IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae15/212596.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What Do Farmers Want from Crop Insurance Schemes: A Stated Preference Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Olila, Dennis
  • Nyikal, Rose
  • Otieno, David

Abstract

Climate change and weather variability are perhaps some of the major challenges facing the world today. In the phase of these challenges, various climate mitigation strategies including financial, production, as well as marketing aspects have played a significant role in cushioning farmers against adverse effects. In Kenya, agricultural insurance is still at a pilot stage after the unsustainable effort in the 1970’s. Despite the noble intention to revive the crop insurance industry, limited empirical information exists on farmers’ preferences for crop insurance. The study employed Choice Experiment (CE) to elicit farmers’ preferences for crop insurance design features among 300 farmers. The analysis employed a random parameter logit (RPL) model. The results show that farmers are willing to pay for various features of crop insurance. These findings are important in informing ex-ante design and improvement of crop insurance programmes in Kenya and the rest of the world.

Suggested Citation

  • Olila, Dennis & Nyikal, Rose & Otieno, David, 2015. "What Do Farmers Want from Crop Insurance Schemes: A Stated Preference Approach," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212596, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae15:212596
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.212596
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/212596/files/Olila-What%20Do%20Farmers%20Want%20from%20Crop%20Insurance%20Schemes-171.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.212596?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John M. Rose & Michiel C. J. Bliemer, 2008. "Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(5), pages 587-617, October.
    2. Olivier Mahul & Charles J. Stutley, 2010. "Government Support to Agricultural Insurance : Challenges and Options for Developing Countries," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 2432, December.
    3. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    4. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    5. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    6. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    7. Nganje, William E. & Hearne, Robert R. & Orth, Michael & Gustafson, Cole R., 2004. "Using Choice Experiments To Elicit Farmers Preferences? For Crop And Health Insurance," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20357, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Smith, Vincent H. & Goodwin, Barry K., 2003. "An Ex Post Evaluation of the Conservation Reserve, Federal Crop Insurance, and Other Government Programs: Program Participation and Soil Erosion," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 1-16, August.
    9. Robert Sproule & Calin Valsan, 2009. "A simple test for the violation of the non-satiation axiom under uncertainty: The theory," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(4), pages 2656-2664.
    10. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    11. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    12. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    13. Korir, Luke Kipkurgat, 2011. "Risk Management Among Agricultural Households And The Role Of Off-Farm Investments In Uasin Gishu County, Kenya," Research Theses 117806, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    14. Otieno, David Jakinda & Ruto, Eric & Hubbard, Lionel J., 2010. "Cattle farmers’ preferences for Disease Free Zones: A choice experiment analysis in Kenya," 84th Annual Conference, March 29-31, 2010, Edinburgh, Scotland 91951, Agricultural Economics Society.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Uwamariya, Beatrice, 2014. "Assessment of Consumer Awareness and Preferences for Quality Certification and Origin-Labeling in Fruit Salads in Kigali,Rwanda," Research Theses 198512, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    5. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    6. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    7. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    8. Ruokamo, Enni, 2016. "Household preferences of hybrid home heating systems – A choice experiment application," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 224-237.
    9. Schreiner, Julia A., 2014. "Farmers’ Valuation of Incentives to Produce GMO-free Milk: A Discrete Choice Experiment," 2014 International European Forum, February 17-21, 2014, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 199373, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    10. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 1323-1337, October.
    11. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1097, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    12. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    13. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Teferi, Ermias Tesfaye & Kassie, Girma T. & Pe, Mario Enrico & Fadda, Carlo, 2020. "Are farmers willing to pay for climate related traits of wheat? Evidence from rural parts of Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    15. Walker, Joan & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2002. "Generalized random utility model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 303-343, July.
    16. Keane, Michael P. & Wasi, Nada, 2016. "How to model consumer heterogeneity? Lessons from three case studies on SP and RP data," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 197-231.
    17. Alejandra R. Enríquez & Angel Bujosa Bestard, 2020. "Measuring the economic impact of climate-induced environmental changes on sun-and-beach tourism," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 203-217, May.
    18. Faustin, Vidogbèna & Adégbidi, Anselme A. & Garnett, Stephen T. & Koudandé, Delphin O. & Agbo, Valentin & Zander, Kerstin K., 2010. "Peace, health or fortune?: Preferences for chicken traits in rural Benin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1848-1857, July.
    19. Ward, Patrick S. & Ortega, David L. & Spielman, David J. & Singh, Vartika, 2014. "Heterogeneous Demand for Drought-Tolerant Rice: Evidence from Bihar, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 125-139.
    20. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries; Farm Management;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iaae15:212596. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.