








































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 4, Issue 2, 2023 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Stephen C. Mukembo, Postdoctoral Fellow, Division of Applied Social Sciences, University of Missouri, 320 Mumford Hall 

Columbia, MO 65211, mukembos@missouri.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1909-9349 
2. Jasper Grashuis, Assistant Research Professor, Division of Applied Social Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 

65211, grashuisj@missouri.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5075-4439  
3. Ye Su, Assistant Professor, Cooperative Research, College of Agriculture, Environment and Human Science, Lincoln 

University of Missouri; 311 Foster Hall; Jefferson City, Missouri 65101, suy@lincolnu.edu, 

 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2071-6236 (corresponding author) 
60 

 

Assessing Small Farmers’ Adaptation and Management 
Strategies to Navigate the Risks and Uncertainties: The Case of 

Missouri  
 

S. C. Mukembo1, J. Grashuis2, Y. Su3 

 
 

Article History 
Received: April 5, 2023 
Accepted: May 8, 2023 
Published: May 30, 2023 
 
 
Keywords 
COVID-19 pandemic; mitigation 
strategies; relief programs; risks and 
uncertainties  

Abstract 
Investing in the agricultural sector exposes producers to numerous risks 
and uncertainties. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these 
challenges, and their impacts are still being felt globally. Our study aims 
to evaluate and describe the risk management strategies employed by 
small farmers in Missouri to mitigate and adapt to the impact of the 
COVID-19 pandemic on their farm operations. We analyzed 141 survey 
responses, and our findings indicate that most respondents employed 
multiple strategies, including using savings, diversification, reducing 
inputs, donating output, delaying investment, gaining off-farm 
employment, and utilizing government relief programs. However, apart 
from the COVID-19 stimulus checks, which were automatically disbursed 
to eligible households, few farmers were aware of or participated in other 
federal relief programs aimed at supporting small businesses and 
producers. We recommend that Extension specialists collaborate with 
other stakeholders and agencies responsible for federal relief programs 
to enhance small farmer awareness and participation in the future. 
Additionally, further research is necessary to understand the coping 
strategies employed by small farmers to remain resilient and maintain 
personal and mental health during the pandemic. 

mailto:mukembos@missouri.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1909-9349
mailto:grashuisj@missouri.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5075-4439
mailto:suy@lincolnu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2071-6236


Mukembo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323   61 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Producers invest in the agricultural sector with the expectation of a profitable return. However, 
these investments carry risks and uncertainties that are beyond their control. As a result, 
farmers must continuously innovate and adapt to changes in the dynamic external 
environment. These changes may include governmental policy, weather, climate, price 
fluctuations, market uncertainty, and disease outbreaks such as the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Among other developments, the pandemic increased the cost of production and contributed to 
food wastage because of labor shortages and market shutdowns as the result of stay-at-home 
measures to promote physical distancing (Lahath et al., 2021; Litkowski & Giri, 2023; McElrone 
et al., 2021; Seidel et al., 2021), which impacted production and profitability. Further, although 
consumer food prices soared during the pandemic, farm-gate prices declined, and regional food 
shortages were reported (Mucioki et al., 2022).  

Since the declaration of the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic by the World Health 
Organization on March 11, 2020 (Cucinotta & Vanelli, 2020), numerous studies have 
investigated its impact on the agricultural sector (Pu & Zhong, 2020). Additionally, several 
investigations have explored the adaptations made by small farmers during the pandemic, 
typically in a local or regional context, such as northwest Arkansas (Florick & Park, 2022) or 
western Washington (Ladyka et al., 2022). This descriptive study extends previous research on 
farmers’ adaptations by focusing on risk management strategies employed by small farmers in 
the state of Missouri. The lessons learned from our research will inform policy and Extension 
programming in Missouri and could potentially be transferable to other regions, depending on 
the specific contextual factors.  

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The production of goods and services in the agricultural sector involves the investment and 
combination of various factors of production, such as land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship, 
to create value. Investing in these factors of production entails undertaking certain risks and 
uncertainties that producers must manage or mitigate to achieve the desired outcome, such as 
generating a return on investment for the farmer (see Figure 1). 

Individuals employ different strategies to manage risks and uncertainties, including acceptance, 
avoidance, transferring, and mitigation (Project Management Institute, 2013). Farmers, for 
example, use various techniques to guard against risks and uncertainties (Komarek et al., 2020), 
such as government programs, diversification of farm enterprises, input rationing, insurance, 
financial leverage, futures contracts, liquidity marketing contracts, off-farm employment, 
options contracts, and production contracts (Johansson, 2020; Kahan, 2008; Prager et al., 2020; 
Tsiboe & Turner, 2023). Drawing on our literature review, we established relationships between 
these factors to formulate a conceptual framework (Grant & Osanloo, 2014; Van der Waldt, 
2020) that guided our understanding of the challenges farmers face when investing in the 
agricultural sector and the management decisions they make. A conceptual framework such as 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323


Mukembo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323   62 
 

the one presented in Figure 1 “lays out the key factors, constructs, or variables, and presumes 
relationships among them” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 440). 

Figure 1 
 
Study’s Conceptual Framework 

 
Note. The conceptual relationship between investment in the agricultural sector, exposure to 
risks and uncertainties leading to the deployment of risk management/adaptation strategies, 
and outcomes/outputs and return on agricultural investment.  
 

Purpose 
 
Our study aimed to describe, assess, and understand the adaptive and management strategies 
used by small farmers in Missouri to navigate the risk and uncertainty associated with the 
COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, seven objectives undergirded this study: 
1. Describe input cost changes for small farmers in Missouri during the pandemic. 
2. Evaluate on-the-farm management strategies used by small farmers in Missouri to respond 

to the COVID-19 pandemic. 
3. Describe the awareness and participation of small farmers in Missouri in federal relief 

programs. 
4. Describe the sales channels used by small farmers in Missouri used to market products to 

consumers before and during the pandemic. 
5. Describe changes in farm revenue based on the sales channels used by small farmers in 

Missouri before and during the pandemic. 
6. Describe changes in total farm revenue following the COVID-19 pandemic. 
7. Describe the future farm aspirations of small farmers in Missouri. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323


Mukembo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323   63 
 

Methods 
 
To address the above objectives, the research team developed an online survey instrument to 
describe and evaluate the changes in small farmer decisions and outcomes following the 
outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the design stage, we received input from extension 
specialists and local farmers to ensure the study’s practical relevance. A panel of experts from 
the Division of Applied Social Sciences at the University of Missouri and a faculty member from 
the College of Agricultural and Natural Sciences at Lincoln University of Missouri assessed the 
survey instrument for content and face validity (Creswell, 2014). Upon receiving approval from 
the University of Missouri’s Institutional Review Board, we distributed the online survey 
invitation to small farmers in Missouri through two approaches. First, we emailed the invitation 
directly to farmers who were registered with the Missouri Grown program and the Missouri 
Farm Bureau’s Missouri Meat Producer Directory. Second, Extension specialists in the state of 
Missouri disseminated the invitation link through program newsletters, email lists, and social 
media. The programs include the Small Ruminant Program, Innovative Small Farmers’ Outreach 
Program (ISFOP), Agricultural Economics and Marketing program, Missouri Farmers’ Market 
Association, and Exceed-Regional Economic and Entrepreneurial Development. We collected 
survey responses from April 2022 to July 2022. We used Microsoft Excel and Stata to organize, 
analyze, report, and illustrate the data. For this study, only descriptive statistics such as 
percentages are reported in the tables and the figures. 

Findings 
 
We received a total of 141 responses. Following the deletion of respondents who self-identified 
as “medium” or “large” farmers, we analyzed 121 responses. Because of the descriptive nature 
of the data analysis, we did not delete observations with partially missing data. Regarding the 
demographic characteristics of our survey respondents, the majority (57%) identified as female, 
and 43% identified as male. The average age of respondents was 51 years. The majority of our 
survey participants (59%) were livestock producers, while 46% reported growing fruits and 
vegetables, and 28% had crops. It is worth noting that the percentages for the type of farming 
operation are higher than 100% due to respondents selecting multiple choices. Additionally, 
most of the survey respondents (70%) reported owning the farm land, 21% reported owning 
and renting, and 6% reported farming on rented land. 

Table 1 displays the distribution of our respondents in terms of revenue categories. The largest 
category comprised respondents (44%; n = 51) who earned up to $10,000 per year in farm 
revenue. Eighty of the respondents (69%) make less than $30,000 per year. 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323


Mukembo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323   64 
 

Table 1 
 
Number of Respondents by Revenue Category 

Category n % 

Less Than $10,000 51 44 

$10,000 - $20,000 15 13 

$20,000 - $30,000 14 12 

$30,000 - $40,000 7 6 

$40,000 - $50,000 6 5 

$50,000 - $100,000 15 13 

$100,000 - $150,000 4 3 

More Than $150,000 4 3 

 
Objective 1: Changes in Farming Costs of Inputs used by Farmers During the Pandemic  
A majority of respondents reported a significant increase of approximately 70% or more in the 
costs of variable inputs such as feed, fertilizer, seed, energy, and equipment These findings 
suggest that farmers faced significant cost pressures in multiple aspects of their operations, 
which could have implications for their overall profitability and financial viability. It is important 
for farmers to carefully monitor their input costs and explore strategies to manage and reduce 
these expenses where possible. Regarding the classic factors of production (i.e., capital, labor, 
land), almost 50% or more of farmers indicated that their costs did not change much during the 
COVID-19 pandemic (see Table 2). However, relatively few respondents observed a cost 
decrease in any expense category.  

Table 2  

Changes in Input Costs during the COVID-19 Pandemic  

Category 
Decreased No Change Increased 

n % n % n % 

Feed  1 1.19 11 13.10 72 85.71 

Fertilizer  1 1.12 12 13.48 76 85.39 

Seed  1 1.08 15 16.13 77 82.80 

Energy  2 1.75 27 23.68 85 74.56 

Equipment  2 1.90 30 28.57 73 69.52 

Labor  5 5.56 53 58.89 32 35.56 

Equity/Capital 22 22.92 47 48.96 27 28.13 

Land  1 1.12 64 71.91 24 26.97 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323


Mukembo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323   65 
 

Objective II: On-Farm and Household Management Strategies in Response to the COVID-19 
Pandemic 
Our survey asked respondents about 11 different farm and household management strategies 
in response to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results showed that 66% of 
respondents used their savings, indicating the significant financial impact of the pandemic on 
small farmers. Furthermore, 46% of farmers indicated that they had diversified their farming 
activities as a risk management strategy against the uncertainties and risks of the pandemic . 
Other strategies employed by farmers included the reduction of input use (39%), donation of 
output (38%), delayed or canceled investments (37%), off-farm employment (31%), and 
decreased output (25%), among others (see Table 3). Further, more than one-fifth (21%) of the 
respondents delayed harvesting or sold assets to mitigate losses. Some farmers stopped 
production altogether (14%), while others destroyed their output/produce (11%).  

Table 3 

Farm and Household Management Strategies in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic 
Decision  n % 

Used savings  
79 66 

Diversified output  
55 46 

Reduced input  
47 39 

Donated output  
45 38 

Delayed/canceled investment  
44 37 

Gained off-farm employment  
37 31 

Decreased output  
30 25 

Delayed/canceled harvest  
25 21 

Sold assets  
25 21 

Stop production  
17 14 

Destroyed output  
13 11 

 
Objective III: Small Farmer Awareness of and Participation in Federal Relief Programs 
To inform farm-level and household-level federal assistance to small farmers in Missouri, we 
first asked our survey participants to indicate their awareness of nine federal relief programs. 
Secondly, we asked them if they had participated in any of the listed programs. Out of the nine 
programs, the survey participants were most aware of the stimulus check (81%, as shown in 
Table 4), which was sent by the U.S. government to households with an income of up to 
$150,000. Seventy percent of the small farmers in our survey received the check. Only 21% of 
the respondents indicated participating in the Paycheck Protection Program or the USDA Direct 
Pandemic Assistance for Producers. Other farmers (17% -18%) participated in the two rounds of 
the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program. Although the respondents seemed to be aware of 
the other four federal relief programs, their participation remained low. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323


Mukembo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323   66 
 

Table 4  

Small Farmer Awareness and Participation in Federal Relief Programs 

Federal Program 
Awareness Participation 

n % n % 

COVID-19 Stimulus Check 97 81 84 70 

Paycheck Protection Program 60 50 25 21 

USDA Direct Pandemic Assistance for Producers 37 31 25 21 

Coronavirus Food Assistance Program 25 21 22 18 

Coronavirus Food Assistance Program 2 20 17 20 17 

Mortgage Relief 19 16 5 4 

Unemployment Insurance 26 22 4 3 

Food Stamp and Meal Programs 25 21 2 2 

Rent Assistance and Eviction Moratorium 36 30 1 1 

 
Objective IV: Sales Channel used by Farmers Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic 
As we illustrate in Figure 2, social media platforms, such as Facebook Marketplace and Twitter, 
were the most popular sales channels (55%) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic among 
our respondents. The farmers’ market constituted the second most popular sales channel 
(49%). Relatively few small farmers in our survey had access to sales channels at the 
downstream segment of the food value chain (12% with wholesalers, 15% with institutions, and 
22% with retailers). When comparing the two time periods, our respondents made almost no 
changes in terms of the use of the channels. Auctions were the only sales channel to experience 
a slight decrease in usage (from 13% to 11%), probably due to restrictions on public gatherings, 
and may have been unable to switch from in-person to online platforms to facilitate 
transactions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323


Mukembo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323   67 
 

Figure 2  

Sales Channel used by Farmers Before and During/After the COVID-19 Pandemic 

 
 
Objective V: Changes in Farm Revenue by Sales Channel Before and During the COVID-19 
Pandemic 
While sales channel contribution remained more or less identical, the actual importance of 
each sales channel to farm revenue changed (as shown in Figure 3). We asked respondents who 
used a given sales channel to indicate what percentage of farm revenue it facilitated. It is 
noticeable that sales channels with physical components (such as farmers' markets and 
institutions/restaurants) decreased, while sales channels with online presence (such as farm 
websites) and social media increased. Among the respondents who used the farmers’ market to 
sell output, the average contribution to farm revenue decreased from 63.70% before the 
COVID-19 pandemic to 47.58% during the COVID-19 pandemic. Institutions, including 
restaurants and other food service establishments, which faced closures and restrictions during 
the pandemic, contributed less to the farm revenue of small farmers. The online shop channel 
experienced the largest increase from 17.73% before the COVID-19 pandemic to 31% during 
the COVID-19 pandemic. Social media marketing increased from 28.36% before the pandemic 
to 36.01% after the pandemic. 

 

 

49
%

23
%

23
%

13
%

13
%

55
%

12
% 15

%

22
%

18
%

49
%

23
%

23
%

13
%

11
%

55
%

12
% 15

%

22
%

19
%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Before Pandemic During Pandemic

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323


Mukembo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323   68 
 

Figure 3 

Changes in Farm Revenue Based on Marketing Channels used by Farmers Before and During the 
Pandemic 

 
 
Objective VI: Total Farmer Revenue Changes Following the COVID-19 Pandemic. 
As shown in Table 5, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the revenue of our survey 
respondents was mixed. Just over two-fifths of small farmers (41%) reported an increase in 
their farm revenue. In contrast, 38% reported a decrease in their revenue, and 21% reported no 
change in revenue.  

 

 

63
.7

0%

28
.6

8%

17
.7

3%

32
.5

4%

56
.4

4%

28
.3

6%

27
.2

5% 32
.2

9%

22
.4

2%

57
.5

9%

47
.5

8%

28
.1

5%

31
.0

0% 35
.5

0%

56
.0

0%

36
.0

1%

29
.1

7%

21
.4

4%

22
.3

3%

62
.2

2%
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Before pandemic During pandemic

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323


Mukembo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323   69 
 

Table 5 

Change in Farm Revenue Following the COVID-19 Pandemic 
Change in Sales n % 

More than 30% Decrease 23 20 

0-30% Decrease 21 18 

No Change 25 21 

0-30% Increase 34 29 

More than 30% Increase 14 12 

 
Objective VII: Future Farm Aspirations  
We also asked respondents to indicate their future intentions regarding farm size. The results 
showed that a majority of respondents (56.30%) had no intention to expand their operations 
(see Figure 4). Meanwhile, 28.15% and 11.85% of respondents reported intentions to increase 
or decrease their farm size, respectively. Only a small proportion of respondents (3.7%) 
indicated plans to exit farming in the near future.  

Figure 4  

Future Farm Size Intentions of Small Farmers in Missouri 

 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Implications for Extension Practice 
 
The study found that most farmers experienced increased input costs, especially for variable 
inputs such as feed and fertilizer, due to supply chain disruptions and increased demand during 
the pandemic (Mucioki et al., 2022). To mitigate the impact of these challenges on their 
production and profitability on farmers’ investments, they employed a range of management 
strategies, including using savings, diversification of output, reduction of inputs, and delayed or 

3.70%

11.85%

56.30%

28.15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Exit

Decrease in Size

No change in Size

Increase in Size

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323


Mukembo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323   70 
 

canceled investments (see Figure 1 and Table 3). The need to mitigate risks also led some 
farmers to gain off-farm employment and rely on federal relief programs (Prager et., 2020; 
Tsiboe & Turner, 2023). However, despite the availability of federal relief programs, few 
farmers were aware of or able to access them (McElrone et al., 2021), highlighting the 
importance of Extension specialists partnering with government agencies and other 
stakeholders to improve farmer awareness and participation in such programs. To address the 
information gap, these specialists should consider leveraging traditional and social media 
platforms to reach farmers and provide them with information on available programs. This 
approach could decrease the dependence on savings and other informal means to respond to 
risks and uncertainties.  

The desire for farmers to expand or sustain the current farm size necessitates the involvement 
of Extension specialists in devising educational programs that impart farmers with valuable 
knowledge and competencies in the context of diverse management strategies, risk and 
uncertainty management, and on-farm emergency planning. To this end, conducting a thorough 
assessment of the farmers’ needs and identifying the gaps that require attention through a 
comprehensive training program is crucial. Such an approach would significantly enhance the 
farmers’ capacity to adapt to different situations, foster farm resilience, and ultimately improve 
their livelihoods.  

In this study, while the farmers reported consistency in their sales channels during the 
pandemic, our analysis revealed a decline in revenue generated from most channels, except for 
online sales via farm websites, social media, community-supported agriculture (CSA), and 
wholesale. The pandemic may have presented an opportunity for farmers to expand their 
market reach, particularly through online sales and social media platforms, given the stay-at-
home measures instituted to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Consequently, promotion of 
online and social media channels is necessary to enable farmers to capitalize on these 
opportunities. To this end, Extension specialists in Missouri could design programs to equip 
farmers with the requisite knowledge and skills to develop online marketing strategies and 
branding. Such initiatives may include creating farm websites or social media accounts to 
enhance the farm’s online presence and foster engagement with potential customers.  

Recommendations for Future Extension Research 
 

This study examined the management strategies adopted by small farmers in Missouri to 
mitigate the risks and uncertainties associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on farm-
level perspectives. However, it is crucial to note that small farmers in Missouri may have also 
encountered personal and mental health challenges amid the pandemic (American Farm 
Bureau Federation, 2020; McElrone et al., 2021). Additional research is required to understand 
the coping strategies employed by farmers to remain resilient in this regard. Furthermore, 
future Extension research should consider the role of farm and operator characteristics in 
promoting on-farm resilience during times of crisis. It is important to note that due to the 
limited number of respondents in our study, generalizations beyond the sample are not 
feasible. Thus, a large-scale study would be necessary to determine whether small farmers 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323


Mukembo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323   71 
 

across the country have similar experiences and formulate a common, state or region-specific 
response. 

Acknowledgements 
 
This research was supported by a NIFA/AFRI grant project 2022-67024-36111 

Author contributions: S. C. Mukembo - writing and conceptualization of the original draft; J. 
Grashuis - data analysis, designing the survey, data collection, and manuscript revisions; Y. Su - 
designing the survey, data collection, and grant funding for this research.  

References 
 
American Farm Bureau Federation. (2020, December). Impacts of COVID-19 on rural mental 

health. https://www.fb.org/files/Impacts_of_COVID-
19_on_Rural_Mental_Health_1.6.21.pdf 

Creswell. J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods 
approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. 

Cucinotta, D., & Vanelli, M. (2020). WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic. Acta bio-medica, 
91(1), 157–160. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i1.9397 

Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical 
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.” 
Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 12–
26. https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9 

Florick, L., & Park, C. (2022). A pilot study exploring the impacts of COVID-19 on small-scale 
direct marketing farmers in northwest Arkansas and their responses to the 
pandemic. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 12(1), 
47-61. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2022.121.006 

Johansson, R. (2020, September 24). America’s farmers: Resilient throughout the COVID 
pandemic. United States Department of Agriculture. 
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2020/09/24/americas-farmers-resilient-throughout-
covid-pandemic 

Kahan, D. (2008). Managing risk in farming. Food and Agriculture Organization. 
https://www.fao.org/uploads/media/3-ManagingRiskInternLores.pdf 

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, 1–10. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102738 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323
https://www.fb.org/files/Impacts_of_COVID-19_on_Rural_Mental_Health_1.6.21.pdf
https://www.fb.org/files/Impacts_of_COVID-19_on_Rural_Mental_Health_1.6.21.pdf
https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i1.9397
https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2022.121.006
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2020/09/24/americas-farmers-resilient-throughout-covid-pandemic
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2020/09/24/americas-farmers-resilient-throughout-covid-pandemic
https://www.fao.org/uploads/media/3-ManagingRiskInternLores.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102738


Mukembo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323   72 
 

Ladyka, D., Sipos, Y., Spiker, M. L., & Collier, S. M. (2022). A qualitative investigation of 
resilience among small farms in western Washington State: Experiences during the first 
growing season of COVID-19. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community 
Development, 11(4), 35-59. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2022.114.007  

Lahath, A., Omar, N. A., Ali, M. H., Tseng, M., & Yazid, Z. (2021). Exploring food waste during the 
COVID-19 pandemic among Malaysian consumers: The effect of social media, 
neuroticism, and impulse buying on food waste. Sustainable Production and 
Consumption, 28, 519–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.06.008 

Litkowski, C., & Giri, A. K. (2023). Farms and farm households during the COVID-19 pandemic. 
United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/COVID-19/farms-
and-farm-households/ 

McElrone, M., Russomanno, J., & Wroth, K. (2021). A pilot study assessing the impacts of 
COVID-19 on Tennessee farmer social needs and pandemic-related anxiety. Journal of 
Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 11(3), 75–85. 
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2022.113.009 

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book 
(2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. 

Mucioki, M., Hoover, E., Sowerwine, J., Intertribal Agriculture Council., Johnson-Reyes, K., 
Redhouse, L., & Cornelius, D. (2022). Native American agriculture and food systems: 
Challenges and opportunities presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of 
Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 11(3),121–137. 
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2022.113.013 

Prager, D., Burns, C., Tulman, S., & MacDonald, J. (2020). Farm use of futures, options, and 
marketing contracts. United States Department of Agriculture. 
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/99518/eib-219.pdf 

Project Management Institute. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge: 
PMBOOK guide (5th ed). Project Management Institute. 

Pu, M., & Zhong, Y. (2020). Rising concerns over agricultural production as COVID-19 spreads: 
Lessons from China. Global Food Security, 26(100409), 1-7. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100409 

Seidel, M., Murakami, C. D., Egan, J. F., Pope, J. D., & Tsai, C. L. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 on 
Pennsylvania farm revenue: Looking back at the 2020 season. Journal of Agriculture, 
Food Systems, and Community Development, 11(1), 21–26. 
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2021.111.015 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2022.114.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.06.008
https://www.ers.usda.gov/covid-19/farms-and-farm-households/
https://www.ers.usda.gov/covid-19/farms-and-farm-households/
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2022.113.009
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2022.113.013
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/99518/eib-219.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100409
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2021.111.015


Mukembo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323   73 
 

Tsiboe, F., & Turner, D. (2023). Risk management strategies. Economic Research Service. United 
States Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-
management/risk-management/risk-management-strategies/ 

Van der Waldt, G. (2020). Constructing conceptual frameworks in social science research. The 
Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 16(1), 1–9 
https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v16i1.758 

 
 
 
© 2023 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.323
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/risk-management/risk-management-strategies/
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/risk-management/risk-management-strategies/
https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v16i1.758

