Demand for a labor‐based drought insurance scheme in Ethiopia: a stated choice experiment approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Index‐based weather insurance is increasingly used to manage weather‐related risks in smallholder agriculture. However, cash‐constrained smallholders often lack the resources to pay an insurance premium, which may undermine its wider adoption. This article investigates alternative insurance payment methods that may help to enhance the adoption of index‐based weather insurance. We use a choice experiment to elicit smallholders’ willingness to pay in cash or labor for index‐based weather insurance in four districts in the south‐central highlands of Ethiopia. The insurance schemes were created using a fractional factorial design with three factors: work, cash, and payout rate. We analyze the choice data using a random parameter mixed logit model. We find that the average participants need a subsidy to pay cash for insurance because their willingness to pay is less than the expected cost of the insurance. On average, they are willing to pay only 0.81 ETB (Ethiopian currency) to get an expected yearly payout of 1 ETB. However, most are willing to participate in work‐for‐insurance programs at lower daily wage rates than is common for other work programs in Ethiopia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".