IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v85y2003i5p1242-1248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expected Utility Violations: Implications for Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics

Author

Listed:
  • David E. Buschena

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • David E. Buschena, 2003. "Expected Utility Violations: Implications for Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1242-1248.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:85:y:2003:i:5:p:1242-1248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2003.00537.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. van Winsen, Frankwin & de Mey, Yann & Lauwers, Ludwig & Van Passel, Steven & Vancauteren, Mark & Wauters, Erwin, 2013. "Cognitive mapping: A method to elucidate and present farmers’ risk perception," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 42-52.
    2. MacNicol, R. & Ortmann, Gerald F. & Ferrer, Stuart R.D., 2008. "Management decisions on commercial sugarcane farms in KwaZulu-Natal: a focus on choice bracketing behaviour for risk management," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 47(1), pages 1-24, March.
    3. Serra, Teresa & Goodwin, Barry K. & Featherstone, Allen M., 2011. "Risk behavior in the presence of government programs," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 18-24, May.
    4. Daniel Gregg & John Rolfe, 2017. "Risk Behaviours and Grazing Land Management: A Framed Field Experiment and Linkages to Range Land Condition," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 682-709, September.

    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:oup:ajagec:v:85:y:2003:i:5:p:1242-1248. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.