Preferences and Willingness of Farmers to Participate and Pay for Crop Insurance: Evidence from a Choice Experiment

  1. Uche Felix Kalu

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

This study investigates the preferences and determinants of crop farmers' willingness to participate in flood insurance programs in Anambra State, Nigeria. Through a choice experiment, the study examines farmers' preferences for traditional inspection versus weather-based index inspection and identifies factors influencing their insurance decisions. Results reveal that while all surveyed farmers unanimously endorse participation in flood insurance programs, a slight majority express a preference for weather-based index inspection over traditional inspection. Factors such as monthly income, cooperative membership, access to credit, geographical proximity to traditional insurance offices, and receipt of climate change information significantly influence farmers' choice of insurance type. These findings underscore the importance of adapting insurance policies and interventions to meet the evolving needs and preferences of farmers. Policymakers and stakeholders are encouraged to enhance the accessibility and affordability of weather-based index insurance, leverage existing cooperative networks and financial institutions, and tailor interventions to address location-specific challenges. By addressing barriers such as affordability, accessibility, and awareness, policymakers and stakeholders can promote broader participation in flood insurance programs, thereby enhancing the resilience of agricultural communities to climate risks.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17204688.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Highly appropriate
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Highly supported
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Highly appropriate and clear
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Very clearly
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Highly likely
    Would it benefit from language editing? No
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, it's of high quality
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? Yes, as it is

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

  2. Version published to 10.20944/preprints202509.1751.v1