Comparative risk perception of young vegetable farmers engaged in commercial and urban cultivation in Southern Kerala

Introduction

Vegetables are recognized for their protective nutritional qualities and offer significant potential in India's agricultural sector because they grow quickly, yield substantial harvests, provide essential nutrients, and generate good income. In Kerala, a southern Indian state, local vegetable production reaches approximately 500,000 tonnes annually, while the state's total yearly demand stands at roughly 25 Lakhs tonnes, creating a substantial shortfall that cannot meet the population's needs (Kalidas et al., 2017) [1] . Despite this potential and pressing demand, vegetable cultivation in Kerala faces numerous barriers. Several challenges discourage farmers from growing vegetables. Although using better varieties and new technologies could improve production and yields, farmers still face many obstacles in their farming activities (Noopur et al., 2023) [2] . A significant factor contributing to these challenges is the inherent risk associated with agricultural production. Agricultural operations face considerable risk due to the unpredictable nature of their business environment. Agriculture depends on outdoor growing conditions, farmers deal with production risks like poor weather, insects, and plant diseases; they face price risks from market changes; and they encounter policy risks from government decisions or contract problems. They also face personal risks such as health problems and accidents, plus financial risks from loans and changing interest rates, which all add to the uncertainty (Hardaker et al., 2015) [3] . Understanding and managing these risks is crucial for agricultural success. Farmers can achieve optimal returns from agriculture only when they have a clear understanding of the risk involved and adopt effective management strategies (Aubry & Manouchehri, 2019) [4] . The decisions farmers make are influenced by the types of uncertainties they encounter and their personal willingness to take chances (Hardaker et al., 2015) [3] . Given the importance of risk management in vegetable production and the diversity of farming systems, the present study aims to identify the major risk categories affecting commercial vegetable farmers and urban vegetable growers, and to compare the intensity and nature of risks faced by both groups. Specifically, the study seeks to understand which risk categories are most significant for each farming type, assess the differences in risk perception between the two groups, and examine the underlying reasons for these differences. The findings will provide insights for www.extensionjournal.com developing targeted risk management strategies and policy interventions that address the specific challenges faced by each category of farmers.

Methodology Study Area

The study was conducted in Alappuzha and Thiruvananthapuram districts of Kerala, India, These districts were purposively selected since Thiruvananthapuram and Alappuzha, have the highest area under vegetable cultivation in Southern Kerala (Directorate of Agriculture Development & Farmers' Welfare, 2023, p. 345) [5] .

Sampling Design and Sample Size

Seven blocks were chosen from each district in coordination with Agricultural Department officials, while seven wards were selected from Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and Alappuzha Municipality in consultation with local selfgovernment bodies and ward councillors. Five commercial vegetable farmers were sampled from each block, and five urban vegetable farmers from each ward, yielding 35 respondents per category from each district. The total sample comprised 140 respondents: 70 commercial farmers and 70 urban farmers. Commercial vegetable farmers in the 25-45 age group, owning at least 1.5 acres, were purposively selected. Urban rooftop farmers in the same age group, maintaining a minimum of 30 growbags or containers, were similarly selected through purposive sampling.

Data Collection Procedure

Primary data were collected during 2025 through personal interviews of farmer' using a well-structured, pre-tested interview schedule. The schedule was developed based on extensive literature review and pre-tested with farmers from non-sample areas.

Risk Categories and Sources

Based on literature review and consultations with agricultural experts, 42 risk sources relevant to vegetable farming in Kerala were identified and grouped into five major risk categories (Table 1):

Risk Perception Measurement

Risk perception was measured using a structured five-point rating scale. For each of the 42 risk sources, farmers rated their perception of risk severity on the following scale:

Risk Perception Index Calculation

Risk perception was quantified through a two-stage calculation process:

Stage 1: Individual Risk Source Index

For each specific risk source, the Risk Perception Index was calculated as:

Risk Source Index = (Σ Scores from all respondents in the group / (n × 5)) × 100

• Σ Scores = Sum of risk perception scores from all respondents in that farmer group • n = Number of respondents in the group (35) • 5 = Maximum possible score on the rating scale This yielded an index ranging from 20 to 100 for each risk source, where higher values indicate higher perceived severity.

Stage 2: Category-Level Mean Risk Perception Index

For each of the five risk categories, the Mean Risk Perception Index was calculated as the arithmetic mean of all individual risk source indices within that category: www.extensionjournal.com Mean Category Index = (Σ All risk source indices in category) / (Number of sources in category)

Risk Category Ranking

Within each farmer group, the five risk categories were ranked from 1 (highest mean risk perception index) to 5 (lowest mean risk perception index). This ranking enabled identification of priority risk concerns for each farmer type and district.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics including mean, frequency, and percentage were computed to summarize risk perception indices. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare mean risk perception indices between commercial and urban farmers separately for each district.

Results and Discussion

The analysis of risk perception revealed significant variations in how different farmer categories across the two districts prioritized various risk types. The analysis revealed substantial differences in market risk perception between commercial and urban farmers across both districts. Commercial vegetable farmers in Alappuzha (mean=55.66) and Thiruvananthapuram (mean=55.35) perceived considerably higher market risk compared to urban farmers (38.82 and 37.98 respectively), with t-values of 6.32 and 8.16 indicating highly significant differences. This difference can be attributed to fundamental differences in how these farmer groups engage with markets. Urban vegetable farmers have minimal market involvement, they prioritize household consumption more over income generation and when they produce surplus, they typically distribute it among acquaintances rather than pursuing commercial sales this can be substantiated by the observation of Jacob et al. (2025) [6] that farming within urban areas frequently takes place in high-density zones, primarily serving self-sufficiency or community sharing via informal small scale farming. Their market-related concerns are largely limited to perishability, marketing costs, and low prices. In contrast, risks that concerns commercial vegetable farmers are price fluctuations, overproduction issues, and marketing expenses, as mentioned by Mehrortra (2025) [7] price fluctuations in cash markets represent one of the major risks encountered by farmers, which explains their www.extensionjournal.com significantly higher market risk perception. Financial Risk demonstrated significant differences between the two groups in both districts. Commercial vegetable farmers in Alappuzha (mean=52.24) perceived higher financial risk than urban vegetable farmers (43.27, t=2.91), with this gap widening further in Thiruvananthapuram between commercial farmers (58.53) and urban farmers (38.61, t=8.04). This pattern reflects the reality that commercial farming demands substantial capital investments in inputs, infrastructure, and operational costs, whereas urban farmers can operate with considerably smaller financial outlays compared to urban vegetable farmers, but financial risk still is a significant risk category with a ranking of 3 for urban farmers of both the district, Cabannes (2012) [8] likewise pointed out that scarce financial resources continue to pose a significant barrier for small-scale urban cultivators. Urban vegetable farmers in Alappuzha reported higher financial risk perception than urban farmers in Thiruvanathapuram district, which can be associated with the fact that majority of urban vegetable farmers in Thiruvananthapuram are in high income category when compared to urban farmers from Alappuzha. Also, commercial vegetable farmers in Thiruvananthapuram reported highest financial risk perception due to delayed availability of subsidies and crop insurance, combined with other financial challenges including high collateral requirements and complex banking procedures. Production Risk showed no statistically significant differences between farmer categories in either district (Alappuzha: t=1.56; Thiruvananthapuram: t=1.63), although commercial vegetable farmers in Alappuzha and Thiruvananthapuram recorded moderately higher mean values, 52.67 and 58.71 respectively when compared to urban vegetable farmers in Alappuzha and Thiruvananthapuram with mean values of 44.76 and 49.90 respectively. This finding suggests that production-related challenges, including climate variability, pest infestations, and access to quality inputs, affect both farming groups with comparable intensity, regardless of their scale of operation, as mentioned by Patrick (1998) [9] that production risk represents the inherent unpredictability and variation that exists in agricultural production activities. Institutional Risk exhibited distinct district-specific patterns. In Alappuzha, no significant difference emerged between commercial vegetable (40.48) and urban vegetable farmers (45.71, t=-1.75), with urban vegetable farmers actually reporting higher institutional risk. This high perception among urban vegetable farmers results from their experience of receiving minimal support from government agricultural extension services, particularly Krishibhavan, and having weak extension-to-farmer linkages. In Thiruvananthapuram, commercial vegetable farmers reported significantly higher institutional risk (50.95) compared to urban vegetable farmers (40.29, t=2.87), primarily due to inadequate Krishibhavan support, limited awareness of available policies and schemes, and delays in subsidy disbursement. These patterns indicate that institutional inadequacies manifest differently depending on farmer type and local administrative capacity. This finding is substantiated by the findings of Thomas and Eljo (2018) [10] . who identified several key challenges hampering Krishibhavan's effectiveness, including limited time available for extension services, delays in fund allocation, frequent staff transfers, poor quality of seeds and planting materials distributed to farmers, and insufficient data availability for planning and program development. Personal Risk perception showed no significant differences between farmer types in either district (Alappuzha: t=-1.26; Thiruvananthapuram: t=0.55). Given that personal risk primarily encompassed respondent health and conflicts among fellow farmers, and considering that the study focused on young farmers within similar age groups, personal risk remained consistently low across both farming categories.

Conclusion

This study shows that risk perception in vegetable farming varies greatly depending on the type of farmer and their location. Due to their large investments and direct reliance on the market, commercial vegetable farmers in both districts expressed more concern about market and financial risks, whereas urban vegetable farmers gave institutional risks resulting from poor extension support and limited access to government services top priority. However, production risk turned out to be a universal issue that affected both farmer categories equally, emphasizing the inherent risks in agricultural production regardless of farming scale. The study's differential risk profiles highlight the necessity of avoiding generic strategies for agricultural development. Instead of assuming uniform risk experiences across the agricultural sector, effective interventions must be customized to both farmer type and regional context. Commercial vegetable farmers would benefit most from market stabilization mechanisms, improved credit access, and strengthened institutional support for subsidy delivery and policy awareness. Urban vegetable farmers, conversely, require production technology transfer, capacity building, and inclusive extension coverage that recognizes their distinct needs and farming practices. Furthermore, the district-level variations observed in institutional risk perception highlight the importance of localized implementation of agricultural support programs. Extension services and institutional mechanisms must be adapted to serve diverse farmer categories while accounting for regional administrative capacities and local contexts. In order to create more resilient and sustainable agricultural systems, policymakers and agricultural development organizations must identify these differential vulnerabilities and create focused strategies that address the distinctive challenges that each farming community faces.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors acknowledges the valuable cooperation of all respondents and officials of concerned departments during data collection. Sincere gratitude is extended to the advisory committee members and faculty members of College of Agriculture, Vellayani for their continuous support and guidance throughout the completion of this work.

References

1. Kalidas K, Nair AP, Anjana AS, Ashika KV, Athira KA. Vegetable supply chain management in Kerala. Int J Commer Bus Manag. 2017;10(2):250-4. www.extensionjournal.com
2. Noopur K, Chauhan JK, Walia SS, Verma MR, Dhar U, Choudhary S, et al. Constraints in vegetable production in India: A review. Indian Res J Ext Educ. 2023;23(3):14-9.
3. Hardaker JB, Lien G, Anderson JR, Huirne RBM. Coping with risk in agriculture. 3rd ed. CABI; 2015.
4. Aubry C, Manouchehri N. Urban agriculture and health: Assessing risks and overseeing practices. Field Actions Sci Rep. 2019;20:108-11. http://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/5854
5. Directorate of Agriculture Development & Farmers' Welfare. A compendium of agricultural statistics: Kerala 2023. Government of Kerala; 2023. https://keralaagriculture.gov.in/wpcontent/uploads/2023/04/AGRICULTURALSTATISTICS-2023.pdf
6. Jacob D, Paramesha V, John J, Bindhu JS, Meera AV, Innazent A. Urban agriculture in Kerala: Challenges, gender dynamics, and pathways to sustainability. 2025.
7. Mehrotra D. Mitigating marketing risks in the Indian context. Int J Agric Food Sci. 2025;7(3):6-11. https://doi.org/10.33545/2664844X.2025.v7.i3a.307
8. Cabannes Y. Financing urban agriculture. Environ Urban. 2012;24(2):665-83.
9. Patrick GF. Managing risk in agriculture. Vol. 406. MidWest Plan Service, Iowa State University; 1998.
10. Thomas L, Eljo JG. Role of Krishibhavan in revamping the agriculture: Reflections from the field. Int J Res. 2018;5(12):3079-87. https://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/IJR /