↓ Skip to main content

Evolutionary dynamics of collective index insurance

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Mathematical Biology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Evolutionary dynamics of collective index insurance
Published in
Journal of Mathematical Biology, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00285-015-0939-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jorge M. Pacheco, Francisco C. Santos, Simon A. Levin

Abstract

Index-based insurances offer promising opportunities for climate-risk investments in developing countries. Indeed, contracts conditional on, e.g., weather or livestock indexes can be cheaper to set up than conventional indemnity-based insurances, while offering a safety net to vulnerable households, allowing them to eventually escape poverty traps. Moreover, transaction costs by insurance companies may be additionally reduced if contracts, instead of arranged with single households, are endorsed by collectives of households that bear the responsibility of managing the division of the insurance coverage by its members whenever the index is surpassed, allowing for additional flexibility in what concerns risk-sharing and also allowing insurance companies to avoid the costs associated with moral hazard. Here we resort to a population dynamics framework to investigate under which conditions household collectives may find collective index insurances attractive, when compared with individual index insurances. We assume risk sharing among the participants of each collective, and model collective action in terms of an N-person threshold game. Compared to less affordable individual index insurances, we show how collective index insurances lead to a coordination problem in which the adoption of index insurances may become the optimal decision, spreading index insurance coverage to the entire population. We further investigate the role of risk-averse and risk-prone behaviors, as well as the role of partial correlation between insurance coverage and actual loss of crops, and in which way these affect the original coordination thresholds.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 13 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 6 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 10%
Engineering 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 15 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 March 2021.
All research outputs
#14,960,072
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Mathematical Biology
#313
of 663 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,347
of 283,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Mathematical Biology
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 663 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,722 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them