Willingness to pay for livestock insurance by dairy farmers in Kavrepalanchowk district, Nepal

Figures & data

Table 1. Description of variables used in logit model.

Variable	Type	Unit of measurement	Expected sign
Age of Household head	Continuous	Years	–
Years of schooling	Discrete	Years	+
Family size	Discrete	Count	+
Total owned land	Continuous	Hectare	+
Buffalo number	Discrete	Count	–
Cattle number	Discrete	Count	+
Experience of loss of livestock (1= ‘yes’ 0 ‘no’)	Dummy	_	+
Member of cooperatives (1= ‘yes’ 0 ‘no’)	Dummy	_	+
Aware of livestock insurance scheme (1= ‘yes’ 0 ‘no’)	Dummy	_	+

Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents in the study area.

Variable	Mean	Std. Dev	Min	Max
Age of household head	49.83	10.82	30	76
Economically active members	3.87	1.40	0	8
Economically inactive members	1.36	1.18	0	5
Family size	5.25	1.68	2	12
Years of schooling	5.82	5.04	0	19
Total owned land (ha)	0.46	0.39	0.03	2.14

Table 3. Livestock farming characteristics of the respondent farm.

Variables	Mean	Median	Mode	Std.Dev	Min	Max
Buffalo number	1.26	1	1	1.20	0	6
Cattle number	1.11	1	1	1.01	0	5
<2 years aged livestock	0.55	0	0	0.89	0	4
2-12 years aged livestock	1.99	2	2	1.12	0	7
>13 years aged livestock	0.04	0	0	0.23	0	2
Livestock sold in last 5 years	2.25	1	0	3.43	0	25
NPR of milk/fat	14.04	14	14.4	0.49	13	14.4

Figure 1. Reason of dairy animal death of the respondent household.

Table 4. Access to service providing institution to the respondent farm.

Variables	Category	Frequency (n = 146)
Access to financial institution	No	0(0)
	Yes	146(100)
Member of cooperatives	No	10(7)
	Yes	136(93)
Taken livestock training	No	119(82)
	Yes	27(18)

Note: Figure in parentheses represent percent.

Table 5. Adoption of livestock insurance scheme by dairy farmer in the study area.

Variables	Category	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Aware of livestock insurance	No	38	26
	Yes	108	74
Adoption of livestock insurance	No	57	39
	Yes	89	61
	Grand total	146	100
Willingness to join (WTJ)	No	7	12
	Yes	49	88
	Grand total	56	100
Unattractive features of livestock insurance scheme	Annual payment	48	36
	Claiming procedure	59	44
	cost of premium	10	7
	None	16	12
	Grand total	133	100

Figure 2. Reason of not buying livestock insurance.

Sources of information flow about insurance

Figure 3. Sources of information flow about livestock insurance scheme in the study area.

Table 6. Relationship of bid price and Willingness to Pay.

z test of coefficients
	Estimate	Std. Error	z value	Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept)	4.863	0.806	6.04	1.579e-09 ***
BID	−0.017	0.004	−4.54	5.582e-06 ***

Note: ***, **, and * represent significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.

Table 7. Median WTP for livestock insurance scheme.

	Estimate	LB^2	UB^3
Mean	2917.50	2568.00	3540.30
Median	2912.90	2565.30	3526.60

Table 8. Frequency of four different responses of proposed bid price.

Answers	Frequency n = 139
Nn^4	16(12)
Ny^5	12(9)
Yn^6	1(1)
Yy^7	110(79)

Figure in parentheses represents percentage.

Table 9. Factors affecting adoption of livestock insurance scheme for respondent farmers.

Adoption	Odds ratio	Std. err	z	P > z	dy/dx	std. err
Age of household head	1.04	0.03	1.31	0.19	0.00	0.00
Family size	0.95	0.19	−0.23	0.82	−0.01	0.02
Years of schooling	1.05	0.07	0.85	0.40	0.01	0.01
Total land	3.89	4.57	1.16	0.25	0.15	0.12
Buffalo number	1.19	0.36	0.56	0.57	0.02	0.03
Cow number	1.96*	0.69	1.91	0.06*	0.07	0.04
Experience loss of livestock #	6.68***	4.65	2.73	0.01***	0.20	0.07
Member of cooperatives #	3.25	4.66	0.82	0.41	0.13	0.15
Aware of livestock insurance #	92.77***	87.48	4.80	0.00***	0.49	0.07
_cons	0.00	0.00	−3.09	0.00
Summary Statistics Number of obs = 134 LR chi^2(9) = 87.63 Prob > chi^2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = −46.117666 Pseudo R^2 = 0.4872

Notes: dy/dx is Marginal effects after logit. ‘#’ indicates dummy variable from 0 to 1. ***, **, and * represent significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.

Table 10. Factors influencing willingness to pay for livestock insurance scheme for respondent farmers.

Variable name	WTP1		P > z	WTP2		P > z
	Coefficient	Robuststd. err.		Coefficient	Robuststd. err.
Age of household head	0.028**	0.013	0.027**	−0.001	−0.001	0.936
Family size	0.028	0.089	0.755	−0.012	0.087	0.886
Years of schooling	0.105***	0.040	0.008***	0.041	0.038	0.280
Total land	−0.084	0.587	0.886	0.060	0.658	0.927
Buffalo number	−0.076	0.133	0.568	0.095	0.145	0.513
Cow number	0.030	0.147	0.840	0.222	0.137	0.105
Exp loss of livestock #	0.272	0.271	0.316	0.629*	0.347	0.069*
Member of coperative #	0.106	0.553	0.848	0.524	0.670	0.434
Aware of livestock insuranc#	0.113	0.350	0.747	0.577	0.405	0.154
_cons	−1.421	0.968	0.140	0.489	1.117	0.661
Summary Statistics Number of obs = 127 Wald chi^2(18) = 41.01 Log pseudolikelihood = −75.864 Prob > chi^2 = 0.0015 Wald test of rho = 0: chi2(1) = 5.99787, Prob > chi2 = 0.0143

Notes: dy/dx is Marginal effects after logit. ‘#’ indicates dummy variable from 0 to 1. ***, **, and * represent significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.