IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ajaees/357370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sources of Risk and Management Strategies as Perceived by Monocrop and Intercrop Farmers in Kebbi State, Nigeria

Author

Listed:
  • Jirgi, A. J.
  • Grové, B.
  • Jordaan, H.
  • Viljoen, M. F.
  • Nmadu, J. N.

Abstract

The study examined the sources of risk and management strategies of monocropping and intercopping systems in Kebbi State, Nigeria with the aim of identifying the most important sources of risk and coping strategies. The study is based on primary data gathered through a questionnaire survey of the sampled farmers in the study area. A multi-stage sampling technique was used to select 256 farmers comprising 98 monocrop farmers and 158 intercrop farmers. A Likert-type scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very important) was presented to the respondents in order to establish the important sources of risk and risk management strategies of the monocrop and intercrop farmers. The respondents were asked to score a list of 21 and 20 potential risk sources and risk management strategies respectively, according to their importance. The most important risk sources and management strategies were ranked based on the mean scores of the variables on the lists. The results from the study revealed that the most important sources of risk for both monocroppers and intercroppers are diseases, erratic rainfall, changes in government policy, changes in climatic conditions, price fluctuation (of inputs and outputs) and floods/storms. The most important risk management strategies for monocroppers are spraying for diseases and pests, spreading sales, borrowing (cash or grains) and fadama cultivation. The intercrop farmers perceived family members working off-farm, spreading sales, intercropping and borrowing (cash or grains) as the most important coping strategies. These factors should be considered when designing extension programmes and insurance schemes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jirgi, A. J. & Grové, B. & Jordaan, H. & Viljoen, M. F. & Nmadu, J. N., 2015. "Sources of Risk and Management Strategies as Perceived by Monocrop and Intercrop Farmers in Kebbi State, Nigeria," Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, vol. 6(1).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ajaees:357370
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/357370/files/Jirgi612015AJAEES17308.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ashok K. Mishra & Hisham S. El‐Osta, 2002. "Managing risk in agriculture through hedging and crop insurance: what does a national survey reveal?," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 62(2), pages 135-148, November.
    2. Binswanger, Hans P, 1981. "Attitudes toward Risk: Theoretical Implications of an Experiment in Rural India," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 867-890, December.
    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. Marius Michels & Oliver Mußhoff, 2025. "Psychological factors as triggers for futures trading adoption: evidence from German farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Boyer, Christopher N. & DeLong, Karen L. & Griffith, Andrew P. & Martinez, Charles, 2024. "Examining how Risk Preferences and Information Affect Livestock Risk Protection Use," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343568, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Nordmeyer, Eike Florenz, 2023. "German farmers' perceived usefulness of satellite-based index insurance - Insights from a transtheoretical model," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334557, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    4. Yanyuan Zhang & Xintong Wu, 2023. "Risk Management Effects of Insurance Purchase and Organization Participation: Which Is More Effective?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, September.
    5. Nusrat Akber & Kirtti Ranjan Paltasingh & Ashok K. Mishra, 2025. "Does crop insurance ensure food security for Indian farmers? Evidence from a nationally representative survey," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(1), pages 217-237, January.
    6. Kyung Hwan Baik & Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Group size and matching protocol in contests," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 1716-1736, November.
    7. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    8. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Sørensen, Erik Ø. & Tungodden, Bertil & Xu, Xiaogeng, 2025. "Risk taking on behalf of others: Does the timing of uncertainty revelation matter?," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 13/2025, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    9. Goldzahl, Léontine, 2017. "Contributions of risk preference, time orientation and perceptions to breast cancer screening regularity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 147-157.
    10. Jean-Paul Chavas & Matthew T. Holt, 1990. "Acreage Decisions Under Risk: The Case of Corn and Soybeans," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(3), pages 529-538.
    11. Anup Malani & Cynthia Kinnan & Gabriella Conti & Kosuke Imai & Morgen Miller & Shailender Swaminathan & Alessandra Voena & Bartosz Woda, 2024. "Evaluating pricing health insurance in lower-income countries: A field experiment in India," IFS Working Papers W24/33, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    12. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    13. Yi Fan, 2017. "Does Adversity Affect Long-Term Consumption and Financial Behaviour? Evidence from China's Rustication Programme," ERES eres2017_148, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    14. Honjo, Yuji & Ikeuchi, Kenta & Nakamura, Hiroki, 2024. "Does risk aversion affect individuals’ interests and actions in angel investing? Empirical evidence from Japan," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    15. Angelsen, Arild & Naime, Julia, 2024. "The mixed impacts of peer punishments on common-pool resources: Multi-country experimental evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    16. Gatti, Nicolas & Cecil, Michael & Baylis, Kathy & Estes, Lyndon & Blekking, Jordan & Heckelei, Thomas & Vergopolan, Noemi & Evans, Tom, 2023. "Is closing the agricultural yield gap a “risky” endeavor?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    17. César Calvo, 2016. "Vulnerability to Poverty: Theory," Working Papers 2016-3, Lima School of Economics.
    18. Sophie Massin & Antoine Nebout & Bruno Ventelou, 2018. "Predicting medical practices using various risk attitude measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 843-860, July.
    19. Blair Cleave & Nikos Nikiforakis & Robert Slonim, 2013. "Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 372-382, September.
    20. Thomas Eichner & Rüdiger Pethig, 2015. "Efficient Management of Insecure Fossil Fuel Imports through Taxing Domestic Green Energy?," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 17(5), pages 724-751, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ajaees:357370. 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://journalajaees.com/index.php/AJAEES/index .

    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.