Surveying applications of Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) from 1989 to 2018," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(3), pages 1051-1065.
    5. Georgiou, Ion, 2012. "Messing about in transformations: Structured systemic planning for systemic solutions to systemic problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 392-406.
    6. Christoffersen, Jeppe & Holzmeister, Felix & Plenborg, Thomas, 2023. "What is risk to managers?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    7. Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
    8. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    9. Sébastien Damart, 2010. "A Cognitive Mapping Approach to Organizing the Participation of Multiple Actors in a Problem Structuring Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 505-526, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    12. Schmidt, Ulrich & Neugebauer, Tibor, 2003. "An Experimental Investigation of the Role of Errors for Explaining Violations of Expected Utility," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-279, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    13. Aluma Dembo & Shachar Kariv & Matthew Polisson & John Quah, 2021. "Ever since Allais," IFS Working Papers W21/15, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    14. Ali Al‐Nowaihi & Livio Stracca, 2003. "Behavioural Central Bank Loss Functions, Skewed Risks and Certainty Equivalence," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 71(s1), pages 21-38, September.
    15. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Bleichrodt, Han, 2007. "Eliciting Gul's theory of disappointment aversion by the tradeoff method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-645, December.
    16. Guido Baltussen & G. Post & Martijn Assem & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Random incentive systems in a dynamic choice experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 418-443, September.
    17. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    18. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    19. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.
    20. John D. Hey, 2018. "Why We Should Not Be Silent About Noise," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 13, pages 309-329, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..

    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:eee:agisys:v:122:y:2013:i:c:p:42-52. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    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.