IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v57y2026i1ne70063.html

Farmers’ Risk and Ambiguity Preferences and Fertilizer Use Behaviors: Experimental Evidence From Taihu Basin in China

Author

Listed:
  • Weiwen Zhang
  • Yingyi Jin
  • Bin Xu

Abstract

Uncertainty in agricultural production often leads to excessive fertilizer use, a major contributor to agricultural non‐point source pollution. This paper studies how farmers’ risk and ambiguity preferences impact their fertilizer use behaviors. We conduct the analysis based on a lab‐in‐the‐field experiment in Taihu, China. The experiment results show that farmers are, on average, risk averse in the gain domain and risk seeking in the loss domain, while being ambiguity seeking in gains and ambiguity averse in losses. They tend to exhibit higher probability distortions—overweighting small probabilities and underweighting large probabilities—in ambiguous contexts. We find that ambiguity aversion has a stronger influence on chemical fertilizer use than risk aversion. Moreover, farmers who are reluctant to use organic fertilizers tend to underestimate the probability of potential benefits. Our results suggest that improving farmers’ cognitive ability could potentially reduce chemical fertilizer use, while increasing household income and expanding cropland size may facilitate the adoption of organic fertilizers.

Suggested Citation

  • Weiwen Zhang & Yingyi Jin & Bin Xu, 2026. "Farmers’ Risk and Ambiguity Preferences and Fertilizer Use Behaviors: Experimental Evidence From Taihu Basin in China," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 57(1), January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:57:y:2026:i:1:n:e70063
    DOI: 10.1111/agec.70063
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.70063
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/agec.70063?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Bruner, 2011. "Multiple switching behaviour in multiple price lists," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(5), pages 417-420.
    2. Sujoy Chakravarty & Jaideep Roy, 2009. "Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 199-228, March.
    3. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten I. & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2014. "Discounting behavior: A reconsideration," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 15-33.
    4. Douadia Bougherara & Xavier Gassmann & Laurent Piet & Arnaud Reynaud, 2017. "Structural estimation of farmers’ risk and ambiguity preferences: a field experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 782-808.
    5. 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.
    6. Géraldine Bocquého & Florence Jacquet & Arnaud Reynaud, 2014. "Expected utility or prospect theory maximisers? Assessing farmers' risk behaviour from field-experiment data," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(1), pages 135-172, February.
    7. van Wesenbeeck, C.F.A. & Keyzer, M.A. & van Veen, W.C.M. & Qiu, H., 2021. "Can China's overuse of fertilizer be reduced without threatening food security and farm incomes?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    8. Xinhui Peng & Xiaohuan Yan & Hongmei Wang, 2024. "Study on the Effect of Digital Technology Adoption and Farmers’ Cognition on Fertilizer Reduction and Efficiency Improvement Behavior," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, June.
    9. Zhenling Cui & Hongyan Zhang & Xinping Chen & Chaochun Zhang & Wenqi Ma & Chengdong Huang & Weifeng Zhang & Guohua Mi & Yuxin Miao & Xiaolin Li & Qiang Gao & Jianchang Yang & Zhaohui Wang & Youliang Y, 2018. "Pursuing sustainable productivity with millions of smallholder farmers," Nature, Nature, vol. 555(7696), pages 363-366, March.
    10. Bruce A. Babcock, 2015. "Using Cumulative Prospect Theory to Explain Anomalous Crop Insurance Coverage Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1371-1384.
    11. Engle Warnick James C. & Escobal Javier & Laszlo Sonia C., 2011. "Ambiguity Aversion and Portfolio Choice in Small-Scale Peruvian Farming," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-56, November.
    12. Arianna Galliera & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2021. "Crowded out: Heterogeneity in risk attitudes among poor households in the US," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 103-132, October.
    13. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’haridon & Dennie van Dolder, 2016. "Measuring Loss Aversion under Ambiguity: A Method to Make Prospect Theory Completely Observable," Post-Print halshs-01242616, HAL.
    14. Quang Nguyen & Colin Camerer & Tomomi Tanaka, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences Linking Experimental and Household Data from Vietnam," Post-Print halshs-00547090, HAL.
    15. Simone Cerroni, 2020. "Eliciting farmers’ subjective probabilities, risk, and uncertainty preferences using contextualized field experiments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(5), pages 707-724, September.
    16. David Ahn & Syngjoo Choi & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2014. "Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5, pages 195-223, July.
    17. Hu, Zhepeng & Yan, Lei & Yuan, Jinghong & Etienne, Xiaoli, 2025. "Deconstructing fertilizer price spikes: Evidence from Chinese urea fertilizer market," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    18. Gary Charness & Edi Karni & Dan Levin, 2013. "Ambiguity attitudes and social interactions: An experimental investigation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 1-25, February.
    19. Shuoli Zhao & Chengyan Yue, 2020. "Risk preferences of commodity crop producers and specialty crop producers: An application of prospect theory," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 359-372, May.
    20. Camille Tevenart & Marielle Brunette, 2021. "Role of Farmers’ Risk and Ambiguity Preferences on Fertilization Decisions: An Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-27, August.
    21. Lingling Hou & Pengfei Liu & Jikun Huang & Xiangzheng Deng, 2020. "The influence of risk preferences, knowledge, land consolidation, and landscape diversification on pesticide use," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(5), pages 759-776, September.
    22. Mao, Hui & Zhou, Li & Ifft, Jennifer & Ying, RuiYao, 2019. "Risk preferences, production contracts and technology adoption by broiler farmers in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 147-159.
    23. Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Naranjo, Maria A., 2011. "The effect of ambiguous risk, and coordination on farmers' adaptation to climate change — A framed field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2317-2326.
    24. John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018. "Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    25. Charles E. Phelps, 2024. "A user’s guide to economic utility functions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 235-280, December.
    26. ChaoQing Yu & Xiao Huang & Han Chen & H. Charles J. Godfray & Jonathon S. Wright & Jim W. Hall & Peng Gong & ShaoQiang Ni & ShengChao Qiao & GuoRui Huang & YuChen Xiao & Jie Zhang & Zhao Feng & XiaoTa, 2019. "Managing nitrogen to restore water quality in China," Nature, Nature, vol. 567(7749), pages 516-520, March.
    27. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2023. "Prospect theory in multiple price list experiments: further insights on behaviour in the loss domain," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(4), pages 593-636, May.
    28. Williams Ali & Awudu Abdulai & Renan Goetz & Victor Owusu, 2021. "Risk, ambiguity and willingness to participate in crop insurance programs: Evidence from a field experiment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 65(3), pages 679-703, July.
    29. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer & Quang Nguyen, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 557-571, March.
    30. Rakotoarisoa, Manitra A., 2011. "The impact of agricultural policy distortions on the productivity gap: Evidence from rice production," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 147-157, April.
    31. Thomas Meissner & Xavier Gassmann & Corinne Faure & Joachim Schleich, 2023. "Individual characteristics associated with risk and time preferences: A multi country representative survey," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 77-107, February.
    32. Glenn Harrison & E. Rutström, 2009. "Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(2), pages 133-158, June.
    33. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    34. Jeffrey Butler & Luigi Guiso & Tullio Jappelli, 2014. "The role of intuition and reasoning in driving aversion to risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 455-484, December.
    35. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    36. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2005. "What is Loss Aversion?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 157-167, January.
    37. 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.
    38. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    39. Chenbo Huang & Xiaojing Cheng & Zhiming Zhang, 2024. "Future Land Use and Habitat Quality Dynamics: Spatio-Temporal Analysis and Simulation in the Taihu Lake Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-19, September.
    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. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2023. "Prospect theory in multiple price list experiments: further insights on behaviour in the loss domain," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(4), pages 593-636, May.
    2. Douadia Bougherara & Laurent Piet, 2018. "On the role of probability weighting on WTP for crop insurance with and without yield skewness," Working Papers hal-02790605, HAL.
    3. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2020. "Prospect theory in experiments : behaviour in loss domain and framing effects," Working Papers hal-02987294, HAL.
    4. Christoph Duden & Oliver Mußhoff & Frank Offermann, 2023. "Dealing with low‐probability shocks: The role of selected heuristics in farmers’ risk management decisions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 382-399, May.
    5. Jens Rommel & Julian Sagebiel & Marieke Cornelia Baaken & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Douadia Bougherara & Luigi Cembalo & Marija Cerjak & Tajana Čop & Mikołaj Czajkowski & María Espinosa‐Goded & Julia Höh, 2023. "Farmers' risk preferences in 11 European farming systems: A multi‐country replication of Bocquého et al. ()," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1374-1399, September.
    6. Doidge, Mary & Feng, Hongli & Hennessy, David A., "undated". "Farmers’ valuation of changes to crop insurance coverage level – a test of third generation prospect theory," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274478, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Jens Rommel & Julian Sagebiel & Marieke Cornelia Baaken & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & Douadia Bougherara & Luigi Cembalo & Marija Cerjak & Tajana Čop & Mikołaj Czajkowski & María Espinosa-Goded & Julia Höh, 2022. "Farmers' risk preferences in eleven European farming systems: A multi-country replication of Bocquého et al. (2014)," Working Papers 2022-24, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    8. Bontemps, Christophe & Bougherara, Douadia & Nauges, Céline, 2020. "Do Risk Preferences Really Matter? The Case of Pesticide Use in Agriculture," TSE Working Papers 20-1095, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    9. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Experience of losses and aversion to uncertainty - experimental evidence from farmers in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    10. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    11. Shuoli Zhao & Chengyan Yue, 2020. "Risk preferences of commodity crop producers and specialty crop producers: An application of prospect theory," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 359-372, May.
    12. Géraldine Bocquého & Florence Jacquet & Arnaud Reynaud, 2014. "Expected utility or prospect theory maximisers? Assessing farmers' risk behaviour from field-experiment data," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(1), pages 135-172, February.
    13. Inoue, Ryosuke & Kawasaki, Kentaro, 2026. "Can objective information update subjective beliefs on sustainable farming? Evidence from a randomized experiment with Japanese rice farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    14. Bocquého, Géraldine & Deschamps, Marc & Helstroffer, Jenny & Jacob, Julien & Joxhe, Majlinda, 2023. "Modelling refugee migration under cognitive biases: Experimental evidence and policy," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Ryan O. Murphy & Robert H. W. ten Brincke, 2018. "Hierarchical Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimation for Cumulative Prospect Theory: Improving the Reliability of Individual Risk Parameter Estimates," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 308-328, January.
    17. Douadia Bougherara & Lana Friesen & Céline Nauges, 2021. "Risk Taking with Left- and Right-Skewed Lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 89-112, February.
    18. Robert Finger & Viviana Garcia & Chloe McCallum & Jens Rommel, 2024. "A note on European farmers' preferences under cumulative prospect theory," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 465-472, February.
    19. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    20. Xiaodong Du & Hongli Feng & David A. Hennessy, 2017. "Rationality of Choices in Subsidized Crop Insurance Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(3), pages 732-756.

    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:bla:agecon:v:57:y:2026:i:1:n:e70063. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.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.