Risk Management Strategies in Humid Production Regions: A Comparison of Supplemental Irrigation and Crop Insurance
Recent federal agricultural programs have accelerated the devolution of enterprise risk management responsibility from the state to individual producers. Using a biophysical simulation model, the risk management benefits of federal crop insurance and supplemental irrigation are derived and compared...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Agricultural and resource economics review 2004-10, Vol.33 (2), p.220-232 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 232 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 220 |
| container_title | Agricultural and resource economics review |
| container_volume | 33 |
| creator | Dalton, Timothy J. Porter, Gregory A. Winslow, Noah G. |
| description | Recent federal agricultural programs have accelerated the devolution of enterprise risk management responsibility from the state to individual producers. Using a biophysical simulation model, the risk management benefits of federal crop insurance and supplemental irrigation are derived and compared to uninsured rainfed crop production in an expected utility framework. Federal crop insurance programs are inefficient at reducing producer exposure to weather-related production risk in humid regions, and the risk management benefits from supplemental irrigation are found to be scale and technology dependent. Environmental policies that regulate resource development will increase the investment cost of irrigation alternatives and reduce economic feasibility. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S1068280500005797 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_21218772</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S1068280500005797</cupid><sourcerecordid>750674671</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4337-e2943e659bfa30be2d6d64e4ea9275b30050998499ffe0d01ec90d081ad486723</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1LxDAQhoMouK7-AG_Bg7dqPtqm8bYs6i4oyq6eS9pOS9Y2qUl78N-b_QBBcS4D8z7vywyD0CUlN5RQcbumJM1YRhISKhFSHKEJ44JFLKXxMZps5Wirn6Iz7zeEMEIyMUFupf0HflZGNdCBGfB6cGqARoPH2uDF2OkKvzpbjeWgrcGrIFnj7_AMz23XK6d9mNoar8e-b3cRqsVL53SjdgZlKjx3tsdL40enTAnn6KRWrYeLQ5-i94f7t_kienp5XM5nT1EZcy4iYDLmkCayqBUnBbAqrdIYYlCSiaTg4UwiZRZLWddAKkKhlKFlVFVxlgrGp-h6n9s7-zmCH_JO-xLaVhmwo88ZZTQTO_DqF7ixozNht8DERAiZJgGie6h01nsHdd473Sn3lVOSb1-Q_3lB8PCDR3WF01UDP8n_u74BCNaIFQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>214077965</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Risk Management Strategies in Humid Production Regions: A Comparison of Supplemental Irrigation and Crop Insurance</title><source>AgEcon</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Dalton, Timothy J. ; Porter, Gregory A. ; Winslow, Noah G.</creator><creatorcontrib>Dalton, Timothy J. ; Porter, Gregory A. ; Winslow, Noah G.</creatorcontrib><description>Recent federal agricultural programs have accelerated the devolution of enterprise risk management responsibility from the state to individual producers. Using a biophysical simulation model, the risk management benefits of federal crop insurance and supplemental irrigation are derived and compared to uninsured rainfed crop production in an expected utility framework. Federal crop insurance programs are inefficient at reducing producer exposure to weather-related production risk in humid regions, and the risk management benefits from supplemental irrigation are found to be scale and technology dependent. Environmental policies that regulate resource development will increase the investment cost of irrigation alternatives and reduce economic feasibility.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1068-2805</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2372-2614</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S1068280500005797</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, US: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Agricultural production ; Agriculture ; Cost control ; Crop insurance ; Environmental policy ; Expected utility ; Insured losses ; Irrigation ; Operating costs ; Predation ; Production functions ; Profits ; Rain ; Simulation ; Technology adoption ; Water conservation</subject><ispartof>Agricultural and resource economics review, 2004-10, Vol.33 (2), p.220-232</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2004 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association</rights><rights>Copyright Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association Oct 2004</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4337-e2943e659bfa30be2d6d64e4ea9275b30050998499ffe0d01ec90d081ad486723</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,27933,27934</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dalton, Timothy J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Porter, Gregory A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Winslow, Noah G.</creatorcontrib><title>Risk Management Strategies in Humid Production Regions: A Comparison of Supplemental Irrigation and Crop Insurance</title><title>Agricultural and resource economics review</title><addtitle>Agric. resour. econ. rev</addtitle><description>Recent federal agricultural programs have accelerated the devolution of enterprise risk management responsibility from the state to individual producers. Using a biophysical simulation model, the risk management benefits of federal crop insurance and supplemental irrigation are derived and compared to uninsured rainfed crop production in an expected utility framework. Federal crop insurance programs are inefficient at reducing producer exposure to weather-related production risk in humid regions, and the risk management benefits from supplemental irrigation are found to be scale and technology dependent. Environmental policies that regulate resource development will increase the investment cost of irrigation alternatives and reduce economic feasibility.</description><subject>Agricultural production</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Cost control</subject><subject>Crop insurance</subject><subject>Environmental policy</subject><subject>Expected utility</subject><subject>Insured losses</subject><subject>Irrigation</subject><subject>Operating costs</subject><subject>Predation</subject><subject>Production functions</subject><subject>Profits</subject><subject>Rain</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Technology adoption</subject><subject>Water conservation</subject><issn>1068-2805</issn><issn>2372-2614</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1LxDAQhoMouK7-AG_Bg7dqPtqm8bYs6i4oyq6eS9pOS9Y2qUl78N-b_QBBcS4D8z7vywyD0CUlN5RQcbumJM1YRhISKhFSHKEJ44JFLKXxMZps5Wirn6Iz7zeEMEIyMUFupf0HflZGNdCBGfB6cGqARoPH2uDF2OkKvzpbjeWgrcGrIFnj7_AMz23XK6d9mNoar8e-b3cRqsVL53SjdgZlKjx3tsdL40enTAnn6KRWrYeLQ5-i94f7t_kienp5XM5nT1EZcy4iYDLmkCayqBUnBbAqrdIYYlCSiaTg4UwiZRZLWddAKkKhlKFlVFVxlgrGp-h6n9s7-zmCH_JO-xLaVhmwo88ZZTQTO_DqF7ixozNht8DERAiZJgGie6h01nsHdd473Sn3lVOSb1-Q_3lB8PCDR3WF01UDP8n_u74BCNaIFQ</recordid><startdate>20041001</startdate><enddate>20041001</enddate><creator>Dalton, Timothy J.</creator><creator>Porter, Gregory A.</creator><creator>Winslow, Noah G.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U1</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20041001</creationdate><title>Risk Management Strategies in Humid Production Regions: A Comparison of Supplemental Irrigation and Crop Insurance</title><author>Dalton, Timothy J. ; Porter, Gregory A. ; Winslow, Noah G.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4337-e2943e659bfa30be2d6d64e4ea9275b30050998499ffe0d01ec90d081ad486723</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Agricultural production</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Cost control</topic><topic>Crop insurance</topic><topic>Environmental policy</topic><topic>Expected utility</topic><topic>Insured losses</topic><topic>Irrigation</topic><topic>Operating costs</topic><topic>Predation</topic><topic>Production functions</topic><topic>Profits</topic><topic>Rain</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Technology adoption</topic><topic>Water conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dalton, Timothy J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Porter, Gregory A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Winslow, Noah G.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Risk Abstracts</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Agricultural and resource economics review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dalton, Timothy J.</au><au>Porter, Gregory A.</au><au>Winslow, Noah G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Risk Management Strategies in Humid Production Regions: A Comparison of Supplemental Irrigation and Crop Insurance</atitle><jtitle>Agricultural and resource economics review</jtitle><addtitle>Agric. resour. econ. rev</addtitle><date>2004-10-01</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>220</spage><epage>232</epage><pages>220-232</pages><issn>1068-2805</issn><eissn>2372-2614</eissn><abstract>Recent federal agricultural programs have accelerated the devolution of enterprise risk management responsibility from the state to individual producers. Using a biophysical simulation model, the risk management benefits of federal crop insurance and supplemental irrigation are derived and compared to uninsured rainfed crop production in an expected utility framework. Federal crop insurance programs are inefficient at reducing producer exposure to weather-related production risk in humid regions, and the risk management benefits from supplemental irrigation are found to be scale and technology dependent. Environmental policies that regulate resource development will increase the investment cost of irrigation alternatives and reduce economic feasibility.</abstract><cop>New York, US</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S1068280500005797</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1068-2805 |
| ispartof | Agricultural and resource economics review, 2004-10, Vol.33 (2), p.220-232 |
| issn | 1068-2805 2372-2614 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_21218772 |
| source | AgEcon; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
| subjects | Agricultural production Agriculture Cost control Crop insurance Environmental policy Expected utility Insured losses Irrigation Operating costs Predation Production functions Profits Rain Simulation Technology adoption Water conservation |
| title | Risk Management Strategies in Humid Production Regions: A Comparison of Supplemental Irrigation and Crop Insurance |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-03T13%3A38%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Risk%20Management%20Strategies%20in%20Humid%20Production%20Regions:%20A%20Comparison%20of%20Supplemental%20Irrigation%20and%20Crop%20Insurance&rft.jtitle=Agricultural%20and%20resource%20economics%20review&rft.au=Dalton,%20Timothy%20J.&rft.date=2004-10-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=220&rft.epage=232&rft.pages=220-232&rft.issn=1068-2805&rft.eissn=2372-2614&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S1068280500005797&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E750674671%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=214077965&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S1068280500005797&rfr_iscdi=true |