IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v54y2023i6p867-883.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk and ambiguity aversion: Incentives or disincentives for adoption of improved agricultural land management practices?

Author

Listed:
  • Amanuel Hadera
  • Tewodros Tadesse

Abstract

Farmers grapple with uncertainties related to the adoption of improved agricultural practices. Adoption decisions on these practices may vary in response to risk in which farmers may be able to predict the chances of occurrence on outcomes of their decisions, and/or ambiguity where adoption‐decision outcome probabilities are unknown. Also, these uncertainties may emanate from imperfect information on production returns from adoption and adoption‐related fixed costs. In this paper, we study whether risk and ambiguity aversion create incentives or disincentives for intensity and duration of adoption of improved agricultural practices. For this, we combine experimental with survey data. We find that ambiguity aversion reduces incentives for high‐intensity adoption while risk aversion attenuates this disincentive. As expected, risk aversion increases incentives for longer adoption of improved agricultural practices. Experience was expected to allow farmers to learn enough about payoff probabilities from adoption and render ambiguity aversion less important. Yet, we find it reduces the duration of adoption of soil and water conservation structures, which could be explained by adoption‐related high fixed costs. On the other hand, ambiguity aversion appears to matter little with adoption of agroforestry despite the associated high fixed and management costs attributed to integrated agri‐silviculture and agro‐silvopastoral systems. Given the complementary nature of the practices, agricultural policy should be directed at interventions that attenuate the deterrent effect of ambiguity aversion through providing information related to production returns from the adoption of improved practices that involve high fixed (management) costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Amanuel Hadera & Tewodros Tadesse, 2023. "Risk and ambiguity aversion: Incentives or disincentives for adoption of improved agricultural land management practices?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(6), pages 867-883, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:54:y:2023:i:6:p:867-883
    DOI: 10.1111/agec.12788
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12788
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/agec.12788?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dercon, Stefan & Christiaensen, Luc, 2011. "Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps: Evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 159-173, November.
    2. de Brauw, Alan & Eozenou, Patrick, 2014. "Measuring risk attitudes among Mozambican farmers," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 61-74.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. Jianjun Jin & Rui He & Haozhou Gong & Xia Xu & Chunyang He, 2017. "Farmers’ Risk Preferences in Rural China: Measurements and Determinants," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-11, June.
    5. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    6. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    7. Mahmud Yesuf & Randall A. Bluffstone, 2009. "Poverty, Risk Aversion, and Path Dependence in Low-Income Countries: Experimental Evidence from Ethiopia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1022-1037.
    8. Crentsil, Christian & Gschwandtner, Adelina & Wahhaj, Zaki, 2020. "The effects of risk and ambiguity aversion on technology adoption: Evidence from aquaculture in Ghana," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 46-68.
    9. Barham, Bradford L. & Chavas, Jean-Paul & Fitz, Dylan & Salas, Vanessa Ríos & Schechter, Laura, 2014. "The roles of risk and ambiguity in technology adoption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 204-218.
    10. Yazhen Gong & Kathy Baylis & Robert Kozak & Gary Bull, 2016. "Farmers’ risk preferences and pesticide use decisions: evidence from field experiments in China," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 411-421, July.
    11. Tesfamicheal Wossen & Thomas Berger & Salvatore Di Falco, 2015. "Social capital, risk preference and adoption of improved farm land management practices in Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 81-97, January.
    12. Patrick S. Ward & Vartika Singh, 2015. "Using Field Experiments to Elicit Risk and Ambiguity Preferences: Behavioural Factors and the Adoption of New Agricultural Technologies in Rural India," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(6), pages 707-724, June.
    13. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2005. "A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1849-1892, November.
    14. Salvatore Di Falco & Ferdinand M Vieider, 2022. "Environmental Adaptation of Risk Preferences," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(648), pages 2737-2766.
    15. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    16. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2021. "Shocks and Stability of Risk Preferences," CLTS Working Papers 5/21, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies.
    17. Awudu Abdulai & Wallace E. Huffman, 2005. "The Diffusion of New Agricultural Technologies: The Case of Crossbred-Cow Technology in Tanzania," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(3), pages 645-659.
    18. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2022. "Are risk preferences explaining gender differences in investment behavior?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    19. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yaebiyo, Gebremariam & Tadesse, Tewodros & Birhane, Emiru & Hadgu, Kiros Meles & Kiros, Solomon & Meresa, Tigabu Molla, 2024. "Integrated adoption of controlled grazing and multipurpose fodder trees for enhancing tree cover in dryland farming systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Experience of losses and aversion to uncertainty - experimental evidence from farmers in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    2. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    3. Mohan, Sarah, 2020. "Risk aversion and certification: Evidence from the Nepali tea fields," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    4. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    5. Crentsil, Christian & Gschwandtner, Adelina & Wahhaj, Zaki, 2020. "The effects of risk and ambiguity aversion on technology adoption: Evidence from aquaculture in Ghana," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 46-68.
    6. Schrieks, Teun & Botzen, W.J. Wouter & Haer, Toon & Aerts, Jeroen C.J.H., 2024. "Drought risk attitudes in pastoral and agro-pastoral communities in Kenya," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    7. Kaywana Raeburn & Sonia Laszlo & Jim Warnick, 2023. "Resolving ambiguity as a public good: experimental evidence from Guyana," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 79-107, July.
    8. Lingling Hou & Pengfei Liu & Jikun Huang & Xiangzheng Deng, 2020. "The influence of risk preferences, knowledge, land consolidation, and landscape diversification on pesticide use," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(5), pages 759-776, September.
    9. Stein T. Holden & John Quiggin, 2017. "Climate risk and state-contingent technology adoption: shocks, drought tolerance and preferences," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(2), pages 285-308.
    10. Stein T. Holden & Mesfin Tilahun, 2024. "Can Climate Shocks Make Vulnerable Subjects More Willing to Take Risks?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(4), pages 967-1007, April.
    11. Haile, Kaleab K. & Nillesen, Eleonora & Tirivayi, Nyasha, 2020. "Impact of formal climate risk transfer mechanisms on risk-aversion: Empirical evidence from rural Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    12. Visser, Martine & Jumare, Hafsah & Brick, Kerri, 2020. "Risk preferences and poverty traps in the uptake of credit and insurance amongst small-scale farmers in South Africa," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 826-836.
    13. Wu, Haixia & Ge, Yan & Li, Jianping, 2023. "Uncertainty, time preference and households’ adoption of rooftop photovoltaic technology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    14. Petraud, Jean & Boucher, Stephen & Carter, Michael, 2015. "Competing theories of risk preferences and the demand for crop insurance: Experimental evidence from Peru," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211383, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. de Brauw, Alan & Eozenou, Patrick, 2014. "Measuring risk attitudes among Mozambican farmers," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 61-74.
    16. Kanchan Joshi & Thiagu Ranganathan & Ram Ranjan, 2021. "Exploring Higher Order Risk Preferences of Farmers in a Water-Scarce Region: Evidence from a Field Experiment in West Bengal, India," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 19(2), pages 317-344, June.
    17. Pace, Noemi & Daidone, Silvio, 2024. "Impact of development interventions on individual risk preferences: Evidence from a field-lab experiment and survey data," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    18. Ahsanuzzaman, & Priyo, Asad Karim Khan & Nuzhat, Kanti Ananta, 2022. "Effects of communication, group selection, and social learning on risk and ambiguity attitudes: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    19. Daniel Gregg & John Rolfe, 2017. "Risk Behaviours and Grazing Land Management: A Framed Field Experiment and Linkages to Range Land Condition," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 682-709, September.
    20. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Workineh Asmare Kassie & Haileselassie Medhin & Lars Gårn Hansen, 2022. "Are religious farmers more risk taking? Empirical evidence from Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(4), pages 617-632, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:54:y:2023:i:6:p:867-883. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.