Empirical approach to risk management strategies of Mediterranean mussel farmers in Greece

Theodorou, John A.; Tzovenis, Ioannis; Katselis, George

doi:10.2478/oandhs-2021-0039

Figures & Tables

Path analysis framework for risk management strategies in relation to socioeconomic and risk factors of Greek mussel farmers

Path diagram (statistically significant flows; p < 0.05 and * – p < 0.1) for risk management strategies in relation to socioeconomic and risk factors of Greek mussel farmers. Values on the arrows are standardized regression coefficients.

Results of open-ended questions (% of respondents’ responses)

Risk sources variables	What risks do you consider manageable?	For what types of risks would you like to purchase insurance?	What type of risk could be covered by public/government support?
Weather impact	0	14.3	51.0
Harmful algal blooms	0	0.0	79.6
Pollution	0	2.0	26.5
Predators	0	0.0	57.1
Diseases	0	0.0	8.2
Illegal actions	0	0.0	8.2
Uninsured boat	0	44.9	0.0
Farming in general (routine production handling)	100	0.0	0.0

Ranking of risk perception sources by mean scores (1 – not relevant, 5 – relevant); factor loadings from factor analysis (SRi) for risk sources and results of multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) of factor scores per legal status and culture system_ ExpVar% – % explained variance, CumExpVar% – % cumulative explained variance, SD – standard deviation, with significant values marked in bold (cut-off value of ± 0_6)_ Mean scale evaluation (MSE): M ≥ 4 – important (IM); 3 ≤ M < 4 – high moderate (HM); 2 ≤ M < 3 – low moderate (LM); Mi < 2 – low (LO), ns – non-significant statistical differences (p > 0_1), S, S* – significant statistical differences at p < 0_05 and p < 0_1, respectively, the rank of mean values of homogeneous subsets given in parentheses (post hoc Tukey HSD test)

ID	Risk Sources (RS) variables	Rank by Mean	Mean (M)	SD	MSE	Factors
ID	Risk Sources (RS) variables	Rank by Mean	Mean (M)	SD	MSE	SR1	SR2	SR3	SR4	SR5	SR6	SR7	SR8	SR9	SR10
8	Availability of grading machines	9	3.65	1.38	HM	−0.83	−0.23	0.06	−0.19	−0.13	0.05	−0.16	0.14	−0.07	0.01
20	Health & safety	26	2.73	1.44	LM	0.73	−0.34	−0.02	−0.06	−0.11	0.26	0.13	0.18	0.23	0.03
6	Technology availability	14	3.41	1.21	HM	−0.72	−0.15	0.10	−0.15	0.05	−0.01	−0.12	−0.06	0.43	0.08
7	Vessel availability	3	4.18	1.47	IM	−0.58	−0.29	0.32	−0.13	−0.19	0.02	−0.25	0.35	0.10	0.06
33	Division of tasks within family	20	3.22	1.43	HM	0.57	0.41	0.46	0.19	0.05	0.19	−0.15	−0.14	0.10	0.03
32	Family relations	12	3.49	1.32	HM	0.48	0.46	0.42	0.11	0.26	0.27	−0.22	−0.11	0.06	0.19
31	Disability/health of farmer	2	4.20	1.17	IM	0.13	0.91	0.06	−0.06	0.07	0.19	−0.05	0.00	−0.03	0.12
30	Health situation of farmer family	5	4.02	1.13	IM	0.09	0.90	0.13	0.01	0.03	0.16	0.05	−0.03	−0.06	0.04
28	Possibility to remit loans	17	3.33	1.49	HM	−0.11	0.02	0.88	−0.16	−0.03	0.03	0.07	0.12	−0.04	−0.02
27	Changes in interest rates	11	3.49	1.43	HM	0.00	0.16	0.85	−0.11	0.01	0.01	0.11	0.15	−0.04	0.09
23	Public Authorities Services	10	3.65	1.45	HM	−0.07	−0.33	0.46	0.40	−0.07	−0.11	0.31	0.03	0.16	−0.12
16	Freshwater availability	15	3.41	1.17	HM	0.15	0.10	0.01	0.80	−0.20	−0.14	0.21	−0.02	0.08	0.20
19	Environmental impact	28	2.37	1.41	LM	0.13	−0.25	−0.25	0.79	0.10	0.31	0.03	−0.07	−0.08	−0.05
17	Diseases	33	1.76	1.20	LO	0.35	0.20	−0.07	0.63	0.39	−0.07	0.06	−0.19	0.29	−0.23
1	Weather impact	22	3.08	1.22	HM	0.27	0.52	−0.28	0.53	−0.17	0.14	0.17	0.10	−0.03	−0.19
2	Seed recruitment availability	13	3.41	1.15	HM	−0.10	0.03	0.04	0.03	−0.87	−0.05	0.07	0.05	0.09	0.01
10	Ex-farm mussel price	1	4.49	0.82	IM	0.06	0.21	−0.05	0.14	0.65	0.12	0.23	0.41	0.14	0.09
29	Sea rental	29	2.18	1.27	LM	−0.22	0.21	0.10	−0.26	0.47	0.39	0.09	0.22	−0.36	−0.01
3	Mussel meat yield	16	3.33	1.20	HM	0.29	0.25	−0.34	0.27	−0.47	0.04	−0.13	−0.07	−0.05	0.41
22	NGOs	31	1.90	1.08	LO	−0.04	0.13	0.16	−0.05	0.06	0.82	−0.03	0.13	0.04	0.25
21	Media	21	3.20	1.62	HM	0.13	0.35	−0.15	0.19	0.26	0.68	0.10	−0.06	−0.22	−0.07
18	Illegal actions	30	2.02	1.25	LM	0.36	0.30	−0.12	0.13	−0.02	0.63	0.05	−0.05	0.15	−0.26
26	New license availability	19	3.22	1.37	HM	0.27	0.14	0.39	0.07	0.11	−0.04	0.73	−0.08	0.11	0.08
25	Environmental Policy	8	3.86	1.32	HM	0.07	−0.12	−0.04	0.30	−0.03	−0.11	0.66	−0.08	0.18	−0.13
12	Transport	32	1.86	1.12	LO	−0.03	−0.21	0.28	−0.11	−0.19	0.43	0.63	−0.11	−0.22	0.08
11	Supply absorption	6	3.94	1.03	HM	0.16	0.23	−0.12	0.07	0.40	0.29	0.61	0.17	−0.07	0.08
5	Production cost	7	3.92	0.73	HM	0.01	0.06	0.06	−0.01	0.29	0.13	−0.13	0.75	−0.08	0.11
9	Labor availability	18	3.29	1.43	HM	−0.33	−0.13	0.40	−0.08	−0.07	−0.05	0.03	0.71	0.04	−0.17
14	Pollution	27	2.47	1.37	LM	−0.27	0.24	−0.02	0.46	0.23	0.21	0.02	−0.50	0.21	0.02
24	Termination of governmental support	25	2.86	1.40	LM	−0.07	0.03	0.22	0.08	−0.11	0.04	−0.04	−0.07	0.81	0.13
13	Harmful algal blooms (HABS)	4	4.12	1.11	IM	0.08	−0.10	−0.29	0.06	0.06	−0.07	0.20	0.01	0.76	−0.04
4	Fouling organisms	23	2.98	1.03	LM	−0.02	0.04	0.00	0.04	0.06	0.06	0.02	−0.02	0.14	0.95
15	Predators	24	2.86	1.65	LM	−0.13	0.24	0.33	−0.29	−0.20	−0.01	0.03	0.39	−0.15	0.61
Eigenvalues						3.51	3.49	3.23	2.91	2.49	2.46	2.28	2.07	2.05	1.89
ExpVar%						10.65	10.57	9.79	8.81	7.55	7.47	6.91	6.27	6.21	5.73
CumExpVar%						10.65	21.21	31.01	39.81	47.37	54.83	61.74	68.01	74.22	79.95
MANOVA results
Legal status						ns	S (4 < 1, 2, 3)	ns	ns	ns	S (1, 2, 4 < 3, 4, 2)	S^* (1, 2, 3 < 2, 3, 4)	ns	ns	ns
Culture system						ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	S (1 < 2)	ns	ns	ns	S^* (2 < 1)

Total absolute effects of the relative risk attitude factor, socioeconomic factors (SER) and sources of risks factors (SR) on risk management strategy factors (RMS) determined for Greek mussel farmers by path analysis

Relative risk attitude factor, Socioeconomic factors (SER) and Sources of risk factors (SR)		Risk Management Strategy factors (RMS)
		Off-farm employment OR Applying strict hygienic rules	Intra-company measures	Insurance	Collaboration OR Production at lowest cost	Geographic dispersion OR Business diversification
	Relative risk attitude	0.138	0.475	0.405	0.111	0.551
SER	Farm features		0.215
	Farm manager education
	Work experience	0.287	0.218	0.065	0.172
SR	Health safety OR Technology availability	0.272	0.262	0.431	0.218
	Personal welfare			0.320		0.312
	Financial risk
	Environmental risk	0.510	0.336
	Market risk
	Social acceptance		0.289	0.216	0.371
	Institutional		0.391
	Production cost & Labor availability	0.287
	HABs			0.242	0.240
	Biofouling & predators				0.328	0.306

Factor loadings (SERi) from factor analysis of socioeconomic variables on Greek mussel farmers and results of multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA; p = 0_05) of factor scores per legal status and culture system_ ExpVar% − % explained variance, CumExpVar% − % cumulative explained variance, with significant values marked in bold (cut-off value of ± 0_6), ns − non-significant statistical differences (p > 0_05)

	Factors
	farm features	farm manager education	work experience
Socioeconomic variables	SER1	SER2	SER3
Production capacity	0.95	0.01	−0.02
Farm size	0.90	−0.05	0.04
Part-time work	0.81	−0.15	0.05
Full-time work	0.79	0.32	−0.09
Age	−0.21	0.87	0.22
Education	−0.19	−0.81	0.14
Work experience	0.03	0.03	0.99
Eigenvalues	3.07	1.55	1.06
ExpVar%	43.86	22.13	15.12
CumExpVar%	43.86	66.00	81.12
MANOVA results
Legal status (1, 2, 3, 4)	ns	ns	ns
Culture system (1, 2)	ns	ns	ns

Descriptive statistics of questionnaire responses from mussel farmers (n = 49) representative of production capacity in Greece; survey period from November 2008 to February 2009

Respondents (mussel farmers)/total Greek managing production capacity (t)	31 068/45 403
Production representation (%)	68
Questionnaire respondents (N/%)	49^*/12
Age of respondents (18–30 yr/31–40 yr/41–50 yr/51–60/61 yr <) (%)	9/19/40/21/11
Work experience (yr)	13.9 ± 8.1
Education (primary/secondary/higher)	12/61/27
Mussel farmers’ managing capacity range (min.–max; t)	50–12 000^*
Mean farm production capacity per farm unit (including individual cooperative members of respondents; t)	225 ± 152
Mean farm size ownership per individual farmer, including cooperative members (ha)	2.4 ± 1.7
Full-time occupation (workers/mussel farm)	1.25 ± 1.60
Part-time occupation (workers/mussel farm)	2.73 ± 1.81
Culture system (1 long line/2 hanging parks; %)	92/8
Legal status of the mussel farm (1 self-employment/2 general partnership GP/limited partnership LP/3 Ltd/4 SA) (%)	44/36/5/15

Effects of the relative risk attitude factor, socioeconomic factors (SER) and sources of risk factors (SR) on risk management strategy factors (RMS) determined by path analysis for Greek mussel farmers_ Percentages of the absolute effect of independent variables on RMS given in parentheses_

RMS	SER and SR	Direct effect	Indirect effect through		Total effect	Total association	Non-causal Effect
RMS	SER and SR	Direct effect	Relative risk attitude	Work experience	Total effect	Total association	Non-causal Effect
Off-farm employment or Applying strict hygienic rules	Health safety OR Technology availability	0.272 (66.22%)	0.138 (33.77%)		0.411	0.272	−0.14
	Environmental risk	−0.51 (71.42%)		−0.20 (28.57%)	−0.715	−0.511	0.20
	Production cost & Labor availability	0.287 (77.51%)		−0.08 (22.48%)	0.204	0.287	0.08
Intra-company measures	Relative risk attitude	−0.34 (100%)			−0.341	−0.355	−0.01
	Health safety OR Technology availability	−0.26 (66.22%)	−0.13 (33.77%)		−0.396	−0.414	−0.02
	Environmental risk	−0.33 (71.42%)		−0.13 (28.57%)	−0.471	−0.338	0.13
	Social acceptance	−0.28 (77.51%)		−0.08 (22.48%)	−0.373	−0.240	0.13
	Institutional	−0.39 (100%)			−0.392	−0.286	0.11
	Farm features	−0.21 (100%)			−0.215	−0.195	0.02
Insurance	Health safety OR Technology availability	−0.43 (66.22%)	−0.21 (33.77%)		−0.651	−0.431	0.22
	Personal welfare	0.320 (63.29%)	0.186 (36.70%)		0.507	0.321	−0.19
	Social acceptance	0.216 (100%)			0.217	0.217	0.00
	HABs	−0.24 (78.74%)		0.065 (21.25%)	−0.177	−0.242	−0.07
Collaboration OR Production at lowest cost	Health safety OR Technology availability	0.218 (66.22%)	0.111 (33.77%)		0.330	0.219	−0.11
	Biofouling & predators	−0.32 (100%)			−0.329	−0.329	0.00
	Social acceptance	−0.37 (77.51%)		−0.10 (22.48%)	−0.480	−0.372	0.11
	HABs	0.240 (78.74%)		−0.06 (21.25%)	0.175	0.240	0.06
Geographic dispersion OR Business diversification	Relative risk attitude	−0.40 (100%)			−0.401	−0.224	0.18
	Biofouling & predators	−0.30 (100%)			−0.307	−0.271	0.04
	Personal welfare	0.312 (67.56%)	0.150 (32.43%)		0.494	0.120	−0.37

Risk ranking by mean scores of questionnaire responses (n = 49); factor loadings for mussel farmers’ willingness to take risks and results of multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) of factor scores per legal status and culture system_ ExpVar% − % explained variance, CumExpVar% − % cumulative explained variance, SD − standard deviation, with significant values marked in bold (cut-off value of ± 0_6), ns − non-significant statistical differences (p > 0_1), S, S* − significant statistical differences p < 0_05 and p < 0_1, respectively, the rank of mean values of homogeneous subsets given in parentheses (post hoc Tukey HSD test)_

Willing to take risk more than my colleagues	Rank by Mean	Mean Scale ± SD				Factor loadings
Willing to take risk more than my colleagues	Rank by Mean	(1–5)		1–100%		Relative risk attitude (F1)
in production	1	3.16	1.33	63.27	26.57	0.91
in marketing	2	3.12	1.39	62.45	27.88	0.92
in farming in general	3	3.02	1.20	60.41	23.98	0.98
more than other farmers^*	4	2.98	1.23	59.59	24.66	0.98
financial issues	5	2.43	1.40	48.57	48.57	0.84
Farmer’ risk attitude^**		2.94	1.21	58.86	24.26
Eigenvalues	3.62
ExpVar%	72.35
CumExpVar%	72.35
MANOVA results
Legal status	S (4, 3 < 2, 3 < 1, 3)
Culture system	ns

Ranking of risk management strategies by mean scores (1 − not relevant, 5 − relevant)_ Factor loadings (RSMi) for risk sources and results of multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) of factor scores per legal status and culture system_ ExpVar% − % explained variance, CumExpVar% − % cumulative explained variance, SD − standard deviation, with significant values marked in bold (cut-off value of ± 0_6)_ Mean scale evaluation (MSE): M ≥ 4 − important (IM); 3 ≤ M < 4 − high moderate (HM); 2 ≤ M < 3 − low moderate (LM); Mi < 2 − low (LO), ns − non-significant statistical differences (p > 0_1), S, S* − significant statistical differences p < 0_05 and p < 0_1, respectively, the rank of mean values for homogeneous subsets given in parentheses (post hoc Tukey HSD test)_

ID	Risk Management Strategies (RMS)	Rank by Mean	Mean	SD	MSE	Risk Management Strategies Factors
ID	Risk Management Strategies (RMS)	Rank by Mean	Mean	SD	MSE	RMS1	RMS2	RMS3	RMS4	RMS5
8	Off-farm employment (agri-farming, commerce, services)	2	3.65	1.65	HM	0.85	0.17	−0.21	−0.12	−0.10
7	Off-farm investment (i.e. agritourism, stock market)	8	3.37	1.39	HM	0.75	0.17	0.22	0.12	−0.09
2	Strict adherence to hygienic and environmental rules	9	3.24	1.15	HM	−0.66	0.17	−0.04	0.01	−0.01
4	Financial and credit reserves	1	4.84	0.43	IM	0.51	−0.16	−0.22	0.31	0.46
14	Price contracts for sales	13	2.65	1.55	LM	0.03	0.80	−0.08	0.19	−0.08
5	Spatial diversification (other species)	15	2.08	1.29	LM	0.10	0.76	0.08	−0.08	−0.03
6	Participation in government supporting programs	7	3.45	1.44	HM	−0.08	0.66	0.03	0.00	0.20
11	Buying boat insurance	10	3.24	1.48	HM	0.06	−0.20	0.81	0.28	−0.06
12	Buying business insurance	11	3.10	1.45	HM	0.13	0.11	0.75	−0.51	−0.05
13	Buying personal insurance	14	2.22	1.37	LM	−0.18	0.38	0.67	0.14	0.36
15	Collaboration in trade (vertical)	5	3.47	1.53	HM	0.33	0.05	0.07	0.74	0.10
1	Producing at the lowest possible costs	3	3.65	1.18	HM	0.39	−0.11	0.11	−0.68	0.25
3	Collaboration in production (horizontal)	4	3.53	1.40	HM	−0.01	0.03	0.33	0.63	0.39
10	Business diversification	6	3.45	1.58	HM	−0.02	−0.36	0.18	0.03	−0.72
9	Geographic dispersion	12	3.06	1.77	HM	−0.10	−0.09	0.21	0.06	0.69
Eigenvalues						2.32	2.12	2.04	1.95	1.62
ExpVar%						15.46	14.12	13.58	12.98	10.82
CumExpVar%						15.46	29.58	43.16	56.14	66.96
MANOVA results
Legal status						ns	ns	S (1, 2, 4 < 3)	ns	ns
Culture system						ns	ns	S^* (1 < 2)	ns	ns

Empirical approach to risk management strategies of Mediterranean mussel farmers in Greece

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Figure 2

Results of open-ended questions (% of respondents’ responses)

Total absolute effects of the relative risk attitude factor, socioeconomic factors (SER) and sources of risks factors (SR) on risk management strategy factors (RMS) determined for Greek mussel farmers by path analysis

Descriptive statistics of questionnaire responses from mussel farmers (n = 49) representative of production capacity in Greece; survey period from November 2008 to February 2009

Effects of the relative risk attitude factor, socioeconomic factors (SER) and sources of risk factors (SR) on risk management strategy factors (RMS) determined by path analysis for Greek mussel farmers_ Percentages of the absolute effect of independent variables on RMS given in parentheses_

Paradigm

My account