This study explores the relationships between risk management strategies, residual risk perception as well as business and winegrower characteristics using a spatial-interdependency framework. The analysis focuses on the wine industry in Northeast Italy. Winegrowers' perception of residual risk is measured-from the perspective of hazards and non-hazard risks-after their organisation has made investments to prevent, mitigate and control risk.A quantitative survey was conducted on a sample of winegrowers to collect information about residual risk perception. Based on this, spatial econometric models were then employed to analyse factors influencing winegrowers' perception of residual risk. The results suggest that investments in risk management strategies are focused on managing the immediate effects risk may have on wine production. Despite winegrowers investing in risk management strategies, they continue to perceive several types of residual risk as probable and severe. Winegrowers are particularly sensitive to managerial risks, in that they are aware that these non-hazard risks can be out of their control. Significant spatial effects are highlighted: neighbour winegrowers have similar perceptions in terms of risk probability, but they assess the severity levels of risks differently. Further, this study highlights that risk perception varies depending on the winegrower's profile and firm characteristics. The study advances the literature examining spatial interdependency between (residual) risk perception and risk management strategies. Geographical proximity and the generated spillover effects support the need for a risk management strategy designed and implemented at the collective level

Risk management strategies and residual risk perception in the wine industry: A spatial analysis in Northeast Italy

Capitello, Roberta
;
Gaudenzi, Barbara;Begalli, Diego
2019-01-01

Abstract

This study explores the relationships between risk management strategies, residual risk perception as well as business and winegrower characteristics using a spatial-interdependency framework. The analysis focuses on the wine industry in Northeast Italy. Winegrowers' perception of residual risk is measured-from the perspective of hazards and non-hazard risks-after their organisation has made investments to prevent, mitigate and control risk.A quantitative survey was conducted on a sample of winegrowers to collect information about residual risk perception. Based on this, spatial econometric models were then employed to analyse factors influencing winegrowers' perception of residual risk. The results suggest that investments in risk management strategies are focused on managing the immediate effects risk may have on wine production. Despite winegrowers investing in risk management strategies, they continue to perceive several types of residual risk as probable and severe. Winegrowers are particularly sensitive to managerial risks, in that they are aware that these non-hazard risks can be out of their control. Significant spatial effects are highlighted: neighbour winegrowers have similar perceptions in terms of risk probability, but they assess the severity levels of risks differently. Further, this study highlights that risk perception varies depending on the winegrower's profile and firm characteristics. The study advances the literature examining spatial interdependency between (residual) risk perception and risk management strategies. Geographical proximity and the generated spillover effects support the need for a risk management strategy designed and implemented at the collective level
2019
Risk management strategies
Residual risk perception
Hazards and managerial risks
Spatial models
Spillover effect
Wine business
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/996530
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 13
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 9
social impact