IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v8y2019i1p21-d198365.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting Intensification on the Brazilian Agricultural Frontier: Combining Evidence from Lab-In-The-Field Experiments and Household Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Arthur Bragança

    (Núcleo de Avaliação de Políticas Climáticas, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), R. Marquês de São Vicente, 225-Gávea, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22451-900, Brazil
    Climate Policy Initiative, Estrada da Gávea, 50, Gávea, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22451-263, Brazil
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Avery Simon Cohn

    (Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, 150 Harrison Ave, Boston, MA 02111, USA
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

The expansion of crop agriculture onto low productivity cattle pastures in the agricultural frontier of Brazil is a form of agricultural intensification that can help to contribute to global food and climate goals. However, the amount of pasture to crop conversion in the region lags both agronomic and economic potential. We administered a survey in combination with a lab-in-the-field experiment to 559 farmers in Mato Grosso, Brazil. We used the results to explore behavioral determinants of pasture to crop conversion. We compared subjects’ choices across two rounds of a risk game meant to mimic the economic risk of decisions to convert pasture to crops. We found framing the risk game to concern agriculture profoundly altered subjects’ experimental choices. These discrepancies involved the majority of experimental subjects, and were highly heterogenous in nature. They were also somewhat predictive of subjects’ behavior converting pasture to cropland. Our findings indicate that farmers may make economic decisions involving agriculture and/or agricultural land differently from other economic decisions. Our finding are of relevance for research into the propensity of farmers to intensify and for policies seeking to influence rates of agricultural intensification.

Suggested Citation

  • Arthur Bragança & Avery Simon Cohn, 2019. "Predicting Intensification on the Brazilian Agricultural Frontier: Combining Evidence from Lab-In-The-Field Experiments and Household Surveys," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-22, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:8:y:2019:i:1:p:21-:d:198365
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/1/21/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/1/21/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph G. Altonji & Todd E. Elder & Christopher R. Taber, 2005. "Selection on Observed and Unobserved Variables: Assessing the Effectiveness of Catholic Schools," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(1), pages 151-184, February.
    2. Jansen, Hans G. P. & Stoorvogel, Jetse J., 1998. "Quantification of aggregation bias in regional agricultural land use models: application to Guacimo county, Costa Rica," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 417-439, November.
    3. Voors, Maarten & Turley, Ty & Kontoleon, Andreas & Bulte, Erwin & List, John A., 2012. "Exploring whether behavior in context-free experiments is predictive of behavior in the field: Evidence from lab and field experiments in rural Sierra Leone," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 114(3), pages 308-311.
    4. Cardenas, Juan Camilo & Carpenter, Jeffrey, 2013. "Risk attitudes and economic well-being in Latin America," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 52-61.
    5. Oriana Bandiera & Imran Rasul, 2006. "Social Networks and Technology Adoption in Northern Mozambique," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(514), pages 869-902, October.
    6. Matthias Benz & Stephan Meier, 2008. "Do people behave in experiments as in the field?—evidence from donations," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 268-281, September.
    7. repec:pri:rpdevs:gamespaper.pdf is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Josephson, Anna Leigh & Ricker-Gilbert, Jacob & Florax, Raymond J.G.M., 2014. "How does population density influence agricultural intensification and productivity? Evidence from Ethiopia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 142-152.
    9. Nava Ashraf & Dean Karlan & Wesley Yin, 2006. "Tying Odysseus to the Mast: Evidence From a Commitment Savings Product in the Philippines," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 635-672.
    10. Kenneth A. Baerenklau & Keith C. Knapp, 2007. "Dynamics of Agricultural Technology Adoption: Age Structure, Reversibility, and Uncertainty," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 190-201.
    11. Dean S. Karlan, 2005. "Using Experimental Economics to Measure Social Capital and Predict Financial Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1688-1699, December.
    12. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2009. "An Inferred Valuation Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 500-514.
    13. Pailler, Sharon, 2018. "Re-election incentives and deforestation cycles in the Brazilian Amazon," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 345-365.
    14. Zvi Griliches, 1958. "Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66(5), pages 419-419.
    15. Ricker-Gilbert, Jacob & Jumbe, Charles & Chamberlin, Jordan, 2014. "How does population density influence agricultural intensification and productivity? Evidence from Malawi," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 114-128.
    16. Giacomo Grassi & Jo House & Frank Dentener & Sandro Federici & Michel den Elzen & Jim Penman, 2017. "The key role of forests in meeting climate targets requires science for credible mitigation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(3), pages 220-226, March.
    17. Marco Springmann & Daniel Mason-D’Croz & Sherman Robinson & Keith Wiebe & H. Charles J. Godfray & Mike Rayner & Peter Scarborough, 2017. "Mitigation potential and global health impacts from emissions pricing of food commodities," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 69-74, January.
    18. Joaquim Bento de Souza Ferreira Filho & Luis Ribera & Mark Horridge, 2015. "Deforestation Control and Agricultural Supply in Brazil," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(2), pages 589-601.
    19. Esther Duflo & Michael Kremer & Jonathan Robinson, 2011. "Nudging Farmers to Use Fertilizer: Theory and Experimental Evidence from Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2350-2390, October.
    20. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    21. Timothy G. Conley & Christopher R. Udry, 2010. "Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 35-69, March.
    22. 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.
    23. Kim, Kwansoo & Chavas, Jean-Paul, 2003. "Technological change and risk management: an application to the economics of corn production," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 125-142, October.
    24. Avery S. Cohn & Juliana Gil & Thomas Berger & Heitor Pellegrina & Chantal Toledo, "undated". "Patterns and Processes of Pasture to Crop Conversion in Brazil: Evidence from Mato Grosso State," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 8ce99775615f42b98ff43f530, Mathematica Policy Research.
    25. Peter Richards & Heitor Pellegrina & Leah VanWey & Stephanie Spera, 2015. "Soybean Development: The Impact of a Decade of Agricultural Change on Urban and Economic Growth in Mato Grosso, Brazil," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, April.
    26. Alexander, Peter & Brown, Calum & Arneth, Almut & Finnigan, John & Moran, Dominic & Rounsevell, Mark D.A., 2017. "Losses, inefficiencies and waste in the global food system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 190-200.
    27. repec:feb:framed:0089 is not listed on IDEAS
    28. Tavneet Suri, 2011. "Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology Adoption," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 159-209, January.
    29. John A. List, 2006. "The Behavioralist Meets the Market: Measuring Social Preferences and Reputation Effects in Actual Transactions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(1), pages 1-37, February.
    30. Leandro S. Carvalho & Stephan Meier & Stephanie W. Wang, 2016. "Poverty and Economic Decision-Making: Evidence from Changes in Financial Resources at Payday," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(2), pages 260-284, February.
    31. Francisco Fontes & Charles Palmer, 2018. "“Land Sparing” in a von Thünen Framework: Theory and Evidence from Brazil," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(4), pages 556-576.
    32. Alessandra Cassar & Luke Crowley & Bruce Wydick, 2007. "The effect of social capital on group loan repayment: evidence from field experiments," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(517), pages 85-106, February.
    33. Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2009. "Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: An inferred valuation method," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 236-250, September.
    34. Hélène Benveniste & Olivier Boucher & Céline Guivarch & Hervé Le Treut & Patrick Criqui, 2018. "Impacts of nationally determined contributions on 2030 global greenhouse gas emissions: uncertainty analysis and distribution of emissions," Post-Print hal-01662799, HAL.
    35. Nassul Ssentamu Kabunga & Thomas Dubois & Matin Qaim, 2012. "Heterogeneous information exposure and technology adoption: the case of tissue culture bananas in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 43(5), pages 473-486, September.
    36. Coppock, Alexander & Green, Donald P., 2015. "Assessing the Correspondence between Experimental Results Obtained in the Lab and Field: A Review of Recent Social Science Research," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 113-131, January.
    37. Timothy D. Searchinger & Stefan Wirsenius & Tim Beringer & Patrice Dumas, 2018. "Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change," Nature, Nature, vol. 564(7735), pages 249-253, December.
    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. Miranda, Javier & Börner, Jan, 2021. "Farm-Level Impacts of Shifts in Conservation Policy Regimes in Brazil’s Arc of Deforestation," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315225, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Ebelechukwu Maduekwe & Walter Timo de Vries, 2019. "Random Spatial and Systematic Random Sampling Approach to Development Survey Data: Evidence from Field Application in Malawi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-27, December.

    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. Jeffrey R. Bloem, 2021. "Aspirations and investments in rural Myanmar," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(4), pages 727-752, December.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Stephen V. Burks & Daniele Nosenzo & Jon Anderson & Matthew Bombyk & Derek Ganzhorn & Lorenz Goette & Aldo Rustichini, 2015. "Lab Measures of Other-Regarding Preferences Can Predict Some Related on-the-Job Behavior: Evidence from a Large Scale Field Experiment," Discussion Papers 2015-21, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    5. B Kelsey Jack, "undated". "Market Inefficiencies and the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries," CID Working Papers 50, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    6. Terrance Hurley & Jawoo Koo & Kindie Tesfaye, 2018. "Weather risk: how does it change the yield benefits of nitrogen fertilizer and improved maize varieties in sub‐Saharan Africa?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 711-723, November.
    7. Khushbu Mishra & Abdoul G. Sam & Gracious M. Diiro & Mario J. Miranda, 2020. "Gender and the dynamics of technology adoption: Empirical evidence from a household‐level panel data," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 857-870, November.
    8. Nicole M. Baran & Paola Sapienza & Luigi Zingales, 2010. "Can we infer social preferences from the lab? Evidence from the trust game," NBER Working Papers 15654, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Kondylis, Florence & Mueller, Valerie, 2012. "Seeing is Believing? Evidence from a Demonstration Plot Experiment in Mozambique:," MSSP working papers 1, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Squicciarini, Mara & Juhász, Réka & Voigtländer, Nico, 2020. "Technology Adoption and Productivity Growth: Evidence from Industrialization in France," CEPR Discussion Papers 14970, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Fenske, James, 2013. "“Rubber will not keep in this country”: Failed development in Benin, 1897–1921," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 316-333.
    12. Ram Fishman & Stephen C. Smith & Vida Bobic & Munshi Sulaiman, 2022. "Can Agricultural Extension and Input Support Be Discontinued? Evidence from a Randomized Phaseout in Uganda," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(6), pages 1273-1288, November.
    13. List John A., 2007. "Field Experiments: A Bridge between Lab and Naturally Occurring Data," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-47, April.
    14. Morgan, Stephen N. & Mason, Nicole M. & Maredia, Mywish K., 2020. "Lead-farmer extension and smallholder valuation of new agricultural technologies in Tanzania," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    15. Harou, Aurélie P. & Madajewicz, Malgosia & Michelson, Hope & Palm, Cheryl A. & Amuri, Nyambilila & Magomba, Christopher & Semoka, Johnson M. & Tschirhart, Kevin & Weil, Ray, 2022. "The joint effects of information and financing constraints on technology adoption: Evidence from a field experiment in rural Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    16. Aklin, M. & Bayer, P. & Harish, S.P. & Urpelainen, J., 2018. "Economics of household technology adoption in developing countries: Evidence from solar technology adoption in rural India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 35-46.
    17. Stephen C. Smith & Ram Fishman & Vida BobicÌ & Munshi Sulaiman, 2017. "How Sustainable Are Benefits from Extension for Smallholder Farmers? Evidence from a Randomised Phase-Out of the BRAC Program in Uganda," Working Papers 2017-1, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
    18. Teno, Gabriel & Lehrer, Kim & Kone, Abdoulaye, 2018. "Les facteurs de l’adoption des nouvelles technologies en agriculture en Afrique Subsaharienne: une revue de la littérature," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 13(2), June.
    19. Berge, Lars Ivar Oppedal & Bjorvatn, Kjetil & Garcia Pires, Armando Jose & Tungodden, Bertil, 2015. "Competitive in the lab, successful in the field?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 303-317.
    20. Ubfal, Diego, 2016. "How general are time preferences? Eliciting good-specific discount rates," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 150-170.

    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:jlands:v:8:y:2019:i:1:p:21-:d:198365. 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.