IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i16p2938-d258063.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Policies on Inappropriate Treatment of Dead Hogs from the Perspective of Loss Aversion

Author

Listed:
  • Chenchen Yang

    (School of Business, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China)

  • Jianhua Wang

    (School of Business, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China
    Food Safety Research Base of Jiangsu Province, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China)

Abstract

Punishment policies on the inappropriate treatment of dead hogs play a key role in safeguarding public health and environmental protection. These policies aim to regulate the behavior of farmers and promote the development of sustainable agriculture. Farmers’ evaluation of a policy can be used to measure its effectiveness, and loss aversion is a factor that has been little studied. This study surveyed 404 hog farmers in China, and analyzed the factors that influenced their evaluation of the penalties for the inappropriate treatment of dead hogs during 2016 and 2017. We used three indicators for the evaluation of the penalties: the degree of necessity, implementation, and effectiveness. Special attention was paid to farmers’ aversion to financial penalties and police detention time, which was elicited using economic experiments. The results show that farmers are more likely to be averse to police detention time than financial penalties, and suggest that the level of each indicator needs to be increased. The results from an ordered Probit model show that there are both similarities and differences between the formation paths of the three indicators. An aversion to financial penalties will help to improve the degree of implementation. An aversion to police detention time will lead to a negative trend in the degree of effectiveness. An in-depth analysis of the factors that influence farmers’ evaluation of policies to punish inappropriate treatment of dead hogs may provide a basis for the design of government policies to improve environmental protection performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Chenchen Yang & Jianhua Wang, 2019. "Evaluation of Policies on Inappropriate Treatment of Dead Hogs from the Perspective of Loss Aversion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-20, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:16:p:2938-:d:258063
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/16/2938/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/16/2938/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mario Schijven & Michael A. Hitt, 2012. "The vicarious wisdom of crowds: toward a behavioral perspective on investor reactions to acquisition announcements," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(11), pages 1247-1268, November.
    2. Andrea Pufahl & Christoph R. Weiss, 2009. "Evaluating the effects of farm programmes: results from propensity score matching," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(1), pages 79-101, March.
    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. 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.
    5. Borges, P.J. & Fragoso, R. & Garcia-Gonzalo, J. & Borges, J.G. & Marques, S. & Lucas, M.R., 2010. "Assessing impacts of Common Agricultural Policy changes on regional land use patterns with a decision support system: An application in Southern Portugal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 111-120, February.
    6. Henner Gimpel, 2007. "Loss Aversion and Reference-Dependent Preferences in Multi-Attribute Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 303-319, July.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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..
    10. 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.
    11. Emmanuel Kemel & Corina Paraschiv, 2018. "Deciding about human lives: an experimental measure of risk attitudes under prospect theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 163-192, June.
    12. Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 2002. "Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 23-46, Spring.
    13. Quang Nguyen & Colin Camerer & Tomomi Tanaka, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences Linking Experimental and Household Data from Vietnam," Post-Print halshs-00547090, HAL.
    14. Nicolai j. Foss & Lars Frederiksen & Francesco Rullani, 2016. "Problem‐formulation and problem‐solving in self‐organized communities: How modes of communication shape project behaviors in the free open‐source software community," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(13), pages 2589-2610, December.
    15. 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.
    16. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    17. Stefan Moser & Oliver Mußhoff, 2016. "Ex-ante Evaluation of Policy Measures: Effects of Reward and Punishment for Fertiliser Reduction in Palm Oil Production," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(1), pages 84-104, February.
    18. Henner Gimpel, 2007. "Preferences in Negotiations," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer, number 978-3-540-72338-7, October.
    19. 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.
    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. Sigrid Kusch-Brandt, 2020. "Towards More Sustainable Food Systems—14 Lessons Learned," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-8, June.

    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. Feng, Shuaizhang & Han, Yujie & Qiu, Huanguang, 2021. "Does crop insurance reduce pesticide usage? Evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter Martinsson & Pham Khanh Nam & Nghi Truong, 2019. "Risk preferences and development revisited," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 1-21, February.
    4. 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.
    5. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Experience of losses and aversion to uncertainty - experimental evidence from farmers in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Ola Andersson & Håkan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2016. "Deciding for Others Reduces Loss Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(1), pages 29-36, January.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Chiputwa, Brian & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Do Changing Probabilities or Payoffs in Lottery-Choice Experiments Affect Risk Preference Outcomes? Evidence from Rural Uganda," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(2), May.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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).
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Tina L. Saitone & Richard J. Sexton & Benoît Malan, 2018. "Price premiums, payment delays, and default risk: understanding developing country farmers’ decisions to market through a cooperative or a private trader," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(3), pages 363-380, May.
    19. 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.
    20. Pamela Jakiela & Owen Ozier, 2019. "The Impact of Violence on Individual Risk Preferences: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(3), pages 547-559, July.

    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:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:16:p:2938-:d:258063. 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.