IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i17p10609-d897688.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of Discrete Choice Experiment in Agricultural Risk Management: A Review

Author

Listed:
  • Tajana Čop

    (Department of Management and Rural Entrepreneurship, University of Zagreb Faculty of Agriculture, Svetošimunska 25, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Mario Njavro

    (Department of Management and Rural Entrepreneurship, University of Zagreb Faculty of Agriculture, Svetošimunska 25, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia)

Abstract

The study of human behaviour has been cementing its place within economics for decades. The complexity of decisions in family farming, challenging agricultural markets, and climate change have drawn attention to human behaviour, namely risk perceptions and the decision-making process, with a focus on agricultural economics. This paper reviews current knowledge on risk management in agriculture from the behavioral perspective, and from the perspective experimental economics in particular, emphasizing a discrete choice experiment approach. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) elicits stated preferences through hypothetical choices and have been extensively applied in research on risk preferences and farmers’ willingness to apply different risk management strategies. The objective of this paper was to determine the frequency at which papers are published and their use in discrete choice experiments in general and in agriculture and emphasizes risk management in agriculture using bibliometric analysis. The PRISMA framework was used for a systematic literature review of the agricultural risk management publications that apply a DCE. The main steps to achieve the aforementioned goals are to define how many publications are primary research versus theoretical publications in the research area of agricultural risk management, which part of risk management in agriculture it covers, and how many attributes were used in each study. The authors reviewed 20 papers based on the following keyword criteria: discrete choice experiment, agriculture, risk management, and the period 2001–2021, using the Web of Science database. The results show an increase in DCE publications over the past 20 years. A comprehensive literature review of risk management in agriculture concluded that publications are primarily research focused, mainly consider on-farm strategies and smaller-scale risk-transfer strategies, and are predominantly conducted among farmers. The average number of attributes per publication is four to five. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed in the paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Tajana Čop & Mario Njavro, 2022. "Application of Discrete Choice Experiment in Agricultural Risk Management: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10609-:d:897688
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10609/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10609/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donthu, Naveen & Kumar, Satish & Mukherjee, Debmalya & Pandey, Nitesh & Lim, Weng Marc, 2021. "How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 285-296.
    2. Crastes, Romain & Beaumais, Olivier & Arkoun, Ouerdia & Laroutis, Dimitri & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Rulleau, Bénédicte & Hassani-Taibi, Salima & Barbu, Vladimir Stefan & Gaillard, David, 2014. "Erosive runoff events in the European Union: Using discrete choice experiment to assess the benefits of integrated management policies when preferences are heterogeneous," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 105-112.
    3. Hayk Khachatryan & Dong Hee Suh & Guzhen Zhou & Michael Dukes, 2017. "Sustainable Urban Landscaping: Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Turfgrass Fertilizers," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 65(3), pages 385-407, September.
    4. Michael J. Barrowclough & Jeffrey Alwang, 2018. "Conservation agriculture in Ecuador’s highlands: a discrete choice experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 2681-2705, December.
    5. Madhu Khanna & Jordan Louviere & Xi Yang, 2017. "Motivations to grow energy crops: the role of crop and contract attributes," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 263-277, May.
    6. Ward, Patrick S. & Makhija, Simrin, 2018. "New modalities for managing drought risk in rainfed agriculture: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Odisha, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 163-175.
    7. Schubert, Christian, 2017. "Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 329-342.
    8. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    9. Simone Cerroni & Verity Watson & Dimitrios Kalentakis & Jennie I Macdiarmid, 2019. "Value-elicitation and value-formation properties of discrete choice experiment and experimental auctions," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(1), pages 3-27.
    10. Doyon, Maurice & Rondeau, Daniel & Mbala, Richard, 2010. "Keep It Down: An Experimental Test of the Truncated k-Double Auction," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 193-212, April.
    11. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    12. Ortega, David L. & Ward, Patrick S. & Caputo, Vincenzina, 2019. "Evaluating producer preferences and information processing strategies for drought risk management tools in Bangladesh," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 1-1.
    13. 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.
    14. Fecke, Wilm & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "E-commerce in agriculture: The case of crop protection product purchases in a discrete choice experiment," DARE Discussion Papers 1803, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    15. Abebe, Gumataw K. & Bijman, Jos & Kemp, Ron & Omta, Onno & Tsegaye, Admasu, 2013. "Contract farming configuration: Smallholders’ preferences for contract design attributes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 14-24.
    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. Milan Oplanić & Ana Čehić Marić & Smiljana Goreta Ban & Tajana Čop & Mario Njavro, 2022. "Horticultural Farmers’ Perceived Risk of Climate Change in Adriatic Croatia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Anna Barriviera & Diego Bosco & Sara Daniotti & Carlo Massimo Pozzi & Maria Elena Saija & Ilaria Re, 2023. "Assessing Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Adopting Sustainable Corn Traits: A Choice Experiment in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-13, September.

    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. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    2. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    4. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    5. Andrew Meyer, 2013. "Estimating discount factors for public and private goods and testing competing discounting hypotheses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 133-173, April.
    6. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Post-Print halshs-02136103, HAL.
    7. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2011. "Exploiting cut-off information to incorporate context effect: a discrete choice experiment on small fruits in a Alpine region," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114646, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Laura Enthoven & Goedele Van den Broeck, 2021. "Promoting Food Safety in Local Value Chains: The Case of Vegetables in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    9. Rogers, Abbie A. & Cleland, Jonelle, 2010. "Comparing Scientist and Public Preferences for Conserving Environmental Systems: A Case of the Kimberley’s Tropical Waterways and Wetlands," Research Reports 107579, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    10. Axsen, Jonn & Mountain, Dean C. & Jaccard, Mark, 2009. "Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: The case of hybrid-electric vehicles," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 221-238, August.
    11. Fraser, Iain & Balcombe, Kelvin & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2021. "Preference stability in discrete choice experiments. Some evidence using eye-tracking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    12. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    13. Landmann, D. & Feil, J.-H. & Lagerkvist, C.J. & Otter, V., 2018. "Designing capacity development activities of small-scale farmers in developing countries based on discrete choice experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277738, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Ihli, Hanna & Seegers, Ronja & Winter, Etti & Chiputwa, Brian & Gassner, Anja, 2021. "Preferences for Tree-Fruit Market Attributes Among Smallholder Farmers in Eastern Rwanda: A Discrete Choice Experiment," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 314980, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    16. Nakayama, Shoichiro & Chikaraishi, Makoto, 2015. "Unified closed-form expression of logit and weibit and its extension to a transportation network equilibrium assignment," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 81(P3), pages 672-685.
    17. Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth G. Willis & Melinda Acutt, 2004. "Comparing Individual-Specific Benefit Estimates for Public Goods: Finite Versus Continuous Mixing in Logit Models," Working Papers 2004.132, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    18. Huh, Sung-Yoon & Jo, Manseok & Shin, Jungwoo & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "Impact of rebate program for energy-efficient household appliances on consumer purchasing decisions: The case of electric rice cookers in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1394-1403.
    19. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    20. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "Does the use of mobile devices (tablets and smartphones) affect survey quality and choice behaviour in web surveys?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 17-31.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10609-:d:897688. 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.