|
|
|
|
|
| Potato farmers’ preference for agricultural insurance in China: An investigation using the choice experimental method |
HUANG Ze-ying1, Alec ZUO2, SUN Jun-mao1, GUO Yan-zhi1 |
1 Institute of Food and Nutrition Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Beijing 100081, P.R.China
2 Centre for Global Food and Resources, University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005, Australia |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Potato insurance plays an important role in transferring agricultural risks to promote the potato staple strategy. Understanding farmers’ real preferences for potato insurance attributes is important to improve the potato insurance. In this study, a choice experiment was designed with attributes such as peril, minimum compensation ratio for production loss, types of crops covered by insurance, annual premium per mu after subsidy, and complexity of claims procedures. We constructed a mixed logit model based on a questionnaire survey of 362 potato farmers’ choices of insurance attributes from 24 villages in Dingxi City of Gansu Province using random sampling. The results show that: (1) farmers prefer agricultural insurance with widely perils including output price drop and input cost risk; (2) farmers who have suffered plant disease and insect and pest damage are willing to pay a high premium for the insurance with a high compensation ratio and several types of crops covered; full-time farmers and large-scale farmers preferred insurance products with low complexity of claims procedures. Therefore, new potato insurance design could be considered specifically for different farmer groups such as those who had previous disaster experiences, and large- or small-scale farm operations.
|
|
Received: 13 May 2019
Accepted:
|
| Fund: This study is supported by the Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest of China (201503001). |
|
Corresponding Authors:
Correspondence GUO Yan-zhi, E-mail: guoyanzhi@caas.cn
|
| About author: HUANG Ze-ying, E-mail: huangzeying@caas.cn; |
Cite this article:
HUANG Ze-ying, Alec ZUO, SUN Jun-mao, GUO Yan-zhi.
2020.
Potato farmers’ preference for agricultural insurance in China: An investigation using the choice experimental method. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 19(4): 1137-1148.
|
Akter S, Brouwer R, Beukerng P J H, French L, Silver E, Choudhury S, Aziz S S. 2011. Exploring the feasibility of private micro flood insurance provision in Bangladesh. Disasters, 35, 287–307.
Akter S, Krupnik T J, Rossi F, Khanam F. 2016. The influence of gender and product design on farmers’ preferences for weather-indexed crop insurance. Global Environmental Change, 38, 217–229.
Banzhaf M R. 2001. Opt-out alternatives and anglers’ stated preferences. In: Bennett J, Blamey R, eds., The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. pp. 37–69.
Breidert C, Hahsler M, Reutterer T. 2006. A review of methods for measuring willingness-to-pay. Innovative Marketing, 2, 8–32.
Brouwer R, Akter S. 2010. Informing micro insurance contract design to mitigate climate change catastrophe risks using choice experiments. Environmental Hazards, 9, 74–88.
Carlsson F, Martinsson P. 2003. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Economics, 12, 281–294.
Collier B, Skees J, Barnett B. 2009. Weather index insurance and climate change: Opportunities and challenges in lower income countries. The Geneva Papers, 34, 401–424.
Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright R E. 2001. Choice modeling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental evaluation. Journal of Economical Surveys, 15, 435–462.
Hanley N, Wright R E, Adamowicz V. 1998. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics, 11, 413–428.
Hensher D A, Greene W H. 2003. The mixed logit model: The state of practice. Transportation, 30, 133–176.
Joel H, Zwerina K.1996. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 307–317.
Johnson F D. 2011. Experimental design for stated choice Studies. In: Kanninen B J, ed., Valuing Environment al Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies: A Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice. Springer Publisher, Dordrecht, Netherlands. pp.159–202.
Lancaster K J. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74, 132–157.
Li Q, Li H, Zhang L, Zhang S, Chen Y. 2018. Mulching improves yield and water-use efficiency of potato cropping in China: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Research, 221, 50–60.
Liesivaara P, Myyrä S. 2014. Willingness to pay for agricultural crop insurance in the northern EU. Agricultural Finance Review, 74, 539–554.
Louviere J J, Hensher D. 1982. On the design and analysis of simulated choice for allocation experiments in travel choice modeling. Environment International, 37, 158–169.
Louviere J J, Woodworth G.1983. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350–367.
Mcfadden D. 1974. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. Academic Press, Salt Lake City. pp. 105–142.
Mcfadden D, Train K. 2000. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15, 447–470.
Miller S, Tait P, Saunder S C. 2015. Estimating indigenous cultural values of freshwater: A choice experiment approach to Māori values in New Zealand. Ecological Economics, 118, 207–241.
Oleson K, Leson K, Barnes M. 2015. Cultural bequest values for ecosystem service flows among indigenous fishers: A discrete choice experiment validated with mixed methods. Ecological Economics, 114, 104–116.
Opiyo O D, Adhiambo N R, Jakinda O D. 2014. An assessment of maize farmers’ preferences for crop insurance in Trans-Nzoia County, Kenya. In: Bassa G G, ed., Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the African Economic Research Consortium (AERC). University of Kenya, Kenya. pp. 103–112.
Sharna N, Murray U, Shen Y, Li L, Bellotti W. 2008. Farming systems of the Loess Plateau Gansu Province China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 124, 13–23.
Sherrick B J, Barry P J, Schnitkey G D. 2003. Farmers’ preferences for crop insurance attributes. Review of Agricultural Economics, 25, 415–429.
Sibiko K W, Veettil P C, Qaim M. 2018. Small farmers’ preferences for weather index insurance: Insights from Kenya. Agriculture & Food Security, 7, 53.
Train K.1998. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics, 74, 230–239.
Wang Q. 2010. The Farmers behavior in agricultural insurance under the Von·Neuman–Morgenstern Utility Model. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 1, 226–229.
Ye T, Wang M, Hu W, Liu Y, Shi P. 2017. High liabilities or heavy subsidies: Farmers’ preferences for crop insurance attributes in Hunan, China. China Agricultural Economic Review, 9, 588–606. |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
