Simultaneous adoption of risk management strategies to manage the catastrophic risk of maize farmers in Bangladesh

被引:0
作者
K. M. Mehedi Adnan
Liu Ying
Swati Anindita Sarker
Man Yu
Moataz Eliw
Md. Reza Sultanuzzaman
Md. Enamul Huq
机构
[1] Huazhong Agricultural University,College of Economics and Management
[2] Sylhet Agricultural University,Department of Agricultural Finance & Banking
[3] Yangtze University,Hubei Collaborative Innovation Center for Grain Industry
[4] University of Chinese Academy of Sciences,School of Economics & Management
[5] EXIM Bank Agricultural University Bangladesh,Department of Agricultural Economics
[6] Tarleton State University,Department of Agriculture and consumer science
[7] Al-Azhar University,Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture
[8] Nanchang University,School of Economics and Management
[9] Wuhan University,State Key Laboratory of Information Engineering in Surveying, Mapping and Remote Sensing
来源
GeoJournal | 2021年 / 86卷
关键词
Risk management strategy; Contract farming; Diversification; Agricultural credit; Multivariate probit model; Bangladesh;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Risk and uncertainty are distinctive features of agricultural cultivation, which significantly affect the production and income. Risk management is an important way for farmers to reduce uncertainty. But little literature is available on simultaneous adoption of different risk management strategies and the possible correlations and impact. This study surveyed 350 maize farmers in four different agro-ecological districts in Bangladesh through stratified random sampling and explored the impacts of social and farm features, farmers’ perceptions about catastrophic risk and their attitude towards risk sources, and the possible correlations among contract farming, diversification and agricultural credit as for risk management strategies by employing multivariate probit model. The results confirmed the correlation among the adoptions of different risk management strategies and revealed that a single risk management strategy could encourage farmers to adopt another one or two risk management strategies simultaneously. Furthermore, the findings explored that age, educational status, extension contact, monthly family income, farm size, farmland ownership, and farmers’ risk-averse nature were the most influencing factors for risk management strategies adopted. Also, the findings from the multivariate probit model provided further interpretations and information which will help in a better understanding of farmer’s behavior about managing different catastrophic risks and will give a platform for policymakers to anticipate suitable risk management strategies for farmers.
引用
收藏
页码:1981 / 1998
页数:17
相关论文
共 186 条
  • [11] Chowdhury NY(2001)Nonfarm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics, and policy implications Food Policy 26 315-157
  • [12] Islam M(2001)Agricultural finance: Credit, credit constraints, and consequences Handbook of Agricultural Economics 1 513-1434
  • [13] Haque MS(2014)Explaining determinants of the on-farm diversification: Empirical evidence from Tuscany region Bio-based and Applied Economics 3 137-271
  • [14] Amanor-Boadu V(2012)As you sow, so shall you reap: The welfare impacts of contract farming World Development 40 1418-2207
  • [15] Arrow KJ(2018)Does contract farming improve welfare? A review World Development 112 259-312
  • [16] Ashfaq M(1995)Savings, credit and insurance Handbook of Development Economics 3 2123-48
  • [17] Hassan S(2003)Risk attitudes of farmers in terms of risk aversion: A case study of lower Seyhan plain farmers in Adana province, Turkey Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 27 305-166
  • [18] Naseer MZ(1994)Climate change and social vulnerability: Toward a sociology and geography of food insecurity Global Environmental Change 4 37-18
  • [19] Baig IA(2013)Economic factors affecting diversified farming systems Ecology and Society 18 33-556
  • [20] Asma J(2002)Income risk, coping strategies, and safety nets The World Bank Research Observer 17 141-19696