Search

• Explain the economic value of the quadratic cost of MECM in terms of marginal cost and elasticity. • Adopt an opinion modification mechanism based on social network. • The MECMs with uncertain adjustment costs are developed under three uncertain scenarios. • The proposed models are applied to the agricultural insurance premiums subsidy policymaking in China. In the realm of group decision making (GDM), the maximum expert consensus model (MECM) emerges as a potent tool for consensus optimization. The complexity of decision-making environment leads to the uncertainty of adjustment costs and the intricate social relationships between decision makers (DMs). Therefore, this paper aims to develop the MECM that integrates both social relationships and uncertain adjustment costs to support social network group decision making (SNGDM) problems. Specifically, we propose a MECM with quadratic cost that can more accurately reflect DMs' sensitivity for opinion adjustment. Additionally, we adopt an opinion modification mechanism based on the information obtained from the social network. The paper also develops the robust MECM (RMECM) to handle the uncertainty of the unit adjustment cost under three uncertain scenarios. Finally, the efficiency of the proposed models is demonstrated by applying them to the agricultural insurance premiums subsidy policymaking in China, further substantiated by sensitivity analysis and comparative analysis showcasing their robust performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract China's fallow compensation policy is known to be relatively simple and unsophisticated, and in much need of improvement. In seeking such improvement, this paper designed some alternative compensation schemes that include recultivation insurance, priority right of participation in the fallowing work or free agricultural inputs, but lower income subsidy, and reported on a choice experiment of alternatives with 421 peasant-farming households in Chaling County, Hunan Province – a fallow area of heavy-metal-contaminated farmland. A mixed logit model was used to compare the choices made between pilot and non-pilot villages, and the influencing factors involved. The results showed that most farmers preferred the alternative compensation schemes to the current policy, and income subsidy was not the only factor affecting their choices, which indicated recultivation insurance and a longer period of free agricultural inputs were also important. However, the preferences differed between pilot and non-pilot village farmers, in which the pilot village farmers were more willing to accept less income subsidy in favor of increased recultivation insurance and an extended period of free agricultural inputs. By contrast, non-pilot village farmers preferred to adopt an alternative compensation scheme with a priority right of participation in the fallowing work and high level of income subsidy. The possible reason for the differences was that the publicity and training activities provided by the government had changed the preferences of pilot village farmers. Generally, the effects of various forms of economic compensation and single cash payment were different about fallow compensation policy, and the preferences of farmers from different backgrounds might also vary from person to person. Different regions needed to design the fallow compensation policy according to practical problems in the use of farmland and farmers' preferences. Highlights • Choice experiment is used to compare the preference between pilot and non-pilot village farmers. • The effects of various forms of economic compensation and single cash payment are different. • The preferences of farmers from different backgrounds may be different. • Extra attention should be given to works such as fallow publicity and training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns about hydrological drought risk and irrigation water supply reliability have grown in recent years due to the increasing demand for water for irrigation and other uses, and the decline in water availability due to climate change. Hydrological drought insurance hedging against water supply gaps can be a key instrument for adapting irrigated agriculture to this new scenario, since it improves the resilience of the irrigation sector, which is having to cope with increasing uncertainty and vulnerability. The objective of this paper is to assess farmers' willingness to pay (WTP) for index-based hydrological drought insurance under different policy designs, considering several different amounts of insured capital, insurance deductibles, and contract terms. To that end, it uses a discrete choice experiment as the valuation method and the Sector BXII irrigation district (southern Spain) as a case study. The results show that farmers would be willing to pay for the proposed hydrological drought insurance, stating a higher preference for policy designs with lower amounts of insured capital, lower deductibles, and shorter contract terms. Moreover, the results also show the existence of heterogeneity among farmers' preferences, depending on their socio-economic characteristics. Finally, we compare the distribution of farmers' WTP for different policy design options of the proposed insurance with the commercial premium estimated using actuarial analysis. The comparison confirms that only the options with lower levels of insured capital present a mean WTP below the commercial premium, while the rest of the policy design options would need to be subsidized like other agricultural insurance schemes to make them attractive to most farmers. • Farmers are willing to pay for hydrological drought insurance. • Farmers prefer policies with low levels of insured capital, low deductibles, and short contract terms. • WTP is heterogeneous depending on farmers' socio-economic characteristics. • Only policy designs with low levels of insured capital are currently commercially viable. • Once the new drought insurance is implemented, it will become more attractive for farmers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on the potential use of insurance as a climate change adaptation mechanism in agriculture. We analyse the attractiveness of a climate risk insurance scheme and the choices farmers face between adaptation via farm management practices and purchase of crop insurance in the market. A choice experiment is used to reveal Danish farmers' preferences regarding an insurance contract where adoption of land management practices to improve soil sustainability is conditional for obtaining insurance cover in the market. Results indicate that in general arable farmers and farmers with low soil quality who have experienced crop damages in the past are more likely to purchase such conditional insurance. Farmers with good quality soils, who perceive that they have already adapted their practices to climatic risks and who have not experienced losses due to adverse climatic events in the past are less willing to purchase insurance. The paper contributes to the limited knowledge on preferences for climate risk related insurance in agricultural systems in general, and in Europe in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Farmers prioritize measures they view as beneficial in their local environment. • MCDA points to objective and timely adaptation measures of general interest. • Government-assisted training in risk assessment and new technologies is crucial. • Importance of agricultural insurance is recognized by farmers. The risks in agriculture due to climate change are highly specific because they largely depend on the agricultural system, latitude, topography, disposition, and other local conditions. As such, it is difficult to decide which mitigation and adaptation measures are the most suitable in a given country and which should be prioritized in planning and implementation. The objective of the paper is to present farmer and expert rankings of potential adaptation measures in Serbia's agriculture, to compare the two perspectives, and to propose priority measures. Twenty-four measures are identified as most appropriate for adaptation to climate change in Serbia. Farmers (141) provided feedback on priority measures by responding to an online questionnaire, while experts evaluated the measures through a two-stage multicriteria decision-making analysis (MCDA). Applying AHP, ten experts first assessed seven criteria identified as most relevant, including: level of responsibility, category, implementation timeframe, multifunctionality, technical skills, cost-benefit ratio, and the mitigation effectiveness of the measure. In the second stage, the measures were evaluated against the criteria and ranked by TOPSIS. The outcomes of the study indicate that the MCDA ranking was slightly different from that resulting from farmers' feedback. There is direct agreement on two of the first five priority measures (use of multi-purpose river reservoirs for water supply and agricultural technologies), and six of the first 10 measures – the most closely ranked are irrigation and antihail netting. However, there is a considerable difference in the case of measures that farmers and stakeholders do not recognize as significant because they either do not see a direct benefit for them (e.g. restoration of wetlands or vegetation and afforestation to prevent flooding or erosion), or they cannot implement the measures due to topography (e.g. use of drainage ditches for irrigation). The applied methodology shows that planning of adaptation measures requires consultation of experts in different fields and appreciation of numerous criteria, in order for decisions to be sustainable and applicable in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]