Economic viability of small farms and farming businesses depends on multiple factors. These farms have limited production and financial resources to maintain their operation. Therefore, to sustain farming, adopting appropriate risk management strategies is a pivotal decision for small farmers. We surveyed Tennessee’s small farms and utilized multivariate probit models to study factors influencing the adoption of various risk management strategies. Our findings suggest that the decisions related to the adoption of risk management strategies are significantly interlinked. Along with factors representing the operator’s age, education, and farm operator’s income and land holdings, we also found that the government incentives (payments), smartphones, and farmers’ continuation plan significantly influence the strategic decisions of adopting risk management strategies.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present theoretical synopsis of risk balancing hypothesis (RBH) and estimate empirical models examining debt, savings and debt-to-equity use decisions of small US farms.Design/methodology/approachThe authors use primary survey data from Tennessee and generalized linear models (GLMs).FindingsThe study’s findings suggest that the perceived higher business risk (BR) significantly increases the extent of debt use, savings use and debt-to-equity of small farmers. Moreover, results indicate that factors such as age and education of the operator, family involvement, incomes, land acreage, adoption of alternative on-farm enterprises and farmers' continuation plan significantly influence the financing decisions of small farm operations.Originality/valueThe authors investigated an essential empirical question examining the risk balancing behavior of small US farm operations. While risk balancing has been a theme of several studies, none of the previous studies have specifically looked at the behavior in the context of small US farms. The theoretical synopsis and empirical findings contribute to the literature of risk balancing, debt use and savings use decisions and the policy discussions on farm financial and support strategies.

PurposeIn Nepal, crop insurance is at initial phase. However, since its implementation seven years ago, the adoption rate has been fairly low even with the government's lucrative subsidy on premium. There have been very limited studies on specifics of insurance for different crops, and farmer's acceptability on insurance. This study examines WTP for tree-based insurance, a potential insurance scheme on fruit crops in hilly areas of Nepal.Design/methodology/approachThe authors used a contingent valuation method to estimate farmer's willingness to pay (WTP) premium for insurance. They used a double-bounded dichotomous choice (DBDC) framework to elicit WTP and an interval regression method to estimate the WTP model.FindingsThe authors found that the farmers revealed WTP for tree-based insurance is three times higher than the premium they would pay under government's current subsidy plans of insurance. The authors’ result from interval regression also suggests that the factors such as farm size, farmer's adverse experience about invasive pest and weather, awareness of crop insurance, farming experience, and family involvement in agriculture significantly influence farmers' WTP.Research limitations/implicationsA distinct modality of insurance, like tree-based insurance for fruit crops in mid and high hill areas, may enhance the adoption rate rather than a broad area-based plan generalized for all crops.Originality/valueOnly a few studies have examined specifics of insurance in fruit crop insurance in developing countries. The authors’ estimated WTP factors influencing WTP on citrus fruit-crop insurance in Nepal indicates that there is a scope for extending this insurance program. However, the authors also found that there is a gap in understanding of crop insurance and have limited awareness on the government's subsidy programs among farmers.

Low‐income households and minority communities in the US are considered highly vulnerable to diet‐and nutrition‐related adverse health effects. Households' food‐related decisions may entail real or perceived tradeoffs among price, preference, access and availability, and other factors. We use a sample of low‐income households, mostly from African American communities, from the Nashville metropolitan area of Tennessee to assess fruit and vegetable purchasing behavior. We found that the vast majority of household shops for fruits and vegetables (F&Vs) less than two to three times per month. Using probit and nested logit models, we analyzed purchase decisions and investigated reasons and factors determining “not to buy” F&Vs by low‐income households.