IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jageco/v72y2021i3p805-828.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Bayesian Are Farmers When Making Climate Adaptation Decisions? A Computer Laboratory Experiment for Parameterising Models of Expectation Formation

Author

Listed:
  • Marius Eisele
  • Christian Troost
  • Thomas Berger

Abstract

As the consequences of climate change for agricultural production slowly unfold at the local level (sometimes with contradicting signals), farmers’ information processing and decision making become more relevant for policy analysis and modelling. The major challenge is to reveal patterns in the way farmers form expectations about future production outcomes and to encode these findings into models of heterogeneous expectation formation. We developed and tested a payout‐motivated field experiment to observe farmer decision‐making under climate change and to examine how they form their expectations in a recursive‐dynamic context. Participants were exposed to ambiguity and acquired incremental evidence about the true distribution of possible climate outcomes through repeated random draws. Simulation models used in agricultural and environmental research usually implement simple forms of adaptive agent expectation or completely neglect this issue by assuming perfect foresight or constant expectations. Our computer laboratory experiments with blue‐ and white‐collar farmers from Southwest Germany (n = 97) suggest that expectation behaviour of a large share of farmers can be well replicated with Bayesian types of expectation models.

Suggested Citation

  • Marius Eisele & Christian Troost & Thomas Berger, 2021. "How Bayesian Are Farmers When Making Climate Adaptation Decisions? A Computer Laboratory Experiment for Parameterising Models of Expectation Formation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 805-828, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:72:y:2021:i:3:p:805-828
    DOI: 10.1111/1477-9552.12425
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12425
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1477-9552.12425?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. Happe, Kathrin & Balmann, Alfons & Kellermann, Konrad & Sahrbacher, Christoph, 2008. "Does structure matter? The impact of switching the agricultural policy regime on farm structures," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 431-444, August.
    2. Armantier, Olivier & Treich, Nicolas, 2013. "Eliciting beliefs: Proper scoring rules, incentives, stakes and hedging," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 17-40.
    3. Glenn W. Harrison, 2011. "Experimental methods and the welfare evaluation of policy lotteries," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(3), pages 335-360, August.
    4. Huber, Robert & Bakker, Martha & Balmann, Alfons & Berger, Thomas & Bithell, Mike & Brown, Calum & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Xiong, Hang & Le, Quang Bao & Mack, Gabriele & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Millingt, 2018. "Representation of decision-making in European agricultural agent-based models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 143-160.
    5. Poorvi Iyer & Martina Bozzola & Stefan Hirsch & Manuela Meraner & Robert Finger, 2020. "Measuring Farmer Risk Preferences in Europe: A Systematic Review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 3-26, February.
    6. Andrew Schotter & Isabel Trevino, 2014. "Belief Elicitation in the Laboratory," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 103-128, August.
    7. Douadia Bougherara & Xavier Gassmann & Laurent Piet & Arnaud Reynaud, 2017. "Corrigendum: Structural estimation of farmers’ risk and ambiguity preferences: a field experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 809-809.
    8. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Halladay, Brianna, 2016. "Experimental methods: Pay one or pay all," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 141-150.
    9. Appel, Franziska & Balmann, Alfons, 2019. "Human behaviour versus optimising agents and the resilience of farms – Insights from agent-based participatory experiments with FarmAgriPoliS," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 40, pages 1-1.
    10. John M. Antle & Susan M. Capalbo, 2010. "Adaptation of Agricultural and Food Systems to Climate Change: An Economic and Policy Perspective," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(3), pages 386-416.
    11. Jens Rommel & Daniel Hermann & Malte Müller & Oliver Mußhoff, 2019. "Contextual Framing and Monetary Incentives in Field Experiments on Risk Preferences: Evidence from German Farmers," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(2), pages 408-425, June.
    12. Pepijn Schreinemachers & Thomas Berger & Aer Sirijinda & Suwanna Praneetvatakul, 2009. "The Diffusion of Greenhouse Agriculture in Northern Thailand: Combining Econometrics and Agent‐Based Modeling," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(4), pages 513-536, December.
    13. Berger, Thomas, 2001. "Agent-based spatial models applied to agriculture: a simulation tool for technology diffusion, resource use changes and policy analysis," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 245-260, September.
    14. Hey, John D., 1994. "Expectations formation: Rational or adaptive or ...?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 329-349, December.
    15. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    16. David R. Just & Richard E. Just, 2016. "Empirical Identification of Behavioral Choice Models under Risk," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1181-1194.
    17. Tesfatsion, Leigh, 2006. "Agent-Based Computational Economics: A Constructive Approach to Economic Theory," Handbook of Computational Economics, in: Leigh Tesfatsion & Kenneth L. Judd (ed.), Handbook of Computational Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 16, pages 831-880, Elsevier.
    18. Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1982. "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 529-563, June.
    19. Daniel Read, 2005. "Monetary incentives, what are they good for?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 265-276.
    20. Reidsma, Pytrik & Janssen, Sander & Jansen, Jacques & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2018. "On the development and use of farm models for policy impact assessment in the European Union – A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 111-125.
    21. Douadia Bougherara & Xavier Gassmann & Laurent Piet & Arnaud Reynaud, 2017. "Structural estimation of farmers’ risk and ambiguity preferences: a field experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 782-808.
    22. Marc Nerlove, 1958. "Adaptive Expectations and Cobweb Phenomena," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 72(2), pages 227-240.
    23. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joël Weele, 2015. "A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 457-490, September.
    24. Thomas Berger & Christian Troost & Tesfamicheal Wossen & Evgeny Latynskiy & Kindie Tesfaye & Sika Gbegbelegbe, 2017. "Can smallholder farmers adapt to climate variability, and how effective are policy interventions? Agent-based simulation results for Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(6), pages 693-706, November.
    25. Leigh Tesfatsion & Kenneth L. Judd (ed.), 2006. "Handbook of Computational Economics," Handbook of Computational Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 2, number 2.
    26. Matthew R. Sisco & Valentina Bosetti & Elke U. Weber, 2017. "When do extreme weather events generate attention to climate change?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 227-241, July.
    27. Hardaker, J. Brian & Lien, Gudbrand, 2010. "Probabilities for decision analysis in agriculture and rural resource economics: The need for a paradigm change," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 345-350, July.
    28. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    29. Bert, Federico E. & Satorre, Emilio H. & Toranzo, Fernando Ruiz & Podesta, Guillermo P., 2006. "Climatic information and decision-making in maize crop production systems of the Argentinean Pampas," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 180-204, June.
    30. Lisa Zaval & Elizabeth A. Keenan & Eric J. Johnson & Elke U. Weber, 2014. "How warm days increase belief in global warming," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(2), pages 143-147, February.
    31. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    32. Reutemann, Tim & Engel, Stefanie & Pareja, Eliana, 2016. "How (not) to pay — Field experimental evidence on the design of REDD+ payments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 220-229.
    33. Charles A. Holt & Angela M. Smith, 2016. "Belief Elicitation with a Synchronized Lottery Choice Menu That Is Invariant to Risk Attitudes," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 110-139, February.
    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. Henning Schaak & Jens Rommel & Julian Sagebiel & Jesus Barreiro-Hurlé & Douadia Bougherara & Luigi Cembalo & Marija Cerjak & Tajana Čop & Mikołaj Czajkowski & María Espinosa-Goded & Julia Höhler & Car, 2024. "Who Can Predict Farmers' Choices in Risky Gambles?," Post-Print hal-04677299, HAL.
    2. Christoph Duden & Oliver Mußhoff & Frank Offermann, 2023. "Dealing with low‐probability shocks: The role of selected heuristics in farmers’ risk management decisions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 382-399, May.
    3. Amare, Dagninet & Darr, Dietrich, 2024. "Holistic analysis of factors influencing the adoption of agroforestry to foster forest sector based climate solutions," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    4. Petru Cardei & Nicolae Constantin & Vergil Muraru & Catalin Persu & Raluca Sfiru & Nicolae-Valentin Vladut & Nicoleta Ungureanu & Mihai Matache & Cornelia Muraru-Ionel & Oana-Diana Cristea & Evelin-An, 2023. "The Random Vibrations of the Active Body of the Cultivators," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, August.
    5. Hanna Freudenreich & Sindu W. Kebede, 2022. "Experience of shocks, household wealth and expectation formation: Evidence from smallholder farmers in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(5), pages 756-774, September.

    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. Robert Huber & Hang Xiong & Kevin Keller & Robert Finger, 2022. "Bridging behavioural factors and standard bio‐economic modelling in an agent‐based modelling framework," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 35-63, February.
    2. Jens Rommel & Julian Sagebiel & Marieke Cornelia Baaken & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & Douadia Bougherara & Luigi Cembalo & Marija Cerjak & Tajana Čop & Mikołaj Czajkowski & María Espinosa-Goded & Julia Höh, 2022. "Farmers' risk preferences in eleven European farming systems: A multi-country replication of Bocquého et al. (2014)," Working Papers 2022-24, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    3. Jens Rommel & Julian Sagebiel & Marieke Cornelia Baaken & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Douadia Bougherara & Luigi Cembalo & Marija Cerjak & Tajana Čop & Mikołaj Czajkowski & María Espinosa‐Goded & Julia Höh, 2023. "Farmers' risk preferences in 11 European farming systems: A multi‐country replication of Bocquého et al. ()," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1374-1399, September.
    4. Simone Cerroni, 2020. "Eliciting farmers’ subjective probabilities, risk, and uncertainty preferences using contextualized field experiments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(5), pages 707-724, September.
    5. Coronese, Matteo & Occelli, Martina & Lamperti, Francesco & Roventini, Andrea, 2023. "AgriLOVE: Agriculture, land-use and technical change in an evolutionary, agent-based model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    6. Christoph Duden & Oliver Mußhoff & Frank Offermann, 2023. "Dealing with low‐probability shocks: The role of selected heuristics in farmers’ risk management decisions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 382-399, May.
    7. Huber, Robert & Bakker, Martha & Balmann, Alfons & Berger, Thomas & Bithell, Mike & Brown, Calum & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Xiong, Hang & Le, Quang Bao & Mack, Gabriele & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Millingt, 2018. "Representation of decision-making in European agricultural agent-based models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 143-160.
    8. Noeldeke, Beatrice & Winter, Etti & Ntawuhiganayo, Elisée Bahati, 2022. "Representing human decision-making in agent-based simulation models: Agroforestry adoption in rural Rwanda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    9. Bougherara, Douadia & Lapierre, Margaux & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2021. "Do farmers prefer increasing, decreasing, or stable payments in Agri-environmental schemes?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    10. Dominik Bauer & Irenaeus Wolff, 2018. "Biases in Beliefs: Experimental Evidence," TWI Research Paper Series 109, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    11. Rafkin, Charlie & Shreekumar, Advik & Vautrey, Pierre-Luc, 2021. "When guidance changes: Government stances and public beliefs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    12. Folli, Dominik & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2022. "Biases in belief reports," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    13. Rianne Duinen & Tatiana Filatova & Wander Jager & Anne Veen, 2016. "Going beyond perfect rationality: drought risk, economic choices and the influence of social networks," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 57(2), pages 335-369, November.
    14. Bauer, Dominik & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2019. "Biases in Beliefs," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203601, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    15. Jaap Sok & Egil A J Fischer, 2020. "Farmers' heterogeneous motives, voluntary vaccination and disease spread: an agent-based model," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(3), pages 1201-1222.
    16. Burdea, Valeria & Woon, Jonathan, 2022. "Online belief elicitation methods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    17. Eyting, Markus & Schmidt, Patrick, 2021. "Belief elicitation with multiple point predictions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    18. Henning Schaak & Jens Rommel & Julian Sagebiel & Jesus Barreiro-Hurlé & Douadia Bougherara & Luigi Cembalo & Marija Cerjak & Tajana Čop & Mikołaj Czajkowski & María Espinosa-Goded & Julia Höhler & Car, 2024. "Who Can Predict Farmers' Choices in Risky Gambles?," Post-Print hal-04677299, HAL.
    19. Gamba, Astrid & Regner, Tobias, 2019. "Preferences-dependent learning in the centipede game: The persistence of mistrust," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    20. Hommes, Cars & Lux, Thomas, 2013. "Individual Expectations And Aggregate Behavior In Learning-To-Forecast Experiments," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 373-401, March.

    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:jageco:v:72:y:2021:i:3:p:805-828. 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: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-857X .

    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.