Farmers' risk preferences in 11 European farming systems: A multi‐country replication of Bocquého et al. (2014)

Abstract

We replicate Bocquého et al. (2014), who used multiple price lists to investigate the risk preferences of 107 French farmers. We collected new data from 1430 participants in 11 European farming systems. In agreement with the original study, farmers' risk preferences are best described by Cumulative Prospect Theory.The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not, in any circumstances, be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

An experiment on the link between risk preferences and the willingness to become a farmer

“…Students are risk averse ( σ < 1), loss‐averse ( λ > 1), and overweight small probabilities ( γ < 1). The standard error is small for parameters σ and γ , but higher for λ , which is in line with Rommel et al (2023). Note that the greater standard error could be an indication of greater preference heterogeneity in loss aversion (Bocquého et al, 2023).…”

“…Risk preferences of agricultural students in Bogor, Indonesia are better described by CPT than EUT. There are small differences in parameters σ and λ between the structural estimates and the mid‐point approach, as also found by Bocquého et al (2014) or Rommel et al (2023). Using the mid‐point technique, students' risk aversion in this study is close to the average of most studies using the CPT framework, but participants are characterized as more risk‐seeking than the Chinese farmers in Liu (2013) and more risk‐averse than French farmers (Bocquého et al, 2014).…”

Replications in agricultural economics

“…The work by Rommel et al (2023) “European farmers' risk attitudes—A cross‐country replication of Bocquého et al (2014)” replicates an investigation of farmers' risk preferences. The authors confirm repeatability of the original analysis and its robustness by using two different subsets of the original data set.…”

Battling bots: Experiences and strategies to mitigate fraudulent responses in online surveys

“…For example, the beekeeper survey was shared on a private Facebook group page and that link was never inundated by fake responses. Rommel et al (2022) had a similar experience soliciting a convenience sample of farmers in multiple countries via an anonymous link marketed through farmer networks. In some countries this approach was successful, however, in Scotland, their links were flooded with bot responses.…”

“…Similarly, many researchers have taken advantage of conducting online surveys by purchasing responses through various marketing panels or platforms, for example, Qualtrics, Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk), or Google Surveys. However, online surveys more acutely face issues affecting data quality, such as inattention or carelessness of participants (Cheng et al, 2022; Gao et al, 2016; Malone & Lusk, 2018a), nonrepresentative samples (Penn et al, 2023; Sandstrom et al, 2023; Whitehead et al, 2023) and fraudulent responses (Belliveau & Yakovenko, 2022; Chmielewski & Kucker, 2020; Griffin et al, 2021; Kramer et al, 2014; Rommel et al, 2022; Storozuk et al, 2020; Teitcher et al, 2015).…”