We test and quantify the (in)stability of farmer risk preferences, accounting for both the instability across elicitation methods and instability over time. We use repeated measurements (N = 1530) with Swiss fruit and grapevine producers over 3 years, using different risk preference elicitation methods (domain‐specific self‐assessment and incentivised lotteries). We find that farmers' risk preferences change considerably when measured using different methods. For example, self‐reported risk preference and findings from a Holt and Laury lottery correlate only weakly (correlation coefficients range from 0.06 to 0.23). Moreover, we also find that risk preferences vary considerably over time, that is, applying the same elicitation method to the same farmer in a different point in time results in different risk preference estimates. Our results show self‐reported risk preferences are moderately correlated (correlation coefficients range from 0.42 to 0.55) from one year to another. Finally, we find experiencing crop damages due to climate extremes and pests is associated with farmers becoming more risk tolerant over time in specific domains.
Calls for supporting sustainability through more and better research rest on an incomplete understanding of scientific evidence use. We argue that a variety of barriers to a transformative impact of evidence arises from diverse actor motivations within different stages of evidence use. We abductively specify this variety in policy and practice arenas for three actor motivations (truth-seeking, sense-making, and utility-maximizing) and five stages (evidence production, uptake, influence on decisions, effects on sustainability outcomes, and feedback from outcome evaluations). Our interdisciplinary synthesis focuses on the sustainability challenge of reducing environmental and human health risks of agricultural pesticides. It identifies barriers resulting from (1) truth-seekers’ desire to reduce uncertainty that is complicated by evidence gaps, (2) sense-makers’ evidence needs that differ from the type of evidence available, and (3) utility-maximizers’ interests that guide strategic evidence use. We outline context-specific research–policy–practice measures to increase evidence use for sustainable transformation in pesticides and beyond.
Using fungus-resistant grapevine varieties can reduce pesticide use substantially, while maintaining production quantity and quality. Using survey data from 775 producers in Switzerland, we investigate the adoption of fungus-resistant varieties and especially analyze the relevance of marketing channels and short supply chains.We find that 20.1% of respondents use fungus-resistant varieties but the acreage is only 1.2%. Our results narrow down to a simple conclusion: the less distant the producer is from the final consumer, the more likely they use fungus-resistant varieties. For example, producers selling their wine mainly via direct marketing have a higher (8%-38%) uptake of fungus-resistant varieties.
This artefactual field experiment explores consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) price premiums for fish products to avoid the risk and uncertainty of purchasing inauthentic produce. The influence of subjective probabilistic beliefs, risk and ambiguity preferences is investigated. Participants’ WTP is elicited using experimental auctions, while behavioural factors are elicited using incentivised and incentive-compatible methods: the quadratic scoring rule and multiple price lists. Results show that consumers are willing to pay a premium to avoid food fraud and purchase an authentic fish product. This premium is higher under uncertainty than risk, likely driven by ambiguity preferences which affect consumers’ purchasing under uncertainty.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.