Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Risk programming analysis with imperfect information
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Open Access
  • Published: 12 June 2009

Risk programming analysis with imperfect information

  • Gudbrand Lien1,
  • J. Brian Hardaker2,
  • Marcel A. P. M. van Asseldonk3 &
  • …
  • James W. Richardson4 

Annals of Operations Research volume 190, pages 311–323 (2011)Cite this article

  • 648 Accesses

  • 7 Citations

  • Metrics details

Abstract

A Monte Carlo procedure is used to demonstrate the dangers of basing (farm) risk programming on only a few states of nature and to study the impact of applying alternative risk programming methods. Two risk programming formulations are considered, namely mean-variance (E,V) programming and utility efficient (UE) programming. For the particular example of a Norwegian mixed livestock and crop farm, the programming solution is unstable with few states, although the cost of picking a sub-optimal plan declines with increases in number of states. Comparing the E,V results with the UE results shows that there were few discrepancies between the two and the differences which do occur are mainly trivial, thus both methods gave unreliable results in cases with small samples.

Download to read the full article text

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the common mistakes

References

  • Ames, G. C. W., Reid, D. W., & Hsiou, L. F. (1993). Risk analysis of new maize technology in Zaire: a portfolio approach. Agricultural Economics, 9, 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., Dillon, J. L., & Hardaker, J. B. (1977). Agricultural decision analysis. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atwood, J., Shaik, S., & Watts, M. (2003). Are crop yields normally distributed? A re-examination. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85, 888–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhende, M. J., & Venkataram, J. V. (1994). Impact of diversification on household income and risk: a whole-farm modelling approach. Agricultural Systems, 44, 301–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalfant, J. A., Collender, R. N., & Subramanian, S. (1990). The mean and variance of the mean-variance decision rule. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72, 966–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemen, R. T., & Reilly, T. (1999). Correlation and copulas for decision and risk analysis. Management Science, 45, 208–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collender, R. N. (1989). Estimation risk in farm planning under uncertainty. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71, 996–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorward, A. (1999). A risk programming approach for analysing contractual choice in the presence of transaction costs. European Review of Agriculture Economics, 26, 479–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epplin, F. M., & Al-Sakkaf, G. A. (1995). Risk-efficient tillage systems and program participation strategies for land subject to conservation compliance. Review of Agricultural Economics, 17, 311–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fackler, P. L. (1991). Modeling interdependence: an approach to simulation and elicitation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 1091–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flaten, O., & Lien, G. (2007). Stochastic utility-efficient programming of organic dairy farms. European Journal of Operational Research, 181, 1574–1583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freund, R. J. (1956). The introduction of risk into a programming model. Econometrica, 24, 253–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardaker, J. B., Huirne, R. B. M., Anderson, J. R., & Lien, G. (2004). Coping with risk in agriculture, 2nd edn. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hardaker, J. B., Lien, G., & Richardson, J. W. (2007). Expanding the states of nature for risk programming. Contributed paper to the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society’s 51st Annual Conference, Queenstown, New Zealand, February 13–15, 2007.

  • Hazell, P. B. R. (1971). A linear alternative to quadratic and semivariance programming or farm planning under uncertainty. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53, 53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Just, R. E., & Weninger, Q. (1999). Are crop yields normally distributed? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81, 287–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, J. O. S., & Ng, G. P. (1978). Alternative measures of variance in risk programming models. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 5, 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobzar, O. A., van Asseldonk, M. A. P. M., & Huirne, R. B. M. (2005). Whole-farm planning under risk: Application of alternative risk programming techniques to support portfolio decisions in Dutch agriculture. In Agricultural economics society annual conference, University of Nottingham, England.

  • Krause, M. A., Deuson, R. R., Baker, T. G., Preckel, P. V., Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., Reddy, K. C., & Maliki, K. (1990). Risk sharing versus low-cost credit systems for international development. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72, 911–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, D. K., & McCarl, B. A. (1985). Risk modeling using direct solution of nonlinear approximations of the utility function. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 67, 846–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lence, S. H., & Hayes, D. J. (1995). Land allocation in the presence of estimation risk. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 20, 49–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lien, G., & Hardaker, J. B. (2001). Whole-farm planning under uncertainty: impacts of subsidy scheme and utility function on portfolio choice in Norwegian agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 28, 17–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7, 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NILF (2005). Handbok for driftsplanlegging [Handbook in farm business planning] 2005/2006. Oslo: Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, K. D., & Eidman, V. R. (1992). A farmer’s choice of weed control method and the impacts of policy and risk. Review of Agricultural Economics, 14, 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pannell, D. J. (2006). Flat earth economics: The far-reaching consequences of flat payoff functions in economic decision making. Review of Agricultural Economics, 28, 553–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pannell, D. J., & Nordblom, T. J. (1998). Impacts of risk aversion on whole-farm management in Syria. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 42, 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patten, L. H., Hardaker, J. B., & Pannell, D. J. (1988). Utility-efficient programming for whole-farm planning. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 32, 88–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. W., Klose, S. L., & Gray, A. W. (2000). An applied procedure for estimating and simulating multivariate empirical (MVE) probability distributions in farm-level risk assessment and policy analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 32, 299–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. W., Lien, G., & Hardaker, J. B. (2006). Simulating multivariate distributions with sparse data: a kernel density smoothing procedure. Poster paper contributed to the 26th International Conference of Agricultural Economics, Gold Cost, Australia, August 12–18, 2006.

  • Romero, C. (2000). Risk programming for agricultural resource allocation: a multidimensional risk approach. Annals of Operations Research, 94, 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlaifer, R. (1959). Probability and statistics for business decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tauer, L. W. (1983). Target MOTAD. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65, 608–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torkamani, J. (2005). Using a whole-farm modelling approach to assess prospective technologies under uncertainty. Agricultural Systems, 85, 138–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lillehammer University College and Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute, P.O. Box 8024 Dep., 0030, Oslo, Norway

    Gudbrand Lien

  2. School of Business, Economics and Public Policy, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia

    J. Brian Hardaker

  3. Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 8130, NL, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Marcel A. P. M. van Asseldonk

  4. Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843-2124, USA

    James W. Richardson

Authors
  1. Gudbrand Lien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Brian Hardaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcel A. P. M. van Asseldonk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James W. Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcel A. P. M. van Asseldonk.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lien, G., Hardaker, J.B., van Asseldonk, M.A.P.M. et al. Risk programming analysis with imperfect information. Ann Oper Res 190, 311–323 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-009-0555-y

Download citation

  • Published: 12 June 2009

  • Issue Date: October 2011

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-009-0555-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Quadratic risk programming
  • States of nature
  • Sparse data
  • Kernel smoothing
Download PDF

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the common mistakes

Advertisement

Over 10 million scientific documents at your fingertips

Switch Edition
  • Academic Edition
  • Corporate Edition
  • Home
  • Impressum
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • California Privacy Statement
  • How we use cookies
  • Manage cookies/Do not sell my data
  • Accessibility
  • FAQ
  • Contact us
  • Affiliate program

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Part of Springer Nature.