Via journal online., Agriculture is inherently a risky enterprise because of its dependence on rainfall. To mitigate
risks, farmers diversify crops and enterprises, maintain stabilization account or resort to the sale of assets. Crop insurance is a complementary institutional mechanism that aids farmers to cope with risks better.Considering the importance of crop insurance in risk mitigation, this paper using data from a large-scale farmers’ survey we identify the factors that influence farmers’ decision to buy crop insurance and subsequently assess its impact on farm income, production expenses and productive investments in agriculture. Farmers’ adoption of crop insurance is low— 4.80% kharif season and 3.17% in the rabi season mainly on account of lack of awareness about insurance products. Nevertheless, the probability of adoption of insurance is higher for those who experience higher crop loss and have some formal training in agriculture. The subsidy on premium also positively influences crop insurance uptake decisions. On the other hand, the factors like the lower social status, tenant farming and exposure to deficit-rainfall in the previous year are negatively associated with the decision to insure. The results on the impact of insurance are not conclusive to prove that insured farmer subsumes higher risks compared to the uninsured.
15 pages., Via online., Store-exit interviews with fresh food shoppers indicated that 38% were confident of country of origin of their food purchased. However, extent of knowledge varied somewhat by food category and more noticeably for specific food items within categories.
8 pages., via online journal., Formalised methods to address uncertainty are becoming the norm in hydrological modelling, yet they remain fragmented and highly academic, thus limiting their utility for practitioners. Using a qualitative, empirical study of the PIREN-Seine program in France, this paper explores the proccesses behind this trend in an effort to elucidate its prevalence despite inherent limitations when applied to a decision-making context. We identify: 1/ displacement of ‘uncomfortable knowledge’, 2/ fragmented responsibility, 3/ confidence, and 4/ relational framing as interconnected factors, which concurrently support the production of scientific knowledge and the social construction of ignorance, whether it be wilful or intentional. We posit that ignorance is implicitly negotiated among researchers and practitioners in order to reconcile cognitive dissonance and maintain confidence, thereby allowing water managers to take action in the face of uncertainty. Finally, we put forth the notion that having our ‘eyes wide shut’ can be interpreted in two ways: one facilitates the normalisation of ignorance, leaving us vulnerable to unexpected surprises; the other promotes transparent and explicit communication in support of more adaptive and robust decisions.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 199 Document Number: D10003
Notes:
Abstract of paper presented at the National Agricultural Communications Symposium, Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists (SAAS) Agricultural Communications Section, Jacksonville, Florida, February 4-5, 2018.
