Global Sustainability Research                                                     ISSN: 2833-986X 
https://doi.org/10.56556/gssr.v4i1.1080 

                                                                  
 
 

 Global Scientific Research               1 
 

RESEARCH ARTICLE  

 

Determinants of Insurance Services Utilization and Their Impact on Income 

Shocks among poultry farmers  

 
Theophilus Miebi Gbigbi1*, Christiana Ojirhevwe2 

 
1Department of Agricultural Economics, Delta State University Abraka, Delta State, Nigeria 

 

Corresponding Author: Theophilus Miebi Gbigbi. Email: gbigbitheophilusmiebi@yahoo.com 

Received: 21 November, 2024, Accepted: 11 March, 2025, Published: 20 March, 2025 

 
Abstract 

This research investigates the role of insurance services and their impact on income shocks among poultry farmers 

in Delta State, Nigeria. It uses a multistage sampling method to select 150 respondents surveyed through a 

questionnaire. The data gathered were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. The average 

age of the farmers was 46 years. The majority of the respondents were male, married, and well-educated. The 

average family size was seven people. On average, respondents possessed eight years of experience in farming. 

The average flock size was 887 birds. The binary logit analysis revealed that flock size, awareness of insurance, 

attitude towards insurance, premium payment, access to credit, and occupation greatly influenced the utilization 

of insurance services at a 5% level of significance. The insurance services used by the poultry farmers included 

extension services, veterinary services, general risk coverage, and training programs designed for farmers. The 

primary constraints faced by poultry farmers were inadequate awareness about insurance benefits, difficulties in 

implementing insurance policies, and delays in the payment of indemnity (compensation). Provision of premium 

subsidies (PPS), insurance coverage of equipment (ICOE), timely payment of indemnity (POI), encouragement of 

institutional lenders (EIL), and training programs for farmers (TOF) assist in absorbing income shocks among 

poultry farmers. The study recommends needing improved awareness and enhanced collaboration between farmers 

and insurance providers to increase the effectiveness of insurance in protecting farmers' incomes. 

 

Keywords: Poultry Farmers; Utilization; Insurance Services; Output; Income Shock 

 

 

Introduction 

 

Poultry production plays a fundamental role in Nigeria’s agricultural sector, significantly contributing to economic 

development, food security, and poverty reduction, particularly in rural areas where agriculture remains central to 

daily sustenance and income generation. As one of the highest-yielding sectors in the agricultural industry, poultry 

farming provides quick financial returns, contributing to food availability and diversification of livelihoods for 

many rural Nigerians (Omondi, 2022; Yeboah, 2022). The importance of poultry farming in Nigeria is underscored 

by its ability to address the nutritional needs of the population, specifically by increasing protein intake, and its 

capacity to generate income for families, contributing directly to poverty alleviation (Omonona et al., 2023). 

Additionally, poultry farming is an attractive business opportunity due to its low entry barrier compared to other 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               2 
 

forms of livestock production, making it accessible to a wide range of farmers, especially those in rural 

communities (Offiah et al., 2024). The poultry industry in Nigeria is vast, encompassing small-scale, medium-

scale, and large-scale enterprises, with a majority of poultry farmers operating on smallholder levels. Smallholder 

poultry farming is a crucial livelihood activity in many rural areas, where it serves as an important source of 

household income and nutritional security. Medium and large-scale commercial poultry farms, on the other hand, 

contribute significantly to employment generation, value chain development, and economic growth by supplying 

poultry products to both local and international markets (Udoye et al., 2024). The sector comprises layers, broilers, 

and indigenous poultry breeds, each with its unique production characteristics and market demands. Layer 

production provides a steady supply of eggs, which are a critical protein source, while broiler farming ensures the 

availability of poultry meat for consumption (Bist et al. 2024). Indigenous poultry farming, though often practiced 

at a subsistence level, is gaining recognition due to its adaptability to local environmental conditions and resilience 

to diseases (Yusuf et al., 2024). Despite its potential, poultry production is fraught with various challenges that 

threaten its sustainability and profitability. The sector is vulnerable to both environmental and socioeconomic risks 

that disrupt production cycles and undermine farmers' efforts. Natural hazards such as extreme weather conditions, 

floods, droughts, and disease outbreaks can severely affect poultry productivity, leading to substantial losses (Aliyu 

et al., 2023; Ojogbane & Gbigbi, 2022). Poultry diseases such as Newcastle disease, avian influenza, and 

coccidiosis are major concerns that require effective biosecurity measures, vaccination programs, and veterinary 

interventions (Adesola et al., 2024). Additionally, risks such as fire, theft, and other unforeseen events add layers 

of vulnerability, with many of these challenges beyond the control of individual farmers. These constraints can 

prevent farmers from reaching their production targets and destabilize the poultry industry (Gbigbi, 2020). 

Economic constraints further exacerbate the challenges in poultry farming. Rising feed costs, which account for 

nearly 70% of production expenses, are a major hurdle for poultry farmers (Ogunleye et al., 2024). The high cost 

of maize and soybean, which are primary ingredients in poultry feed, often leads to increased production costs and 

reduced profit margins. Additionally, limited access to credit facilities hinders the ability of smallholder farmers 

to invest in improved production technologies, expand their businesses, or cushion against financial losses (Gbigbi 

& Isiorhovoja). The lack of adequate storage facilities and market access further limits profitability, forcing many 

farmers to sell their products at unfavorable prices during peak production periods (Mukaila, 2024). In response to 

these challenges, the Nigerian government has taken steps to mitigate risks through the Nigerian Agricultural 

Insurance Scheme (NAIS), which was established alongside the Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Corporation 

(NAIC) in 1987. This initiative provides a structured framework for insurance coverage that aims to protect 

farmers, including those in the poultry sector, from the financial repercussions of various disasters and 

uncertainties (Aliyu et al., 2023). The NAIS is part of a broader national disaster management strategy that aims 

to stabilize farmers’ income, safeguard investments, and ensure continuity in agricultural production amidst 

unpredictable challenges (Udoh et al., 2024). These insurance schemes are crucial for enhancing the resilience of 

farmers against risks and providing them with the financial tools needed to sustain their operations in the face of 

adversity. Furthermore, recent updates to the NAIS have incorporated new technologies and improved outreach 

programs to increase its accessibility, especially to smallholder poultry farmers (Aremu & Amos 2024). Digital 

platforms and mobile-based insurance solutions have been introduced to simplify claim processes, improve 

transparency, and enhance farmer participation in agricultural insurance programs (Rudramuni, 2024). Beyond 

government initiatives, private sector participation in agricultural insurance has also grown, with financial 

institutions and microfinance organizations developing tailor-made insurance products to support poultry farmers 

(Ashoro et al., 2024). Collaborations between insurance companies, research institutions, and extension services 

have played a role in educating farmers on risk management strategies and the benefits of insurance coverage. The 

integration of climate-smart agricultural practices, improved biosecurity measures, and better disease surveillance 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               3 
 

systems are also key in ensuring the long-term sustainability of poultry farming in Nigeria (Ngongolo & Mrimi, 

2024).  

Overall, poultry farming remains a cornerstone of Nigeria's agricultural sector, offering numerous opportunities 

for economic growth, job creation, and food security. However, persistent risks and constraints necessitate 

proactive measures to safeguard farmers against financial losses and production disruptions. Strengthening 

agricultural insurance schemes, improving access to credit, investing in disease control strategies, and enhancing 

market access are critical steps towards ensuring a resilient and sustainable poultry industry in Nigeria. The 

collaboration between government, private sector stakeholders, and international development agencies will be 

essential in addressing these challenges and maximizing the full potential of poultry farming as a viable agricultural 

enterprise. The findings from this research may provide valuable insights for policymakers aiming to refine 

agricultural insurance frameworks. Enhanced policy structures could assist in reducing income volatility, 

promoting greater investment in agricultural sectors, and finally enabling farmers to better manage income shocks 

and uncertainties. By customizing insurance services to meet the specific requirements of the agricultural 

community, particularly within vulnerable sectors such as poultry farming, policymakers can aid in the 

development of a more resilient and sustainable agricultural system in Nigeria. The primary objective was to 

evaluate the utilization of insurance services and income shocks among poultry farmers in Delta State. The explicit 

intentions were to identify the demographic features of poultry farmers; The degree of farmers' utilization of 

agricultural insurance services; The factors that influence farmers' decisions to use insurance services on their 

farms; The existing problems, including poor linkage between poultry producers and insurance service personnel, 

which hinder the effective utilization of insurance services and determine the influence of insurance services on 

income shocks. The Hypotheses were; Insurance services do not relate with income shocks of poultry farmers and 

Socioeconomic characteristics of poultry producers has no association with utilization of insurance services. 

The structure and organization of the paper includes the following sections: Literature Review (comprising 

Conceptual Framework, Theoretical Framework, and Empirical Review), Methodology (including Study Area, 

Research Design, Population and Sampling, Data Collection Methods, and Analytical Techniques), Results and 

Discussion, and finally, Conclusion and Recommendations. 

 

Literature Review 

 

Agricultural insurance has become an essential tool for managing the fundamental risks faced by poultry farmers. 

By minimizing financial exposure to losses caused by natural and human-induced risks, insurance coverage 

enables farmers to maintain a more stable income, thereby enhancing both market stability and national food 

security. The role of agricultural insurance extends beyond individual risk management to broader economic 

benefits, as it encourages investment in improved production technologies and expansion of poultry enterprises. 

Research has shown that when farmers have access to well-structured insurance schemes, they are more likely to 

adopt advanced production methods, such as high-yield breeds, improved feeding strategies, and disease 

prevention techniques (Ologbon et al., 2021; Ajemunigbohun & Abdul-Azeez, 2023; Mfulwane, 2023). The 

security provided by insurance fosters long-term planning and financial stability, ensuring that poultry production 

remains resilient against external shocks, including climatic and economic fluctuations (Madaki et al., 2024). 

Insurance serves as a vital mechanism for mitigating income shocks experienced by poultry farmers, particularly 

in areas where agriculture is predominantly vulnerable to climate changes, market fluctuations, and disease 

outbreaks. The implementation of agricultural insurance programs spans globally and varies in effectiveness. In 

developed countries, such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, government-supported agricultural 

insurance schemes offer comprehensive coverage to farmers, ensuring that production-related risks do not 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               4 
 

culminate in financial ruin (Ruan et al., 2024). These schemes typically involve subsidies that enable farmers to 

afford the necessary insurance premiums while still maintaining economic viability (Lan et al., 2024). For instance, 

government subsidies serve as financial incentives that significantly influence farmers’ decisions to participate in 

such insurance programs, highlighting the importance of effective policy frameworks (Udoh et al., 2024). 

Conversely, in developing nations, poultry farmers frequently encounter obstacles that hinder access to sufficient 

risk protection, including low levels of insurance penetration, prohibitive costs, and suboptimal policy frameworks 

(Osorio et al., 2024). Research indicates that the challenges faced by smallholder farmers in countries like Tanzania 

and Vietnam primarily stem from the lack of awareness regarding available insurance options, high premiums, and 

bureaucratic hurdles associated with indemnity claims (Mushi et al., 2024; Goyal & Gulati, 2024). The limited 

implementation of crop insurance schemes in such regions fails to provide adequate protection against the diverse 

risks associated with poultry farming, such as disease outbreaks and sudden market changes, thereby undermining 

the financial stability of these farmers (Oben et al., 2024). 

The utilization of insurance services is a crucial factor in mitigating income shocks among poultry farmers, 

particularly in the context of agricultural instability caused by climate variability, market dynamics, and disease 

outbreaks. Recent literature highlights the varied experiences and perceptions of poultry farmers regarding 

agricultural insurance, its impacts on operational decisions, and income stability. Studies demonstrate that access 

to agricultural insurance can significantly decrease the vulnerability of poultry farmers to income fluctuations 

caused by adverse events. For example, farmers with insurance are more likely to invest in higher-quality inputs 

and adopt modern farming techniques, which, in turn, may lead to increased productivity and stable income 

streams Mishra & Singh (2024). Moreover, insurance functions as a form of collateral that enhances farmers' 

credibility when seeking loans, thereby improving access to financial resources critical for sustainable farming 

practices (Vihi et al., 2024). This symbiotic relationship between insurance participation and financial 

accessibility is essential for fostering resilience in the poultry sector. Furthermore, the agricultural insurance 

landscape reflects broader economic vulnerabilities and the critical need for government intervention to support 

the agriculture sector. In settings where resources are scarce, governments play a pivotal role in implementing 

effective agricultural insurance policies that not only stabilize income but also bolster overall food security and 

rural development (Xie et al., 2024). The strategic integration of technology, as discussed in recent literature, can 

also enhance the effectiveness of insurance by facilitating better risk assessment and management practices, 

making it easier for farmers to engage with insurance products (Mushi et al., 2025). Research conducted by 

Kipkemoi and Ceyhan (2021), Nepali (2021), and Nwobodo et al. (2023) indicates that many farmers have a 

limited understanding of insurance processes. This lack of knowledge results in decreased participation, as farmers 

who do adopt insurance frequently fail to seek clarifications regarding policy terms, coverage specifics, and claims 

procedures, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the insurance they receive. In Africa, the adoption of 

agricultural insurance remains notably low despite its significant potential to protect farmers against economic 

shocks. Studies indicate that insurance can stabilize farmers' incomes amidst unpredictable weather conditions, 

disease outbreaks, and volatile market prices, essential factors affecting agricultural productivity and 

sustainability in the region (Osorio et al., 2024; Qin et al., 2024). Countries such as Kenya, South Africa, and 

Ghana have pioneered index-based insurance programs designed to align with local agricultural risks, utilizing 

technological advances to enhance access and affordability for farmers (Qin et al., 2024). Nevertheless, many 

smallholder poultry farmers in sub-Saharan Africa remain marginalized from these vital services. Key barriers 

include insufficient financial literacy, skepticism towards insurance providers, and logistical issues surrounding 

premium payments and claims processing (Su et al., 2024). To tackle these challenges, comprehensive policy 

reforms and greater government intervention are necessary to design inclusive insurance models that effectively 

cater to the most vulnerable agricultural producers. 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               5 
 

In Nigeria, poultry farming is a fundamental component of rural livelihoods and national food security; however, 

the sector is highly exposed to income shocks due to disease outbreaks, fluctuations in feed prices, theft, and 

environmental threats (Gyamerah & Owusu, 2024). Conversely, the adoption of insurance among poultry farmers 

in developing countries presents unique challenges. High premiums, limited awareness of available products, and 

inadequate infrastructure often hinder effective participation in these insurance schemes (Udoh et al., 2024; 

Ifabiyi et al., 2024). Research indicates that many farmers lack trust in insurance providers, stemming from past 

experiences with delayed claim payouts and unclear policy terms (Lan et al., 2024). This distrust further 

complicates farmers’ willingness to engage with insurance products, which could otherwise safeguard their 

livelihoods against unpredictable agricultural risks (Ifabiyi et al., 2024). Furthermore, the effectiveness of 

insurance services is often mediated by government interventions and subsidy programs that aim to enhance the 

sustainability of agricultural practices (Lan et al., 2024; Osorio et al., 2024). For instance, when government-

backed insurance products align with farmer education initiatives about risk management, the likelihood of 

insurance uptake increases significantly. Therefore, the role of institutional frameworks is critical in shaping 

farmers' perceptions and ultimately their willingness to utilize agricultural insurance (Mushi et al., 2024). 

Misinterpretations concerning the extent and protection provided by insurance policies can result in 

misconceptions, which may lead to confusion, particularly during crises or when claims need to be submitted. This 

paper emphasizes the important role of agricultural insurance in protecting farmers from potential financial 

hardships resulting from unforeseen situations. Safeguarding poultry farmers from such risks is essential not only 

for their personal financial well-being but also for ensuring consistent food production to meet the dietary needs 

of the population. However, as noted by Alam et al. (2020), Akbarovich (2020), and Madaki et al. (2023). The 

establishment of the Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Corporation (NAIC) aimed to offer tailored insurance 

solutions for farmers, including those in poultry production (Muhammad & Inusa 2024). Despite this initiative, 

the uptake of agricultural insurance among Nigerian poultry farmers remains disappointingly low. Factors 

contributing to this trend include limited awareness of available options, perceived exorbitant premium costs, and 

convoluted claim processes (Lan et al., 2024). Studies suggest that despite several initiatives, the ongoing barriers 

to insurance adoption among poultry farmers continue to demand attention (Shkembi et al., 2024). Furthermore, 

research has highlighted that integrating mobile technology into agricultural insurance schemes could 

significantly enhance accessibility and participation rates among farmers (Samota et al., 2024). Mobile insurance 

services can facilitate streamlined premium payments, simplify the claims process, and foster improved 

communication between farmers and insurers, thereby enhancing trust in the insurance framework. The 

advantages of agricultural insurance extend beyond mere risk management; they also improve farmers' access to 

credit and essential financial resources. Financial institutions are more inclined to extend credit to insured 

farmers, as the associated risks for lenders decrease appreciably when coverage is in place (Raharjanti et al., 

2024). This enhanced access allows poultry farmers to scale their operations, invest in upgraded infrastructure, 

and consequently boost productivity. Studies reveal that smallholder poultry farmers engaged in insurance 

programs are more likely to secure funding for various farm improvements, thus fostering increased profitability 

and economic growth within the sector (Khanal et al., 2024). This cycle positively influences rural economic 

development and job creation, as expanded poultry farming operations generate employment opportunities not 

just for farmhands but also for feed suppliers, veterinary service providers, and other agricultural stakeholders 

(Mishra & Singh, 2024). 

Recent investigations point to the transformative potential of digital innovations and mobile-based insurance 

services in bolstering insurance adoption among poultry farmers (Johari et al., 2024). The launch of mobile 

insurance platforms and digital claim processes has enhanced accessibility, making it simpler for farmers to enroll 

in insurance schemes and submit claims without facing excessive bureaucratic hurdles. Moreover, mobile 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               6 
 

technology facilitates real-time communication with insurers, thereby narrowing the information gap and 

fostering transparency in insurance dealings. Policymakers and relevant stakeholders in agriculture should 

harness these technological advancements to develop more inclusive insurance frameworks tailored to the 

specific needs of smallholder poultry farmers, ensuring their inclusion in the financial protection ecosystem 

(Kumar, 2024). Strengthening agricultural insurance policies will ultimately contribute to national economic 

stability and reaffirm poultry farming's significance in enhancing the broader agricultural landscape (Preethi & 

Sasane, 2024). This research is based on the following theories: 

 

Risk Aversion and Utility Maximization Theory in Poultry Farming 

 

Poultry farming is inherently fraught with considerable risks, including disease outbreaks, feed price volatility, 

and market fluctuations. Utility maximization theory posits that individuals strive to maximize their expected 

utility, leading risk-averse farmers to implement strategies that stabilize their income. Specifically, insurance acts 

as a risk-transfer mechanism, allowing these farmers to mitigate financial losses associated with adverse events. 

The degree of risk aversion, therefore, becomes a pivotal determinant in the decision to utilize insurance services. 

Research shows that farmers who display heightened risk aversion are more inclined to secure insurance coverage 

to guard against potential income shocks (Waithaka, 2024; Guan et al., 2024). Empirical studies substantiate this 

theoretical framework. A recent investigation of poultry farmers in Nigeria confirmed that risk perception 

significantly influenced insurance adoption. Farmers who regarded their operations as riskier were more likely to 

insure (Shah, 2024). This behavior aligns with the utility maximization concept, wherein risk-averse individuals 

prioritize securing their expected utility against possible adversities. Moreover, income variability resulting from 

unpredictable events can cause severe welfare losses for risk-averse farmers. Through purchasing insurance, these 

farmers can stabilize their incomes, safeguarding their consumption patterns and investment capabilities, which 

are crucial for maintaining productivity and resilience against future shocks (Waithaka, 2024; Guan et al., 2024). 

However, the decision to purchase insurance is also contingent upon the perceived effectiveness and reliability of 

the insurance products available. Farmers’ skepticism about insurers' credibility or fears regarding timely 

compensation can hinder insurance uptake, even among risk-averse individuals. Establishing trust between insurers 

and farmers is essential for increasing the adoption of insurance services (Bourova et al., 2024). In summary, the 

interplay of risk aversion and utility maximization theory intricately informs poultry farmers' decisions regarding 

insurance services, highlighting the importance of income stabilization while underscoring the need for trustworthy 

insurance products. 

 

Information Asymmetry and Awareness 

 

Information asymmetry arises when one party possesses superior information, hindering optimal decision-making. 

In the context of poultry farmers and insurance uptake, inadequate awareness of insurance products plays a critical 

role in limiting adoption rates. A study conducted in Southwest Nigeria revealed that while a significant majority 

(59.6%) of poultry farmers were aware of livestock insurance policies, only 11.9% actually insured their farms, 

illustrating the vast gap between awareness and utilization attributable to information asymmetry (Guan et al., 

2024). Farmers may know about available insurance options but often lack comprehensive knowledge concerning 

their benefits, specifics of coverage, and the claims process, leading to hesitance in engaging with these products. 

Misconceptions and mistrust stemming from previous adverse experiences or anecdotal reports further aggravate 

this issue. Farmers who have encountered delays in claims or claim denials may develop skepticism toward 

insurance, thereby further distancing themselves from insurance services. This trust deficit is commonly 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               7 
 

exacerbated by a lack of clear communication from insurers, reinforcing information asymmetry (Waithaka, 2024; 

Guan et al., 2024). Addressing these challenges demands targeted educational programs and effective 

communication strategies, where extension services and agricultural advisors can provide unbiased and 

comprehensive information about insurance products and assist farmers with the enrollment process. 

Technological advancements also present opportunities to bridge this information gap. For instance, mobile 

platforms and digital applications can expand access to insurance information and services, enhancing the overall 

adoption landscape (Osorio et al., 2024). In regions where mobile-based insurance initiatives have been launched, 

farmers can easily learn about, purchase, and claim insurance via their smartphones, simplifying the process and 

bolstering participation. Thus, combating information asymmetry through targeted education, transparent 

communication, and technological solutions is vital for improving insurance utilization among poultry farmers. 

 

Financial Constraints and Liquidity Theory 

Financial constraints significantly shape a poultry farmer’s capacity to afford insurance premiums, even when the 

advantages of such coverage are clear. Liquidity preference theory suggests that individuals prioritize immediate 

financial needs, often resulting in farmers allocating their limited resources to more pressing operational expenses 

instead of insurance premiums. Recent research highlights that financial limitations remain a formidable barrier to 

insurance adoption. In a study of poultry farmers in South Bengal, for instance, low participation in livestock 

insurance was largely attributed to insufficient financial resources (Liu et al., 2024). Furthermore, the perceived 

opportunity cost of paying insurance premiums can deter farmers from acquiring coverage. The funds that could 

be allocated for insurance are often redirected towards necessary inputs like feed and labor, particularly given the 

small profit margins prevalent in poultry farming. These dynamics reveal that when farmers operate with limited 

financial flexibility, they are less inclined to invest in insurance (Guan et al., 2024). Addressing financial barriers 

can be facilitated through various strategies, including subsidizing insurance premiums as seen in government-

backed agricultural insurance schemes globally (Amalia & Arifin, 2024). Additionally, microinsurance models 

designed for smallholder farmers can offer lower premiums and flexible payment structures, thereby making 

insurance more accessible. Moreover, integrating insurance with credit facilities can enhance affordability. For 

instance, bundling insurance with agricultural loans ensures that farmers can obtain coverage without having to 

make separate premium payments. Such strategies have demonstrated success in Nigeria through initiatives like 

the Nigeria Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending (NIRSAL) (Amalia & Arifin, 2024). 

Consequently, financial constraints stand as a major determinant of insurance utilization, underscoring the 

necessity for strategic interventions aimed at alleviating the economic burdens on poultry farmers. 

Behavioral Economics and Perception of Risk 

Behavioral economics provides critical insights into how poultry farmers approach decisions regarding insurance 

services, challenging the assumption of rational decision-making found in classical economic models. One 

pertinent concept is prospect theory, which posits that individuals perceive potential losses with greater weight 

than equivalent gains. In the sphere of insurance, farmers may undervalue the advantages of insurance due to a 

focus on the guaranteed costs of premiums instead of the uncertain prospects of receiving payouts, thus exhibiting 

loss aversion that deters them from purchasing coverage (Shah, 2024; Liu et al., 2024). Another behavioral aspect 

influencing these decisions is present bias, where immediate financial needs often take precedence over future 

uncertainties. Particularly in the context of poultry farming, which is characterized by seasonality and periodic 

cash flow constraints, farmers might prioritize investments in immediate needs (e.g., feed or equipment) over 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               8 
 

insurance, which only provides benefits in adverse situations (Amalia & Arifin, 2024). Empirical evidence 

corroborates these behavioral insights. A study in Uganda revealed that, despite offering subsidized insurance 

rates, participation remained low due to low perceived risk and mistrust toward insurance providers (Cha et al., 

2024). To counteract these behavioral biases, tailored interventions such as behavioral nudges can be employed. 

This includes reframing insurance as an investment rather than a mere expense and utilizing default enrollment 

mechanisms to increase participation in insurance programs (Amalia & Arifin, 2024). Additionally, providing 

flexible payment structures and leveraging digital tools for reminders about policy renewals can further encourage 

uptake.  

Institutional Trust and Policy Environment 

 

The significance of institutional trust and government policy in influencing insurance adoption among poultry 

farmers is substantial. Trust in insurers, financial institutions, and regulatory bodies is a crucial determinant of 

whether farmers perceive insurance as a reliable safety net. Negative past experiences, including delays in claim 

payouts and convoluted documentation processes, contribute to a lack of trust, thereby deterring farmers from 

engaging with formal insurance providers (Waithaka, 2024; Muraya et al., 2024). To foster greater trust and 

facilitate insurance adoption, government interventions can play a pivotal role. Strengthening regulatory 

oversight, ensuring transparency in insurance policies, and collaborating with private insurers to provide 

subsidized agricultural insurance are effective strategies to expand coverage and enhance farmer confidence in 

these offerings (Osorio et al., 2024; Amalia & Arifin, 2024). Additionally, conditioning discounts on insurance 

premiums for farmers who adopt best management practices can further incentivize uptake. 

 

Methodology 

 

The research was carried out in the Delta North Agricultural Zone of Delta State, Nigeria, which is a region 

predominantly dedicated to the cultivation of arable crops and poultry farming, along with some participation in 

plantation agriculture. A multistage sampling method was used to select respondents for this research. In the initial 

stage, 50% of the Local Government Areas (LGAs) within the agricultural zone were chosen, leading to the 

inclusion of five LGAs. In the subsequent stage, three farming communities were randomly selected from each 

chosen LGA, resulting in a total of 15 agrarian villages. In the third stage, a random selection of 12 respondents 

was made from each community, producing an initial sample size of 180 producers. Data was gathered using a 

structured questionnaire as the main tool. To guarantee accurate data collection, trained enumerators who were 

skilled in both English and the respondents’ local language administered the questionnaires. However, 30 

questionnaires were discarded due to incomplete information, leading to a final sample size of 150 respondents for 

analysis. 

 

 

Analytical techniques 

 

Data collected were evaluated using descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics was used to achieve 

specific objectives (i), (iii), and (iv). Descriptive statistics typically involve summarizing and describing the main 

features of a dataset. In your case, it seems like you used a Likert-type scale with three categories (highly utilized 

= 3, moderately utilized = 2, not utilized = 0) and calculated means for these categories to describe certain aspects 

of your data. A logit model to achieve objective (ii). A logit model is often used in logistic regression to analyze 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               9 
 

binary or categorical outcomes. It's used when you want to predict the probability of an event occurring based on 

certain predictor variables. Objective (v) was realized using a multiple regression model. Multiple regression is 

used to analyze the relationship between a dependent variable and multiple independent variables. It helps you 

understand how different variables may be related to each other. 

 

Model specification of logit model; 

 

The logit model was chosen since the dependent variable is a dummy. It is stated as; 

 

Ln CS/(I –Si) = Bo + B1EDU + B2AOI + B3PP + B4EXP + B5ATIT + B6ATC +B7SEX + mi 

 

Where; 

Si = Farmers utilization of insurance services 

1 – Si = Not utilizing insurance services. 

Bo = constant 

B1 (1,2,3,4,5, 6, 7) = coefficients 

X1 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) = explanatory variables and  

mi  = stochastic error term. 

The factors influencing insurance services utilization is specified as; 

X1 = level of education (years) 

X2= Awareness of insurance (Yes = 2, No = 1) 

X3 = Premium payment (Yes = 2, No = 1) 

X4 = Years spent in farming  

X5 = Attitude toward insurance taking (Positive = 1, Negative = 0) 

X6 = Accessibility to credit (Yes = 1, No = 0). 

X7 = Occupation (full-time=1, Part-time=0) 

Model specification of Regression model on the influence of insurance services and income shock among poultry 

farmers 

The model is explicitly specified as shown: 

Y = f(PPS+ ES + VS + ICOE + GRC + CIS + POI+ EIL + TOF + μ)  

Where: Y = ability to absorb income shocks (N)  

X1=  PPS(highly utilized  =3, moderately utilized=2 and not utilized =0)  

X2 = ES (highly utilized  =3, moderately utilized=2 and not utilized =0)  

X3 = VS (highly utilized  =3, moderately utilized=2 and not utilized =0)  

X4 = ICOE (highly utilized  =3, moderately utilized=2 and not utilized =0)  

X5 = GRC (highly utilized  =3, moderately utilized=2 and not utilized =0)  

X6 = CIS(highly utilized  =3, moderately utilized=2 and not utilized =0) 

X7 = POI( highly utilized  =3, moderately utilized=2 and not utilized =0) 

X8 = EIL (highly utilized  =3, moderately utilized=2 and not utilized =0)  

X9 = TOF(highly utilized =3, moderately utilized=2 and not utilized =0) 

 µ = Error term 

 

 

 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               10 
 

Results and discussions 

 

Socioeconomic characteristics of respondents 

 

The socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1.  

 

Gender distribution  

 

The results of the examination indicate an important gender imbalance within the poultry sector, with 72% of 

participants being male and merely 28% female as seen in Table 1. This demographic breakdown emphasizes the 

fact that the poultry industry is primarily male-dominated. This pattern is not a unique phenomenon, as earlier 

investigations conducted by Nwachukwu et al (2021) and Aminu & Hermanns (2021) have also recognized a 

similar predominance of male poultry farmers. Gaining insight into the factors contributing to this gender disparity 

is essential for understanding the dynamics within the poultry farming industry. One potential reason for the 

detected gender imbalance in poultry farming is the challenging nature of the occupation. Poultry farming 

encompasses various physically intensive tasks, including but not limited to feeding, cleaning, and ensuring the 

well-being of the birds. The strict and labour-intensive characteristics of these tasks may deter female involvement 

in the industry. Societal views and conventional gender roles may also shape the workforce composition in poultry 

farming, with the perception that such physically strenuous work is more appropriate for men. In addition, cultural 

and economic elements may contribute to perpetuating the gender divide in poultry farming. Societal norms and 

expectations regarding women's responsibilities in agriculture and animal husbandry may affect vocational 

choices, pushing women away from poultry farming. Limited access to resources, such as financing and land, 

which are often essential for initiating and maintaining a poultry enterprise, may disproportionately impact women, 

further exacerbating their underrepresentation in this field. Tackling the gender disparity in poultry farming is 

critical not only for ensuring fairness but also for the practical sustainability and development of the industry. 

Acknowledging the potential roles of women in poultry farming and adopting strategies to promote gender 

inclusivity could result in a more varied and strong poultry sector. Policymakers, industry stakeholders, and 

advocacy organizations can collaborate to cultivate an environment that promotes and assists the active 

engagement of women in poultry farming by addressing the socio-economic and cultural impediments that may 

restrict their participation. 

 

Age of Respondent 

 

The demographic profile of poultry ranchers is essential for comprehending the dynamics of the poultry farming 

industry. The information that most (80%) poultry ranchers are aged between 37 and 56 years, with an average 

age of 46, has major implications for the current and future environment of the industry. This demographic trend 

indicates a concentration of relatively young individuals in their productive years who are involved in poultry 

farming. A primary implication of having a majority of poultry ranchers in this age group is the potential for 

increased resilience and adaptability within the industry. 

 Individuals in this age range typically possess a combination of energy, enthusiasm, and experience, which are 

important qualities for effectively managing the challenges encountered in poultry farming. Their youthfulness 

may lead to a proactive stance in welcoming new technologies, implementing innovative farming strategies, and 

adjusting to changing market trends. This is advantageous for the overall sustainability and competitiveness of the 

poultry farming sector. Comparisons made with a study conducted by Popoola & Obi-Egbedi (2020) that reported 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               11 
 

a similar age distribution among farmers lend credence to the current findings. The consistency across studies 

implies that the age profile of poultry ranchers may demonstrate stability over time. This stability can be beneficial 

for policymakers, researchers, and industry stakeholders in developing targeted interventions, policies, and support 

systems that cater to the unique needs and characteristics of this demographic group. Besides, the age distribution 

prompts inquiries about succession planning within poultry farming enterprises. As these farmers age, it becomes 

critical to consider the effective transfer of knowledge, skills, and operations to the next generation. It is essential 

for the industry to cultivate an environment that encourages and assists the entry of younger individuals into poultry 

farming, ensuring a smooth transition and ongoing growth of the sector. 

 

Marital status  

 

The result reveal that 76% of the participants in the study were married, while 10% were single, another 10% were 

widowed, and 2% were divorced, offering important insights into the demographic makeup of poultry farmers 

within the surveyed group. This observation is consistent with the research conducted by Onyemekihian et al 

(2023) and Michael et al (2022), who asserted that a important proportion of poultry farmers are indeed married 

individuals. One possible explanation for this trend is that married individuals might be regarded as more 

responsible and driven to participate in poultry farming. The relationship between marital status and involvement 

in poultry farming can be complex. Marriage typically brings additional responsibilities, such as providing for a 

family and ensuring financial stability. Engaging in poultry farming can be seen as a strategic approach for these 

individuals to enhance their economic well-being and improve their overall quality of life. The sense of 

responsibility linked to marriage may also extend to the dedication required in poultry farming. Operating a poultry 

farm necessitates commitment, consistent effort, and a long-term vision. Married individuals, motivated by family 

obligations, may perceive poultry farming as a feasible and sustainable source of income, thus accounting for the 

notable proportion in this demographic. That being apart, the cultural and societal expectations placed on married 

individuals to secure a reliable source of income for their families could are a motivating factor. Poultry farming, 

with its potential for profitability and economic sustainability, may be particularly attractive to married individuals 

striving to meet these expectations. 

 

Educational status 

 

The data indicates that a substantial portion (56%) of poultry ranchers possess post-primary education, with 38% 

attaining tertiary education and merely 6% having completed only primary education. This information provides 

valuable insights into the educational qualifications of those involved in poultry farming. This distribution implies 

that a majority of poultry ranchers have attained a higher level of education, which could considerably influence 

the overall management and success of their poultry enterprises. A noteworthy aspect of this finding is the potential 

positive impact of education on poultry ranchers' ability to access and understand information pertinent to effective 

risk management. Higher levels of education are often linked with improved analytical and decision-making 

capabilities, alongside an enhanced ability to comprehend and adapt to variable challenges. In poultry farming, 

where various risks, such as disease outbreaks, market variations, and environmental factors, can affect operations, 

having a well-educated workforce could lead to more knowledgeable and strategic decision-making. The 

consistency of this result with prior research, such as the study conducted by Sani et al (2023), further emphasizes 

the significance of education within agribusiness. They put additional emphasis on the benefits of education in 

agriculture and related domains, illustrating how it can enhance the efficiency, productivity, and overall 

sustainability of agricultural practices. The correlation identified in the present study emphasizes the persistence 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               12 
 

of this trend, emphasizing the lasting importance of education considering poultry ranching. Moreover, the findings 

may imply that individuals with post-primary and tertiary education are more inclined to engage in poultry farming 

as a business effort rather than as a means of subsistence. This could have wider implications for the poultry sector, 

indicating a shift towards a more professionalized and commercially-driven model of poultry farming. The 

potential integration of advanced technologies, data-driven decision-making, and best practices in poultry 

management may be more attainable for individuals with higher educational qualifications. 

 

Farming experience  

 

The result as presented in Table 1 indicates that a majority (64%) of participants possess 6-10 years of farming 

experience, with an average duration of 8 years, which represents an important observation that has implications 

for the comprehension and enhancement of poultry farming practices. The existence of 6-10 years of farming 

experience among respondents is remarkable. This range signifies a substantial degree of dedication and 

commitment to the field of poultry farming. The fact that a considerable majority falls within this range indicates 

a veteran group of individuals who have dedicated an important portion of their time and effort to refining their 

skills in poultry farming. This accumulation of experience is likely to encourage a deeper comprehension of the 

complexities associated with poultry farming, including breeding, nutrition, disease management, and overall farm 

management. The average duration of 8 years of farming experience further stresses the solid foundation of 

knowledge and expertise that the respondents contribute. Engagement in poultry farming for eight years signifies 

a considerable timeframe in which individuals encounter various challenges, successes, and opportunities for 

learning. This type of practical experience is invaluable, as it equips farmers with a refined understanding of the 

sector, enabling them to make well-knowledgeable decisions and apply effective strategies.  

Gbigbi (2021) has previously emphasized the importance of experience in farming, which corroborates the current 

findings. Their emphasis on the importance of experience aligns with the acknowledgment that practical 

knowledge gained over years of farming is a critical component for achieving success and sustainability in 

agricultural pursuits. The details of poultry farming, such as disease prevention, optimal feeding practices, and 

efficient production methods, often require a level of skill that can solely be attained through years of hands-on 

experience. The implications of this finding extend beyond individual farms to the wider poultry farming sector. 

A group of farmers possessing 6-10 years of experience, on average, can enhance the collective knowledge base 

of the industry. This shared expertise may promote collaboration and information exchange, leading to continuous 

enhancement in farming practices, increased productivity, and the development of innovative approaches to 

common challenges. Besides, the findings carry significance for policy and support programs within the 

agricultural sector. Acknowledging the importance of experience in poultry farming should motivate policymakers 

and stakeholders to devise programs that nurture and assist the ongoing professional growth of farmers. This could 

encompass training programs, mentorship opportunities, and knowledge-sharing platforms that promote the 

transfer of experience from seasoned farmers to those who are newer to the industry. 

 

Family size 

 

The findings indicate that the majority of respondents (52%) had family sizes ranging from six to ten individuals, 

yielding a mean family size of seven individuals as seen in Table 1. This observation offers valuable insights into 

the demographics of poultry ranchers and their households. This result suggests a prevailing trend among poultry 

ranchers towards larger family units, which can have major implications for their farming activities. The recorded 

mean family size of seven individuals is noteworthy, as it corresponds with the research conducted by Gbigbi and 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               13 
 

Ikechukwuka (2020), who documented a similar mean household size in their investigation. The consistency of 

findings across various studies enhances the credibility and applicability of the results. It indicates that the trend 

of larger household sizes among poultry ranchers is not an isolated occurrence but rather a wider trend that may 

be influenced by several socio-economic and cultural factors. One possible rationale for the larger family sizes 

among poultry ranchers could be the necessity for sufficient family labour to support the demanding nature of 

farming activities, especially in the poultry sector. Poultry farming frequently requires considerable manual labour 

for tasks such as feeding, cleaning, and maintaining the facilities. Larger family sizes may provide poultry ranchers 

with a readily available and cost-efficient source of labour, thereby contributing to the efficiency and sustainability 

of their operations. Besides, the finding holds implications for comprehending the social dynamics within poultry 

farming communities. Larger families may cultivate a sense of community and shared responsibility, thereby 

creating a supportive network for poultry ranchers. This social cohesion could enhance knowledge exchange, 

resource sharing, and mutual assistance, further bolstering the resilience of the poultry farming community. 

Nonetheless, it is essential to identify possible challenges related to larger family sizes, such as heightened financial 

pressure on households and the importance of effective management of family dynamics within the farming 

operation. Achieving a balance between the benefits of having a larger family for farm labour and the challenges 

it may pose is essential for the long-term sustainability of poultry farming enterprises. 

 

Farm size 

 

The findings of the research demonstrate that 76% of poultry producers operate at a modest scale, with a poultry 

flock size ranging from 250 to 1,149 birds, and an average flock size of 887 birds (Table 1). These results provide 

major insights into the current characteristics of the poultry farming sector. The dominance of small-scale chicken 

farming suggests that a considerable portion of the poultry industry comprises relatively smaller enterprises. This 

inference aligns with the study by Ogba et al (2020) concerning the challenges experienced by small poultry farms 

in Abia State. This has ramifications for various facets of the industry, encompassing production efficiency, market 

dynamics, and the socio-economic context of chicken farming. Understanding the presence of small-scale 

operations is critical for policymakers, agricultural organizations, and researchers aiming to devise focused 

interventions and support systems for this group of farmers. A major consequence of the small-scale nature of the 

majority of chicken farms is the potential effect on production efficiency. Smaller flock sizes may indicatively 

reveal limited resources and infrastructure, which could affect economies of scale. Farmers functioning at this 

scale may encounter obstacles in integrating state-of-the-art technologies, executing efficient management 

practices, and negotiating beneficial terms with suppliers. Tackling these obstacles could improve the overall 

productivity and sustainability of small-scale chicken farming enterprises. Besides, the average flock size of 887 

birds is a benchmark for discerning the standard scale of small chicken farms. Examining the elements that 

contribute to this average, such as regional differences, resource availability, and market demands, can provide 

insightful perspectives. For example, certain regions may exhibit a greater occurrence of small-scale farming due 

to geographical limitations or cultural practices, while others may feature larger operations propelled by market 

requirements. Similarly, the study's outcomes may simplify the economic and social ramifications for farmers 

engaged at this scale. Small-scale farmers might face distinctive challenges related to income generation, 

livelihood sustainability, and market access. Investigating the socio-economic aspects of small-scale chicken 

farming can assist in identifying focused strategies to enhance the well-being of these farmers, such as offering 

financial assistance, enhancing market connections, and supporting training initiatives. Besides, the research 

findings provoke considerations about the broader environment of the poultry industry, including its role in food 

security and rural development. Understanding the distribution of farm sizes is critical for creating policies that 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               14 
 

encourage comprehensive growth, guaranteeing that both small and large-scale farmers contribute to overall 

industry resilience and sustainability. 

 

Table 1: Demographic attributes of chicken farmers (N= 150) 

Characteristic Frequency  Percentage  Mean/mode 

Gender 

Male 

Female 

 

108 

42 

 

72 

28 

 

Male  

Age(years) 

27-36 

37-46 

47-56 

57-66 

 

18 

60 

60 

12 

 

12 

40 

40 

8 

 

46 years 

Marital Status 

Married 

Single 

Widow/widower 

Divorced 

 

114 

15 

15 

6 

 

76 

10 

10 

4 

 

Married  

Educational level 

Primary 

Secondary 

Tertiary 

 

9 

84 

57 

 

6 

56 

38 

 

Secondary  

Farming Experience (years) 

1-5 

6-10 

11-15 

16-20 

 

33 

96 

18 

3 

 

22 

64 

12 

2 

 

 

 

8 years 

Household size 

1-5 

6-10 

11-15 

 

51 

78 

21 

 

34 

52 

14 

 

7 persons 

Flock size 

250-549 

550-849 

850-1149 

1150-1448 

1450-1749 

1750-2049 

 

27 

57 

30 

12 

18 

6 

 

18 

38 

20 

8 

12 

4 

 

 

887 birds 

 

 

 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               15 
 

Farmers awareness of agricultural insurance 

 

The information depicted in Figure 1 illustrates the levels of awareness among breeders concerning the availability 

of insurance. The findings indicate that a major majority, comprising 75% of the surveyed breeders, were aware 

of existing insurance options. This awareness is an essential element of risk management within the agricultural 

sector, especially for breeders who encounter various uncertainties and challenges in their operations. It is major 

that one-quarter of the breeders, as shown by the remaining 25% in Figure 1, were uninformed about the 

availability of insurance. This observation emphasizes a possible gap in communication or outreach efforts 

pertaining to agricultural insurance. Gaining insight into the reasons for this lack of awareness could be critical in 

formulating strategies to close the knowledge gap and ensure that a greater number of breeders can take advantage 

of risk mitigation measures. The study is consistent with the work of Ojogbane and Gbigbi (2022) which lends 

additional credibility and context to the current findings. According to Ojogbane and Gbigbi (2022), a considerable 

percentage of poultry farmers in Kogi State were aware of the Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS). 

The alignment between the two studies implies that awareness levels have remained constant over time, and 

breeders in the region continue to be knowledgeable about the availability of agricultural insurance options. The 

importance of this awareness becomes even more apparent when evaluating the function of insurance in risk 

management within the agricultural sector. Agriculture is intrinsically vulnerable to various risks, including 

weather-related events, diseases, and market fluctuations. Insurance offers a financial safety net for breeders, 

providing protection against unexpected losses and enabling the continuity of agricultural activities. The 

implications of these findings transcend mere recognition of insurance availability. They open pathways for further 

research and interventions aimed at understanding the factors influencing awareness levels, addressing potential 

obstacles, and improving outreach programs. Policymakers, agricultural extension services, and insurance 

providers can work together to create targeted initiatives that not only increase awareness but also educate breeders 

on the benefits and complexities of agricultural insurance.  

 

Figure 1: Level of Awareness of Insurance Among Poultry Farmers 

 

 

 

 

75%

25%

Fig. 1: Respondents awareness of insurance

YES

NO



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               16 
 

Farmers attitude towards insurance  

 

The findings reveal that a major percentage of poultry ranchers, specifically 56%, display a lack of concern or 

indifferent attitude towards obtaining insurance, whereas only 44% exhibit a favorable attitude towards insurance 

coverage (Fig.2). This indicates that a considerable number of poultry ranchers may not recognize the value or 

significance of securing insurance for their businesses. Moreover, a study conducted by Alabi et al (2023) also 

indicates that this pessimistic perspective regarding insurance uptake is not exclusive to poultry ranchers but could 

reflect a widespread sentiment among farmers, including those engaged in crop production. This similarity in 

attitudes across various agricultural sectors may suggest broader challenges or perceptions related to insurance 

within the agricultural community. It is essential to acknowledge that these findings could have major ramifications 

for the insurance sector and policymakers who seek to enhance insurance uptake among farmers and poultry 

ranchers. Comprehending the reasons underlying this negative disposition and addressing them could be essential 

in promoting greater insurance enrolment within these industries. 

 

Figure 2. Attitude toward Insurance 

 
 

Determinants of utilization of insurance services 

 

The determinants of insurance service utilization among poultry farmers are presented in Table 2. 

 

Flock Size 

 

The results, presented in Table 2 indicate that Flock size exhibits a positive correlation with insurance utilization, 

evidenced by a coefficient of 0.0037 and a Z-value of 2.47, attaining statistical significance at the 5% level (p = 

0.614). The marginal effect (dy/dx) of 0.0001, while minimal, suggests that as flock size increases, the likelihood 

of using insurance services also experiences a slight uptick. This observation is consistent with the perspective that 

farmers overseeing larger operations are more inclined to view insurance as beneficial due to their heightened 

exposure to risk, given that they have more to lose in terms of potential losses. This positive association between 

flock size and insurance adoption reinforces the notion that larger-scale farmers may exhibit a greater inclination 

66, 44%

84, 56%

Fig. 2: Respondents attitude toward insurance

POSITIVE ATTITUDE

NEGATIVE ATTITUDE



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               17 
 

to safeguard their assets, as any loss could result in considerable financial difficulties. The finding corroborates 

the conclusions reached by Olutumise et al (2023) regarding poultry farmers in Ondo State. A major interpretation 

of this finding is grounded in the economic rationale for insurance utilization. Typically, larger flock sizes indicate 

more substantial investments in poultry farming endeavors. As farmers allocate increased resources, both financial 

and human, to the growth of their flocks, the potential risks linked with poultry farming become increasingly 

evident. These risks may include epidemics, environmental calamities, or variations in market conditions that could 

result in important financial consequences. 

 

Awareness of Insurance 

 

Awareness of insurance demonstrates a notable negative correlation with insurance utilization, exhibiting a 

coefficient of -2.9037, a Z-value of -2.42, and a probability of 0.016, important at the 5% level. The marginal effect 

of -0.4614 indicates that insufficient awareness regarding insurance substantially diminishes the likelihood of 

insurance adoption. This result emphasizes the essential role that awareness plays in shaping insurance uptake. 

Agricultural producers who lack sufficient information about insurance options, advantages, and processes are less 

likely to engage, probably due to uncertainty or misconceptions regarding the value of insurance. This finding 

indicates that focused awareness campaigns could be essential in enhancing insurance utilization rates among 

farmers. The result corroborates the study by Ojogbane and Gbigbi (2022), which argues for a positive correlation 

between awareness status and the likelihood of willingness to pay for insurance, further reinforcing the significance 

of awareness in decision-making. This alignment with technology adoption illustrates a broader trend wherein 

knowledgeable decision-making is connected to awareness, not only within the scope of insurance but across 

multiple sectors. Furthermore, the negative correlation between awareness and insurance utilization emphasizes a 

potential obstacle that policymakers must address. This may reflect challenges such as inadequate access to 

information, ineffective communication channels, or even misunderstandings about the advantages of agricultural 

insurance. Identifying these obstacles is essential for creating targeted interventions aimed at enhancing awareness 

and, as a result, increasing insurance utilization rates among farmers. 

 

Attitude Toward Insurance 

 

The perspective on insurance is another important factor that affects insurance usage, with a positive coefficient 

of 3.6538, a Z-value of 2.93, and a probability of 0.003, which is major at the 1% level. The marginal effect of 

0.3172 indicates that a more positive view of insurance considerably enhances the likelihood of adoption. This 

finding suggests that individuals perception and belief in the effectiveness and reliability of insurance play a 

important role in motivating farmers to acquire insurance. A positive attitude may arise from perceived benefits or 

confidence in insurance providers, emphasizing the necessity of cultivating positive views through consistent 

service delivery and customer education. Recognizing these psychological factors can assist policymakers, 

insurers, and agricultural extension services in designing interventions to positively impact farmers' views. Farmers 

face numerous risks, which can include uncertainties related to weather and fluctuations in the market. An 

optimistic perspective regarding insurance may indicate that a farmer acknowledges the importance of managing 

risks and comprehends the role of insurance in mitigating the impact of unforeseen occurrences. Ajemunigbohun 

et al (2020) study supports the current findings of this investigation. This finding reinforces the notion that 

promoting risk awareness and education regarding insurance benefits can be a strategic method for encouraging 

adoption among farmers. The positive relationship indicates that establishing trust in the insurance industry is 

essential for increasing adoption. Farmers with positive attitudes may view insurance providers as dependable 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               18 
 

partners in protecting their agricultural investments. Therefore, efforts to enhance transparency, simplify insurance 

processes, and provide clear information about the benefits can contribute to establishing trust and, in turn, 

nurturing positive attitudes. 

 

Premium 

 

The cost of premiums has a notable adverse effect on the utilization of insurance, with a coefficient of -2.6684, a 

Z-value of -2.27, and a probability of 0.023, which is major at the 5% level as depicted in Table 2. The marginal 

effect of -0.4357 suggests that enhanced premiums dissuade farmers from acquiring insurance. This finding is 

consistent with economic theory, as high costs diminish the perceived affordability and cost-effectiveness of 

insurance for farmers. Farmers, especially those with limited resources, may consider insurance premiums to be a 

financial strain, opting to manage risks independently. This result emphasizes the necessity of designing affordable 

insurance products that cater to the financial capabilities of smallholder farmers, since exorbitant premiums may 

prevent their participation. Bear in mind that the negative correlation identified in this study emphasizes the critical 

significance of affordability in influencing farmers' insurance-related decisions. The discovery corroborates the 

idea that enhanced premium costs can are an obstacle, restricting the accessibility of insurance for farmers. This 

indicates that a considerable segment of the agricultural population may be left outside the protective scope of 

insurance due to financial limitations created by premium costs. As a result, this could leave farmers more exposed 

to heightened risks and vulnerabilities, especially when confronted with unpredictable events such as adverse 

weather, crop failures, or other insurable hazards. This finding concurs with Gbigbi and Ndubuokwu (2022). The 

differing result in relation to other research emphasizes the contextual aspects of insurance utilization behaviors. 

The importance of affordable premium structures, as demonstrated in the study by Ojogbane and Gbigbi (2022); 

Hossain et al. (2022), cannot be underestimated. The fact that nearly all the farmers in that study expressed a 

willingness to pay any premium for insurance utilization emphasizes the critical impact of the affordability factor 

on farmers' perspectives regarding insurance. This finding carries major policy implications. It is essential for 

policymakers and insurance providers to carefully manage the equilibrium between ensuring the financial 

sustainability of insurance programs and guaranteeing that they are accessible and appealing to the target audience. 

This requires a reassessment of premium structures and the development of creative approaches to enhance 

affordability, possibly through subsidies, risk-pooling strategies, or alternative financial instruments that mitigate 

the fiscal strain on farmers. 

 

Access to Credit 

 

As shown in Table 2, Access to credit has a positive and major impact on insurance utilization, with a coefficient 

of 2.1299, a Z-value of 2.01, and a probability of 0.044, which is major at the 5% level. The marginal effect of 

0.2828 indicates that farmers with access to credit are more inclined to adopt insurance services. Access to credit 

may enhance a farmer's ability to pay for insurance premiums, thereby promoting participation. Besides, some 

credit providers may stipulate insurance coverage as a prerequisite for loan approval, directly linking credit access 

with insurance utilization. This finding indicates that improving farmers' access to credit could simultaneously 

bolster their capacity to afford and adopt insurance. This result emphasizes the essential role that credit accessibility 

plays in influencing farmers' choices to obtain insurance coverage and actively engage with insurance services. 

The finding corresponds smoothly with the insights presented by Gbigbi and Ndubuokwu (2022) study, 

emphasizing the facilitative role of financial resources in managing risks through insurance. This alignment further 

strengthens the reliability and consistency of the observed relationship, adding further credibility to the research 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               19 
 

findings. One major implication of this positive relationship is the potential for access to credit to are a catalyst for 

enhancing farmers' resilience to various risks. Access to credit has improved for farmers, which enhances their 

capacity to manage the uncertainties fundamental in agricultural activities. This increased financial flexibility 

allows them to actively seek insurance coverage, thereby creating a stronger safety net against unforeseen 

occurrences such as crop failures, natural disasters, or fluctuations in the market. 

 

Occupation 

 

The occupation variable, exhibiting a positive coefficient of 3.1793, a Z-value of 2.46, and a probability of 0.014 

(which is important at the 5% level), indicates a strong positive effect on insurance utilization. The marginal effect 

of 0.6186 implies that the character of a farmer's primary occupation plays an important role in their propensity to 

adopt insurance. Farmers who are more commercially oriented or whose income predominantly hinges on farming 

may experience a heightened necessity to protect their livelihood through insurance. This positive correlation 

suggests that initiatives aimed at promoting insurance services could be particularly effective if they focus on full-

time farmers who are more financially reliant on agricultural productivity. The financial implications associated 

with poultry farming are considerable. Full-time poultry farmers allocate substantial resources to acquire and 

maintain poultry infrastructure, procure high-quality breeds, and oversee daily operations. In contrast to part-time 

farmers, who may have diversified income streams, full-time poultry farmers substantially depend on the success 

of their poultry operations for sustenance. The fundamental financial risks related to poultry farming, stemming 

from variables such as disease outbreaks, market fluctuations, or adverse weather conditions, call for a 

comprehensive risk management approach. In this scenario, insurance becomes an essential instrument for 

alleviating financial losses due to unpredictable events. Besides, the reliance on poultry farming as the sole or 

primary income source heightens sensitivity to economic changes. Any disruption in poultry production or income 

can result in an immediate and direct effect on the financial stability of full-time poultry farmers. Acknowledging 

this vulnerability, these farmers are more inclined to pursue insurance coverage as a strategy for establishing a 

safety net against unforeseen circumstances. The desire to safeguard one’s livelihood is a strong motivator for 

actively engaging with insurance services. The correlation implies that full-time poultry farmers may possess a 

more important understanding of the risks related to their profession. This increased awareness might arise from 

their daily involvement and practical experience in managing various facets of poultry farming. Consequently, 

they are more likely to evaluate potential risks and take proactive steps to mitigate them, including seeking 

insurance services.  

 

Table 2: Factors influencing utilization of insurance services  

Variables Coefficient Std  error Z Probability dy/dx 

Education -0.34502 0.9298 -0.37 0.711 -0.0553 

Farming experience -0.2320 0.193 -1.20 0.230 -0.0372 

Flock size 0.0037 0.0015 2.47 0.614** 0.0001 

Awareness of insurance  -2.9037 1.2019 -2.42 0.016** -0.4614 

Attitude towards insurance 3.6538 1.2483 2.93 0.003** 0.3172 

Premium  -2.6684 1.1755 -2.27 0.023** -0.4357 

Access to credit 2.1299 1.0589 2.01 0.044** 0.2828 

Occupation 3.1793 1.2937 2.46 0.014** 0.6186 

Constant 1.8231 3.194 0.57 0.568  

 ** =significant at 5% 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               20 
 

Level of use of insurance services 

 

The level of use of insurance services among poultry farmers was analyzed based on key indicators, as presented 

in Table 3. 

 

Extension Services (ES) 

 

With a score of 2.30, extension services are the most commonly used among poultry farmers as shown in Table 3. 

This high degree of involvement indicates that farmers recognize the importance of these services in providing 

technical assistance, information on best practices, and guidance on farm management. Extension services are 

likely critical in helping poultry farmers to improve their production processes and tackle challenges such as 

disease management, feed efficiency, and productivity enhancement. The frequent use of Extension Services may 

also reflect their accessibility and importance to farmers' daily activities. Extension agents play an essential role in 

connecting the knowledge gap between research findings and field applications, which is particularly essential in 

rural areas with limited information access. Increasing the range and frequency of extension services could further 

boost farmers' productivity and resilience against common risks. The utilization of Extension Services has been 

highlighted as critical to the functionality of agricultural sectors, particularly among poultry farmers. As shown 

in the work by Shkembi et al. (2024) extension services are pivotal for enhancing sustainability and providing 

both practical and academic knowledge to farmers, thus bridging the gap between research and actual farming 

practices. Additionally, Mishra and Singh (2024) note that tailored training and the efficient delivery of 

agriculture-related knowledge contribute significantly to farmers' adoption of modern techniques in livestock 

management. The consistent emphasis in these studies on enhancing accessibility and responsiveness of extension 

services suggests a strong correlation between their utilization and farmers' productivity levels. 

 

Veterinary Services (VS) 

 

With a score of 2.16, veterinary services are also commonly accessed, showing poultry farmers' recognition of the 

significance of animal health and disease management. The availability of veterinary services allows farmers to 

receive prompt medical care for their flocks, which is essential in preventing losses from illnesses, improving flock 

productivity, and maintaining overall poultry health. However, challenges such as the expense and accessibility of 

these services may persist in limiting their overall effectiveness. There is also a chance that some farmers rely on 

informal veterinary support due to insufficient formal veterinary coverage in rural areas. Enhancing access to 

veterinary services and possibly reducing their costs could improve health outcomes for poultry flocks and promote 

sustainable farming practices. Veterinary services are recognized for their importance in managing animal health 

among poultry farmers. As reported by Tsay & Paulson (2024), the provision of veterinary care directly impacts 

flock health and productivity. The report emphasizes the necessity of these services in preventing disease 

outbreaks, which, if ignored, could lead to substantial economic losses (Shkembi et al., 2024). Furthermore, 

Mishra and Singh (2024) state that while veterinary services are crucial, their accessibility remains a challenge, 

and improving these services could yield more robust livestock practices. 

 

Training of Farmers (TOF) 

 

According to Table 3, Training of farmers received a score of 2.22, suggesting that poultry farmers actively engage 

in training programs. Training sessions offer essential knowledge in areas such as farm management, disease 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               21 
 

prevention, and the adoption of innovative farming techniques, which can directly boost productivity. The high 

engagement rate indicates that farmers are aware of the advantages of training and may consider it a worthwhile 

investment to enhance their farm operations. Nevertheless, the accessibility of training and the relevance of the 

curriculum could be improved to make sure that farmers are sufficiently equipped to handle emerging industry 

challenges. Besides, consistent and updated training programs could address the changing environment of poultry 

farming and enhance farmers' ability to adapt to new risks and opportunities. Training programs represent an 

essential area of focus for poultry farmers, as outlined in the studies by Khanal et al. (2024) which illustrate that 

participation in training significantly enhances the farmers' knowledge and capability in adopting modern farming 

practices. Furthermore, Koprivica et al. (2024) discuss the role of training in overcoming barriers to the adoption 

of insurance and risk management strategies, highlighting that informed farmers are more likely to utilize 

available insurance products effectively. The ongoing need for updated and targeted training regimens is 

corroborated by Oben et al. (2024) who stress that adapting curricula to meet current agricultural challenges can 

strengthen farmers' responses to risks. 

 

General Risk Coverage (GRC) 

 

General risk coverage has a score of 2.02, reflecting moderate utilization by poultry farmers. This service likely 

offers a form of fundamental protection that addresses common risks in poultry farming, such as disease outbreaks 

and severe weather. Farmers’ adoption of this coverage may arise from a need to safeguard their investments 

against unforeseen events. However, the moderate score suggests that some farmers may perceive insurance 

coverage as either insufficient or costly. Expanding general risk coverage to encompass a broader range of risks 

and making it more affordable could encourage more farmers to take advantage of this service, thereby enhancing 

the poultry sector's resilience to unexpected events. General Risk Coverage shows moderate utilization among 

farmers, reflecting a necessary protective measure against common agricultural vulnerabilities. The analysis by 

Philippi & Schiller (2024) suggests that expanding risk coverage could better align with farmers' needs and lead 

to increased uptake. Moreover, Mishra & Singh (2024) highlight that understanding the scope of risks covered 

by insurance programs can support farmers in securing their investments. 

 

Provision of Premium Subsidy (PPS) 

 

With a score of 1.80, the provision of premium subsidy is not widely used by poultry farmers as indicated in Table 

3. This finding indicates that premium subsidies, which could make insurance more accessible, are not reaching 

farmers effectively or that the available subsidy is insufficient to offset costs. Cost is often a major barrier to 

insurance adoption among small-scale farmers, and this underutilization could indicate that the subsidies provided 

are inadequate to make a meaningful impact. Addressing this issue may involve raising subsidy levels, simplifying 

the application process for subsidies, and guaranteeing that farmers are well-knowledgeable about the financial 

support available to them. The underutilization of premium subsidies is a noteworthy concern, as indicated in 

studies by Cha et al. (2024) which emphasize that without adequate subsidies, farmers may remain hesitant to 

adopt insurance coverage. The findings by Koprivica et al. (2024) affirm that significant premium subsidies are 

crucial for increasing the uptake of insurance products among rural populations, suggesting a direct correlation 

between subsidy levels and farmer participation rates. Furthermore, Ma et al. (2024) indicate that governments 

must ensure that subsidies are sufficient to lower entry barriers for farmers into the insurance market. 

 

 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               22 
 

Insurance Coverage of Equipment (ICOE) 

 

Scoring 1.82, insurance coverage of equipment is another service that is not widely used. This low score suggests 

that poultry farmers may not perceive equipment insurance as essential, or they might view the premiums as too 

high compared to the perceived risk or replacement cost of their equipment. Alternatively, some farmers may be 

unaware of this coverage option. Given that equipment represents a substantial investment in poultry farming, 

promoting the advantages of insuring equipment could help protect farmers’ assets and maintain operational 

continuity in the event of equipment damage or failure. The low utilization rate for insurance coverage of 

equipment appears linked to perceptions of cost versus risk, as explored by Tsay & Paulson, (2024) who found 

that farmers prioritize covering more immediate risks over equipment. The research by Cha et al. (2024) supports 

this by suggesting that raising awareness about the benefits and necessity of equipment insurance can change 

farmers' attitudes. 

 

Coinsurance Service (CIS) 

 

Coinsurance Service achieved a score of 1.88, indicating minimal utilization among poultry farmers. Coinsurance, 

which involves the sharing of risk between the insurer and the insured, can be a financially efficient method for 

farmers to mitigate their financial exposure. However, the low score suggests that poultry farmers may either not 

understand the concept of coinsurance or lack confidence in its benefits. Educating farmers on how coinsurance 

works and its potential to reduce individual risk burdens could help increase uptake. Besides, redesigning 

coinsurance policies to better align with farmers’ financial capacities and risk tolerances might improve its appeal. 

The minimal uptake of coinsurance services indicates a gap in understanding among farmers regarding how these 

services can mitigate financial exposure. Research by Khanal et al. (2024) emphasizes an educational approach 

to better inform farmers about coinsurance and its mechanics. Additionally, Ojogbane & Gbigbi (2022). underline 

that clearer policy designs that consider farmers' financial capabilities could enhance the attractiveness of 

coinsurance.  

 

Payment of Indemnity (POI) 

 

Payment of Indemnity, which has a score of 1.82, indicates low utilization. This observation may suggest that 

poultry farmers are either unaware of their eligibility for indemnity payments or perceive the claims process as 

tedious and uninviting. Indemnity payments are designed to provide compensation to farmers for losses and can 

play an essential role in assisting them to recover from adverse situations. By simplifying and simplifying the 

claims process while enhancing awareness regarding the operation of indemnity payments, it is possible to 

encourage a greater number of farmers to use this service as a safety net for losses. Indemnity payments show low 

engagement levels, and this may be attributed to the complexity involved in the claims process as stated in studies 

by Philippi and Schiller (Philippi & Schiller, 2024). Misunderstandings regarding eligibility and the claims 

process can deter farmers, as noted by Mishra and Singh, who argue for educational initiatives to simplify these 

operations (Mishra & Singh, 2024). Furthermore, improved communication about the potential benefits of 

indemnity payments could encourage farmer participation. 

 

 

 

 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               23 
 

Encouraging Institutional Lenders to Lend More to Agriculture (EIL) 

 

With a score of 1.80, the initiative focused on encouraging institutional lenders to lend more to agriculture is 

currently underutilized. This may reflect various challenges such as limited access to financial institutions, high 

interest rates, or stringent lending terms that deter poultry farmers from seeking credit. Enhancing poultry farmers' 

access to affordable credit and easing collateral requirements could assist greater borrowing, enabling farmers to 

invest in their operations and potentially enhance productivity. Furthermore, encouraging stronger collaborations 

between insurance providers and financial institutions could render borrowing more attractive by combining loans 

with insurance coverage, thereby affording farmers additional protection against financial risks. The initiative to 

encourage institutional lenders reflects a broader economic support structure necessary for farmer growth. As 

evidenced by Li et al. (2024) the facilitation of easier access to credit can significantly boost agricultural 

expansion. Studies suggest that reducing barriers such as high interest rates can encourage more farmers to seek 

loans that could enhance productivity (Peirong, 2024). 

 

Limitations confronting utilization of insurance services 

 

This reveals that every participant (100%) did not have enough knowledge about the benefits of agricultural 

insurance as presented in Table 4. This lack of understanding could prevent them from using insurance services. 

A complete consensus among participants (100%) regarding this matter indicates that the implementation of 

insurance policies in the agricultural sector is challenging and may be discouraging. For instance, Muraya et al. 

(2024) indicate gaps in farmers' knowledge regarding Weather Index Insurance (WII) but do not report a specific 

100% unawareness, suggesting that awareness levels can vary and are contextual.  All participants (100%) 

experienced delays in receiving indemnity payments, which can be frustrating and create financial strain. 

Moreover, challenges related to indemnity payments, with significant delays reported by farmers, align with Udoh 

et al.’s (2024) findings that mention a notable percentage of respondents encountering delays, which can dissuade 

farmers from pursuing insurance options due to frustrations.  

 

Table 3: Level of insurance services utilization 

Services Mean Standard deviation Utilization 

PPS 1.80 0.70 Low 

ES 2.30 0.71 High 

VS 2.16 0.77 High 

ICOE 1.82 0.77 Low 

GRC 2.02 0.77 High 

CIS 1.88 0.77 Low 

POI 1.82 0.75 Low 

EIL 1.80 0.76 Low 

TOF 2.22 0.79 High  

Note: A mean score ≥ 2.00 indicates high utilization, while a mean score < 2.00 indicates low utilization. Standard 

deviations indicate variations in responses among poultry farmers regarding the extent of insurance service 

utilization 

 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               24 
 

This aligns with the issues of cash flow and distrust toward the insurance system. Another shared concern suggests 

that the compensation received through insurance policies is inadequate to cover the losses experienced by 

participants (100%), which undermines the purpose of insurance. The consensus regarding insufficient 

compensation from insurance policies is reflected in the findings of Charamba (2024), who discusses the 

inadequacy of compensation schemes and their funding, highlighting farmers' dissatisfaction. This supports the 

claim regarding inadequacy of compensation but does not suggest that all participants indicated this uniformly. 

A considerable number of participants (68%) found that the procedures for securing insurance coverage were 

protracted, which may dissuade them from seeking insurance as seen in Table 4. An important number (66%) of 

participants voiced worries that insurance claims might not be fulfilled when necessary. This skepticism regarding 

the insurance system can discourage farmers from using insurance services. Participants' concerns regarding 

prolonged procedures (68%) and difficulties in accessing insurance representatives (56%) do align with broader 

trends. However, the reference by Kanchai et al. (2024) does not pertain to the hurdles in accessing insurance 

representatives. More than half of the participants (54%) were not aware of the insurance options available, 

emphasizing needing enhanced communication and education about agricultural insurance. Over half (56%) of the 

participants indicated difficulty in reaching insurance representatives. This can pose a logistical challenge for 

farmers who may need help or information about their policies. A notable proportion of participants (52%) 

encountered financial limitations due to their low income as poultry farmers, making it difficult to pay for insurance 

premiums. Lastly, the financial constraints reported by participants resonate with observations by Koprivica, et 

al (2024) who states that low financial capacity restricts rural populations' ability to afford insurance premiums.  

Only 48% of participants viewed the payment of premiums as a barrier to their use of insurance services. This 

indicates that while some participants experience issues related to premium payments, it is not the most important 

concern among them. 

 

Research hypothesis  

 

Demographic characteristics of respondents and utilization of insurance services 

 

The results detailed in Table 5 illustrate the connection between various socioeconomic characteristics and using 

insurance services among the respondents, as analyzed through the Chi-square test. The Chi-square value (X²-

value), degrees of freedom (Df), and asymptotic significance (p-value) for each variable assist in evaluating 

whether there exists a statistically major correlation between the characteristics and using insurance services.  

Sex: The result from the Chi-square test regarding sex reveals an extremely low X²-value of 0.001 alongside a p-

value of 0.979. This enhanced p-value, greatly exceeding the standard cutoff of 0.05, indicates that there is no 

meaningful association between sex and the adoption of insurance services. This outcome suggests that both men 

and women in the study sample exhibit similar chances of using insurance services. As insurance uptake is 

frequently associated with financial or risk-related aspects rather than solely gender, this finding indicates that 

gender-neutral policies and outreach strategies may be suitable for encouraging insurance enrollment among both 

male and female participants. While the present study found no significant association between sex and insurance 

usage, other research indicates that gender can play a role in agricultural insurance uptake. For instance, a study 

on crop insurance among smallholder maize farmers noted that insurance appeared to be more biased against 

women among subscribers (Bai et al. 2024). However, specific studies on poultry farmers found that sex was a 

significant factor influencing participation in agricultural insurance. 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               25 
 

Table 4: Limitations confronting utilizing insurance services 

Limitations Frequency Percentage 

Insufficient knowledge on the benefits of insurance 150 100 

Fears that claims may not be paid 99 66 

Lack of information about availability of agricultural insurance 81 54 

Difficulty in implementing insurance policy  150 100 

Low income of poultry farmers 78 52 

Delay of payment of indemnity  150 100 

Compensation does not cover losses 150 100 

Unable to have access to insurance personnel 84 56 

Procedures of taking up insurance cover is too long 102 68 

Payment of premium 72 48 

Note: The percentages indicate the proportion of poultry farmers who identified each limitation as a challenge in 

utilizing insurance services. Some limitations were reported by all respondents (100%), emphasizing their critical 

impact on insurance uptake. 

Age: The Chi-square value for age is recorded at 30.469, with 26 degrees of freedom, and an asymptotic 

significance level of 0.249. While the Chi-square statistic is relatively substantial, the associated p-value of 0.249 

surpasses the 0.05 significance threshold, signifying no statistically major link between age and insurance services. 

This indicates that age may not play a critical role in the decision to use insurance services among the study 

participants. Although age generally influences financial choices, including the adoption of insurance, due to 

correlations with income stability and risk acceptance, this analysis shows that insurance usage remains consistent 

across various age groups, implying that insurance needs and behaviors are more evenly distributed across different 

age segments in this instance. The present study found no significant link between age and insurance services. 

However, other research suggests that age can influence insurance adoption. For example, a study on poultry 

farmers indicated that age was a significant factor affecting participation in agricultural insurance (Udoh et al 

2024) Another study highlighted that age, along with education level and access to extension services, influenced 

the adoption of insurance as a climate risk management strategy (Baba et al 2024). 

Marital Status: The Chi-square result shows an X²-value of 2.942 and 3 degrees of freedom, with a p-value for 

marital status being 0.401. This value emphasizes the absence of a statistically major relationship between marital 

status and insurance service utilization. Regardless of whether respondents are single, married, divorced, or 

widowed, their likelihood of engaging with insurance services remains largely unchanged. This finding implies 

that marital status may not greatly influence insurance usage, despite the possibility that married individuals 

sometimes feel a heightened necessity for financial protection. The lack of a major correlation might suggest that 

family-related considerations do not primarily drive insurance decisions within this sample, and therefore, 

promoting insurance as a measure of family security may not considerably alter utilization patterns. The present 

study found no significant relationship between marital status and insurance usage. However, a study on crop 

insurance among smallholder farmers found that marital status was correlated with the decision to use crop 

insurance (Aina et al 2024). This suggests that marital status might influence insurance uptake in specific contexts. 

Education: The Chi-square value related to education stands at 1.996, accompanied by a p-value of 0.369, which 

indicates no major correlation between education level and insurance usage. It is commonly believed that 

educational attainment influences individuals' choices regarding the adoption of insurance services, with higher 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               26 
 

education levels potentially enhancing awareness of financial products and their advantages. Nevertheless, the 

absence of a statistically major correlation in this instance indicates that educational background might not heavily 

affect whether respondents opt to use insurance services. This could point to the possibility that information and 

access to insurance are affordably available to individuals across different educational levels, or that mere 

knowledge is not enough to encourage insurance adoption without supporting factors like affordability or 

accessibility. While the present study found no major correlation between education level and insurance usage, 

other research indicates that education significantly influences agricultural insurance adoption. For example, 

studies have shown that farmers with higher educational levels are more likely to understand and participate in 

agricultural insurance (Ugwuja et al 2024). Educated farmers are better equipped to appreciate the benefits of crop 

insurance. 

Farming Experience: The Chi-square analysis for farming experience yields X² = 10.896 with 13 degrees of 

freedom, and a p-value of 0.620, indicating no statistically major relationship between farming experience and 

using insurance services. This result suggests that respondents, regardless of their farming experience whether they 

are novices or seasoned farmers do not show major differences in their patterns of insurance usage. One might 

expect that more experienced farmers would seek out insurance for protection against risks they have faced over 

time, but this finding implies that, within this sample, experience does not lead to increased insurance uptake. This 

outcome may emphasize needing customized outreach that emphasizes the specific advantages of insurance for 

farmers across all experience levels. The present study found no significant relationship between farming 

experience and insurance usage. However, other studies suggest that farming experience can influence insurance 

adoption. For instance, a study in Benin found that farming experience was a determinant of participation in 

agricultural insurance schemes (Zoundji et al. 2024). 

Table 5: Chi-square test on socioeconomic characteristics and utilization of insurance services 

Variables X2 – value Df Asymp. Sig. (2 sided) 

Sex 0.001 1 0.979 

Age 30.469 26 0.249 

Marital status 2.942 3 0.401 

Education  1.996 2 0.369 

Farming experience 10.896 13 0.620 

Household size 9.811 12 0.633 

Note: The results indicate that none of the socioeconomic characteristics tested (sex, age, marital status, education, 

farming experience, and household size) have a statistically significant relationship with the utilization of insurance 

services, as all p-values (Asymp. Sig.) are greater than 0.05. 

 

Household Size: Concerning household size, the Chi-square test results in an X² = 9.811, with 12 degrees of 

freedom and a p-value of 0.633, indicating no substantial association with insurance service utilization. Household 

size typically influences financial decision-making, as larger families may seek additional protection for their 

dependents; however, the lack of a major correlation in this case suggests that respondents' decisions regarding 

insurance usage are not swayed by the number of individuals in their household. This might imply that insurance 

companies could focus on emphasizing individual-centered benefits in their outreach, since household size does 

not become a critical factor affecting the decision to use insurance services. The present study found no substantial 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               27 
 

association between household size and insurance service utilization. While household size typically influences 

financial decision-making, specific studies on agricultural insurance often emphasize other socioeconomic factors 

like income and employment status. However, household size positively influences insurance decisions through 

its impact on financial needs and risk management strategies (Obalola et al 2024). 

Influence of insurance services on income shocks 

 

The findings in Table 6 demonstrate the effect of different insurance services on income shocks experienced by 

poultry farmers. Regarding model performance, the R² value of 65.16% indicates that the model accounts for a 

notable portion of the variation in income shocks, with the independent variables explaining more than 65% of the 

differences. This indicates that the elements included in the model play a essential role in elucidating income 

shocks among poultry farmers. The F-ratio of 12.23 further reinforces the overall relevance of the model, showing 

that the combined effect of the independent variables on income shocks is statistically major and not a result of 

random fluctuations. The provision of subsidies (PPS) demonstrates a major negative association with income 

shocks, exhibiting a coefficient of -17.913 and a t-ratio of -2.68, indicating that subsidies effectively help to lessen 

income shocks among poultry farmers. Subsidies can provide financial assistance during crises, enabling farmers 

to manage unexpected losses or costs. They help minimize expenses for farmers, allowing them to allocate a greater 

proportion of their income toward savings or risk mitigation activities. When subsidies are in use, farmers may 

experience greater financial flexibility and a reduced need for credit during periods of income volatility. Therefore, 

PPS may bolster their resilience to income shocks by offering a financial cushion. This finding emphasizes the 

significance of government or organizational subsidies as essential mechanisms for alleviating the effects of 

economic uncertainty or unexpected events, particularly within the unstable agricultural sector. The statistically 

major negative impact indicates that poultry farmers receiving subsidies are better positioned to absorb income 

shocks, which may arise from factors such as market price changes, disease outbreaks, or natural disasters. A study 

on the impact of subsidy removal on smallholder livestock farmers in Nigeria highlights that the removal of 

subsidies led to increased costs and reduced productivity among these farmers (Mohammed 2024). This supports 

the notion that subsidies can mitigate income shocks by reducing operational costs. 

Conversely, the extension services (ES) variable, with a coefficient of 1.091 and a t-ratio of 0.14, indicates a 

positive relationship with income shocks, although this effect lacks statistical significance. Extension services can 

greatly educate farmers about optimum practices, strategies for managing risk, and effective resource utilization. 

The knowledge obtained from these services can lower the chances of losses and enhance productivity, indirectly 

bolstering farmers’ capacity to endure income shocks. Farmers who have access to and use these services may 

achieve more consistent production results and improved income stability. Although extension services aim to 

equip farmers with critical insights on best practices, crop management, and disease prevention, the absence of 

statistical significance implies that these services, while beneficial in enhancing long-term farm productivity, do 

not exert a strong immediate effect on alleviating income shocks. It is plausible that the influence of extension 

services is more prospective, concentrating on boosting farm productivity and sustainability rather than offering 

immediate financial support during crises.  

Veterinary services (VS), which show a coefficient of -10.456 and a t-ratio of -1.22, also indicate a negative 

correlation with income shocks, but this effect is not statistically major. Access to veterinary services has the 

potential to substantially diminish the risk of poultry loss due to disease, one of the most major threats in poultry 

farming. Regular veterinary attention encourages healthier stock, thereby reducing possible income loss. Thus, a 

high reliance on veterinary services enhances a farmer’s ability to withstand livestock-related income shocks. 

Nevertheless, the lack of statistical significance for this variable emphasizes that, while veterinary services may 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               28 
 

contribute to farm steadiness by promoting healthy livestock, they do not exert a decisive enough impact on 

alleviating financial shocks in the short term. This may result from variability in the quality and accessibility of 

veterinary services or the fact that the financial implications of veterinary care may not be major enough to offset 

more considerable income shocks caused by external factors like market instability or climate-related issues.  

Insurance coverage for equipment (ICOE) shows a major negative connection with income shocks, registering a 

coefficient of -17.183 and a t-ratio of -2.38. This finding emphasizes that insurance coverage for essential farming 

equipment, such as incubators, feed systems, and heating units, is essential for reducing income shocks. Breakdown 

of equipment can greatly disrupt poultry production; however, insurance coverage provides a safety net by 

reimbursing farmers for repair or replacement expenses. This enables poultry farmer to maintain operations 

without facing financial devastation. The statistical significance of this variable emphasizes the critical importance 

of insuring farming equipment, as it helps to mitigate the financial exposure of farmers to unforeseen equipment 

failures, thus enhancing their resilience against income shocks.  

The general risk coverage (GRC) variable, with a coefficient of -2.583 and a t-ratio of -0.41, demonstrates a 

negative relationship with income shocks, yet the effect is not statistically major. General risk coverage is designed 

to protect farmers from a variety of risks, including extreme weather, fluctuating market prices, and other 

unpredictable factors. When farmers possess comprehensive coverage, they are more insulated from risks that 

could potentially disrupt income, contributing to a stronger buffer against income shocks. Thus, the utilization of 

GRC plays a role in ensuring steady income, even amidst unpredictable farming challenges. However, the low 

statistical significance indicates that this form of broad risk coverage may not be effective enough to greatly lessen 

income shocks among poultry farmers. This may result from general risk coverage being too generalized or not 

specifically customized to address the key risks encountered by poultry farmers, such as disease outbreaks or 

sudden market fluctuations. Consequently, although general risk coverage may provide some protection, its 

effectiveness in mitigating income shocks seems limited.  

Likewise, the coinsurance service (CIS) variable, with a coefficient of 0.882 and a t-ratio of 0.13, indicates a 

positive relationship with income shocks, though the effect is again not statistically major. Coinsurance involves 

sharing the cost of insurance between the farmer and the insurer, making insurance more affordable while still 

offering substantial coverage for risks. Farmers using coinsurance services may be more capable of managing costs 

and accessing insurance, thereby increasing their protection against shocks without incurring the full cost of 

premiums. The shared financial burden aids in maintaining resilience without stretching resources too thin, but the 

low t-ratio suggests that the influence of coinsurance on income shocks is negligible. This outcome may imply that 

while coinsurance can lessen the financial burden on farmers to some degree, it fails to deliver adequate coverage 

to effectively mitigate the larger income shocks that poultry farmers frequently face. The slight positive coefficient 

indicates a minimal potential for coinsurance to aid income stability, but its limited effectiveness suggests that 

alternative financial protection strategies, such as indemnity payments or subsidies, are likely more impactful. 

Payment of indemnity (POI), with a coefficient of -20.289 and a t-ratio of -2.81, emerges as one of the most major 

predictors of reduced income shocks among poultry farmers. Indemnity payments, which reimburse farmers for 

losses incurred due to covered risks such as natural disasters or disease outbreaks, are essential in assisting farmers 

with recovering from income shocks. A high utilization of indemnity services directly contributes to the absorption 

of income shocks by providing funds exactly when income is at risk. The negative coefficient and high t-ratio 

signify that indemnity payments are very effective in diminishing income shocks. By compensating for lost income 

and covering unexpected costs, indemnity payments equip poultry farmers with the financial stability necessary to 

maintain operations during challenging times. This finding emphasizes the necessity of establishing effective 

indemnity mechanisms as a important approach for enhancing farmers' resilience to income shocks while 

promoting long-term agricultural sustainability. Studies indicate that despite the benefits, many small-scale farmers 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               29 
 

have low demand for agricultural insurance products due to barriers such as high premiums and lack of awareness. 

This suggests that while indemnity payments can mitigate income shocks, their effectiveness might be limited if 

farmers do not utilize insurance products (Attipoe, & Adams 2024). 

Encouraging institutional lenders (EIL), with a coefficient of -13.428 and a t-ratio of -2.36, also exhibits a 

substantial negative relationship with income shocks as seen in Table 6. Access to formal credit from financial 

institutions provides poultry farmers the opportunity to secure loans that they can use for investments, recovery, 

or smoothing income fluctuations. Institutional loans grant farmers essential liquidity during financial distress, 

enabling them to address cash flow issues, purchase inputs, or recover from unforeseen losses. The statistical 

relevance of this variable emphasizes needing assisting access to credit for farmers, especially in moments of 

financial instability. Promoting institutional lenders to offer affordable and accessible credit options is an essential 

policy intervention for alleviating income shocks and enhancing financial resilience within the agricultural sector. 

A study on poultry farmers in Nigeria found that only about 17% of respondents had accessed credit from formal 

lending institutions, highlighting significant barriers to accessing institutional credit. This suggests that despite the 

potential benefits, encouraging institutional lenders might not always lead to increased access for all farmers (Lawi, 

et al. 2024) 

 

Table 6: Influence of insurance services on income shocks 

Services Coef. Std. error t-ratio 

Payment of Subsidy (PPS) -17.913 6.677 -2.68** 

Extension Services (ES) 1.091 7.700 0.14 

Veterinary Services (VS) -10.456 8.540 -1.22 

Insurance Coverage of Equipment (ICOE) -17.183 7.234 -2.38** 

General Risk Coverage (GRC) -2.583 6.364 -0.41 

Coinsurance Service (CIS) 0.882 6.914 0.13 

Payment of indemnity (POI) -20.289 7.227 -2.81** 

Encouraging Institutional Lenders (EIL) -13.428 5.700 -2.36** 

Training of Farmers (TOF) -18.343 6.155 -2.98** 

Constant 3.930 44.260 0.09 

R2 65.16   

F-Ratio 12.23   

** = Significant at a 5% level of significance 

 

The training of farmers (TOF), with a coefficient of -18.343 and a t-ratio of -2.98, displays a highly major negative 

effect on income shocks. Training programs provide farmers with the knowledge and skills to more effectively 

manage their operations, enhance productivity, and adapt to changing conditions. By improving farm management 

practices, disease prevention, and risk management strategies, training can greatly minimize income volatility. The 

substantial statistical significance of this variable indicates that educational and capacity-building initiatives are 

notably effective in assisting farmers in dealing with income shocks. Training enhances farmers' ability to make 

well-knowledgeable decisions, improve operational efficiency, and navigate financial challenges, thus decreasing 

their exposure to income fluctuations. This outcome emphasizes the value of farmer education and training as a 

crucial strategy for promoting resilience and ensuring sustainable agricultural practices. Despite the benefits of 

training, some studies indicate that small-scale farmers often face barriers in adopting new technologies and 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               30 
 

practices. This suggests that while training can be effective, its impact might be limited if farmers do not fully 

integrate the knowledge into their operations (Sanusi & Dries 2024). 

 

Conclusion 

This research emphasizes the significance of insurance services in the poultry farming industry and proposes 

methods to improve their use and effectiveness in safeguarding farmers against income fluctuations. It concludes 

that financial assistance is accessible to help farmers reduce their insurance premium expenses. However, many 

farmers seem to be missing out on this financial aid, which may be attributed to a lack of knowledge or 

comprehension regarding the subsidy program. Farmers should obtain insurance coverage for their equipment, 

considering the high costs associated with agricultural machinery. If they are not making use of this service, it may 

signal the need for enhanced communication and outreach from insurance companies. Coinsurance represents a 

collaborative financial agreement between the insurer and the insured. If farmers are not taking advantage of 

coinsurance options, it could stem from a lack of full understanding about how it operates or the benefits it can 

provide. The receipt of indemnity payments typically refers to the compensation that farmers receive when they 

experience a covered loss. If farmers are not getting their indemnity payments as anticipated, it could result from 

administrative problems or delays. Optimizing the process is critical to ensuring that farmers receive their 

compensation without unnecessary delays. Encouraging institutional lenders to offer more loans to the agricultural 

sector is also essential for farmers to invest in their businesses and obtain the necessary resources. To enhance the 

adoption and impact of agricultural insurance, programs such as providing premium subsidies, broadening 

insurance coverage to encompass equipment, and motivating institutional lenders should be implemented. Training 

and outreach initiatives can help farmers grasp the advantages of coinsurance and how it can mitigate their financial 

risks. Cultivating relationships between farmers and lenders is essential, along with offering incentives or 

guarantees to attract financial institutions to agricultural lending. Establishing effective partnerships between 

poultry farmers and insurance agencies, including ongoing communication, workshops, and collaborations 

between farmers' groups and insurance companies, can help tailor insurance products to meet farmers' specific 

needs. Successful mobilization efforts should include awareness campaigns, training sessions, and outreach 

programs to educate farmers about the advantages of insurance coverage, the available subsidies, and how to access 

these services. Addressing issues such as enhancing knowledge sharing, optimizing processes, ensuring timely 

compensation, and tackling affordability concerns can significantly boost the impact and uptake of agricultural 

insurance. Simplifying and expediting the procedures for obtaining insurance coverage will help reduce the 

obstacles faced by farmers. Additionally, ensuring the prompt payment of indemnity and that compensation 

sufficiently addresses losses will help build farmers' confidence in insurance services. 

Declaration  

Acknowledgment: The authors sincerely appreciate the invaluable contributions of the anonymous reviewers 

whose insightful comments and constructive feedback helped enhance the quality, clarity, and rigor of this work, 

making it suitable for publication. We are grateful for their time and expertise in refining the manuscript. 

 

Funding: Funding for this study is from the authors’ own source(self-finance) 

 

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest associated with this research. 

 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               31 
 

Ethics approval/declaration: N/A 

 

Consent to participate: N/A. 

 

Consent for publication: N/A 

 

Data availability: Data available on request. Access would be based on a thorough scrutiny.  

 

Authors contribution: Theophilus Miebi Gbigbi conceptualized the research, designed the methodology, and 

contributed to data analysis and interpretation. Christiana Ojirhevwe, also played part in the conceptualization of 

the study. contributed to literature review, participated in the instrument design and conducted the data collection. 

Both authors reviewed, edited, and approved the final version of the manuscript 

 

References 

 

Adesola, R. O., Idris, I., & Bakre, A. A. (2025). Implementation of national poultry improvement plan in poultry 

disease control in Africa: current perspectives, challenges, and prospects. Bulletin of the National 

Research Centre, 49(1), 10. 

Aina, I., Ayinde, O., Thiam, D., & Miranda, M. (2024). Crop index insurance as a tool for climate resilience: 

lessons from smallholder farmers in Nigeria. Natural Hazards, 120(5), 4811-4828. 

Ajemunigbohun, S. S., & Abdul-Azeez, I. (2023). Agricultural Insurance and Sustainable Food Supply Systems: 

An Assessment for Nigerian Farmers. Journal of Agricultural Economics & Development (2008-4722), 

37(2). 

Ajemunigbohun, S. S., Isimoya, O. A., & Elegunde, A. F. (2020). Risk Attitude, Insurance Patronage and SMEs 

Performance: Empirical Evidence from Lagos, Nigeria. Annals of the University Dunarea de Jos of Galati: 

Fascicle: I, Economics & Applied Informatics, 26(2). 

Akbarovich, Y. A. (2020). The importance of using the agricultural insurance system in increasing the volume of 

agricultural production in pandemic conditions. SAARJ Journal on Banking & Insurance Research, 9(4), 

31-37. 

Alabi, O. O., Makarau, S. B., Aluwong, J., Bayei, J., Lyocks, J. S., Abdullahı, M. A. N., ... & Obinna-Nwandikom, 

C. O. (2023). Evaluation of maize farmers’ attitude towards risk management and preference for crop 

insurance in Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences, 7(1), 62-69. 

Alam, A. F., Begum, H., Masud, M. M., Al-Amin, A. Q., & Leal Filho, W. (2020). Agriculture insurance for 

disaster risk reduction: A case study of Malaysia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 47, 

101626. 

Aliyu, M. S., Dawa, U. S., & Muhammad, D. A. (2023). Analysis of the nigerian agricultural insurance 

corporation’s impact on students' attitudes toward self-reliance from conceptual point of view. Global 

Journal of Agricultural Research, 11(1), 1-9. 

Amalia, E. and Arifin, A. (2024). The influence of financial literacy, personal sales, and consumer trust on private 

health insurance product purchase decisions. International Journal of Application on Economics and 

Business, 2(1), 2842-2851.  

Aminu, F. O., & Hermanns, U. (2021). Profitability evaluation of poultry production in Lagos State, Nigeria. 

Discovery Agriculture, 7(17), 37-44. 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               32 
 

Aremu, A. A., & Amos, T. T. (2024). Assessment of uptake of poultry-based risk insurance policy by poultry 

farmers in Ondo State, Nigeria. Assessment, 2(3), 51-59. 

Ashoro, C. O., Gbigbi, T. M., & Ovharhe, O. J. (2024). Financial inclusion and impacts on agriculture in Delta 

State, Nigeria. GSC Advanced Research and Reviews,18(02), 087-096. 

Attipoe, S. G., & Adams, A. (2024). Influential factors shaping cocoa farmers' crop insurance participation and 

coverage amount in Ghana. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 10(1), 2417830. 

Baba, A. M., Abdullahi, S., & Garba, M. (2024). Factors influencing the adoption of agricultural insurance among 

crop farmers as climate change adaptation strategy in Borno State, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of 

Agriculture and Agricultural Technology,4(4a), 243–255. 

Bai, E. I., Okeke, A. M., & Ocholi, A. (2024). Effect of Agricultural Insurance Adoption on the Productivity of 

Smallholder Rice Farmers in North Central Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture and Earth 

Science, 10(1), 13–23.  

Bist, R. B., Bist, K., Poudel, S., Subedi, D., Yang, X., Paneru, B., ... & Chai, L. (2024). Sustainable poultry farming 

practices: A critical review of current strategies and future prospects. Poultry Science, 104295. 

Bourova, E., Ramsay, I., & Ali, P. (2024). Unaffordable, untrustworthy, or unnecessary? reasons for foregoing 

building, home contents, and comprehensive car insurance in disaster‐prone australia. Risk Management 

and Insurance Review, 27(3), 331-358.  

Cha, J., Deng, Y., Shao-feng, Z., & Li, F. (2024). Crop insurance, factor allocation, and farmers’ income: evidence 

from chinese pear farmers. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 8. 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1378382 

Charamba, G. (2024). Examining the efficacy of compensation blueprints for livestock, human, and crop losses 

in zimbabwe’s human-wildlife conflict hotspots. Asian Journal of Geographical Research, 7(4), 67-80.  

Gbigbi, T. M., & Isiorhovoja, R. A. (2022). Profitability and allocative efficiency of exotic chicken enterprises in 

Delta State, Nigeria. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 38(1), 128-136. 

Gbigbi, T. M., & Ndubuokwu, T. (2022). Determinants of agricultural insurance patronage among crop farmers in 

Delta north agricultural zone, Delta State, Nigeria. Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 59(2), 235-

248. 

Gbigbi, T.M (2021). Technical efficiency and profitability of cassava production in Delta State: A stochastic 

frontier production function analysis, Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 18 (1), 21-31. 

Gbigbi, T.M and Ikechukwuka I (2020). Analysis of the nexus in agricultural insurance welfare and climate change 

adaptation decision: Evidence from Nigeria. Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 

30(1):100-114. 

Goyal, B. and Gulati, R. (2024). Quality of financial reporting in the indian insurance industry: does corporate 

governance matter?. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 35(4), 84-109.  

Guan, S., Zhao, M., Han, F., & Tang, Z. (2024). The impact of herders’ risk attitudes on livestock insurance: 

evidence from the pastoral areas of tibetan plateau. Agriculture, 14(7), 1042.  

Gyamerah, S. and Owusu, V. (2024). Short- and long-term weather prediction based on a hybrid of ceemdan, 

lmd, and ann. Plos One, 19(7), e0304754.  

Hossain, M. S., Alam, G. M., Fahad, S., Sarker, T., Moniruzzaman, M., & Rabbany, M. G. (2022). Smallholder 

farmers’ willingness to pay for flood insurance as climate change adaptation strategy in northern 

Bangladesh. Journal of Cleaner Production, 338, 130584. 

Ifabiyi, J., Banjoko, I., Shuaib, O., Komolafe, S., & Oladejo, A. (2024). Status of climate smart poultry production 

practices in kwara state, nigeria. Svu-International Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 6(3), 14-23. 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               33 
 

Johari, M., Saili, A., Ahmad, M., & Azam, N. (2024). Factors influencing the paddy farmers' intention to purchase 

crop insurance: a study case in kedah. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social 

Sciences, 14(1).  

Kanchai, T., Srisodaphol, W., Pongsart, T., & Klongdee, W. (2024). Evaluation of weather yield index insurance 

exposed to deluge risk: the case of sugarcane in thailand. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 

17(3), 107.  

Khanal, S., Tiwari, U., & Khanal, S. (2024). Willingness to pay for cattle insurance in nepal: a double-hurdle 

model perspective. Global Journal of Agricultural and Allied Sciences, 5(1), 7-14.  

Kipkemoi, B. K., & Ceyhan, V. (2021). Eliciting attitude of farmers toward agricultural insurance and willingness 

to pay in Çarşamba district of Samsun, Turkey. International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 

10(4), 160-181. 

Koprivica, M., Kočović, J., & Cvijanović, D. (2024). A model for determining premium rates in indexbased crop 

insurance. Ekonomika Poljoprivrede, 71(2), 397-412.  

Kumar, G. (2024). Impact of pradhan mantri kisan samman nidhi yojana on agriculture and agricultural allied 

enterprises of beneficiary farmers in ranchi district of jharkhand. International Journal of Scientific 

Research in Engineering and Management, 08(008), 1-2.  

Lan, D., Truong, D., Lan, B., Hang, N., & Huan, L. (2024). Determinants of crop insurance participation of 

farming households in mekong river delta, vietnam in climate change context. Environmental Research 

Communications, 6(10), 105014.   

Lawi, M. B., Yakusak, E., Oshadumo, D. (2024). Assessment of poultry farmers’ willingness to pay for agricultural 

insurance in Osun State, Nigeria. Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development, 3(73), 312–326. 

Li, F., Gui, Y., Du, Y., & Wen, J. (2024). Research on the optimization of supply chain decisions for green 

agricultural products based on farmers' risk preferences and disaster year subsidies.. 

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5697585/v1 

Ma, B., Peng, C., & Yu, L. (2024). Beyond risk management: crop insurance premium subsidies reduce cropland 

abandonment in china. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 68(4), 891-911.  

Madaki, M. Y., Kaechele, H., & Bavorova, M. (2023). Agricultural insurance as a climate risk adaptation strategy 

in developing countries: a case of Nigeria. Climate Policy, 1-16. 

Mfulwane, P. H. (2023). An exploration of awareness and causes of financial distress of poultry farmers in the 

North West Province (Doctoral dissertation, North-West University (South Africa). 

Michael, A., Polycarp, M., Abakura, H. J., & Yidau, J. J. (2022). Analysis of poultry farmers’ information needs 

in Adamawa State, Nigeria. Agricultura Tropica et Subtropica, 55(1), 74-82. 

Mishra, B. and Singh, O. (2024). Determinants of livestock insurance adoption by dairy cattle farmers of nawalpur 

district, nepal. NPI J. Sci. Techn., 14-30.  

Mohammed, U (2024). Impact of Subsidy Removal on Smallholder Livestock Farmers’ Productivity in Nigeria. 

Journal of Livestock Policy, 3(2), 24 – 36 

Muhammad, L., & Inusa, A. (2024). The role of nigerian agricultural insurance corporation towards the 

development of rural finance in Nigeria. International Journal of Intellectual Discourse, 7(1), 212-223. 

Mukaila, R. (2024). Agricultural commercialisation among women smallholder farmers in Nigeria: Implication 

for food security. GeoJournal, 89(2), 42. 

Muraya, D., Chege, S., & Munyiri, S. (2024). Determinants of khat farmers & amp;apos; willingness to pay for 

agricultural insurance. International Journal of Agricultural Economics, 9(2), 89-96.  



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               34 
 

Mushi, G. E., Burgi, P. Y., & Serugendo, G. D. M. (2025). Designing a farmers digital information system for 

sustainable agriculture: The perspective of Tanzanian agricultural stakeholders. The Electronic Journal of 

Information Systems in Developing Countries, 91(1), e12344. 

Mushi, G., Burgi, P., & Serugendo, G. (2024). State of agricultural e-government services to farmers in tanzania: 

toward the participatory design of a farmers digital information system (fdis). Agriculture, 14(3), 475.  

Nepali, B. (2021). Farmers’ perception on status of livestock insurance in Surkhet district, Nepal. Journal of 

Agriculture and Natural Resources, 4(2), 111-123. 

Ngongolo, K., & Mrimi, D. (2024). Climate change and poultry production: Enhancing resilience and sustainability 

through climate-smart practices, a review. Berkala Penelitian Hayati, 30(3), 116-124. 

Nwachukwu, C. N., Samuel, P., & Agwu, N. M. (2021). Determinants of rate of accessibility to productive 

resources among poultry farmers in Obowo local government area, Imo State, Nigeria: A gender situation 

analyses. Nigeria Agricultural Journal, 52(3), 351-357. 

Nwobodo, C. E., Okoronkwo, D. J., Eze, R. I., Ozorngwu, A. M., Iwuchukwu, J. C., Azuka, V. C., & Udoye, C. 

E. (2023). Knowledge capabilities for sustainable poultry production in Sub-Sahara Africa: Lessons from 

Southeast Nigeria. Sustainability, 15(14), 11174. 

Obalola, O. T., Aboaba, K. O., Afolayan, S. O., Ojumu, O. A., & Abubakar, B. B. (2024). Evaluating the impact 

of Nigeria Agricultural Insurance Corporation Scheme on rice production in North-western Nigeria: An 

evidence-based approach. Journal of Research in Agriculture and Food Sciences, 1(2), 63-63. 

Oben, E., Ndi, H., & Tchuikoua, L. (2024). Livestock risks and indemnity insurance in the west region, cameroon. 

Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension Economics & Sociology, 42(3), 60-74.  

Offiah, E. O., Umebali, E. E., Isibor, C. A., Ugbajah, M. O., & Ezeaputa, P. C. (2024). Analysis of Profit and its 

Drivers in Broiler Production in Anambra State Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Innovation 

in Applied Science, 9(3), 247-260. 

Ogba, O., Ahaotu, E. O., Ihenacho, R. O., & Chukw, A. O. (2020). Challenges of small poultry farms in layer 

production in Ikwuano local government area of Abia State, Nigeria. Sustainability, Agri, Food and 

Environmental Research, 8(3), 194-204. 

Ogunleye, A., Kehinde, A., Ogundeji, A., & Orimogunje, R. (2024). Does microcredit have any impact on profit 

efficiency? Evidence from smallholder poultry farmers in Nigeria. Environment, Development and 

Sustainability, 1-27. 

Ojogbane, J. A. and Gbigbi, T.M (2022). Poultry farmers willingness to pay for agricultural insurance policy in 

Kogi State, Nigeria. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology, 7(6), 52-61. 

Ojogbane, J.A and Gbigbi, T.M(2022).Determination  of amount poultry farmers  are ready to pay for insurance: 

Evidence from Nigeria. International Journal of Rural Development, Environment and Health Research, 

6(6).18-24. 

Ologbon, O. A. C., Emenyeonu-Gasper, E., Idowu, A. O., Oyebanjo, O., & Dada, O. M. (2021). Risks sources and 

mitigation strategies in poultry (egg) production in the agrarian communities of Lagos State, Nigeria. 

International Journal of Management Research and Emerging Sciences, 11(3). 

Olutumise, A. I., Oladayo, T. O., Oparinde, L. O., Ajibefun, I. A., Amos, T. T., Hosu, Y. S., & Alimi, I. (2023). 

Determinants of health management practices’ utilization and its effect on poultry farmers’ income in 

Ondo State, Nigeria. Sustainability, 15(3), 2298. 

Omondi, S. O. (2022). Poultry value chain in two medium-sized cities in Kenya; insights from cluster theory. 

Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 9, 601299. 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               35 
 

Onyemekihian, F., Okwuokenye, G. F., & Jov, E. (2023). Assessment of the perceived income earned from poultry 

farming: implications for poverty alleviation among poultry farmers in federal capital territory, Abuja, 

Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology, 3(1), 150-159. 

Osorio, C., Leucci, F., & Porrini, D. (2024). Analyzing the relationship between agricultural ai adoption and 

government-subsidized insurance. Agriculture, 14(10), 1804.  

Peirong, W. (2024). Analysis on the welfare effect of policy agricultural insurance. Financial Engineering and 

Risk Management, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.23977/ferm.2024.070303 

Philippi, T. and Schiller, J. (2024). Abandoning disaster relief and stimulating insurance demand through 

premium subsidies. Journal of Risk & Insurance, 91(2), 339-382.  

Popoola, D. P., & Obi-Egbedi, O. (2020). Cooperative membership and multidimensional poverty among poultry 

farming households in southwest Nigeria, Evidence from Oyo State: An alkire-foster analysis and impact 

measurement approach. International Journal of Business Management and Economic Review, 3(02), 42-

60. 

Preethi, B. and Sasane, G. (2024). Development of scale to measure perceived impact of grape beneficiary farmers 

towards restructured weather based crop insurance scheme. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension 

Economics & Sociology, 42(5), 276-282.  

Qin, Z., FAN, Z., Andrianarimanana, M., & Yu, S. (2024). Impact of climate risk on farmers’ income:the 

moderating role of digital inclusive finance. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 33(3), 2799-2812.  

Raharjanti, A., Riaman, R., & Sukono, S. (2024). Calculation of rice farming insurance premium price in 

magelang city based on rainfall index with black-scholes method. International Journal of Business 

Economics and Social Development, 5(1), 94-103.  

Ruan, P., Yin, S., & Zhang, Y. (2024). The impact of agricultural insurance on consumer food safety: empirical 

evidence from provincial-level data in China. Frontiers in Nutrition, 11, 1392711. 

Rudramuni, P. (2024). Digitizing crop insurance: unveiling opportunities, obstacles, and charting the future of crop 

insurance. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 4(1), 464-471. 

Samota, S., Dangi, K., Yadav, S., & Yadav, R. (2024). Farmers perceptions towards agricultural insurance 

schemes in southern rajasthan: the case of national agricultural insurance scheme (nais) and weather base 

crop insurance scheme (wbcis). Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension Economics & Sociology, 42(6), 

210-214.  

Sani, Y., Abdurrahman, S., Idi, S., & Aminu, B. A. (2023). Perception of poultry farmers on the performance of 

extension service delivery in western zone of Bauchi State, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Agriculture and 

Agricultural Technology, 3(1), 74-84. 

Sanusi, M. M., & Dries, L. (2024). Weather-related shocks, livelihood assets and coping strategies of water-

insecure smallholder rice farmers: A case study from Ogun State, Nigeria. Environmental Development, 

51, 101040. 

Shah, S. (2024). Role of livestock insurance in mitigating financial impact of epidemic outbreaks on cattle farms 

in India. Journal of Livestock Policy, 3(2), 1-12.  

Shkembi, E., Trebicka, B., & Gjoni, L. (2024). Insurance for green produce:  ensuring agricultural sustainability. 

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research and Development, 11(3), 61.  

Su, M., Feng, S., & Liu, Z. (2024). Promoting the adoption of environmentally friendly agricultural practices: the 

role of crop insurance participation. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 69(1), 

100-120.  

Tsay, J. and Paulson, N. (2024). Quantifying basis risk associated with supplemental area-based crop insurance. 

Agricultural Finance Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/afr-10-2023-0145 



Global Sustainability Research  

 Global Scientific Research               36 
 

Udoh, E. D., Vihi, S. K., Makwin, F. M., Dalla, A. A., Selzing, P. M., & Mbah, J. J. (2024). Factors Influencing 

Poultry Farmers’ Participation in Agricultural Insurance in Calabar Municipal Area of Cross River State, 

Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 28(7), 1959-1966.  

Udoye, C. E., Okoro, J. C., & Dimelu, M. U. (2024). Employment Equity in the Poultry Value Chain of 

Commercial Agricultural Development Project in Enugu State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 

28(1), 110-124. 

Ugwuja, V. C., & Otu, P. E. (2024). Assessment of agricultural insurance literacy levels among agripreneurs in 

Obio-Akpor Local Government Area Rivers State, Nigeria. Nigerian Agricultural Policy Research Journal 

(NAPReJ), 11(2), 74-81. 

Vihi, S., Tanko, P., Selzing, P., Jesse, B., & Ahmad, I. (2024). Analysis of poultry farmers’ utilization of 

agricultural credit in jos south local government area of plateau state, nigeria. International Journal on 

Food Agriculture and Natural Resources, 5(2), 54-62.  

Waithaka, B. (2024). Policies and mechanisms for providing insurance and risk management tools to livestock 

farmers to protect them against production risks. Journal of Livestock Policy, 3(1), 31-41.  

Xie, S., Zhang, J., Li, X., Xia, X., & Chen, Z. (2024). The effect of agricultural insurance participation on rural 

households' economic resilience to natural disasters: evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 

434, 140123. 

Yeboah, I. (2022). An investigation of strategies to improve the competitiveness of the poultry industry in the 

Brong Ahafo region of Ghana (Doctoral dissertation). 

Yusuf, I. D., Kim, I., & Bashir, A. (2024). Rural livestock farmers’adaptation strategies to climate variability in 

Yamaltu-Deba Local Government Area, Gombe State, Nigeria: Gombe Journal of Geography and 

Environmental Studies, 1(1), 380-392. 

Zoundji, G. C., Magnon, Y. Z., & Adjaka, F. N. (2024). Agricultural insurance adoption in the context of climate 

change: Influencing factors in Benin (West Africa). Agricultural Science Digest, 44(5), 823-829.