نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی

چکیده

بیمه کشاورزی، یکی از مهم‏ترین راهکارهای مدیریتی برای غلبه بر خطرات کشاورزی، تغییرات آب و هوا و دیگر خطرات طبیعی اجتناب‌ناپذیر است. لذا هدف تحقیق، بررسی مؤلفه‏های اثرگذار مدیریت ریسک تولید بر پذیرش بیمه محصولات کشاورزی، میان کشاورزان ذرت‏کار دشت مغان در استان اردبیل بود. جامعه آماری تحقیق شامل کلیه کشاورزان ذرت‏کار  به تعداد 915 نفر بوده که حجم نمونه به کمک روش نمونه‌گیری چندمرحله‏ای، توسط فرمول یمان (Yamane) به تعداد 278 نفر تعیین گردید. ضریب ریسک‏گریزی با استفاده از مدل قاعده اول اطمینان (SFR) محاسبه و پس از دسته‏بندی کشاورزان ذرت‏کار بر اساس پذیرنده و نپذیرنده بیمه، توسط رگرسیون لجستیک مؤلفه‏های اثرگذار مدیریت ریسک بر پذیرش بیمه تعیین شد. مطابق یافته‏ها، اغلب کشاورزان ذرت‏کار (10/65 درصد) ریسک‌گریز می‏باشند. همچنین کشاورزان ذرت‏کار پذیرنده بیمه، بطور معنی‏داری دارای درجه ریسک‏گریزی کمتری نسبت به کشاورزان ذرت‏کار نپذیرنده بیمه هستند. نتایج رگرسیون لجستیک دوگانه نشان داد که از میان انواع مؤلفه‏ها، مؤلفه‏های مدیریت ریسک کاشت (382/0=Wald)، مدیریت ریسک اقتصاد و بازاریابی (492/0=Wald)، مدیریت ریسک زیربنایی زراعی و فنی (617/0=Wald) و مدیریت تسهیم ریسک (447/0=Wald) تأثیر مثبت و معنی‏داری بر پذیرش بیمه محصولات کشاورزی داشت. همچنین تأثیر متغیرهای سن، سطح تحصیلات و تعداد ریسک‌های کشاورزی نیز در تمایز دو گروه پاسخ‏گویان، معنی‏دار بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Components Affecting Production Risk Management on Agricultural Crops Insurance Adoption (Case Study: Maize Farmers of Moghan Plain)

نویسنده [English]

  • M. Sookhtanlou

University of Mohaghegh Ardabili

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Moghan plain (Ardabil province) always has been considered as one of the important pillars of agriculture in Iran. However due to the new climatic changes, increasing occurrence of phenomena such as drought and reduction of water resources, and spread of pests and weeds, farmers facing with the phenomenon of risk as a major challenge in the region. Farmers will be obliged to make decisions about allocating resources to their agricultural productions which facing environmental conditions and different biotic and abiotic risks, as ambient conditions, the status of inputs and outputs prices and their agronomic performance, are not stable enough. Finally, these conditions influence farmers' agronomic decisions which under such circumstances the results of farmers' decision making are different from the results in safer conditions. There are also different values of inputs consumption in risky and safe agricultural conditions and these values also depend on other factors such as variance of the product price, the degree of risk aversion and the marginal share of inputs in production variance as well as outputs and inputs prices and production levels. In this regard, agricultural crop insurance is one of the major management strategies to overcome agricultural risks, weather and other unavoidable natural hazards. Risk management is an appropriate management of operational unit with awareness and understanding of the environment and risky factors. It is actually one of the ways to increase productivity of production factors and to improve the efficiency of farming operation systems through making suitable decisions about controlling risk factors and resources. Therefore, increasing range of production risk and the importance of agricultural crops insurance of maize production in Moghan plain led to investigate and determine the effects of agricultural crops insurance adoption on the components of production risk management among the maize farmers of Moghan plain.
Materials and Methods: This study is an applied one based on descriptive-correlative method that was designed and implemented in 2016-2017. Study area was Moghan plain that it located in the northern part of Ardabil province. Sampling method was multi-stage and applying the Yamane (1967) formula. Data including sample size of 278 maize farmers in 9 villages were collected. The research instrument was a questionnaire including 69 items in three sections (personal and professional characteristics, determining risk aversion coefficient and risk management components). Items of questionnaire were composed of personal and professional characteristics of respondents (18 items), variables determining risk aversion coefficient (19 items) and risk management components (32 items). Risk management components were consisting of planting risk management (5 items), maintenance risk management (5 items), harvest risk management (4 items), Risk management of economics and marketing (5 items), risk management of farm and technical infrastructure (7 items) and the risk-sharing management (6 items). Items of risk management components with equal weights were collected in the five-part Likert scale (the range of 1 (very low) to 5 (very much)).
To calculate the risk aversion coefficient and the risk sentiments in maize farmers' decision-making, we used safety first rule (SFR). For the final analysis of the main purpose of the research was to use the binary logistic regression method in step-by-step approach.
Results and Discussion: According to study results, maize farmers with different risk aversion coefficient, includes four groups as follow: 1: risk-taker (15.1% of respondents); 2: risk-neutral (19.8% of respondents); 3: low risk-averse (37.4% of respondents) and 4: high risk-averse (27.7% of respondents). There was also a significant difference between the adopter and non-adopter maize farmers of insurance based on the degree of risk aversion. In other words, non- adopter maize farmers of insurance had significantly higher risk aversion compared to adopter maize farmers of insurance. Based on the results of logistic regression, from among 17 studied factors in eight steps, only 8 components including education (B = 0.254), average annual agricultural income (B= 0.68), number of agricultural risks (B =0.361) and risk-sharing management (B=0.447) at 5% level, and risk management variables of economics and marketing (B= 0.492), planting risk management (B = 0.382) and risk management of farm and technical infrastructure (B = 0.617) at 1% level were positive and significant. But for the component of age (B= -0.142) a negative and significant relationship at the 5% level was found.
The results of calculating the risk aversion coefficient showed that majority of maize farmers were risk-averse (65.1%). Also, the adopter maize farmers of insurance were significantly less risk aversion than non-adopter maize farmers of insurance. Many number of maize farmers in the area are small-holder farmers (mean of farm lands size equals 5.0054 hectares). The smallholder farmers compared to other farmers are very vulnerable facing with the agricultural risks, so this leads to high risk eversion level of maize farmers in the study area compared to other farmers. Also, the adopter maize farmers of insurance were significantly less risk aversion than non-adopter maize farmers of insurance. The results of logistic regression showed that among various types of risk management components, planting risk management (Wald: 0.382), risk management of economics and marketing (Wald: 0.492), risk management of farm and technical infrastructure (Wald: 0.617) and risk-sharing management (Wald: 0.447) had the positive and significant effects on agricultural crops insurance adoption.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Agricultural crops insurance
  • Moghan Plain
  • Maize farmers
  • Risk aversion coefficient
  • Risk Management
1- Aghapour Sabbaghi M. 2015. Investigating effectiveness of production efficiency and farmers risk to products insurance (case study: tomatoes in Dezful). Agricultural Economics Research, 7(3): 91-108. (In Persian)
2- Aimin H. 2010. Uncertainty, risk aversion and risk management in agriculture. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 1: 152-156.
3- Ajetomobi J.O., and Binuomote S.O. 2006. Risk aversion among poultry egg producers in southwestern Nigeria. International Journal of Poultry Science, 5(6): 562-565.
4- Ajijola S., Egbetokun O.A., and Ogunbayo I.E. 2011. Impact of risk attitudes on poverty level among rural farmers in Ogun State. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 3(12): 581-587.
5- Akinola B.D. 2014. Risk Preferences and Coping Strategies among Poultry Farmers in Abeokuta Metropolis, Nigeria. Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal. Global Journals Inc., (USA). 14(5): 22-29.
6- Aziz-Nasiri S. 2011. Agricultural risk management by using agricultural crop insurance based on climate indicators, New World Insurance Magazine. 14(161): 34-48.
7- Bordbar B., Bahmani M.A., and Mousavi S.N. 2011. Insurance of agricultural products and tools for reducing risk and promoting investor motivation in agriculture and animal production. Jahrom County: National Conference on Agricultural Management. pp: 1-11. (In Persian)
8- Geravandi S., and Alibaygi A.H. 2010. Determining factors influencing the utilization of strategies of production risk management by corn farmers in kermanshah township. Journal of Rural Research, 1(2): 117- 137.
9- Gunduz O., Ceyhan V., and Bayramoglu Z.A. 2016. Determinants of farmers’ risk aversion in apricot production in Turkey. International Journal Management and Applied Science, 2(9): 149-155.
10- Ismaili J. 2012. Study of factors affecting the acceptance of wheat crop insurance in Hamedan County. University of Guilan, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Master's Thesis in Rural Development. (In Persian)
11- Kahan D. 2008. Managing risk in farming (Farm management extension guide (3)). Rome: Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, FAO.
12- Khoshnodifar Z., Sookhtanlo M., and Gholami H. 2016. Identification and measurement of indicators of drought vulnerability among wheat farmers in Mashhad County, Iran. Annals of Biological Research, 3(9): 4593-4600.
13- Mariconda P.R. 2014. Technological risks, transgenic agriculture and alternatives. Scientice studia, Sao Paulo, 12 (special issue): 75-104.
14- Olarinde L.O., Manyong V.M., and Akintola J.O. 2010. Factors influencing risk aversion among maize farmers in the Northern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria: Implications for sustainable crop development programmes. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 8(1): 128-134.
15- Onyemauwa C.S., Orebiyi J.S., Onyeagocha S.U.O., Ehirim N.C., Nwosu F.O., and Ben-Chendo N.G. 2013. Risk Aversion among Farmers of the National Program for Food Security in Imo State Southeast Nigeria. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 1(4): 131-138.
16- Parikh A., and Bernard A. 1988. Impact of risk on HYV adoption in Bangladesh, Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, 2(2): 167-178.
17- Qasim M., and Ahmad N. 2016. Agricultural Risk Sources and Risk Management Strategies: the Case of Rain-fed Agriculture in Pothwar Region, Punjab, Pakistan. Journal Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., 6(3): 18-25.
18- Randhir O.T. 1991. Influence of risk on input decisions in Tank fed farms of South India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(1): 57-63.
19- Riwthong S., Schreinemachers P., Grovermann C., and Berger T. 2016. Agricultural commercialization: Risk perceptions, risk management and the role of pesticides in Thailand, Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences. pp: 1-9.
20- Saqib S., Ahmad M.M., Panezai S., and Ahmad Rana I. 2016. An empirical assessment of farmers’ risk attitudes in flood-prone areas of Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 18: 107-114.
21- Sekar I., and Ramasamy C. 2001. Risk and resource analysis of rain fed tanks in South India. Journal of Social and Economic Development, 3(2): 208-215.
22- Shaloudegi G. 2012. Analysis of demand structure analysis and impact of insurance on agricultural farms: a study of Dehgolan plains in Kurdistan Province, Kurdistan University, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Master's Degree in Agricultural Economics. (In Persian)
23- Sookhtanlou M., Gholami H., and Es’haghi S.R. 2013. Drought Risk Vulnerability Parameters among Wheat Farmers in Mashhad County, Iran. International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development (IJAMAD), 3(4): 227-236.
24- Sulewski P., and Kłoczko-Gajewska A. 2014. Farmers’ risk perception, risk aversion and strategies to cope with production risk: an empirical study from Poland, Studies in Agricultural Economics, 116(3): 140-14.
25- Tajeddini S., Agdarnejad A., and Mirsalooghour M. 2015. The effect of agricultural insurance on economic, social, lifestyle and livelihood status of wheat farmers. Quarterly Journal of Agricultural Insurance Fund. 20(46): 105-124. (In Persian)
26- Torkamani J. 2009. Investigating the effects of agricultural products insurance on risk reduction and income inequality of the operators: a case study in Fars Province. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, 1(1): 17-34. (In Persian)
27- Torkamani J., and Mousavi S.N. 2011. Investigating the effects of agricultural insurance on production efficiency and risk management in agriculture: a case study in Fars Province. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 3(1): 1-26. (In Persian)
28- Ullah R., Shivakoti G.P., and Ali G. 2015. Factors effecting farmers’ risk attitude and risk perceptions: The case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 13: 151-157
29- Velandia M., Rejesus R., Knight T., and Sherrick B. 2009. Factors Affecting Farmers' Utilization of Agricultural Risk Management Tools: The Case of Crop Insurance, Forward Contracting, and Spreading Sales. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41(1): 107-123.
30- Yamane T. 1967. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd ed., Harper and Row, New York, USA.
CAPTCHA Image