Search

    Start Over Subject Term adoption Subject Term risk management Within Last x Years within 10 Years

    2. Adoption of crop insurance and impact: insights from India

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Aditya, K.S. (author), Khan, Md. Tajuddin (author), and Kishore, Avinash (author)
    Format:
    Journal article
    Publication Date:
    2018
    Published:
    India
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 7 Document Number: D10284
    Journal Title:
    Agricultural Economics Research Review
    Journal Title Details:
    31(2) : 163-174
    Notes:
    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.

    3. Adoption of irrigation technology and best management practices under climate risks: evidence from Arkansas, United States

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Xu, Ying (author), Huang, Qiuqiong (author), and West, Grant (author)
    Format:
    Paper
    Publication Date:
    2015-02
    Published:
    USA
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 139 Document Number: D05810
    Notes:
    Paper presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2015 annual meeting, Atlanta,Georgia, January 31-February 3, 2015. 24 pages.

    4. Explaining the perception of smallholders towards weather index micro-insurance alongside risks and coping strategies

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Isaboke, Hezron Nyarindo (author), Qiao, Zhang (author), Nyarindo, Wilckyster Nyateko (author), and Ke, Wang (author)
    Format:
    Journal article
    Publication Date:
    2016
    Published:
    Turkey
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 169 Document Number: D08764
    Journal Title:
    International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics
    Journal Title Details:
    4(4) : 59-77

    5. Networks, incentives and technology adoption: evidence from a randomised experiment in Uganda

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Shikuku, Kelvin Mashisia (author) and Melesse, Mequanint B (author)
    Format:
    journal articles
    Publication Date:
    2020-04-20
    Published:
    England: Oxford University Press
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 205 Document Number: D12736
    Journal Title:
    European Review of Agricultural Economics
    Journal Title Details:
    V. 47, N. 5
    Notes:
    35 pages, We use data from a randomised experiment in Uganda to examine effects of incentives on the decision to adopt drought-tolerant maize varieties (DTMVs) and mechanisms through which effects occur. We find that social recognition (SR) incentives to a random subset of trained farmers – disseminating farmers (DFs) – increase knowledge transmission from DFs to their co-villagers and change information networks of both DFs and their neighbours. SR also increases DFs’ likelihood of adopting DTMVs. However, the corresponding results for private material rewards are not conclusively strong. We find no evidence that incentives for knowledge diffusion increase the likelihood of co-villagers adopting DTMVs

    7. Rejection of GM crops is not a failure for science

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Macilwain, Colin (author)
    Format:
    Commentary
    Publication Date:
    2015-09-02
    Published:
    International
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 157 Document Number: D07440
    Journal Title:
    Nature
    Journal Title Details:
    525 (7567) : 7
    Notes:
    "Governments maintaining their antipathy for transgenic crops are sensibly balancing public consent with scientific evidence"

    9. Understanding barriers and opportunities for adoption of conservation practices on rented farmland in the US

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Ranjan, Pranay (author), Wardroppe, Chloe B. (author), Eanes, Francis R. (author), Reddy, Sheila M. W. (author), Harden, Seth C. (author), Masuda, Yuta J. (author), and Prokopy, Linda S. (author)
    Format:
    Online journal article
    Publication Date:
    2019-01
    Published:
    USA: Science Direct
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 8 Document Number: D10297
    Journal Title:
    Land Use Policy
    Journal Title Details:
    80 : 214-223
    Notes:
    10 pages., Via online journal., Agricultural conservation programs often focus on farm operators when promoting conservation practices. However, much of U.S. farmland is owned by landowners not directly involved in farm operations. Rental arrangements on these lands can dis-incentivize the adoption of conservation practices that could improve soil health, water quality, and land values. To date, agricultural conservation policy has largely ignored the role of non-operating landowners (NOLs) and rental arrangements. We help improve the evidence-base for policy by identifying barriers to adoption of conservation practices on rented farmlands. Analysis of forty interviews with NOLs, operators, farm managers and university extension personnel in Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana revealed five categories of barriers: cash rent lease terms, rental market dynamics, information deficits/asymmetries, cognitive/interpersonal, and financial motivations. Some barriers, such as risk aversion and farm aesthetics were expressed by both NOLs and operators, while other barriers, such as status quo bias and annual renewal of leases were only expressed by NOLs and operators, respectively. To overcome barriers to conservation, interviewees recommended improving communication between NOLs and operators and modifying cash rent lease terms in order to build in flexibility for equitable sharing of risks and rewards. Agricultural conservation programs could readily apply these results—possibly working with intermediaries (e.g., farm managers, lawyers)—to offer communication and lease tools and assistance to NOLS and operators. Future research should evaluate the efficacy of these conservation interventions and how intermediaries affect the balance of power between NOLs and operators.