IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v41y2014icp31-39.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An experimental analysis of the behavior of forestry decision-makers — The example of timing in sales decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Musshoff, Oliver
  • Maart-Noelck, Syster Christin

Abstract

Despite the existing literature, it is still unclear whether and to what extent the behavior of forestry decision-makers can be predicted by means of normative models. To date, the actual decision-making behavior regarding logging has hence been only derived from the analysis of data gathered in surveys or on the basis of aggregated data. Currently, no studies exist that compare the individual timber harvesting behavior with a normative benchmark. The present study experimentally examines the behavior of decision-makers from forestry organizations by means of the example of selling a one-off property with a normative benchmark derived using the Jevons–Fisher rule. We investigate if the intuitive behavior shown by forestry decision-makers in an incentive-compatible experiment for the sale of a one-off property can be approximated to the optimal behavior according to the Jevons–Fisher rule. For determining the normative benchmark, the decision-maker's risk attitude measured by a Holt and Laury lottery is explicitly taken into account. The results reveal that, on average, participants decide earlier for selling the property than what would be expected according to the normative benchmark. This illustrates the importance of experimental investigations in order to better understand the decision-making behavior in a forestry setting. Furthermore, the findings indicate that risk-averse participants, males, participants who completed a forestry apprenticeship as well as participants with an economic-related educational background sell the property earlier. Older participants, participants holding a university degree, and participants interested in participating in further experiments sell the property rather later. Moreover, with progressive repetition of the property sale experiment, participants decide to sell the property earlier.

Suggested Citation

  • Musshoff, Oliver & Maart-Noelck, Syster Christin, 2014. "An experimental analysis of the behavior of forestry decision-makers — The example of timing in sales decisions," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 31-39.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:41:y:2014:i:c:p:31-39
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.12.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934113002530
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.12.006?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. Jason F. Shogren & John A. List & Dermot J. Hayes, 2000. "Preference Learning in Consecutive Experimental Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 1016-1021.
    2. Joshi, Sudiksha & Arano, Kathryn G., 2009. "Determinants of private forest management decisions: A study on West Virginia NIPF landowners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 132-139, March.
    3. Ryan Oprea & Daniel Friedman & Steven T. Anderson, 2009. "Learning to Wait: A Laboratory Investigation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(3), pages 1103-1124.
    4. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    5. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    6. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2007. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 341-368, June.
    7. Alvarez, Luis H.R. & Koskela, Erkki, 2006. "Does risk aversion accelerate optimal forest rotation under uncertainty?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 171-184, December.
    8. Dennis, Donald F., 1990. "A probit analysis of the harvest decision using pooled time-series and cross-sectional data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 176-187, March.
    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. Thomas A. Thomson, 1992. "Optimal Forest Rotation When Stumpage Prices Follow a Diffusion Process," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 329-342.
    11. Murat Isik & Madhu Khanna, 2003. "Stochastic Technology, Risk Preferences, and Adoption of Site-Specific Technologies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 305-317.
    12. Cheung, Yin-Wong & Friedman, Daniel, 1998. "A comparison of learning and replicator dynamics using experimental data," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 263-280, April.
    13. Brian E. Roe & David R. Just, 2009. "Internal and External Validity in Economics Research: Tradeoffs between Experiments, Field Experiments, Natural Experiments, and Field Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1266-1271.
    14. Reed, William J & Clarke, Harry R, 1990. "Harvest Decisions and Asset Valuation for Biological Resources Exhibiting Size-Dependent Stochastic Growth," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 31(1), pages 147-169, February.
    15. Moog, Martin & Borchert, Herbert, 2001. "Increasing rotation periods during a time of decreasing profitability of forestry -- a paradox?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 101-116, June.
    16. Arthur Schram, 2005. "Artificiality: The tension between internal and external validity in economic experiments," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 225-237.
    17. Loewenstein, George, 1999. "Experimental Economics from the Vantage-Point of Behavioural Economics," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages 23-34, February.
    18. Navarrete, Eduardo & Bustos, Jaime, 2013. "Faustmann optimal pine stands stochastic rotation problem," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 39-45.
    19. repec:feb:framed:00135 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Andersson, Mats & Gong, Peichen, 2010. "Risk preferences, risk perceptions and timber harvest decisions -- An empirical study of nonindustrial private forest owners in northern Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 330-339, June.
    21. Jevons, William Stanley, 1871. "The Theory of Political Economy," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number jevons1871.
    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. Patrice Loisel & Marielle Brunette & Stéphane Couture, 2020. "Insurance and Forest Rotation Decisions Under Storm Risk," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(2), pages 347-367, July.
    2. M. Brunette & M. Hanewinkel & R. Yousefpour, 2020. "Risk aversion hinders forestry professionals to adapt to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 2157-2180, October.
    3. Sauter, Philipp & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2015. "Forestry harvesting decisions in contrast to theory? Evidence from an economic experiment," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202579, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Kimmich, Christian & Fischbacher, Urs, 2016. "Behavioral determinants of supply chain integration and coexistence," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 55-77.
    5. Sauter, Philipp A. & Mußhoff, Oliver & Möhring, Bernhard & Wilhelm, Stefan, 2016. "Faustmann vs. real options theory – An experimental investigation of foresters’ harvesting decisions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 1-20.
    6. Sotirov, Metodi & Sallnäs, Ola & Eriksson, Ljusk Ola, 2019. "Forest owner behavioral models, policy changes, and forest management. An agent-based framework for studying the provision of forest ecosystem goods and services at the landscape level," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 79-89.
    7. Sauter, Philipp & Hermann, Daniel & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2015. "Risk attitudes of foresters, farmers and students: An experimental multimethod comparison," DARE Discussion Papers 1514, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    8. M. Brunette & S. Couture & J. Foncel & S. Garcia, 2020. "The decision to insure against forest fire risk: an econometric analysis combining hypothetical real data," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 45(1), pages 111-133, January.
    9. Mozgeris, Gintautas & Brukas, Vilis & Stanislovaitis, Andrius & Kavaliauskas, Marius & Palicinas, Michailas, 2017. "Owner mapping for forest scenario modelling — A Lithuanian case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P2), pages 235-244.
    10. Marielle Brunette & Robin Bourke & Marc Hanewinkel & Rasoul Yousefpour, 2018. "Adaptation to climate change in forestry: a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA)," Post-Print hal-02620990, HAL.
    11. Sauter, Philipp A. & Hermann, Daniel & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Are foresters really risk-averse? A multi-method analysis and a cross-occupational comparison," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 37-45.
    12. Sauter, Philipp & Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Risk attitudes of farmers, foresters and students: An experimental multimethod comparison," 2016 Conference (60th), February 2-5, 2016, Canberra, Australia 235515, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Sauter, Philipp A. & Möllmann, Torsten B. & Anastassiadis, Friederike & Mußhoff, Oliver & Möhring, Bernhard, 2016. "To insure or not to insure? Analysis of foresters' willingness-to-pay for fire and storm insurance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 78-89.

    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. Syster C. Maart-Noelck & Oliver Musshoff, 2013. "Investing Today or Tomorrow? An Experimental Approach to Farmers’ Decision Behaviour," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 295-318, June.
    2. Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver & Agethen, Katrin, 2014. "I will never switch sides: an experimental approach to determine drivers for investment decisions of conventional and organic hog farmers," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183084, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Chiputwa, Brian & Musshoff, Oliver, 2013. "Do Changing Probabilities or Payoffs in Lottery-Choice Experiments Matter? Evidence from Rural Uganda," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 158146, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    4. Sauter, Philipp A. & Mußhoff, Oliver & Möhring, Bernhard & Wilhelm, Stefan, 2016. "Faustmann vs. real options theory – An experimental investigation of foresters’ harvesting decisions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 1-20.
    5. Syster C. Maart-Noelck & Oliver Musshoff & Moritz Maack, 2013. "The impact of price floors on farmland investments: a real options based experimental analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(35), pages 4872-4882, December.
    6. Eric Nazindigouba KERE & Jérôme FONCEL & Marielle BRUNETTE, 2014. "Attitude towards Risk and Production Decision: An Empirical analysis on French private forest owners," Working Papers 201410, CERDI.
    7. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Gassner, Anja & Musshoff, Oliver, 2018. "Experimental insights on the investment behavior of small-scale coffee farmers in central Uganda under risk and uncertainty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 31-44.
    8. Marielle Brunette & Jérôme Foncel & Nazindigouba Eric Kéré, 2014. "Attitude towards Risk and Production Decision: An Empirical analysis on French private forest owners," Working Papers halshs-00981350, HAL.
    9. 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.
    10. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Musshoff, Oliver, 2013. "Investment Behavior of Ugandan Smallholder Farmers: An Experimental Analysis," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 154775, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    11. Gesa Sophie Holst & Alexander März & Oliver Mußhoff, 2016. "Experimentelle Untersuchung der Optimalität von Investitionsentscheidungen [Do personal and experiment-specific characteristics influence the optimality of investment decisions?]," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 167-192, July.
    12. Caliendo, Marco & Cobb-Clark, Deborah A. & Obst, Cosima & Uhlendorff, Arne, 2023. "Risk preferences and training investments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 668-686.
    13. Mary Riddel & Sonja Kolstoe, 2013. "Heterogeneity in life-duration preferences: Are risky recreationists really more risk loving?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 191-213, April.
    14. Mary Riddel, 2012. "Comparing risk preferences over financial and environmental lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 135-157, October.
    15. Maack, Moritz & Maart, Syster Christin & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "The Impact of Price Floors -A Real Options Based Experimental Approach-," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124328, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    16. Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture, 2012. "Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 203-221, August.
    17. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    18. Buchholz, Matthias & Holst, Gesa & Musshoff, Oliver, 2015. "Water and irrigation policy impact assessment using business simulation games: evidence from northern Germany," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260781, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    19. Fiore, Annamaria, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Some Methodological Notes," MPRA Paper 12498, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Hakan J. Holm & Sonja Opper & Victor Nee, 2013. "Entrepreneurs Under Uncertainty: An Economic Experiment in China," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(7), pages 1671-1687, 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:eee:forpol:v:41:y:2014:i:c:p:31-39. 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.