IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v82y2022i4d10.1007_s10640-022-00690-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lottery Incentives and Resource Management: Evidence from the Agricultural Data Reporting Incentive Program (AgDRIP)

Author

Listed:
  • Ben S. Meiselman

    (U.S. Department of the Treasury)

  • Collin Weigel

    (California Air Resources Board)

  • Paul J. Ferraro

    (Johns Hopkins University
    The Center for Behavioral & Experimental Agri-Environmental Research)

  • Mark Masters

    (The Center for Behavioral & Experimental Agri-Environmental Research
    Albany State University and Georgia Water Planning and Policy Center)

  • Kent D. Messer

    (The Center for Behavioral & Experimental Agri-Environmental Research
    University of Delaware)

  • Olesya M. Savchenko

    (The Center for Behavioral & Experimental Agri-Environmental Research
    University of Florida)

  • Jordan F. Suter

    (The Center for Behavioral & Experimental Agri-Environmental Research
    Colorado State University)

Abstract

To manage resources effectively in an agri-environmental context, policymakers need information about on-farm management practices and ecological conditions. This information is often accessible to agricultural producers but not to policymakers. However, little is known about how best to structure incentives for voluntary reporting. In other contexts, lotteries are often used to provide an incentive for voluntary data reporting. This article provides evidence about the efficacy of lottery (stochastic) incentives relative to fixed (deterministic) incentives. Based on two field experiments embedded in a data reporting program for agricultural producers, we estimate that lottery incentives reduced program enrollment between 28% and 62% relative to fixed incentives. A novel feature of our study is a comparison between fixed incentives and actuarially equivalent lotteries with explicitly communicated probabilities, which allows us to rule out an effect size of actuarially equivalent lotteries larger than +15% relative to fixed incentives.

Suggested Citation

  • Ben S. Meiselman & Collin Weigel & Paul J. Ferraro & Mark Masters & Kent D. Messer & Olesya M. Savchenko & Jordan F. Suter, 2022. "Lottery Incentives and Resource Management: Evidence from the Agricultural Data Reporting Incentive Program (AgDRIP)," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(4), pages 847-867, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:82:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10640-022-00690-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-022-00690-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10640-022-00690-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10640-022-00690-1?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. Goette, Lorenz & Stutzer, Alois, 2020. "Blood donations and incentives: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 52-74.
    2. Wolter H.J. Hassink & Pierre Koning, 2009. "Do Financial Bonuses Reduce Employee Absenteeism? Evidence from a Lottery," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 62(3), pages 327-342, April.
    3. Uri Gneezy & Stephan Meier & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2011. "When and Why Incentives (Don't) Work to Modify Behavior," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 191-210, Fall.
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin & Thomas Epper & Renate Schubert, 2010. "Rationality on the rise: Why relative risk aversion increases with stake size," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 147-180, April.
    6. Brian E. Roe, 2015. "The Risk Attitudes of U.S. Farmers," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 37(4), pages 553-574.
    7. Marco Fabbri & Paolo Nicola Barbieri & Maria Bigoni, 2019. "Ride Your Luck! A Field Experiment on Lottery-Based Incentives for Compliance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(9), pages 4336-4348, September.
    8. Meha Jain, 2020. "The Benefits and Pitfalls of Using Satellite Data for Causal Inference," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 14(1), pages 157-169.
    9. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List & Sally Sadoff, 2016. "The Effect of Performance-Based Incentives on Educational Achievement: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment," NBER Working Papers 22107, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: the role of a collective bonus," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(4), pages 609-636.
    11. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Guryan, Jonathan & Hyndman, Kyle & Kearney, Melissa & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2015. "Do lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-24.
    12. Anna Lungarska & Pierre-Alain Jayet, 2018. "Impact of Spatial Differentiation of Nitrogen Taxes on French Farms’ Compliance Costs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(1), pages 1-21, January.
    13. Martina Björkman Nyqvist & Lucia Corno & Damien de Walque & Jakob Svensson, 2018. "Incentivizing Safer Sexual Behavior: Evidence from a Lottery Experiment on HIV Prevention," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 287-314, July.
    14. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    15. Johansson, Robert & Effland, Anne & Coble, Keith, 2017. "Falling Response Rates to USDA Crop Surveys: Why It Matters," farmdoc daily, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, vol. 7, January.
    16. Joana Naritomi, 2019. "Consumers as Tax Auditors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(9), pages 3031-3072, September.
    17. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    18. Garrett, Thomas A. & Sobel, Russell S., 1999. "Gamblers favor skewness, not risk: Further evidence from United States' lottery games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 85-90, April.
    19. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    20. Carson Reeling & Leah H. Palm-Forster & Richard T. Melstrom, 2019. "Policy Instruments and Incentives for Coordinated Habitat Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 791-813, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2022. "Risk and rationality: The relative importance of probability weighting and choice set dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 139-184, October.
    2. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luis Santos-Pinto, 2019. "Risk and Rationality:The Relative Importance of Probability Weighting and Choice Set Dependence," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 19.01new, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    3. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luis Santos-Pinto, 2018. "Risk and Rationality:The Relative Importance of Probability Weighting and Choice Set Dependence," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 18.04, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    4. Thomas Åstebro & José Mata & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2015. "Skewness seeking: risk loving, optimism or overweighting of small probabilities?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 78(2), pages 189-208, February.
    5. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán González, 2023. "You Will not Regret it: On the Practice of Randomized Incentives," Working Papers 2314, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    6. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    7. Fehr-Duda, Helga & Epper, Thomas & Bruhin, Adrian & Schubert, Renate, 2011. "Risk and rationality: The effects of mood and decision rules on probability weighting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(1-2), pages 14-24, April.
    8. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    9. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    10. Mark Schneider, 2018. "A Dual System Model of Risk and Time Preferences," Working Papers 18-18, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    11. Ranoua Bouchouicha & Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2017. "Accommodating stake effects under prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 1-28, August.
    12. Mark Schneider & Robert Day, 2018. "Target-Adjusted Utility Functions and Expected-Utility Paradoxes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 271-287, January.
    13. 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.
    14. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Guryan, Jonathan & Hyndman, Kyle & Kearney, Melissa & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2015. "Do lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-24.
    15. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    17. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    18. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    19. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Emmanuel Kemel, 2014. "Eliciting Prospect Theory When Consequences Are Measured in Time Units: “Time Is Not Money”," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(7), pages 1844-1859, July.
    20. Ali Al‐Nowaihi & Livio Stracca, 2003. "Behavioural Central Bank Loss Functions, Skewed Risks and Certainty Equivalence," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 71(s1), pages 21-38, September.

    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:enreec:v:82:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10640-022-00690-1. 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.