Related Links
Identification and analysis of barriers in extension of sugar beet insurance in Mashhad county | ||
| چغندرقند | ||
| Article 9, Volume 36, Issue 1, April 2020, Pages 93-106 PDF (1.12 M) | ||
| Document Type: Scientific - Research | ||
| DOI: 10.22092/jsb.2021.343239.1241 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Mohammadjavad Mehdizadeh rayeni* 1; Hamid Mohammadi2; saman ziaee3; mahmoud ahmadpour3 | ||
| 1PhD student in Agricultural Economics, Zabol University, Zabol, Iran. | ||
| 2Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Zabol University, Zabol, Iran. | ||
| 3Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Zabol University, Zabol, Iran. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Agricultural insurance as a means of the risk transfer is a very important tool. Sugar beet, as one of the most important crops in the country, has a cultivated area of about 100000 hectares. The area under cultivation of sugar beet in Mashhad was 750 hectares with about 27,000 tons production (yield equivalent to 36 tha-1) in 2018-19. On the other hand, sugar beet is one of the most important products in Mashhad, and every year a large part of its products is damaged due to natural, human and intentional hazards. The aim of this study was to identify and analyze the barriers of sugar beet insurance extension in Mashhad using the structural equation model in 2018. The study was based on descriptive-correlation method, data collection tool, questionnaire and the statistical population of the study consisted of beet growers in Mashhad. To determine the sample size, simple random sampling method and Cochran's formula were used. Finally, the sample size was estimated to 150 persons. In order to test the research hypotheses, Smart PLS software and path analysis model was used. The results showed that executive weaknesses with path coefficient of 0.166, land-related environmental weakness with path coefficient of 0.134, individual-knowledge barriers with path coefficient of 0.151, institutional inconsistency with path coefficient of 0.121, manpower shortage- Information with path coefficient of 0.152, administrative-expert weaknesses with path coefficient of 0.129, evaluation-procurement weaknesses with path coefficient of 0.101, problems related to damage follow-up with path coefficient of 0.102, dissatisfaction with non-payment of insurance and inappropriate behavior of experts with the path coefficient with path coefficient of 0.112, insurance costs with a path coefficient of 0.119 and unprincipled estimation of damage with a path coefficient of 0.104 have a positive and significant effect on the non-expansion of sugar beet insurance in Mashhad. According to the results, it is suggested to review the current process and to facilitate and accelerate the administrative framework and work process of compensating the victims. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Insurance; Structural equations; Sugar beet | ||
| References | ||
|
Agriculture Organization of Khorasan Razavi. Statistical yearbook of agriculture, assistance of planning and economic affairs, Department of Agricultural Statistics. 2018; (in Persian) Bordbar B, Bahmani MA, Mousavi SN. 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. 2011; 1-11. (in Persian, abstract in English) Cochran WG. Sampling techniques. Johan Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1963; New York. Daryjany A, Ghorbani M. Factors affecting the adoption of crop insurance in the province. Proceedings of the Conference of Agricultural Economics. Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sina University. 1998; 159-145. (in Persian, abstract in English) Davari A, Rezazadeh A. Structural equation modeling with PLS software. Tehran: Jihad Daneshgahi Publishing Organization. 2014. Ertyaee F, Chyzari M. Evaluation of agricultural extension experts about the insurance. Quarterly Farm Insurance. 2006; (10): 79-54. (in Persian, abstract in English) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2013. FAOSTAT. Available online at: (http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PagelD=567#ancor.) Garrido A. Zilberman D. Revisiting the demand for agricultural insurance: the case of Spain. Journal of Agricultural Finance Review. 2008; (68):43 – 66. Goodwin BK, Smith VH. The Economics of Crop Insurance and Disaster Aid. AEI press: Washington DC. 1995. Hardaker JB, Huirne RBM, Anderson JR, Lien G. Coping with Risk in Agriculture. CABI Publishing is a division of CAB International. 2004; Available at: http://www. cabi-publishing.org. Iravani H, Darbanastaneh A. Factors affecting the adoption of wheat insurance in Tehran. Extension and Education, Faculty of Agriculture. 2001; Tehran University. (in Persian) Iravani H, Kalantari KH, Movahedmohamadi SH. Factors affecting the adoption of wheat insurance Tafresh city. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 2006; (1): 144-137. (In Persian, abstract in English) Kahan D. Managing risk in farming (Farm management extension guide-3). Rome: Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. FAO. 2008. Karami E, Zamani G, Keshvarz M. The determinants of Continue Crop Insurance. Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics, Year XVI. 2008, (62): 81-35. (in Persian, abstract in English) Karami E, Najafi B. Research design index of agricultural extension. Studies and methods- extension, publisher of Tat, Tehran. 1996 (in Persian) Karbasi A, Kambozia N. Factors affecting demand for agricultural insurance in Sistan and Baluchistan. Agricultural Economics and Development, Year XI. 2003; (41): 184-167. (in Persian, abstract in English) Mahmoudi M, Farhadian H, Norozi A. Strategy and its role in reducing risk of crop insurance, agricultural activities. Journal of Agricultural Insurance and the Numbers. 2004; (12): 3-4. (in Persian, abstract in English) Majedi M, Naderi K, Sadi H. Wheat insurance development barriers in Asadabad County. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research. 2016; 1 (27): 57-66. (in Persian, abstract in English) Mariconda PR. Technological risks, transgenic agriculture and alternatives. Scientice Studia, Sao Paulo. (Special issue). 2014; (12): 75-104. Mishra PK. Planning for the development and operation of agricultural insurance schemes in Asia. Report of the Apo Seminar on Agriculture Insurance Held in Manila, Philippines, 1999; 27-40. Nooripoor M, Abdollahi K, Maleki R. Performance comparison of private agricultural insurance agents and production cooperatives using CSM & Seraqual techniques: the case of Shiraz County, Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research. 2017; 2 (4): 839-850. Okorie A. Instituting agricultural insurance schemes in Nigeria: a mirage or reality. African Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 1989; 15(182):51-67. Olarinde LO, Manyong VM, Akintola JO. 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. 2010; 8(1): 128-134. Raheli H, Ghahremanzadeh M. Determining factors effecting participation of sugar beet producers for area crop yield insurance: Case Study in Khoy County, Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production. 2014; 24 (1): 17-30. Ray PK. Nimon. Agricultural Insurance, Principles and organization and application to developing countries. FAO, Rome, Peramon Press. 1967; 12-13. Rostami F, Sha'banali Fami H, Iravani H, Movahedmohamady H. Factors affecting the adoption case study of wheat farmers’ insurance Harsin Kermanshah city. Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics, year XV. 2007; 21-1. (in Persian, abstract in English) Smith V, Boqute AE. The demand for multiple peril crop insurance, evidence from Montana wheat farmers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1996; 78:189-509. Sulewski P, Kłoczko-Gajewska A. Farmers’ risk perception, risk aversion and strategies to cope with production risk: an empirical study from Poland, Studies in Agricultural Economics. 2014; 116(3): 140-14. Tabraee M, Parsapour KH, Abed S. Effective factors on probability of willingness to pay for agricultural extension services by farmers (Case study: Mashhad township). Journal of Economics and Agriculture Development. 2011; 25(3): 295-304. Taleghani D, Sharifi H, Ahmadi M, Ashrafmansouri G, Moharamzadeh M, Javaheri MA, Basati J, Ebrahimian HR, Sadeghzadeh Hemayati S, Aghaeezadeh M, Abdollahian Noghabi M, Orazizadeh MR, Norani A, Hosseinpour M, Sadeghian SY, Mohamadian R, Mohamadi SB, Yosef- Abadi V. Development of tropical sugar beet in Iran. proceedings of the 11th Congress of Agronomy and Plant Breeding Sciences of Iran. Tehran. 2010; 81-94. (in Persian) Torkamany J. Assessing the role of insurance in reducing income inequality, exploitation and factors affecting demand for agricultural insurance: A case study. Journal of Agricultural Insurance. 2005; (5): 17-37. (in Persian, abstract in English) Tyraee yari N, Zaree H, Chizeri M. Personality factors affecting modernity in accepting agricultural insurance. A graduate of Agricultural Extension and Education Department, Tarbiat Modarres University. 2002; Tehran University. (in Persian, abstract in English) Walker TS, Jodha NS. How small farm households, adapt to risk. Issus and Experience, John Hopkins University Press. 1986; Baltimore. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 533 PDF Download: 325 |
||
Journal management system. designed by sinaweb