IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlaare/57624.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Fishermen Have Different Attitudes Toward Risk? An Application of Prospect Theory to the Study of Vietnamese Fishermen

Author

Listed:
  • Nguyen, Quang
  • Leung, PingSun

Abstract

Field experiment and household survey data are combined to investigate whether working in a risky occupation such as fishing makes fishermen have different risk preferences than individuals in other occupations. Prospect theory is utilized as the main analytical framework and a structural model approach is developed to simultaneously correlate the parameters of the utility function under prospect theory with other socioeconomic variables. The key finding is that working in fishing makes economic agents less risk averse than others. Fishermen also tend to be less sensitive to probability weighting changes in the experiment. It is possible that fishermen have adapted to their unique environment by using specific heuristics for decision making under conditions of uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Nguyen, Quang & Leung, PingSun, 2009. "Do Fishermen Have Different Attitudes Toward Risk? An Application of Prospect Theory to the Study of Vietnamese Fishermen," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(3), December.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:57624
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/57624
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kimberly Rollins & Mimako Kobayashi, 2010. "Embedding a Field Experiment in Contingent Valuation to Measure Context-Dependent Risk Preferences: Does Prospect Theory Explain Individual Responses for Wildfire Risk?," Working Papers 10-003, University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Economics;University of Nevada, Reno , Department of Resource Economics.
    2. Bartczak, Anna & Chilton, Susan & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "Wildfires in Poland: The impact of risk preferences and loss aversion on environmental choices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 300-309.
    3. Whitle, Richard & Rae, Jonathan & Pyke, Chris, 2015. "An empirical investigation into the propensity of reckless decision making within the high pressure environment of Deal or No Deal," MPRA Paper 66832, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Géraldine Bocquého & Marc Deschamps & Jenny Helstroffer & Julien Jacob & Majlinda Joxhe, 2018. "The risk and refugee migration," Documents de Travail de l'OFCE 2018-10, Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).
    5. Kenta Tanaka & Keisaku Higashida & Arvin Vista & Anton Setyo Nugroho & Budi Muhamad Ruslan, 2016. "Do resource depletion experiences affect social cooperative preferences? Analysis using field experimental data on fishers in the Philippines and Indonesia," Discussion Paper Series 143, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Jun 2016.
    6. Bartczak, Anna & Chilton, Susan & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Gain and loss of money in a choice experiment. The impact of financial loss aversion and risk preferences on willingness to pay to avoid renewable energy externalities," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 326-334.
    7. Liebenehm, Sabine & Waibel, Hermann, 2012. "Simultaneous estimation of risk and time preferences among small-scale cattle farmers in West Africa," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-501, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    8. Richards, Timothy J. & Liaukonyte, Jura & Streletskaya, Nadia A., 2016. "Personalized pricing and price fairness," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 138-153.
    9. Gourguet, S. & Thébaud, O. & Dichmont, C. & Jennings, S. & Little, L.R. & Pascoe, S. & Deng, R.A. & Doyen, L., 2014. "Risk versus economic performance in a mixed fishery," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 110-120.

    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:ags:jlaare:57624. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/waeaaea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.