Who Can Predict Farmers’ Choices in Risky Gambles?

Q open Pub Date : 2024-08-09 DOI:10.1093/qopen/qoae021
Henning Schaak, Jens Rommel, Julian Sagebiel, Jesus Barreiro-Hurlé, D. Bougherara, Luigi Cembalo, Marija Cerjak, Tajana Čop, Mikołaj Czajkowski, María Espinosa‐Goded, J. Höhler, C. Lagerkvist, Macario Rodriguez‐Entrena, A. Tensi, Sophie Thoyer, Marina Tomić Maksan, Riccardo Vecchio, K. Zagórska
{"title":"Who Can Predict Farmers’ Choices in Risky Gambles?","authors":"Henning Schaak, Jens Rommel, Julian Sagebiel, Jesus Barreiro-Hurlé, D. Bougherara, Luigi Cembalo, Marija Cerjak, Tajana Čop, Mikołaj Czajkowski, María Espinosa‐Goded, J. Höhler, C. Lagerkvist, Macario Rodriguez‐Entrena, A. Tensi, Sophie Thoyer, Marina Tomić Maksan, Riccardo Vecchio, K. Zagórska","doi":"10.1093/qopen/qoae021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Risk is a pervasive factor in agriculture and a subject of great interest to agricultural economists. However, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding of the knowledge held by farm advisors, students, and economists with regards to farmers' risk preferences. Misconceptions about farmers’ willingness to take risks could lead to misguided advice. This study builds upon a recent multinational endeavor that employed a multiple price list to assess risk preferences among European farmers. We expand this research by gathering predictions for farmers’ risk preferences from 561 farm advisors, students, and economists. Our objectives are threefold: firstly, we explore variations as to how accurately participants can predict risk preferences in different specializations; secondly, we compare the predictive accuracy of different groups of forecasters; and thirdly, we assess whether modifying incentive mechanisms can improve the accuracy of predictions. Whereas our findings reveal substantial variation in individual predictions, the averages closely align with the observed responses of farmers. Notably, the most accurate predictions were provided by a sample of experimental economics researchers. Furthermore, predictions for different production systems exhibit minimal disparities. Introducing incentive schemes, such as a tournament structure, where the best prediction receives a reward, or a high-accuracy system, where randomly selected participants are compensated for the accuracy of their predictions, does not significantly impact accuracy. Further research and exploration are needed to identify the most reliable sources of advice for farmers.\n JEL-Codes: Q12, Q16, C91","PeriodicalId":87350,"journal":{"name":"Q open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Q open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoae021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Risk is a pervasive factor in agriculture and a subject of great interest to agricultural economists. However, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding of the knowledge held by farm advisors, students, and economists with regards to farmers' risk preferences. Misconceptions about farmers’ willingness to take risks could lead to misguided advice. This study builds upon a recent multinational endeavor that employed a multiple price list to assess risk preferences among European farmers. We expand this research by gathering predictions for farmers’ risk preferences from 561 farm advisors, students, and economists. Our objectives are threefold: firstly, we explore variations as to how accurately participants can predict risk preferences in different specializations; secondly, we compare the predictive accuracy of different groups of forecasters; and thirdly, we assess whether modifying incentive mechanisms can improve the accuracy of predictions. Whereas our findings reveal substantial variation in individual predictions, the averages closely align with the observed responses of farmers. Notably, the most accurate predictions were provided by a sample of experimental economics researchers. Furthermore, predictions for different production systems exhibit minimal disparities. Introducing incentive schemes, such as a tournament structure, where the best prediction receives a reward, or a high-accuracy system, where randomly selected participants are compensated for the accuracy of their predictions, does not significantly impact accuracy. Further research and exploration are needed to identify the most reliable sources of advice for farmers. JEL-Codes: Q12, Q16, C91
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谁能预测农民在高风险赌博中的选择?
风险是农业中的一个普遍因素,也是农业经济学家非常感兴趣的一个课题。然而,农业顾问、学生和经济学家对农民的风险偏好缺乏全面了解。对农民承担风险意愿的误解可能会导致错误的建议。本研究以近期一项跨国研究为基础,该研究采用了多重价格表来评估欧洲农民的风险偏好。我们收集了 561 名农场顾问、学生和经济学家对农民风险偏好的预测,从而扩展了这项研究。我们的目标有三个方面:首先,我们探讨了参与者对不同专业的风险偏好预测准确度的差异;其次,我们比较了不同预测者群体的预测准确度;第三,我们评估了修改激励机制是否能提高预测的准确度。虽然我们的研究结果显示个体预测的差异很大,但平均值与观察到的农民反应非常吻合。值得注意的是,最准确的预测是由实验经济学研究人员提供的。此外,对不同生产系统的预测差异也很小。引入激励方案,如锦标赛结构(最佳预测者可获得奖励)或高准确度系统(随机抽取的参与者可根据其预测的准确性获得补偿),并不会对准确性产生显著影响。要确定农民最可靠的建议来源,还需要进一步的研究和探索。JEL-Codes:Q12, Q16, C91
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Who Can Predict Farmers’ Choices in Risky Gambles? Socioeconomic impacts of land restoration in agriculture: a systematic review Unpacking Stakeholder Perceptions on Challenges for Increasing Adoption of Solar- Powered Irrigation Systems in India: A Q Methodology Study Are lessons being learnt from the replication crisis or will the revolution devour its children? Open Q science from the editor's perspective Effects of institutional distrust on value estimates of stated preference surveys in developing countries: a choice experiment on conserving biodiversity within agricultural landscapes in a biodiversity hotspot
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1