IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v96y2024i1d10.1007_s11238-023-09942-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The value of information under ambiguity: a theoretical and experimental study on pest management in agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Stéphane Couture

    (University of Toulouse, INRAE, UR 875 Applied Mathematics and Computer Science laboratory)

  • Stéphane Lemarié

    (Univ. Grenoble Alpes, INRAE, CNRS, Grenoble INP, GAEL)

  • Sabrina Teyssier

    (Univ. Grenoble Alpes, INRAE, CNRS, Grenoble INP, GAEL)

  • Pascal Toquebeuf

    (Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, INRAE, Grenoble INP, GAEL)

Abstract

This article addresses the value of information that affects the ambiguity faced by a decision maker. Our analysis is applied to the case of a farmer whose production can be damaged by a pest attack with unknown probability, this damage being reduced if the farmer decides to use a pesticide. Early warning systems have precisely been implemented in many countries to help farmers avoid inappropriate decisions in terms of pesticide use. We investigate, both theoretically and experimentally, how farmers value these systems. We propose a two-state self-insurance model in which an $$\alpha$$ α -MaxMin Expected Utility farmer may use pesticides that reduce the loss in the accident state while incurring a cost in both states. Her decision to self-insure or not depends on risk and ambiguity attitudes. We compile and compare the value of two types of information leading to a reduction of ambiguity and analyze their properties with respect to ambiguity attitude. Both types of information are valued positively if the farmer is ambiguity averse. We conduct a framed field experiment in which farmers and agricultural students have to decide whether or not to apply pesticides depending on risk, ambiguity and the associated monetary gains resulting from pesticide cost. The experimental findings support the theory. The average value of information among all participants is between €0.9/ha and €3.3/ha depending on the information gain.

Suggested Citation

  • Stéphane Couture & Stéphane Lemarié & Sabrina Teyssier & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2024. "The value of information under ambiguity: a theoretical and experimental study on pest management in agriculture," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 19-47, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:96:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11238-023-09942-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-023-09942-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-023-09942-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-023-09942-y?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Glenn W. Harrison & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2008. "Risk Aversion in the Laboratory," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Risk Aversion in Experiments, pages 41-196, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    4. Glenn Harrison & E. Rutström, 2009. "Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(2), pages 133-158, June.
    5. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    6. Gershon Feder, 1979. "Pesticides, Information, and Pest Management under Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(1), pages 97-103.
    7. Alexander Peysakhovich & Uma R. Karmarkar, 2016. "Asymmetric Effects of Favorable and Unfavorable Information on Decision Making Under Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(8), pages 2163-2178, August.
    8. Michael Hoy & Richard Peter & Andreas Richter, 2014. "Take-up for genetic tests and ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 111-133, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Diego C. Nocetti, 2018. "Ambiguity and the value of information revisited," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, Springer;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 43(1), pages 25-38, May.
    11. Michael J. Roberts & David Schimmelpfennig & Michael J. Livingston & Elizabeth Ashley, 2009. "Estimating the Value of an Early-Warning System," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(2), pages 303-329.
    12. Arthur Snow, 2010. "Ambiguity and the value of information," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 133-145, April.
    13. Remidius Denis Ruhinduka & Yonas Alem & Håkan Eggert & Travis Lybbert, 2020. "Smallholder rice farmers’ post-harvest decisions: preferences and structural factors," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(4), pages 1587-1620.
    14. Camille Tevenart & Marielle Brunette, 2021. "Role of Farmers’ Risk and Ambiguity Preferences on Fertilization Decisions: An Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-27, August.
    15. Pannell, David J., 1994. "The Value Of Information In Herbicide Decision Making For Weed Control In Australian Wheat Crops," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-16, December.
    16. Jeffrey M. Keisler & Zachary A. Collier & Eric Chu & Nina Sinatra & Igor Linkov, 2014. "Value of information analysis: the state of application," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 3-23, March.
    17. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    18. 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.
    19. Thomas Böcker & Robert Finger, 2016. "European Pesticide Tax Schemes in Comparison: An Analysis of Experiences and Developments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-22, April.
    20. Massimiliano Amarante, 2017. "Information and Ambiguity: Toward a Foundation of Nonexpected Utility," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 42(4), pages 1254-1279, November.
    21. Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2004. "Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 133-173, October.
    22. 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.
    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. My, Kene Boun & Brunette, Marielle & Couture, Stéphane & Van Driessche, Sarah, 2024. "Are ambiguity preferences aligned with risk preferences?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 111(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. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    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. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2021. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Value of Diversification," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1639-1647, March.
    4. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2020. "A theoretical foundation of ambiguity measurement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    5. Andreas Richter & Jörg Schiller & Harris Schlesinger, 2014. "Behavioral insurance: Theory and experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 85-96, April.
    6. André, Eric, 2014. "Optimal portfolio with vector expected utility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 50-62.
    7. Ilke Aydogan & Loïc Berger & Vincent Théroude, 2023. "More Ambiguous or More Complex? An Investigation of Individual Preferences under Uncertainty," Working Papers of BETA 2023-10, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    8. Miao, Jianjun & Wang, Neng, 2011. "Risk, uncertainty, and option exercise," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 442-461, April.
    9. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2023. "Prospect theory in multiple price list experiments: further insights on behaviour in the loss domain," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(4), pages 593-636, May.
    10. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2021. "A measure of ambiguity (Knightian uncertainty)," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 153-171, September.
    11. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2020. "Risk, Ambiguity, And The Value Of Diversification," Working Papers hal-02910906, HAL.
    12. Ilke AYDOGAN & Loïc BERGER & Vincent THEROUDE, 2023. "More Ambiguous or More Complex? An Investigation of Individual Preferences under Model Uncertainty," Working Papers 2023-iRisk-02, IESEG School of Management.
    13. Hackbarth, Dirk & Miao, Jianjun, 2012. "The dynamics of mergers and acquisitions in oligopolistic industries," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 585-609.
    14. Giuseppe Attanasi & Christian Gollier & Aldo Montesano & Noemi Pace, 2014. "Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries: a smooth ambiguity model experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 485-530, December.
    15. Bontemps, Christophe & Bougherara, Douadia & Nauges, Céline, 2020. "Do Risk Preferences Really Matter? The Case of Pesticide Use in Agriculture," TSE Working Papers 20-1095, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    16. Peter, Richard, 2019. "Revisiting precautionary saving under ambiguity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 123-127.
    17. Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo & Montrucchio, Luigi, 2012. "Probabilistic sophistication, second order stochastic dominance and uncertainty aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 271-283.
    18. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    19. Jingyi Xue, 2020. "Preferences with changing ambiguity aversion," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(1), pages 1-60, February.
    20. Gravel, Nicolas & Marchant, Thierry & Sen, Arunava, 2018. "Conditional expected utility criteria for decision making under ignorance or objective ambiguity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 79-95.

    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:kap:theord:v:96:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11238-023-09942-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.