IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v125y2021ics1389934121000277.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk preferences significantly affect household investment in timber forestry: Empirical evidence from Fujian, China

Author

Listed:
  • Duan, Wei
  • Shen, Jinyu
  • Hogarth, Nicholas J.
  • Chen, Qian

Abstract

Implementing another round of massive collective forest tenure reform in China since in 2008 has not materialized the government's expectation on small-scale timber forestry–improved management practices and resource quality. One underlying cause to this outcome is farmer's risk-averse attitude, which has thus far garnered little research attention. In this study, we combine the prospect theory and a lottery experiment to measure individual risk preferences on timber forestry investment. Based on a sample of 303 households conducted in 2018 in Fujian, China, we find that the ‘household risk preference’ parameter has a significant negative impact on both the decision to invest in timber forestry and the intensity of investment. Further, the ‘loss aversion’ and ‘probability weighting’ parameters affect household investment intensity negatively. These results indicate that the more risk averse rural households are, the less willing they are to invest in timber forestry, and the lower their investment intensities are. Also, the effect of the risk preferences on cash outlay is larger than on labor cost. These insights have direct implications for better designing tenure reform and other policies to promote smallholder forestry in China and beyond.

Suggested Citation

  • Duan, Wei & Shen, Jinyu & Hogarth, Nicholas J. & Chen, Qian, 2021. "Risk preferences significantly affect household investment in timber forestry: Empirical evidence from Fujian, China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:125:y:2021:i:c:s1389934121000277
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102421
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934121000277
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102421?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carol Newman & Maeve Henchion & Alan Matthews, 2003. "A double-hurdle model of Irish household expenditure on prepared meals," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(9), pages 1053-1061.
    2. Young, Douglas L., 1979. "Risk Preferences Of Agricultural Producers: Their Use In Extension And Research," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 278203, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    4. Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1983. "Stochastic Structure, Farm Size and Technology Adoption in Developing Agriculture," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 307-328, July.
    5. Wouterse, Fleur & Taylor, J. Edward, 2008. "Migration and Income Diversification:: Evidence from Burkina Faso," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 625-640, April.
    6. Xie, Fangting & Zhu, Shubin & Cao, Mengtian & Kang, Xiaolan & Du, Juan, 2019. "Does rural labor outward migration reduce household forest investment? The experience of Jiangxi, China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 62-69.
    7. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    8. Ernst Fehr & Lorenz Goette, 2007. "Do Workers Work More if Wages Are High? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 298-317, March.
    9. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-844, September.
    10. Yin, Runsheng, 2016. "Empirical linkages between devolved tenure systems and forest conditions: An introduction to the literature review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 271-276.
    11. Yin, Runsheng & Zulu, Leo & Qi, Jiaguo & Freudenberger, Mark & Sommerville, Matthew, 2016. "Empirical linkages between devolved tenure systems and forest conditions: Primary evidence," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 277-285.
    12. 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.
    13. Xie, Yi & Gong, Peichen & Han, Xiao & Wen, Yali, 2014. "The effect of collective forestland tenure reform in China: Does land parcelization reduce forest management intensity?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 126-140.
    14. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    15. Krul, Kees & Ho, Peter & Yang, Xiuyun, 2020. "Incentivizing household forest management in China's forest reform: Limitations to rights-based approaches in Southwest China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    16. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer & Quang Nguyen, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 557-571, March.
    17. Zhu, Zhen & Xu, Zhigang & Shen, Yueqin & Huang, Chenming & Zhang, Yaoqi, 2019. "How off-farm work drives the intensity of rural households' investment in forest management: The case from Zhejiang, China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 30-43.
    18. Karen A. Sullivan & Emi Uchida & Thomas W. Sproul & Jintao Xu, 2018. "Prospect Theory and Tenure Reform: Impacts on Forest Management," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(3), pages 405-424.
    19. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    20. Blundell, Richard & Meghir, Costas, 1987. "Bivariate alternatives to the Tobit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 179-200.
    21. Ping Qin & Jintao Xu, 2013. "Forest land rights, tenure types, and farmers' investment incentives in China," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 5(1), pages 154-170, January.
    22. Shi, Miaoying & Yin, Runsheng & Zulu, Leo & Qi, Jiaguo & Freudenberger, Mark & Sommerville, Matthew, 2016. "Empirical linkages between devolved tenure systems and forest conditions: Selected case studies and country experiences," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 286-293.
    23. Yin, Runsheng & Zulu, Leo & Qi, Jiaguo & Freudenberger, Mark & Sommerville, Matthew, 2016. "Empirical linkages between devolved tenure systems and forest conditions: Challenges, findings, and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 294-299.
    24. Ho, Peter, 2018. "Institutional function versus form: The evolutionary credibility of land, housing and natural resources," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 642-650.
    25. Quang Nguyen & Colin Camerer & Tomomi Tanaka, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences Linking Experimental and Household Data from Vietnam," Post-Print halshs-00547090, HAL.
    26. Xie, Yi & Wen, Yali & Zhang, Yaoqi & Li, Xiaoyong, 2013. "Impact of property rights reform on household forest management investment: An empirical study of southern China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 73-78.
    27. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    28. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    29. Douglas L. Young, 1979. "Risk Preferences of Agricultural Producers: Their Use in Extension and Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 1063-1070.
    30. Huang, Senwei & Zhang, Yaoqi & Zheng, Yifang & Su, Shipeng & Zheng, Jing, 2019. "Inequality and small landholdings: Path dependence, land use and wellbeing," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 62-66.
    31. Ke, Shuifa & Qiao, Dan & Yuan, Wantong & He, Youjun, 2020. "Broadening the scope of forest transition inquiry: What does China's experience suggest?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    32. Christopher S. Galik & Pamela Jagger, 2015. "Bundles, Duties, and Rights: A Revised Framework for Analysis of Natural Resource Property Rights Regimes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(1), pages 76-90.
    33. Lien, G. & Stordal, S. & Hardaker, J.B. & Asheim, L.J., 2007. "Risk aversion and optimal forest replanting: A stochastic efficiency study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1584-1592, September.
    34. John Knight & Sharada Weir & Tassew Woldehanna, 2003. "The role of education in facilitating risk-taking and innovation in agriculture," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(6), pages 1-22.
    35. Zhang, Daowei & Aboagye Owiredu, Eric, 2007. "Land tenure, market, and the establishment of forest plantations in Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(6), pages 602-610, February.
    36. Li, Lanying & Lu, Gang & Shen, Yueqin, 2021. "The evolution and impact of timber markets in China's southern collective forest region," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    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. Hong, Yan-Zhen & Su, Yi-Ju & Chang, Hung-Hao, 2023. "Analyzing the relationship between income and life satisfaction of Forest farm households - a behavioral economics approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    2. Yan Liu & Quaner Wen & Abbas Ali Chandio & Long Chen & Lu Gan, 2022. "Investment Risk Analysis for Green and Sustainable Planning of Rural Family: A Case Study of Tibetan Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-19, September.
    3. Ruishi Si & Xueqian Zhang & Yumeng Yao & Qian Lu, 2022. "Risk Preference, Health Risk Perception, and Environmental Exposure Nexus: Evidence from Rural Women as Pig Breeders, China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 151-178, July.
    4. Yuge Wang & Apurbo Sarkar & Min Li & Zehui Chen & Ahmed Khairul Hasan & Quanxing Meng & Md. Shakhawat Hossain & Md. Ashfikur Rahman, 2022. "Evaluating the Impact of Forest Tenure Reform on Farmers’ Investment in Public Welfare Forest Areas: A Case Study of Gansu Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, May.
    5. Gebremedhin, Bereket & Tadesse, Tewodros & Hadera, Amanuel & Tesfay, Girmay & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2023. "Risk preferences, adoption and welfare impacts of multiple agroforestry practices," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    6. Min Li & Apurbo Sarkar & Yuge Wang & Ahmed Khairul Hasan & Quanxing Meng, 2022. "Evaluating the Impact of Ecological Property Rights to Trigger Farmers’ Investment Behavior—An Example of Confluence Area of Heihe Reservoir, Shaanxi, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-23, February.
    7. Mao, Hui & Quan, Yurong & Fu, Yong & Chen, Shaojian, 2022. "Risk preferences, productive investment and straw return technology adoption by farmers in China," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322087, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Liu, Elaine M. & Huang, JiKun, 2013. "Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 202-215.
    2. Bartczak, Anna & Chilton, Susan & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Gain and loss of money in a choice experiment. The impact of financial loss aversion and risk preferences on willingness to pay to avoid renewable energy externalities," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 326-334.
    3. Sheremenko, Ganna & Magnan, Nicholas, 2015. "Gender-specific Risk Preferences and Fertilizer Use in Kenyan Farming Households," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205766, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Krul, Kees & Ho, Peter & Yang, Xiuyun, 2020. "Incentivizing household forest management in China's forest reform: Limitations to rights-based approaches in Southwest China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    5. Holden, Stein T., 2015. "Risk Preferences, Shocks and Technology Adoption: Farmers’ Responses to Drought Risk," CLTS Working Papers 3/15, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 11 Oct 2019.
    6. Holden , Stein T. & Quiggin, John, 2015. "Climate risk and state-contingent technology adoption: The role of risk preferences and probability weighting," Working Paper Series 15-2015, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, School of Economics and Business.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Bartczak, Anna & Chilton, Susan & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "Wildfires in Poland: The impact of risk preferences and loss aversion on environmental choices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 300-309.
    10. 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.
    11. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Experience of losses and aversion to uncertainty - experimental evidence from farmers in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    12. 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).
    13. Yiwen, Zhang & Kant, Shashi & Dong, Jiayun & Liu, Jinlong, 2020. "How communities restructured forest tenure throughout the top-down devolution reform: Using the case of Fujian, China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    14. Ward, Patrick S. & Singh, Vartika, 2013. "Risk and Ambiguity Preferences and the Adoption of New Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from Field Experiments in Rural India," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150794, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Kibet, N. & Obare, G.A. & Lagat, J.K, 2018. "Risk attitude effects on Global-GAP certification decisions by smallholder French bean farmers in Kenya," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-29.
    16. Golo-Friedrich Bauermeister & Daniel Hermann & Oliver Musshoff, 2018. "Consistency of determined risk attitudes and probability weightings across different elicitation methods," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 627-644, June.
    17. Thomas Sproul & Clayton P. Michaud, 2017. "Heterogeneity in loss aversion: evidence from field elicitations," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 77(1), pages 196-216, May.
    18. Campos-Vazquez, Raymundo M. & Cuilty, Emilio, 2014. "The role of emotions on risk aversion: A Prospect Theory experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-9.
    19. 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.
    20. Naranjo, Maria A. & Alpízar, Francisco & Martinsson, Peter, 2019. "Alternatives for Risk Elicitation in the Field: Evidence from Coffee Farmers in Costa Rica," EfD Discussion Paper 19-21, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.

    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:eee:forpol:v:125:y:2021:i:c:s1389934121000277. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.