IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i10p1871-d1247032.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Li Zhao

    (College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Maritime University, Pudong District, Shanghai 201306, China)

  • Shumin Liu

    (College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Maritime University, Pudong District, Shanghai 201306, China)

  • Haiying Gu

    (Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Xuhui District, Shanghai 200030, China)

  • David Ahlstrom

    (Department of Management, CUHK Business School, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong
    Lee Shau Kee School of Business and Administration, Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Kowloon, Hong Kong)

Abstract

Consumer preferences and attitudes toward genetically modified (GM) food have been widely studied, yet there is little research on the aspects of farmers and risk amplification. Based on both a field survey and an experiment conducted in villages in China’s eastern provinces of Shandong, Shanxi and Henan in 2021, we explore the impact of producers’ risk amplification and risk preferences on the acceptance of transgenic technology. Results show that only 37.3% of participants from the whole sample did not amplify the risk associated with GM products. In terms of regions, the percentages of participants in Henan, Shanxi and Shandong who amplified the risk associated with GM products were 65.3%, 62.4% and 60%, respectively. Moreover, the results of the economic experiment on risk preference indicate that over two-thirds of farmers proved to be risk-averse. Finally, full sample estimation results using ordered logit and Poisson models showed that risk amplification, relative risk aversion and risk perception all have negative impacts on producers’ response to GM plant seeds, including participants’ acceptance intention, purchasing intention and recommendation intention.

Suggested Citation

  • Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:10:p:1871-:d:1247032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/10/1871/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/10/1871/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Jayson L. Lusk & Keith H. Coble, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 393-405.
    3. Dean Karlan & Robert Osei & Isaac Osei-Akoto & Christopher Udry, 2014. "Agricultural Decisions after Relaxing Credit and Risk Constraints," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(2), pages 597-652.
    4. Brick, Kerri & Visser, Martine, 2015. "Risk preferences, technology adoption and insurance uptake: A framed experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 383-396.
    5. Matin Qaim & Alain de Janvry, 2003. "Genetically Modified Crops, Corporate Pricing Strategies, and Farmers' Adoption: The Case of Bt Cotton in Argentina," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 814-828.
    6. W. Bruce Traill, 2004. "Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(2), pages 179-204, June.
    7. Paulina Kubisz & Graham Dalton & Edward Majewski & Kinga Pogodzińska, 2021. "Facts and Myths about GM Food—The Case of Poland," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    12. Quang Nguyen & Colin Camerer & Tomomi Tanaka, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences Linking Experimental and Household Data from Vietnam," Post-Print halshs-00547090, HAL.
    13. Sulewski, Piotr & Kłoczko-Gajewska, Anna, 2014. "Farmers’ risk perception, risk aversion and strategies to cope with production risk: an empirical study from Poland," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 116(3), pages 1-8, December.
    14. Bola Amoke Awotide & Aziz A. Karimov & Aliou Diagne, 2016. "Agricultural technology adoption, commercialization and smallholder rice farmers’ welfare in rural Nigeria," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, December.
    15. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten Igel Lau & Elisabet E. Rutström & Melonie B. Sullivan, 2005. "Eliciting Risk And Time Preferences Using Field Experiments: Some Methodological Issues," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Field Experiments in Economics, pages 125-218, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    16. Zhao, Li & Gu, Haiying & Yue, Chengyan & Ahlstrom, David, 2013. "Consumer welfare and GM food labeling: A simulation using an adjusted Kumaraswamy distribution," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 58-70.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Visser, Martine & le Roux, Leonard & Mulwa, Chalmers K. & Tibesigwa, Byela & Bezabih, Mintewab, 2024. "Adaptive investment with land tenure and weather risk: Behavioral evidence from Tanzania," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 398-434.
    3. Mao, Hui & Zhou, Li & Ifft, Jennifer, 2017. "Risk Preferences, Contracts and Technology Adoption by Broiler Farmers in China," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 257248, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Verschoor, Arjan & D’Exelle, Ben & Perez-Viana, Borja, 2016. "Lab and life: Does risky choice behaviour observed in experiments reflect that in the real world?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 134-148.
    7. Wu, Haixia & Li, Jianping & Ge, Yan, 2022. "Ambiguity preference, social learning and adoption of soil testing and formula fertilization technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    8. Schleich, Joachim & Gassmann, Xavier & Faure, Corinne & Meissner, Thomas, 2016. "Making the implicit explicit: A look inside the implicit discount rate," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 321-331.
    9. Tristan Le Cotty & Elodie Maître d’Hôtel & Raphael Soubeyran & Julie Subervie, 2018. "Linking Risk Aversion, Time Preference and Fertiliser Use in Burkina Faso," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(11), pages 1991-2006, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Wu, Haixia & Ge, Yan & Li, Jianping, 2023. "Uncertainty, time preference and households’ adoption of rooftop photovoltaic technology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    12. de Brauw, Alan & Eozenou, Patrick, 2014. "Measuring risk attitudes among Mozambican farmers," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 61-74.
    13. 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.
    14. Lata Gangadharan & Tarun Jain & Pushkar Maitra & Joe Vecci, 2022. "Lab-in-the-field experiments: perspectives from research on gender," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 31-59, January.
    15. 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).
    16. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    17. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    18. Gary Charness & Thomas Garcia & Theo Offerman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2020. "Do measures of risk attitude in the laboratory predict behavior under risk in and outside of the laboratory?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 99-123, April.
    19. Aurélien Baillon & Owen O'Donnell & Stella Quimbo & Kim van Wilgenburg, 2022. "Do time preferences explain low health insurance take‐up?," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(4), pages 951-983, December.
    20. Mao, Hui & Zhou, Li & Ifft, Jennifer & Ying, RuiYao, 2019. "Risk preferences, production contracts and technology adoption by broiler farmers in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 147-159.

    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:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:10:p:1871-:d:1247032. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.