Behavioral Preferences and Price Risk Management in Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract Recent crises have increased price volatility, yet farmers’ adoption of forward contracts, futures, options, and price insurance remains low. Since this appears puzzling from a standard expected utility maximizing perspective, we systematically review the literature on the relation between behavioral factors and price hedging. We distinguish behavioral preferences, formally integrated into choice models, from psychological factors, lacking mathematical formalization. Most of the 101 reviewed studies focus on futures and rely on risk aversion assuming expected utility maximization, with limited evidence on behavioral economic drivers. Considering nonclassical preferences and psychological factors in choice models might better capture farmers’ risk management decisions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics
Published
2026-05-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2026.10044
Primary Topic
Agricultural risk and resilience
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Behavioral Preferences and Price Risk Management in Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review

Tobias Dalhaus, Simone Cerroni, Laura Moritz, Riccardo Spada et al.
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics
Agricultural risk and resilience
article

Behavioral Preferences and Price Risk Management in Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review

Tobias Dalhaus, Simone Cerroni, Laura Moritz, Riccardo Spada, Jens Rommel, Miranda P.M. Meuwissen
article en

Abstract

Abstract Recent crises have increased price volatility, yet farmers’ adoption of forward contracts, futures, options, and price insurance remains low. Since this appears puzzling from a standard expected utility maximizing perspective, we systematically review the literature on the relation between behavioral factors and price hedging. We distinguish behavioral preferences, formally integrated into choice models, from psychological factors, lacking mathematical formalization. Most of the 101 reviewed studies focus on futures and rely on risk aversion assuming expected utility maximization, with limited evidence on behavioral economic drivers. Considering nonclassical preferences and psychological factors in choice models might better capture farmers’ risk management decisions.

Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics
University of Trento (IT), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE), Sustainable Energy Systems (United Kingdom) (GB), Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Agricultural risk and resilience
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.