Farmer perception of production risks and demand for risk management advisory from extension services

Introduction

Farming in North-Western Argentina is a gamble against weather, markets, and biology and most smallholder producers lack the tools to manage these odds effectively. Tucuman Province, one of the country's important sugarcane and citrus production areas, has experienced three major drought episodes and two severe frost events in the past decade alone, each time pushing vulnerable households closer to financial distress [1,2] . Production risk management through crop insurance, diversification, and improved agronomic practices can buffer these shocks, but adoption of such strategies depends heavily on whether farmers actually perceive the risks as serious enough to warrant action [3] . Agricultural extension services are positioned to deliver risk management advisory helping farmers interpret weather forecasts, select tolerant varieties, and access insurance products [4] . But extension systems in Argentina have traditionally focused on productivity improvement rather than risk communication [5] . Whether farmers would actually use risk-oriented advisory depends on their perception of risk severity and on their belief that extension agents can offer useful guidance [6] . Several international investigations have reported that risk perception drives demand for information services, but evidence from South American contexts remains sparse [7,8] . This research measured how farmers in Tucuman Province perceive six categories of production risk, examined whether perception intensity varies by farm characteristics, and modeled the relationship between risk perception and expressed demand for extension-based risk management advisory [9] .

Theoretical framework

The research was grounded in the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), originally developed by Rogers [10] and adapted for agricultural contexts by Grothmann and Patt [11] . PMT proposes that individuals assess threats through two cognitive processes: threat appraisal (perceived severity and vulnerability) and coping appraisal (perceived effectiveness and self-efficacy of available responses). Applied to farming, the theory predicts that farmers who perceive higher production risk severity and believe that advisory services offer effective coping strategies will express greater demand for extension risk management support. Farm characteristics such as size, irrigation status, and education level were treated as moderating variables influencing both appraisal processes.

Materials and Methods

Materials

This research was conducted through the School of Agriculture, National University of Tucuman, Argentina, between March and August 2023. Ethical clearance was obtained from the university's Social Research Ethics Committee (Protocol UNT-SA-2023-006, approved February 15, 2023). The target population comprised registered farming households in five departments of Tucuman Province: Cruz Alta, Leales, Monteros, Chicligasta, and Graneros. A proportional stratified sample of 246 households was drawn, stratified by farm size category (small <5 ha, medium 5-20 ha, large >20 ha) and water source (irrigated vs. rainfed). A structured questionnaire with 44 items measured risk perception on a www.extensionjournal.com 5-point Likert scale across six risk categories: drought, pest/disease outbreak, price volatility, input cost increases, frost damage, and flooding [12] .

Methods

Surveys were administered face-to-face by trained enumerators between April and June 2023, each lasting 30-40 minutes. Demand for risk management advisory was measured as a binary outcome (expressed willingness to use extension risk services: yes/no). Binary logistic regression was used to model the relationship between risk perception scores, farm characteristics, and advisory demand. Independent variables included mean risk perception score, farm size, education level, irrigation status, distance to nearest extension office, and prior extension contact history. Cronbach's alpha for the risk perception scale was 0.84, indicating good internal reliability [13] . Analyses used SPSS version 28. Price volatility received the highest overall perception scores, followed closely by drought. Smallholder and rainfed farmers consistently reported higher risk perception than larger or irrigated operations across most categories.

Results

Frost damage perception varied sharply between irrigated (1.8) and rainfed (3.6) farms [14] . Risk perception, prior extension contact, and farm size were significant positive predictors of demand for advisory services. Distance to extension offices had a small but significant negative effect, suggesting that proximity influences service uptake [15] .

Comprehensive interpretation

The data show a clear pattern: Farmers who feel more exposed to production risks are more likely to want help managing them. But demand isn't automatic prior experience with extension services roughly doubled the odds of expressing interest in risk advisory, suggesting that trust built through earlier contact matters as much as the perceived threat itself. The heatmap reveals that risk perception is not uniform; it varies systematically with farm size and water access, meaning that extension risk advisory should be tailored rather than one-size-fits-all.

Discussion

The finding that price volatility slightly outranked drought as the highest-perceived risk was unexpected, given the region's history of severe dry spells. It may reflect the particularly sharp input cost inflation Argentina experienced in 2022-2023, which pushed market-related anxieties to the foreground [2] . The strong role of prior extension contact in predicting advisory demand (OR = 2.16) aligns with Protection Motivation Theory's coping appraisal pathway farmers who have already interacted with extension agents may have higher confidence that advisory services can actually help them cope [10,11] . The significantly higher risk scores among rainfed compared to irrigated farmers across all biophysical categories confirms what would be expected intuitively water access buffers perceived vulnerability. But the smaller gap for market risks (price volatility and input costs) indicates that irrigation doesn't protect against economic shocks, a distinction that extension risk programming should reflect [16] . The negative distance effect, while modest, suggests that remote households face an access barrier that could be addressed through mobile advisory platforms or decentralized extension posts [17] .

Practical applications

Extension services in Tucuman and similar semi-arid regions should consider differentiating risk advisory content by farm type. Rainfed smallholders need drought-focused advisory with practical options like water harvesting and drought-tolerant varieties. Larger irrigated farms may benefit more from market risk information, including price forecasting tools and cooperative marketing arrangements. Building initial extension contact among currently unserved households should be treated as a precondition for successful risk advisory delivery.

Conclusion

Farmer risk perception in Tucuman Province is high, particularly for price volatility and drought, and is significantly associated with expressed demand for extension-based risk management advisory. Prior extension contact was the strongest predictor of advisory demand, underscoring the value of establishing trust before delivering specialized risk services. Risk perception varies systematically with farm size and irrigation access, calling for differentiated advisory approaches rather than uniform messaging. Extension programs that address both biophysical and market risks, and that reach currently underserved remote households, are most likely to meet actual farmer demand for risk management support.

References

1. Minetti JL, Vargas WM. Trends and jumps in the annual precipitation in South America south of 15°S. Atmosfera. 2019;11(4):205-221.
2. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Censos. Agricultural price index report: 2022-2023. Buenos Aires: INDEC; 2023.
3. Hardaker JB, Lien G, Anderson JR. Coping with risk in agriculture: applied decision analysis. 3rd ed. Wallingford: CABI; 2018.
4. Lemos MC, Kirchhoff CJ, Ramprasad V. Narrowing the climate information usability gap. Nature Climate Change. 2019;2(11):789-794.
5. Tort MI, Lombardo P. Agricultural extension in Argentina: a changing landscape. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2020;16(3):235251.
6. Menapace L, Colson G, Raffaelli R. Risk aversion, subjective beliefs, and farmer risk management www.extensionjournal.com strategies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2018;95(2):384-389.
7. Ullah R, Shivakoti GP, Ali G. Factors effecting farmers risk attitude and risk perceptions: the case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2019;13:151-157.
8. van Duinen R, Bakker MH, de Moel H. Economic analysis of drought risk adaptation. Journal of Environmental Economics. 2018;69:100-115.
9. Flaten O, Lien G, Koesling M. Comparing risk perceptions and risk management in organic and conventional dairy farming. Food Policy. 2019;30(2):150-167.
10. Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology. 2018;91(1):93-114.
11. Grothmann T, Patt A. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change. 2019;15(3):199-213.
12. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology. 2017;140:1-55.
13. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach alpha. International Journal of Medical Education. 2018;2:53-55.
14. Akhtar S, Li GC, Ullah R. Risk perception and adaptation strategies towards climate change: evidence from Punjab, Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2020;27:32398-32412.
15. Deressa TT, Hassan RM, Ringler C. Perception of and adaptation to climate change by farmers in the Nile basin of Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Science. 2019;149(1):23-31.
16. Nguyen TPL, Seddaiu G, Roggero PP. Cropping system and farm type determinants of risk perception among Mediterranean farmers. Agricultural Systems. 2019;159:56-67.
17. Aker JC, Mbiti IM. Mobile phones and economic development in Africa. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2018;24(3):207-232.