Market Risk Analysis - Microeconomic Aspect of Vegetable Farms in

Guri i Zi Administrative Unit, Shkodër in Albania

TEUTA ÇERPJA1,a, ARIF MURRJA2,b*

1Faculty of Economics, Business, and Development,

European University of Tirana,

ALBANIA

2Faculty of Economics and Agribusiness

Agricultural University of Tirana

ALBANIA

aORCiD: 0000-0002-5845-6145

bORCiD: 0000-0002-6794-8782

*Corresponding Author

Abstract: The risk of entrepreneurship in agriculture is complex. The purpose of this study is to identify and

analyze the primary market risks that farmers face, which will help them better understand these risks and make

informed decisions to mitigate them. The research uses a mixed methodology involving descriptive statistical

analysis and multifactorial regression analysis to examine four critical risk factors: changes in consumer

preferences, price fluctuations, high competition, and shifts in consumer incomes. The findings show that only

high market competition is statistically significant and has a substantial impact of 79%. Farmers can use this

information to adjust their production focus towards areas of comparative advantage in a single crop to improve

their financial stability. In summary, market risk analysis is an essential tool that empowers farmers to

understand and manage risks effectively to safeguard their income streams.

Key-Words: - Farm, agriculture, risk, market, perception, technical, management.

Received: April 17, 2023. Revised: February 13, 2024. Accepted: March 4, 2024. Published: April 5, 2024.

1 Introduction

Smallholder farmers in many developing countries

face numerous challenges in accessing inputs,

technologies, and modern agricultural markets, [1],

[2], [3]. Other risks they are exposed to include low

agricultural productivity, crop failure, and product

quality that barely meets market consumer demands.

These risks stem from a lack of adequate knowledge

of best farm management practices, limited access

to improved farm management technologies, high

transaction costs to enter input markets, frequent

occurrence of pests and diseases, weather-related

uncertainties, etc., [4], [5], [6].

In a society where agriculture is a fundamental

part of the country's economy and development,

studying and analyzing the various risks that

influence vegetable farms is important to understand

and manage the challenges faced by farmers and the

agricultural sector. Albania's economy is dominated

by the agriculture sector, which accounts for

19,26% of the gross domestic product, [7]. This

research will analyze market risk in vegetable farms

in Albania, offering a special focus on the study

area, Guri i Zi administrative unit in Shkodra

County, Albania.

In agriculture, risk is present in many aspects of

the farmers' activities. These aspects include

production risk, market risk, financial risk, legal

risk, and human resources risk, [8], [9], [10], [11],

[12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20],

[21], (Figure 1). We will focus specifically on

market risk analysis in this study, as this is one of

the five main challenges facing farmers in Albania

and our study area.

In the current century, agriculture is facing

significant challenges regarding food safety and

sustainable development. In this context, risk

management has become a key focus to ensure that

agricultural production is efficient, sustainable, and

safe. A fundamental component of this management

is the identification and treatment of various risks

that may affect farmers and agricultural operations.

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.74

Teuta Çerpja, Arif Murrja

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

885

Volume 21, 2024

One of the main goals of risk management in

agriculture is to identify and predict potential risks

that may impact agricultural production. In this

context, the five key risks, known as "major risks",

"general risks", or primary risks, have been a

significant reference point, [14], [17], [21]. These

risks include aspects such as extreme weather, plant

and animal diseases, climate change, and economic,

legal, financial, human, and political factors.

An interesting fact is that the classification of

these five risks was initially identified in the United

States and later spread to other countries such as

New Zealand, Britain, and Europe, [11], [18], [19].

This global expansion indicator demonstrates the

importance of a common approach to risk

management in agriculture at the international level.

Today, international organizations such as the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) have made it clear that

studying and treating these five key risks is an

important part of agricultural policies and practices

worldwide, [16]. Improving farmers' ability to

manage these risks has a direct impact on food

safety and the sustainability of agricultural systems

overall.

However, it is important to emphasize that

despite progress in this field, challenges remain

numerous. Climate change continues to pose

significant concerns for agricultural production,

while economic and political aspects are also factors

that can affect the stability of the agricultural sector.

Therefore, farmers, agricultural organizations, and

governments need to continue working together to

develop appropriate strategies for managing these

risks.

In conclusion, risk management in agriculture is

a complex and important challenge that requires

ongoing commitment and international cooperation.

Improving access to risks in this sector will

contribute to food safety and the sustainability of

agricultural production in the future.

Albania has favorable conditions for agricultural

development, especially for vegetable production.

The study area, Guri i Zi administrative unit in

Shkodra District, is one of the areas with a

developed vegetable farm, which contributes about

42% of the needs of the regional market (Shkodra

District) for vegetables, [7]. Nevertheless, the lack

of detailed analysis of marketing risk in this area

and at the national level, has made farmers exposed

to unexpected and unexplained risks coming from

the market.

Fig. 1: The five main risks of the farm

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Our study has a specific significance, as it

begins to fill a gap in the literature and analysis of

agricultural risk in Albania. The advantages of this

study consist in the fact that it is unique and will

provide valuable information to farmers and other

interested groups regarding the levels of market

risks in vegetable production.

Even though this analysis has a flaw, which is

the impossibility of extending the results and

conclusions to a wider region than Guri i Zi, the

market risks in this region have the same approach

throughout the country and the results of the study

of market risk in this region can be directly applied

across the country.

Through this research study, we aim to support

farmers and market actors to better understand and

manage market risks in the vegetable sector in

Albania, thereby contributing to the development

and sustainability of this crucial sector of the

country.

2 Literature Review

Risks have existed and will continue to exist. Old

risks are replaced by new ones. In 1999, it was

found that agricultural producers expressed more

concerns regarding the risks of price volatility and

input quality, [10]. A study conducted in the

Netherlands in 2001 focused on completing surveys

on farmers' perceptions of risk sources. The focus of

this study was on livestock, and the findings

highlighted price as a significant risk source,

followed by epidemic animal diseases and farmer

deaths, [22]. Another study in the Netherlands in

2011 focuses on the management of catastrophic

risks by promoting public-private partnerships, such

as the Veterinary Livestock Fund, to control the

costs of livestock epidemics and insurance

companies for covering specific types of risks, [23].

The study conducted in 2010 in the Caribbean and

Pacific Islands aimed to gather information by

Farm

risk

Production

risk

Market

risk

Financial

risk

Legal

risk

Human

resource

risk

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.74

Teuta Çerpja, Arif Murrja

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

886

Volume 21, 2024

conducting surveys on stakeholders' perceptions of

risk sources in the value chain. Fruit and vegetable

farmers were the focus, and the study concluded that

marketing and production risks were the most

significant, [24]. In 2014, a study in Lithuania

aimed to study general agriculture. The method used

to conduct this study was a survey focused on

building a farm risk index using various risk factor

analyses. The study's findings showed a higher risk

in production, mainly from non-productive inputs

and plant diseases, [20]. Three years later, another

study was conducted in Slovakia, which also

focused on general agriculture and farmers'

perceptions of risk sources. However, this time,

marketing risk was seen as more prioritized, arguing

that price and competition risks were the major

concerns for farmers, followed by natural disasters

and contract violations, [18]. Another study

focusing on livestock in 2018 in India identified

marketing risk as the most influential on-farm risk,

followed by adverse weather and delays in

veterinary services, [25]. In Chile, in 2018, a study

was conducted on onion production. The

conclusions highlighted climate-related phenomena

as significant concerns, followed by price

fluctuations and currency exchange rates, [26]. In

2019, a comparative study was conducted in the

United States to assess the importance of one type

of risk compared to others, concluding that

production, market, and financial risks were more

significant concerns than personal or legal risks,

[27]. Another study in the United States a year later

concluded that non-climatic resources, bring more

concern to the farm than climatic ones, [28].

Surveys on farmers' perceptions of risk sources have

also been conducted in Norway, focusing on dairy

products. This 2005 study concluded that insecurity

about expected profits, fear of inability to continue

payments to the state, or fear of debt and credit

repayment were the most significant risk sources,

[29]. Another study in 2018, this time in Pakistan,

conducted similar surveys to previous studies,

concluding that frequent changes in agricultural

policies were the main concern, followed by the

price of agricultural equipment and the lack of

agricultural cooperatives, [30]. In the same year, a

study in Turkey aimed to identify farmers'

knowledge of risk sources in beekeeping. Its

findings identified low-profit risk as the most

significant concern, followed by disease risk and

professional skills shortages, [31]. In 2022, an

empirical study was conducted in Kosovo for the

period 2017-2021, focusing on five risks in

intensive chicken farms. The study findings showed

that farmers had high-risk factors, such as legal and

financial risk, medium-risk factors, such as market

risk and human resource risk, and low-risk factors,

such as production risk, [32], [33], [34].

In a 2023 study in the Guri i Zi administrative

unit in Shkodër, vegetable farmers had high

perceptions of the five main risks (production risk,

market risk, financial risk, legal risk, and human

resource risk). Based on the regression analysis of

production risk events, it was found that drought

and floods were the most important for the farm in

this region, [22]. This reveals the importance of the

influence of weather conditions on the performance

of vegetable farms.

From a preliminary survey with Guri I Zi

farmers, it was concluded that the most important

market risk events were the fluctuation of product

prices in the market, high competition, changes in

consumer preferences, and the reduction of

consumer incomes.

Therefore, the research hypothesis of this study

is: H1: The events of fluctuating prices of products

in the market, high competition, changes in

consumer preferences, and a decrease in consumer

income have serious impacts on market risk.

In conclusion, the literature review shows that

the number of studies on market risk in vegetable

farms is relatively small, [7]. Furthermore, the

research studies are not focused on the five main

risks of agriculture (production risk, market risk,

financing risk, legal risk, and human resources risk).

Our research paper aims to fill this gap with a

quantitative analysis of the four most significant

market risk events in vegetable farms, in the study

area. This will help in developing further strategies

for managing this risk and improving the

sustainability of one of the most important sectors of

the economy.

3 Materials and Methods

3.1 Description of Statistical Concepts

The main concepts of the study are “Market risk” as

a dependent variable and “Sources of market risk”

as independent variables (Table 1).

Table 1. Concepts of the model

Market

Risk (Y)

1) Changes in consumer

preferences (X1)

2) Price fluctuation (X2)

3) High competition (X3)

4)Changes in consumer

income (X4)

Dependent variable

Independent variables

Source: Adapted for our research study, [7]

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.74

Teuta Çerpja, Arif Murrja

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

887

Volume 21, 2024

3.2 Qualitative Assessment of the Variables

A 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate the

variables in this study, ranging from 1 (very low-

risk factor) to 5 = very high-risk factor), for the four

most important risk events of the vegetable market

in the Guri i Zi administrative unit. (Table 2).

Many researchers widely use assessment using

the Likert scale. There are several similar studies

regarding the examination of risk factors in

vegetable farms, [7], [12], [15], [25], [32], [33],

[34], [35].

Table 2. Turning concepts into variables

Method of measurement

Assessment

1-Very low risk

1-260

2-Low risk

261-520

3-Average risk

521-780

4-High risk

781-1,040

5-Very high risk

1,041-1,300

Source: [7]

3.3 Preliminary Survey Preparation

In order to assess the importance of the three

variables related to financial risk, a preliminary

survey was conducted with the participation of 30

farmers. The selection process of farmers was based

on criteria such as education, experience, and farm

size. These criteria were used as key indications to

ensure a qualitative and appropriate representation

of the opinion and experience of farmers in the field

of studying financial risk in vegetable farms.

Then the study was extended to 3500 farmers

and the reliability of the sample was calculated with

the following formulas:

For larger populations, the representativeness of

the sample is calculated with the formula, [35], [36],

[37].



󰇛󰇜

Where Z = 1.96; p =0.5; q = 0.5 and e = 0.05, n0

is calculated:

   

  󰇛󰇜

The population consists of 3,500 farmers, and

we can slightly reduce it, [35], [36].

  

  󰇛󰇜



󰇛󰇜

Where n is the sample size and N is the

population size equal to 3,500.

The sample size of the study is:

  

  󰇛󰇜



󰇛󰇜

3.4 Survey, Data Collection and Analysis

For this study, 260 farmers who operate in the Guri

I Zi administrative unit, were interviewed face-to-

face. A random sampling technique was used, and

the responses of the farmers were recorded and

presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Farmers' responses on the perceptions

of market risk events

Market risk events

Likert rating

Fluctuation of product

prices in the market

High competition

100

Changes in consumer

preferences

Decrease in consumer

income

Market risk

115

105

Source: Authors' elaboration

Survey data were gathered and managed using

Excel before undergoing regression analysis. The

relationship between variables was examined

employing the multiple linear regression model, a

widely recognized approach in agricultural risk

analysis, [38], [39], [40], [41].

Y = a + bX1 + cX2 + … nXi + e (5)

3.5 Statistical Model Estimation

A statistical model evaluation was performed using

Fisher's Factic (Ff) and Fisher's Critical (Fc) to

determine whether the model was statistically

significant. The statistical significance of the

dependent variable is determined through the P-

value. The coefficient of determination (R2) shows

how much of the change in the independent variable

is determined by the change in the dependent

variable. This method provides a consistent way to

assess and analyze the importance of sources of

market risk in the context of the study.

4 Problem Solution

In another study, the perception of vegetable

farmers in this area for the five main risks was

measured and evaluated according to the Likert

scale, [7]. The data are presented in Table 4 and

Figure 2.

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.74

Teuta Çerpja, Arif Murrja

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

888

Volume 21, 2024

Table 4. Farmers' perception of the five main

risks on the farm

Segment

Five main

risks

Perceptions

1,041-1,300

Production risk

1,220

(i) Very high

1,041-1,300

Marketing risk

1,080

(ii) Very high

781-1040

Financial risk

995

(iii) High

781-1040

Human risk

850

(v) High

521-780

Legal risk

670

(iv) Average

Source: [7]

Fig. 2: Farmers' perception of the five main risks

Source: [7]

As we can see from Table 4 and Figure 2,

market risk is rated second in terms of importance,

after production risk, followed by financial risk,

human resources risk, and legal risk at the end.

4.1 Descriptive Analysis of Market Risk

The suggested resources are perceived as important

(Table 5 and Figure 3).

Table 5. The importance of the market risk variables

Segment

Source of market risk

Perception

[781-

1040]

Fluctuation

of product prices in

the market

005

(i)

Important

[781-

1040]

High competition

995

(ii)

Important

[781-

1040]

Decrease in consumer

income

840

(iii)

Important

[781-

1040]

Changes

in consumer

preferences

790

(iv)

Important

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Fig. 3: The importance of the market risk variables

Source: Authors’ elaboration

All four events are perceived as important, as

shown in Table 5 and Figure 3. But within the

assessment segment [781-1040] the price fluctuation

of products in the market is rated higher (1.050),

followed by competition, a decrease in consumer

income, and finally a change in consumer

preferences. Table 6, illustrates the perception in

percent of the 260 farmers interviewed for the four

market risk events.

Table 6. Evaluation of Perceptions in Percentage

Likert scale

27%

37%

Fluctuation of ….

10%

19%

27%

38%

High competition

13%

23%

27%

19%

17%

Changes in ….

23%

35%

23%

15%

Decrease in ….

44%

40%

Marketing risk

Source: Authors' elaboration

The perception of 260 surveyed farmers in per

cent, about price fluctuations in the market is

presented in Figure 4.

Fig. 4: Perception of price fluctuations

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Regarding the perception of the risk of price

fluctuation by 260 surveyed farmers, 4% or 10

farmers evaluate it with very low impact, 6% or 15

farmers evaluate it with low impact, 27% or 70

farmers evaluate it with medium impact, 27% or 70

farmers rate it as high impact, and 37% or 95

farmers rate it as very high impact.

The perception of the 260 surveyed farmers in

percent about the high competition in the market is

presented in Figure 5.

Fig. 5: Perception of competition

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Regarding the perception of the risk of

competition in the market by 260 surveyed farmers,

1220

1080

995

670

850

0 500 1000 1500

Production risk

Marketing risk

Financial risk

Legal risk

Human resources risk

1005

995

790

840

0 200 400 600 800 10001200

Fluctuation of product…

High competition

Changes in consumer…

Decrease in consumer…

4% 6%

27%

36%

6% 10%

19%

27%

38%

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.74

Teuta Çerpja, Arif Murrja

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

889

Volume 21, 2024

6% or 15 farmers evaluate it with very low impact,

10% or 25 farmers evaluate it with low impact, 19%

or 50 farmers evaluate it with medium impact, 27%

or 70 farmers rate it as high impact, and 38% or 100

farmers rate it as very high impact.

The perception of 260 surveyed farmers in

percent, for the decrease in consumer income is

presented in Figure 6.

Fig. 6: Perception of consumer income fluctuation

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Regarding the perception of fluctuation in

consumer income from 260 surveyed farmers, 13%

or 35 farmers rate it with very low impact, 23% or

60 farmers rate it with low impact, 27% or 70

farmers rate it with impact on average, 19% or 50

farmers rate it as high impact, and 17% or 45

farmers rate it as very high impact.

The perception of 260 surveyed farmers in

percent, about changes in consumer preferences is

presented in Figure 7.

Fig. 7: Perceptions of changing consumer

preferences

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Regarding the perception of risk in the change

of consumer preference from 260 surveyed farmers,

4% or 10 farmers evaluate it with very low impact,

23% or 60 farmers evaluate it with low impact, 35%

or 90 farmers evaluate it with medium impact, 23%

or 60 farmers rate it as high impact, and 15% or 40

farmers rate it as very high impact.

The perception of 260 surveyed farmers in

percent for market risk is presented in Figure 8.

Fig. 8: Perception of market risk

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Regarding the perception of market risk by 260

farmers, 2% or 5 farmers evaluate it with very low

impact, 6% or 15 farmers evaluate it with low

impact, 8% or 20 farmers evaluate it with medium

impact, 44% or 115 farmers rate it with high impact

and 40% or 105 farmers rate it very high.

Based on the data in Table 3, and the statistical

description in Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7,

and Figure 7, the individual perceptions of 260

surveyed farmers, towards the four market risk

events are very different. This variability in

perception has almost the same trend for each

market risk event. However, price fluctuation is

evaluated with higher perception, followed by high

competition, a decrease in consumer income, and

finally changes in consumer preferences.

Nevertheless, farmers' perception is important

for all four market risk events.

4.2 Analysis of Statistical Results

Farmers' perception of the four market risk events is

important. The trend of perception of fluctuating

prices of products in the market, high competition,

decreasing consumer income, and change in

consumer preferences is almost the same. The

perception of these events is in the qualitative

evaluation segment [781:1040] (Table 5).

The multiple regression model is significant because

the actual Fisher (Ff) is greater than the critical

Fisher (Fk) (Table 7).

14%

23%

27%

19%

17%

23%

35%

23%

15%

44%

40%

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.74

Teuta Çerpja, Arif Murrja

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

890

Volume 21, 2024

Table 7. ANOVA

Sig.

Regressi

196.091

49.0228

448.168

.50927

Residual

27.8931

0.10938

Total

223.984

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Sometimes the perception does not match the

reality. From the multiple regression analysis, it was

found that the variable X3- “High competition”

statistically is significant.

From the multiple regression analysis, it was

found that the variable X3- “High competition” is

statistically significant, because the P-value is

0.000439, which means it is less than 0.05. While

the other three variables are not statistically

significant, because the P-value of each variable is

greater than 0.05. In conclusion, hypothesis H1 will

be accepted for variable X3 and rejected for

variables X1, X2, and X4 (Table 8). Regression

equations can take the form:

Y= dX3+ e (6)

Tabela 8. P-Value

Coefficient

S. Error

T Stat

P-value

Intercept

0.88747

0.101366

8.755129

2.8E-16

0.370484

0.077114

4.8044351

2.65E-06

0.29541

0.064453

4.582243

7.17E-06

-0.21875

0.061414

-3.5618

0.000439

0.377691

0.058897

6.412731

6.89E-10

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Based on the data from column two of Table 8,

we construct the regression equation.

Y= - 0,21875X3 (7)

Competition is considered as the pressure of

rivalry among farmers to gain customers and

increase their influence in the market. In a highly

competitive market, farmers are compelled to be

more innovative and offer better products and

services to withstand competition and ensure the

sustainability of their businesses.

In this context, the analysis of the data of the

regression equation provides a powerful tool to

study the relationship between the levels of

competition in the market and the levels of risk for

farmers. Referring to the data from column two of

Table 8, we observe that variable X3 (High

competition) is positively correlated with variable Y

(Market risk), which represents the levels of risk for

farmers.

Therefore, returning to the analysis of the data

from the regression equation, we notice that the

relationship between variables X3 and Y indicates

that the increase in levels of competition may be

accompanied by an increase in levels of risk for

farmers (customer loss). However, it is important to

also evaluate the positive role that competition may

have in stimulating innovation and advancement in

the agricultural sector.

In conclusion, regression equation analyses are

an important tool for understanding the complex

interactions in the agricultural market and for

identifying more effective strategies for managing

risks for farmers. Understanding this relationship

can lead to the development of appropriate policies

and strategies to enhance the stability and

competitiveness of the agricultural sector as a

whole.

In addition to the importance of the variables,

we also look at the importance of the model as a

whole. The coefficient R2 shows that 79% of market

risk is determined by high competition. The

connection between them is very strong (Table 9).

Tabela 9. Coefficient R2

Regression Statistics

Multiple R

0.893974

R Square

0.799189

Adjusted R Square

0.797626

Standard Error

0.418346

Observations

260

Source: Authors’ elaboration

5 Conclusions and Recommendations

The study of the five main risks in the farm is a

trend in today's studies, and it has a key role in farm

management. This study provides a wide range of

information in the specific literature, especially in

the field of agribusiness. In addition, this analysis

provides important insights from a country that is

going through a period of transition and

development in this sector, [42], [43], [44]. Farmers'

perception of the five main risks is relatively high,

with the greatest importance attached to production

risk and market risk, [7], but financial risk, legal

risk, and human resources risk also should be

analyzed, to create a complete strategy for risk

management in vegetable farms in the study area.

The results of the market risk study show that

the three variables, X1- “Changes in consumer

preferences”, X2- “Price fluctuation”, and X4-

“Changes in consumer income”, are not statistically

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.74

Teuta Çerpja, Arif Murrja

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

891

Volume 21, 2024

significant, while the X3- “High competition” has a

considerable influence.

This can be explained by the fact that expenses for

the vegetable’s consumption, take a small specific

weight to the total consumption expenses.

Therefore, the consumption of vegetables is not

influenced by the consumer's income and

preferences, nor by high prices.

The 79% impact of high competition (variable

X3) on market risk is due to a lack of market

knowledge. To reduce this impact, farmers should

direct production toward comparative advantages

for a specific crop and not for several crops. Their

specialization in a specified production will reduce

the negative impact of high competition in the

market.

Market risk management is an essential aspect

of any business, especially in a dynamic and

uncertain environment such as the current market.

Some of the tools for market risk management

include the formulation of marketing plans, market

research, and analysis, expanding the market by

motivating customers, separate rent agreements, as

well as reviewing production contracts, [7], [24].

Formulating a marketing plan is a critical step in

market risk management. By developing a detailed

marketing plan, a business can identify its sales

objectives, market segments, and strategies to

address market competition and risks. Through the

use of market analysis and understanding potential

customers deeply, a well-crafted marketing plan can

help prevent potential risks and prepare for future

market developments. Market studies and analyses

are another key tool for managing market risks. By

utilizing market analyses and conducting careful

studies, a business can identify market trends,

customer preferences, and potential competition.

This can aid in identifying potential risks and

developing strategies to mitigate them. Expanding

the market by motivating customers is an important

strategy for addressing market risks. By identifying

ways to increase customer base and improve

relationships with existing customers, a business can

diversify its revenue and reduce the impact of risks

from a single market, [33]. Separate rental

agreements are another tool for market risk

management. By paying a portion of the rent based

on the quantity of production, a business can reduce

fixed costs and increase flexibility to adjust

production scale according to market demands.

Reviewing production contracts is an important tool

to ensure that agreements are suitable and meet the

business's needs. By periodically reviewing and

reaffirming contracts, a business can identify and

address potential risks, such as changes in market

conditions, payment terms, and supply conditions,

[7].

In conclusion, market risk management is a

complex process that involves a wide range of tools

and strategies. Through the formulation of

marketing plans, market studies, expanding the

market by motivating customers, separate rent

agreements, and reviewing production contracts, a

business can reduce market risks and enhance its

ability to address challenges and opportunities in the

current market.

Farmers should be focused on production risks

mainly floods and droughts, [7] and market risks

specifically to competition, but they are not enough.

To have a complete situation regarding the exposure

of all risks in vegetable farms in this area, it is

recommended to analyze the other three risks,

financial risk, legal risk, and human resources risk.

In addition to risk management by vegetable

farmers themselves, the government needs to

develop subsidy programs and policies that can help

them reduce the negative impacts of production risk,

market risk, financial risk, and human resource risk.

Furthermore, they may include crop insurance,

support for farm infrastructure development, and

training for farmers.

These conclusions and recommendations, it is

intended to improve risk management in vegetable

farms and to help in sustainable development in the

vegetable production sector.

The agriculture sector in Albania, as one of the

five countries of the Western Balkans (Albania,

Kosovo, Serbia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and

Bosnia & Herzegovina) should be supported by the

European Union, [45], [46], [47], [48]. The support

and consultancy of the European Union will ensure

a sustainable development of this sector, [49], [50].

References:

[1] Dorward, A., Kydd, J., Morrison, J., Urey, I.

(2004). A Policy Agenda for Pro-Poor

Agricultural Growth. World Dev., 32, 73–89.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.01

[2] Zheng Yi, Lee, C., Yu, ChaoWei; Cheng,

YuShen, Simmons, C. W., Zhang RuiHong,

Jenkins, B. M., VanderGheynst, J. S. (2012).

Ensilage and bioconversion of grape pomace

into fuel ethanol. J. Agric. Food Chem., 60

(44): 11128–11134.

https://doi.org/10.1021/jf303509v.

[3] Markelova, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., Hellin, J.,

Dohrn, S. (2009). Collective Action for

Smallholder Market Access. Food Policy, 34,

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.74

Teuta Çerpja, Arif Murrja

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

892

Volume 21, 2024

1–7, [Online].

https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jfpoli:

v:34:y:2009:i:1:p:1-7 (Accessed Date:

February 19, 2024)..

[4] Blekking, J., Gatti, N., Waldman, K., Evans,

T., & Baylis, K. (2021). The benefits and

limitations of agricultural input cooperatives

in Zambia. World Development, 146,

Article 105616.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.1056

16.

[5] Manda, J., Khonje, M.G., Alene, A.D., Tufa,

A.H., Abdoulaye, T., Mutenje, M.; Setimela,

P., Manyong, V. (2020). Does Cooperative

Membership Increase and Accelerate

Agricultural Technology Adoption? Empirical

Evidence from Zambia. Technol. Forecast.

Soc. Chang., 158, 120160.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.12016

[6] Zhang, S., Sun, Z., Ma, W., Valentinov, V.

(2020). The Effect of Cooperative

Membership on Agricultural Technology

Adoption in Sichuan, China. China Econ.

Rev., 62, 101334. DOI:

10.1016/j.chieco.2019.101334.

[7] Murrja, A., Kurtaj, D., Ndregjoni, A., Prendi,

L. (2023). Vegetable farmers' perception of

production risk sources and environmental

aspects – Descriptive statistical analysis and

multifactorial linear regression. WSEAS

Transactions on Environment and

Development, vol. 19, pp. 826-835.

https://doi.org/10.37394/232015.2023.19.77.

[8] Drollette, S. A. (2009). Understanding

Agricultural Risk. AG/ECON/2009-01RM,

[Online].

https://extension.usu.edu/apec/files/uploads/ag

ribusiness-and-food/risk-management/risk-

management-factsheets/Managing-

Production-Risk.pdf (Accessed Date:

February 15, 2024).

[9] Crane, L., Gantz, G., Isaacs, S., Jose, D.

Sharp, R. (2013). Introduction to Risk

Management, [Online].

http://extensionrme.org/Pubs/Introduction-to-

Risk-Management-ENGLISH.pdf (Accessed

Date: February 15, 2024).

[10] Harwood, J., Heifer, R., Coble, K., Perri, J.,

Somwaru, A. (1999). Managing Risk in

Farming: Concepts, Research, and Analysis,

Agricultural Economic Report, No. 774,

http://dx.doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.34081.

[11] Hassan, A., A. Farooq, M. Ishaq, G. Sadiq

andA. Nawaz (2023). Risk and coping

strategies of vegetable smallholder farmers in

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa of Pakistan. Sarhad

Journal of Agriculture, 39(2): 440-451,

https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2023/3

9.2.440.451.

[12] Jankelova. N., Masar, D., Moricova, S.

(2017). Risk factors in the agriculture sector.

Agric. Econ. – Czech, 63, 2017 (6): 247–258.

DOI: 10.17221/212/2016-AGRICECON.

[13] Kahan, D. (2013). Managing Risk in Farming,

[Online].

https://www.fao.org/uploads/media/3-

ManagingRiskInternLores.pdf (Accessed

Date: February 15, 2024).

[14] Komarek, A. M., De Pinto, A., Smith, V. H.

(2020). A review of types of risks in

agriculture: What we know and what we need

to know. Agricultural Systems, 178, 102738,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102738.

[15] Melyukhina, O. (2011). Risk Management in

Agriculture in New Zealand, OECD Food,

Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 42,

OECD Publishing, Paris,

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kgj0d3vzcth-en.

[16] OECD (2008a). An Assessment of Risk

Exposure in Agriculture: A Literature Review.

Working Party on Agricultural Policies and

Markets, [Online].

https://one.oecd.org/document/TAD/CA/APM

/WP(2008)22/FINAL/en/pdf (Accessed Date:

February 15, 2024).

[17] Sciabarrasi, M. (2024). The Big Five Risk

Faced by Farmers, [Online].

https://nevegetable.org/big-five-risks-faced-

farmers (Accessed Date: February 17, 2024).

[18] Thomas, G. (2018). Risk management in

agriculture, SB 18-46, [Online].

https://bprcdn.parliament.scot/published/2018/

7/4/Risk-management-in-

agriculture/SB%2018-46.pdf (Accessed Date:

February 15, 2024).

[19] Thompson, N. M., Bir, C., Widmar, N. J. O.

(2019). Farmer perceptions of risk in 2017.

Agribusiness 35, 182–199,

https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21566.

[20] Ullah, R., Shivakoti, G.P., Zulfiqar, F.,

Kamran, M.A. (2016). Farm risks and

uncertainties: sources, impacts, and

management. Outlook Agric. 45, 199–205,

https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727016665440.

[21] USDA-ERS, [Online].

https://www.ers.usda.gov/ (Accessed Date:

February 15, 2024).

[22] Meuwissen, M. P. M., Huirne, R. B. M.,

Hardaker, J. B., 2001. Risk and risk

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.74

Teuta Çerpja, Arif Murrja

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

893

Volume 21, 2024

management: an empirical analysis of Dutch

livestock farmers. Livest. Prod. Sci. 69, 43–

53, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-

6226(00)00247-5.

[23] Melyukhina, O. (2011). “Risk Management in

Agriculture in The Netherlands”, OECD

Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No.

41, OECD Publishing, Paris,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kgj0d5lqn48-en.

[24] Angelucci, F., Conforti, P. (2010). Risk

management and finance along value chains

of Small Island Developing States. Evidence

from the Caribbean and the Pacific. Food

Policy 35, 565–575,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.07.001.

[25] Girdziute, L., Slavickiene, A., Vaitkevicius, S.

(2014). Integrated risk assessment at

Lithuanian farms. Transform. Bus. Econ. 13,

143–154.

[26] Chand, S., Narayan, P., Chaudhary, K.R.

(2018). Sources of risks in livestock

production and their management strategies in

northern India. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 88, 612–

619,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.07.001.

[27] Lobos, G., Schnettler, B., Mena, C.,

Ormazábal, Y., Cantillana, J. C., Retamales, J.

B. (2018). Perception of risk sources by

Chilean blueberry producers. Rev. Bras.

Frutic. 40, https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-

29452018248.

[28] Lane, D., Chatrchyan, A., Tobin, D., Thorn,

K., Allred, S., Radhakrishna, R. (2018).

Climate change and agriculture in New York

and Pennsylvania: risk perceptions,

vulnerability and adaptation among farmers.

Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 33,

197–205,

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000710.

[29] Flaten, O., Lien, G., Koesling, M., Valle, P.S.,

Ebbesvik, M. (2005). Comparing risk

perceptions and risk management in organic

and conventional dairy farming: empirical

results from Norway. Livestock Production

Science, Vol. 95, Issues 1–2, pp.11-25,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.10.0

14.

[30] Iqbal, M. A., Ping, Q., Zafar, M. U., Abbas,

A., Bashir, M. K., Ali, A., Kousar, R. (2018).

Farm risk sources and their mitigation: a case

of cotton growers in Punjab. Pak. J. Agric.

Sci. 55, 677–684,

http://dx.doi.org/10.21162/PAKJAS/18.7070.

[31] Karadas, K., Birinci, A. (2018). Identification

of risk factors affecting production of

beekeeping farms and development of risk

management strategies: a new approach. Rev.

Bras. Zootec. 47,

https://doi.org/10.1590/rbz4720170252.

[32] Murrja, A., Ndregjoni, A., Kapaj, I., Maloku,

S., Kapaj, A. (2022). Financial Risk Analysis

in the Intensive Poultry Growth in The

Republic of Kosovo. International Journal of

Economics and Finance Studies, 14 (03), 366-

387. DOI: 10.34111/ijefs. 20220078.

[33] Murrja, A., Ndreca, P., Maloku, S., Meço, M.

(2023). Analysis of Production Risk in

Intensive Chicken Farms – the Case of

Kosovo. Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, 23(2),

300–316, https://doi.org/10.2478/foli-2023-

0032.

[34] Ndregjoni, A., Murrja, A., Prendi, L. (2023).

Analysis of Legal Risk in Farms of Intensive

Chicken Production - The Case of Kosovo.

WSEAS Transactions on Environment and

Development, vol. 19, pp. 655-667,

https://doi.org/10.37394/232015.2023.19.64.

[35] Okoye, P. U., Okolie, K. C., and Odesola, I.

A. 2022. Risks of Implementing Sustainable

Construction Practices in the Nigerian

Building Industry. Construction Economics

and Building, 22:1, 21–46,

https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v22i1.742.

[36] Israel, Glenn D. (1992). Determining Sample

Size. Fact Sheet PEOD-6. Florida Cooperative

Extension Service / Institute of Food and

Agricultural Sciences / University of Florida,

[Online].

https://www.psycholosphere.com/Determinin

g%20sample%20size%20by%20Glen%20Isra

el.pdf (Accessed Date: February 17, 2024).

[37] Cochran, W.G., (1977). Sampling techniques.

3rd Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc,

[Online].

https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/gtac/CourseDownloa

ds/IP/Cambodia/FlashDrive/Supporting_Docu

mentation/Cochran_1977_Sampling%20Tech

niques.pdf (Accessed Date: February 26,

2024).

[38] Raymond K. D., Eric B. Y., and Sampson B.

N. (2024). Agricultural loan pricing by banks

in Ghana: a panel data analysis. African

Journal of Economic and Management

0705, DOI: 10.1108/AJEMS-12-2022-0504.

[39] Tampubolon, F. R. S., Hasibuan, F. D.,

Yuwono, A. S. (2024). Sustainable

Development Goals in Rural Areas with

Environmental and Social Implications: A

Meta-Regression Analysis. Migration Letters,

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.74

Teuta Çerpja, Arif Murrja

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

894

Volume 21, 2024

Vol. 21, No: S3 (2024), pp. 938-960, ISSN:

1741-8984 (Print), ISSN: 1741-8992 (Online).

[40] Yuxi Pan, Y., Zhang, S., Zhang, M. (2024).

The impact of entrepreneurship of farmers on

agriculture and rural economic growth:

Innovation-driven perspective. Innovation and

Green Development, (3) 100093,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.igd.2023.100093.

[41] Finger, R., Wüpper, D., McCallum, Ch.

(2023). The (in)stability of farmer risk

preferences. J Agric Econ. 2 023;74:155 –167,

https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12496.

[42] Lushi, I., Çera, G., Murrja, A. & Ujkani, S.

(2023). Linking farmers’ bargaining power in

trade to their plans for future economic

activities. South-East European Journal of

Economics and Business. 18 (2), p. 173-185,

https://doi.org/10.2478/jeb-2023-0026.

[43] Kitole, F. A., Mkuna, E., Sesabo, J. K. (2024).

Digitalization and agricultural transformation

in developing countries: Empirical evidence

from Tanzania agriculture sector. Smart

Agricultural Technology, (7) 100379,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2023.100379.

[44] Yap, C.K., Al-Mutairi, K.A. (2024). A

Conceptual Model Relationship between

Industry 4.0—Food-Agriculture Nexus and

Agroecosystem: A Literature Review and

Knowledge Gaps. Foods, 13, 150,

https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13010150.

[45] Berthomieu, C., Massimo Cingolani, M., Ri,

A. (2016). Investment for Growth and

Development in the Western Balkans.

STAREBEI Research Project EIB Institute

University of Nice – Sophia Antipolis

(France), [Online]. https://institute.eib.org/wp-

content/uploads/2019/02/STAREBEI-

Sophiaall.pdf (Accessed Date: February 15,

2024).

[46] Estrin, & S., Uvalic M. (2016). Foreign Direct

Investment in the Western Balkans: What role

has it played during transition?. Article in

Comparative Economic Studies, June 2016,

DOI: 10.1057/ces.2016.10.

[47] Holzner M., & Grieveson, R. (2018),

Investment in the Western Balkans: New

Directions and Financial Constraints in

Infrastructure Investment. The Vienna

Institute for International Economic Studies &

Wiener Institut für Internationale

Wirtschaftsvergleiche, [Online].

https://wiiw.ac.at/investment-in-the-western-

balkans-dlp-4705.pdf (Accessed Date:

February 15, 2024).

[48] Shkodra, J., Ahmeti, Nj., Krasniqi, A. (2022).

Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on

Economic Growth – Case Study of See

Countries, https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-

1598515/v1.

[49] Špička J., Dereník P. (2021). How do

opportunity costs change the view on the

viability of farms? Empirical evidence from

the EU. Agric. Econ. – Czech, 67: 41–50,

https://doi.org/10.17221/412/2020-

AGRICECON.

[50] Brazhnyk, L., Ivanyuta, V., Kravchenko, T.,

Kozak, O., Los, O., & Pavliuk, S. (2023).

Harmonization of Agricultural Policy and

Economic Security of the EU States. WSEAS

Transactions on Environment and

Development, vol. 19, pp. 1-10,

https://doi.org/10.37394/232015.2023.19.1.

Contribution of Individual Authors to the

Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting

Policy)

The authors equally contributed to the present

research, at all stages from the formulation of the

problem to the final findings and solution.

Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a

Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)

This article is published under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

_US

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS

DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.74

Teuta Çerpja, Arif Murrja

E-ISSN: 2224-2899

895

Volume 21, 2024