IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v14y2024i7p1042-d1425413.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Herders’ Risk Attitudes on Livestock Insurance: Evidence from the Pastoral Areas of Tibetan Plateau

Author

Listed:
  • Shiqi Guan

    (School of Economics, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing 102206, China
    State Key Laboratory of Herbage Improvement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, China Grass Industry Development Strategy Research Center, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China)

  • Menglin Zhao

    (State Key Laboratory of Herbage Improvement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, China Grass Industry Development Strategy Research Center, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China)

  • Feng Han

    (Development Research Center of National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Beijing 100714, China)

  • Zeng Tang

    (State Key Laboratory of Herbage Improvement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, China Grass Industry Development Strategy Research Center, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China)

Abstract

In the context of advancing the transformation and upgrading of grassland animal husbandry, encouraging and guiding the widespread adoption of livestock insurance plays an important role in promoting the sustainable development of the livestock industry. This paper explores the impact of herders’ attitudes and perceptions towards climate change risks on their livestock insurance strategies. Firstly, experimental economics methods are employed to measure the risk preferences of herders on the Tibetan Plateau. Secondly, a theoretical model incorporating risk preferences and insurance adoption behavior is constructed. Finally, the effects of herders’ risk preferences on insurance adoption behavior are empirically examined through double-hurdle models, instrumental variable models, and moderating effect models. The results reveal that (1) most herders on the Tibetan Plateau exhibit risk-averse characteristics. (2) The degree of risk preference has a significant negative impact on herders’ insurance adoption behavior, while the risk perception significantly positively influences insurance adoption. The results remain valid even after addressing issues of endogeneity and conducting robustness checks. (3) Livestock income plays a crucial moderating role in the mechanism through which risk attitudes affect insurance adoption behavior. (4) The impact of risk preference on insurance adoption behavior shows regional and income heterogeneity.

Suggested Citation

  • Shiqi Guan & Menglin Zhao & Feng Han & Zeng Tang, 2024. "The Impact of Herders’ Risk Attitudes on Livestock Insurance: Evidence from the Pastoral Areas of Tibetan Plateau," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:7:p:1042-:d:1425413
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/7/1042/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/7/1042/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joost M. E. Pennings & Brian Wansink, 2004. "Channel Contract Behavior: The Role of Risk Attitudes, Risk Perceptions, And Channel Members' Market Structures," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 77(4), pages 697-724, October.
    2. Ruihua Yang, 2018. "Agricultural Insurance: Theory, Empirical Research and Experience – Based on Farmers Household Data," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 10(1), pages 173-175, February.
    3. Manuela Meraner & Robert Finger, 2019. "Risk perceptions, preferences and management strategies: evidence from a case study using German livestock farmers," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 110-135, January.
    4. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    5. Joan Costa‐Font & Jaume García‐Villar, 2009. "Risk Attitudes And The Demand For Private Health Insurance: The Importance Of ‘Captive Preferences’," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 80(4), pages 499-519, December.
    6. Rizky Yanuarti & Joni Murti Mulyo Aji & Mohammad Rondhi, 2019. "Risk aversion level influence on farmer's decision to participate in crop insurance: A review," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 65(10), pages 481-489.
    7. Andrew Chesher & Adam M. Rosen, 2017. "Generalized Instrumental Variable Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 959-989, May.
    8. Xinjian Chen & Di Zeng & Ying Xu & Xiaojun Fan, 2018. "Perceptions, Risk Attitude and Organic Fertilizer Investment: Evidence from Rice and Banana Farmers in Guangxi, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-14, October.
    9. Arieska Wening Sarwosri & Oliver Mußhoff, 2020. "Are Risk Attitudes and Time Preferences Crucial Factors for Crop Diversification by Smallholder Farmers?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(6), pages 922-942, August.
    10. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer & Quang Nguyen, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 557-571, March.
    11. Sommarat Chantarat & Andrew G. Mude & Christopher B. Barrett & Michael R. Carter, 2013. "Designing Index-Based Livestock Insurance for Managing Asset Risk in Northern Kenya," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 80(1), pages 205-237, March.
    12. Richard Kofi Asravor, 2019. "Farmers’ risk preference and the adoption of risk management strategies in Northern Ghana," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 62(5), pages 881-900, April.
    13. F. van Winsen & Y. de Mey & L. Lauwers & S. Van Passel & M. Vancauteren & E. Wauters, 2016. "Determinants of risk behaviour: effects of perceived risks and risk attitude on farmer's adoption of risk management strategies," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 56-78, January.
    14. Liu, Elaine M. & Huang, JiKun, 2013. "Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 202-215.
    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. Shuoli Zhao & Chengyan Yue, 2020. "Risk preferences of commodity crop producers and specialty crop producers: An application of prospect theory," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 359-372, May.
    2. Doan Nainggolan & Faizal Rahmanto Moeis & Mette Termansen, 2023. "Does risk preference influence farm level adaptation strategies? – Survey evidence from Denmark," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 28(7), pages 1-23, October.
    3. Tristan Le Cotty & Elodie Maître d’Hôtel & Raphael Soubeyran & Julie Subervie, 2018. "Linking Risk Aversion, Time Preference and Fertiliser Use in Burkina Faso," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(11), pages 1991-2006, November.
    4. Pengfei Liu & Lingling Hou & Dongqing Li & Shi Min & Yueying Mu, 2021. "Determinants of Livestock Insurance Demand: Experimental Evidence from Chinese Herders," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 430-451, June.
    5. Sheremenko, Ganna & Magnan, Nicholas, 2015. "Gender-specific Risk Preferences and Fertilizer Use in Kenyan Farming Households," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205766, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Wu, Haixia & Ge, Yan & Li, Jianping, 2023. "Uncertainty, time preference and households’ adoption of rooftop photovoltaic technology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    7. Feng, Shuaizhang & Han, Yujie & Qiu, Huanguang, 2021. "Does crop insurance reduce pesticide usage? Evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    8. Kanchan Joshi & Thiagu Ranganathan & Ram Ranjan, 2021. "Exploring Higher Order Risk Preferences of Farmers in a Water-Scarce Region: Evidence from a Field Experiment in West Bengal, India," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 19(2), pages 317-344, June.
    9. Naranjo, Maria A. & Alpízar, Francisco & Martinsson, Peter, 2019. "Alternatives for Risk Elicitation in the Field: Evidence from Coffee Farmers in Costa Rica," EfD Discussion Paper 19-21, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    10. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    11. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter Martinsson & Pham Khanh Nam & Nghi Truong, 2019. "Risk preferences and development revisited," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 1-21, February.
    12. Pham, Huong Dien & Liebenehm,Sabine & Waibel, Hermann, 2017. "Experimentally validated general risk attitude among different ethnic groups in Vietnam," TVSEP Working Papers wp-004, Leibniz Universitaet Hannover, Institute for Environmental Economics and World Trade, Project TVSEP.
    13. Boyd, Chris M. & Bellemare, Marc F., 2022. "Why not insure prices? Experimental evidence from Peru," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 580-631.
    14. Balcombe, Kelvin & Fraser, Iain, 2024. "A Note on an Alternative Approach to Experimental Design of Lottery Prospects," MPRA Paper 119743, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Chenchen Yang & Jianhua Wang, 2019. "Evaluation of Policies on Inappropriate Treatment of Dead Hogs from the Perspective of Loss Aversion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-20, August.
    16. Verschoor, Arjan & D’Exelle, Ben & Perez-Viana, Borja, 2016. "Lab and life: Does risky choice behaviour observed in experiments reflect that in the real world?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 134-148.
    17. Stein T. Holden & John Quiggin, 2017. "Climate risk and state-contingent technology adoption: shocks, drought tolerance and preferences," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(2), pages 285-308.
    18. Feyisa, Ashenafi Duguma & Maertens, Miet & de Mey, Yann, 2023. "Relating risk preferences and risk perceptions over different agricultural risk domains: Insights from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    19. Di Falco, Salvatore & Berck, Peter & Bezabih, Mintewab & Köhlin, Gunnar, 2019. "Rain and impatience: Evidence from rural Ethiopia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 40-51.
    20. Holden, Stein T., 2015. "Risk Preferences, Shocks and Technology Adoption: Farmers’ Responses to Drought Risk," CLTS Working Papers 3/15, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 11 Oct 2019.

    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:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:7:p:1042-:d:1425413. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.