Agricultural insurance as a climate risk adaptation strategy in developing countries: a case of Nigeria

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of the study area.

Table 1. Perceived climate-related disaster effects across agroecological zones in the last 10 years.

Agroecological zone	Reduced crop yield	Complete crop failure	Shortage of livestock feeds	Crop pest and disease outbreaks	Livestock pest and disease outbreaks
	(% of respondents)
Dry agroecological zones
Semi-arid	97.78	91.67	80.00	87.78	83.34
Sudan savannah	94.44	83.33	83.34	60.55	56.67
Guinea savannah	93.34	58.89	75.56	62.22	47.78
Humid agroecological zones
Swamp forest	92.77	66.67	52.22	90.00	69.44
Tropical rainforest	92.22	65.56	55.56	83.88	40.56
Mangrove	61.67	50.55	38.89	35.56	18.34

Table 2. Awareness and adoption of agricultural insurance (N = 1,080).

Variables	Category	%
Awareness of agricultural insurance	No	51.39
	Yes	48.61
Adoption of agricultural insurance	No	91.09
	Yes	8.91

Table 3. Awareness and adoption of agricultural insurance across agroecological zones.

Agroecological zone (AEZ)	Awareness (N = 1,080)		Adoption (N = 1,080)
	Aware (N = 555)	Unaware (N = 525)	Adopter (N = 96)	Non-adopter (N = 984)
% of respondents
Dry agroecological zones
Semi-arid	13.60	86.40	26.26	73.74
Sudanian savannah	64.97	35.03	69.06	30.94
Guinean savannah	30.04	69.95	40.03	59.97
Humid agroecological zones
Swamp forest	43.58	56.42	49.42	50.58
Tropical rainforest	81.84	18.16	54.74	45.25
Mangrove	77.60	29.40	41.66	58.34

Figure 2. Perceived impact of climate-related disasters in the last 10 years.

Table 4. Respondent awareness and adoption of agricultural insurance (N = 1,080).

Variables	Awareness		Adoption
	Marginal effect	Standard error	Marginal effect	Standard error
Socio-demographic characteristics
Sex	0.0812	0.0602	0.0150	0.0150
Age	0.0123	0.0026***	−0.0005	0.0007
Years of education	0.0161	0.0046***	0.0034	0.0013**
Household size	−0.0142	0.0049***	0.0020	0.0012
Years of farming experience	−0.0025	0.0028	0.0010	0.0008**
Farm characteristics
Type of land ownership	0.0575	0.0648	0.0812	0.0329**
Farm size	−0.0167	0.0071**	0.0014	0.0016
Livestock ownership	−0.2247	0.0616***	0.0239	0.0146
Herd size	0.0023	0.0009***	0.0001	0.0000***
Institutional characteristics
Group membership	0.2647	0.0643***	0.0165	0.0186
Extension contact	0.0045	0.0036	−0.0030	0.0011***
Access to bank	0.0998	0.0533*	0.0954	0.0285***
Weather information	0.1432	0.0564**	0.0383	0.0140***
Climate risk experience
Flood	0.1703	0.0564***	0.0349	0.0157**
Drought	0.0709	0.0557	0.0311	0.0131**
Pro > chi^2	0.000		0.000
Pseudo R^2	0.2467		0.3160

Note: * = p < 0.1, ** = p < 0.05, *** = p < 0.01.

Figure 3. Reasons for non-adoption given by non-adopters of agricultural insurance (N = 524).

Table 5. Farmers’ opinions on the performance of agricultural insurance (N = 96).

Variables	Categories	%
Years of adoption	<5	75.00
	5–10	19.60
	11–15	4.30
	>15	1.10
Rating of agricultural insurance	Poor	27.96
	Fair	17.20
	Good	35.48
	Very good	19.35

Figure 4. Difficulties encountered by users of agricultural insurance (N = 96).