Using Choice Framing to Improve the Design of Agricultural Subsidy Schemes

References

1. ↵
   1. Abeler, J., and
   2. F. Marklein

   . 2017. “Fungibility, Labels, and Consumption.” Journal of the European Economic Association 15 (1): 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvw007.

   OpenUrl
2. ↵
   1. Barber, B. M.,
   2. Y.-T. Lee,
   3. Y.-J. Liu, and
   4. T. Odean

   . 2007. “Is the Aggregate Investor Reluctant to Realise Losses? Evidence from Taiwan.” European Financial Management 13 (3): 423–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-036X.2007.00367.x.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
3. ↵
   1. Beatty, T. K. M.,
   2. L. Blow,
   3. T. F. Crossley, and
   4. C. O’Dea

   . 2014. “Cash by Any Other Name? Evidence on Labeling from the UK Winter Fuel Payment.” Journal of Public Economics 118: 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.06.007.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
4. ↵
   1. Beatty, T. K. M., and
   2. C. J. Tuttle

   . 2015. “Expenditure Response to Increases in In-Kind Transfers: Evidence from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 97 (2): 390–404. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aau097.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
5. ↵
   1. Behaghel, L.,
   2. K. Macours, and
   3. J. Subervie

   . 2019. “How Can Randomised Controlled Trials Help Improve the Design of the Common Agricultural Policy?” European Review of Agricultural Economics 46 (3): 473–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz021.

   OpenUrl
6. ↵
   Behavioural Insights Team. 2017. “Update Report 2016-17.” Behavioral Insights Team. Available at http://38r8om2xjhhl25mw24492dir-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BIT_Update-16-17_E_.pdf.
7. ↵
   1. Buchholz, M.,
   2. G. Holst, and
   3. O. Musshoff

   . 2016. “Irrigation Water Policy Analysis Using a Business Simulation Game.” Water Resources Research 52 (10): 7980–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR018857.

   OpenUrl
8. ↵
   1. Christensen, T.,
   2. A. B. Pedersen,
   3. H. O. Nielsen,
   4. M. R. Mørkbak,
   5. B. Hasler, and
   6. S. Denver

   . 2011. “Determinants of Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Subsidy Schemes for Pesticide-Free Buffer Zones: A Choice Experiment Study.” Ecological Economics 70 (8): 1558–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.021.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
9. ↵
   1. Cruces, G.,
   2. R. Perez-Truglia, and
   3. M. Tetaz

   . 2013. “Biased Perceptions of Income Distribution and Preferences for Redistribution: Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” Journal of Public Economics 98: 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.10.009.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
10. ↵
    1. Cullen, P.,
    2. M. Ryan,
    3. C. O’Donoghue,
    4. S. Hynes,
    5. D. Ó. hUallacháin, and
    6. H. Sheridan

    . 2020. “Impact of Farmer Self-Identity and Attitudes on Participation in Agri-environment Schemes.” Land Use Policy 95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104660.
11. ↵
    1. Defrancesco, E.,
    2. P. Gatto,
    3. F. Runge, and
    4. S. Trestini

    . 2008. “Factors Affecting Farmers’ Participation in Agri-environmental Measures: A Northern Italian Perspective.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 59 (1): 114–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00134.x.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
12. ↵
    1. de Krom, M. P. M. M.

    2017. “Farmer Participation in Agri-environmental Schemes: Regionalisation and the Role of Bridging Social Capital.” Land Use Policy 60: 352–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.026.

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    1. Dessart, F. J.,
    2. J. Barreiro-Hurlé, and
    3. R. van Bavel

    . 2019. “Behavioural Factors Affecting the Adoption of Sustainable Farming Practices: A Policy-Oriented Review.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 46: 417–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz019.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
14. ↵
    1. Dillman, D. A.,
    2. J. D. Smyth, and
    3. L. M. Christian

    . 2014. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
15. ↵
    1. Dörschner, T., and
    2. O. Musshoff

    . 2015. “How Do Incentive-Based Environmental Policies Affect Environment Protection Initiatives of Farmers? An Experimental Economic Analysis Using the Example of Species Richness.” Ecological Economics 114: 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.013.

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Dykema, J.,
    2. N. Assad,
    3. G. Sanchez-Diettert,
    4. K. Elver, and
    5. J. Stevenson

    . 2019. “What’s in a Name? Effects of Alternative Forms of Addressing Households on Response Rates and Data Quality in an Address-Based Mail Survey.” Field Methods 31: 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X18812761.

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. El Harbi, S.,
    2. I. Bekir,
    3. G. Grolleau, and
    4. A. Sutan

    . 2015. “Efficiency, Equality, Positionality: What Do People Maximize? Experimental vs. Hypothetical Evidence from Tunisia.” Journal of Economic Psycholology 47: 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.01.007.

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Espinosa-Goded, M.,
    2. J. Barreiro-Hurlé, and
    3. E. Ruto

    . 2010. “What Do Farmers Want from Agri-environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 (2): 259–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00244.x.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
19. ↵
    1. Faul, F.,
    2. E. Erdfelder,
    3. A. Buchner, and
    4. A.-G. Lang

    . 2009. “Statistical Power Analyses Using G*Power 3.1: Tests for Correlation and Regression Analyses.” Behavior Research Methods 41: 1149–60. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. ↵
    1. Faul, F.,
    2. E. Erdfelder,
    3. A.-G. Lang, and
    4. A. Buchner

    . 2007. “G*Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences.” Behavior Research Methods 39: 175–91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. ↵
    1. Ferré, M.,
    2. S. Engel, and
    3. E. Gsottbauer

    . 2018. “Which Agglomeration Payment for a Sustainable Management of Organic Soils in Switzerland? An Experiment Accounting for Farmers’ Cost Heterogeneity.” Ecological Economics 150: 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.028.

    OpenUrl
22. ↵
    1. Franks, J. R.

    2016. “Some Implications of Brexit for UK Agricultural Environmental Policy.” Discussion Paper Series 36. Centre for Rural Economy, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.
23. ↵
    1. Freund, C., and
    2. C. Ozden

    . 2008. “Trade Policy and Loss Aversion.” American Economic Review 98: 1675–91. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.4.1675.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
24. ↵
    1. Garrod, G.,
    2. E. Ruto,
    3. K. Willis, and
    4. N. Powe

    . 2012. “Heterogeneity of Preferences for the Benefits of Environmental Stewardship: A Latent-Class Approach.” Ecological Economics 76: 104–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.011.

    OpenUrl
25. ↵
    1. Gasson, R.

    1973. “Goals and Values of Farmers.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 24: 521–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1973.tb00952.x.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
26. ↵
    1. Hainmueller, J., and
    2. M. J. Hiscox

    . 2010. “Attitudes Toward Highly Skilled and Low-Skilled Immigration:Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” American Political Science Review 104: 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409990372.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
27. ↵
    1. Hastings, J., and
    2. J. M. Shapiro

    . 2018. “How Are SNAP Benefits Spent? Evidence from a Retail Panel.” American Economic Review 108: 3493–540. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20170866.

    OpenUrl
28. ↵
    1. Heath, C., and
    2. J. B. Soll

    . 1996. “Mental Budgeting and Consumer Decisions.” Journal of Consumer Research 23: 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1086/209465.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
29. ↵
    1. Heffetz, O., and
    2. M. Rabin

    . 2013. “Conclusions Regarding Cross-Group Differences in Happiness Depend on Difficulty of Reaching Respondents.” American Economic Review 103: 3001–21. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.7.3001.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
30. ↵
    1. Heffetz, O., and
    2. D. B. Reeves

    . 2019. “Difficulty of Reaching Respondents and Nonresponse Bias: Evidence from Large Government Surveys.” Review of Economics and Statistics 101 (1): 176–91. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00748.

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    1. Hejnowicz, A. P.,
    2. M. A. Rudd, and
    3. P. C. L. White

    . 2016. “A Survey Exploring Private Farm Advisor Perspectives of Agri-environment Schemes: The Case of England’s Environmental Stewardship Programme.” Land Use Policy 55: 240–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.005.

    OpenUrl
32. ↵
    1. Hodge, I., and
    2. M. Reader

    . 2010. “The Introduction of Entry Level Stewardship in England: Extension or Dilution in Agri-environment Policy?” Land Use Policy 27: 270–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.03.005.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
33. ↵
    1. Holst, G. S.,
    2. O. Musshoff, and
    3. T. Doerschner

    . 2014. “Policy Impact Analysis of Penalty and Reward Scenarios to Promote Flowering Cover Crops Using a Business Simulation Game.” Biomass Bioenergy 70: 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.08.009.

    OpenUrl
34. ↵
    1. Howley, P., and
    2. N. Ocean

    . 2021. “Doing More with Less: Leveraging Social Norms and Status Concerns in Encouraging Conservation Farm Practices.” Land Economics 97 (2): 372–87. https://doi.10.3368/le.97.2.372.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
35. ↵
    1. Hynes, S., and
    2. E. Garvey

    . 2009. “Modelling Farmers’ Participation in an Agri-environmental Scheme Using Panel Data: An Application to the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland.” Journal of Agricultural Economy 60: 546–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2009.00210.x.

    OpenUrl
36. ↵
    1. Kahneman, D., and
    2. A. Tversky

    . 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47: 263–91.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
37. ↵
    1. Kaufmann, E.

    2019. “Can Narratives of White Identity Reduce Opposition to Immigration and Support for Hard Brexit? A Survey Experiment.” Political Studies 67 (1): 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717740489.

    OpenUrl
38. ↵
    1. Kooreman, P.

    2000. “The Labeling Effect of a Child Benefit System.” American Economic Review 90: 571–83. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.3.571.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
39. ↵
    1. Kuhfuss, L.,
    2. R. Préget,
    3. S. Thoyer, and
    4. N. Hanley

    . 2016a. “Nudging Farmers to Enrol Land into Agri-environmental Schemes: The Role of a Collective Bonus.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 43: 609–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbv031.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
40. ↵
    1. Kuhfuss, L.,
    2. R. Préget,
    3. S. Thoyer,
    4. N. Hanley,
    5. P. L. Coent, and
    6. M. Désolé

    . 2016b. “Nudges, Social Norms, and Permanence in Agri-environmental Schemes.” Land Economics 92: 641–55. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.92.4.641.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
41. ↵
    1. Kuziemko, I.,
    2. M. I. Norton,
    3. E. Saez, and
    4. S. Stantcheva

    . 2015. “How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments.” American Economic Review 105: 1478–508. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20130360.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
42. ↵
    1. Lampe, I., and
    2. D. Würtenberger

    . 2019. “Loss Aversion and the Demand for Index Insurance.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 180: 678–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.10.019.

    OpenUrl
43. ↵
    1. Lastra-Bravo, X. B.,
    2. C. Hubbard,
    3. G. Garrod, and
    4. A. Tolón-Becerra

    . 2015. “What Drives Farmers’ Participation in EU Agri-environmental Schemes? Results from a Qualitative Meta-analysis.” Environmental Science and Policy 54: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.002.

    OpenUrl
44. ↵
    1. Medway, R. L., and
    2. J. Fulton

    . 2012. “When More Gets You Less: A Meta-analysis of the Effect of Concurrent Web Options on Mail Survey Response Rates.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76: 733–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs047.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
45. ↵
    1. Morewedge, C. K., and
    2. C. E. Giblin

    . 2015. “Explanations of the Endowment Effect: An Integrative Review.” Trends in Cognitive Science 19: 339–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.04.004.

    OpenUrl
46. ↵
    1. Muehlbacher, S.,
    2. B. Hartl, and
    3. E. Kirchler

    . 2017. “Mental Accounting and Tax Compliance: Experimental Evidence for the Effect of Mental Segregation of Tax Due and Revenue on Compliance.” Public Finance Review 45: 118–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142115602063.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
47. ↵
    1. Murphy, G.,
    2. S. Hynes,
    3. E. Murphy, and
    4. C. O’Donoghue

    . 2014. “An Investigation into the Type of Farmer Who Chose to Participate in Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) and the Role of Institutional Change in Influencing Scheme Effectiveness.” Land Use Policy 39: 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.015.

    OpenUrl
48. ↵
    1. Naumann, E.,
    2. L. F. Stoetzer, and
    3. G. Pietrantuono

    . 2018. “Attitudes Towards Highly Skilled and Low-Skilled Immigration in Europe: A Survey Experiment in 15 European Countries.” European Journal of Political Research 57: 1009–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12264.

    OpenUrl
49. ↵
    1. Odean, T.

    1998. “Are Investors Reluctant to Realize Their Losses?” Journal of Finance 53: 1775–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00072.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
50. ↵
    1. Ovenden, G. N.,
    2. A. R. H. Swash, and
    3. D. Smallshire

    . 1998. “Agri-environment Schemes and Their Contribution to the Conservation of Biodiversity in England.” Journal of Applied Ecology 35: 955–60.

    OpenUrl
51. ↵
    1. Pedersen, A. B.,
    2. H. Ø. Nielsen,
    3. T. Christensen, and
    4. B. Hasler

    . 2012. “Optimising the Effect of Policy Instruments: A Study of Farmers’ Decision Rationales and How They Match the Incentives in Danish Pesticide Policy.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55: 1094–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.636568.

    OpenUrl
52. ↵
    1. Pellegrin, C.,
    2. G. Grolleau,
    3. N. Mzoughi, and
    4. C. Napoleone

    . 2018. “Does the Identifiable Victim Effect Matter for Plants? Results From a Quasi-experimental Survey of French Farmers.” Ecological Economics 151: 106–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.001.

    OpenUrl
53. ↵
    1. Peth, D.,
    2. O. Mußhoff,
    3. K. Funke, and
    4. N. Hirschauer

    . 2018. “Nudging Farmers to Comply with Water Protection Rules: Experimental Evidence from Germany.” Ecological Economics 152: 310–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.007.

    OpenUrl
54. ↵
    1. Prelec, D., and
    2. G. Loewenstein

    . 1998. “The Red and the Black: Mental Accounting of Savings and Debt.” Marketing Science 17: 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.17.1.4.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
55. ↵
    1. Read, D.,
    2. G. Loewenstein, and
    3. M. Rabin

    . 1999. “Choice Bracketing.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19: 171–97.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
56. ↵
    1. Riley, M.

    2016. “How Does Longer Term Participation in Agri-environment Schemes [Re]shape Farmers’ Environmental Dispositions and Identities?” Land Use Policy 52: 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.010.

    OpenUrl
57. ↵
    1. Rocchi, L.,
    2. L. Paolotti, and
    3. F. F. Fagioli

    . 2017. “Defining Agri-environmental Schemes in the Buffer Areas of a Natural Regional Park: An Application of Choice Experiment Using the Latent Class Approach.” Land Use Policy 66: 141–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.033..

    OpenUrl
58. ↵
    Rural Payments Agency. 2019. “Basic Payment Scheme: Rules for 2019.” Rural Payments Agency. Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/814208/BPS_2019_scheme_rules_v2.0.pdf.
59. ↵
    1. Ruto, E., and
    2. G. Garrod

    . 2009. “Investigating Farmers’ Preferences for the Design of Agri-environment Schemes: A Choice Experiment Approach.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52: 631–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560902958172.

    OpenUrl
60. ↵
    1. Schulz, N.,
    2. G. Breustedt, and
    3. U. Latacz-Lohmann

    . 2014. “Assessing Farmers’ Willingness to Accept ‘Greening’: Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 65: 26–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12044.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
61. ↵
    1. Siebert, R.,
    2. M. Toogood, and
    3. A. Knierim

    . 2006. “Factors Affecting European Farmers’ Participation in Biodiversity Policies.” Sociologia Ruralis 46: 318–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2006.00420.x.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
62. ↵
    1. Thaler, R.

    1985. “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice.” Marketing Science 4: 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.4.3.199.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
63. ↵
    1. Thaler, R.

    . 1999. “Mental Accounting Matters.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12: 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199909)12:3<183::AID-BDM318>3.0.CO;2-F.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
64. ↵
    1. Thomas, F.,
    2. E. Midler,
    3. M. Lefebvre, and
    4. S. Engel

    . 2019. “Greening the Common Agricultural Policy: A Behavioural Perspective and Lab-in-the-Field Experiment in Germany.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 46 (3): 367–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz014.

    OpenUrl
65. ↵
    1. Thoyer, S., and
    2. R. Préget

    . 2019. “Enriching the CAP Evaluation Toolbox with Experimental Approaches: Introduction to the Special Issue.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 46: 347–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz024.

    OpenUrl
66. ↵
    1. Tovar, P.

    2009. “The Effects of Loss Aversion on Trade Policy: Theory and Evidence.” Journal of International Economics 78: 154–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2009.01.012.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
67. ↵
    1. Tversky, A., and
    2. D. Kahneman

    . 1991. “Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 106: 1039–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937956.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
68. ↵
    1. Vanslembrouck, I.,
    2. G. V. Huylenbroeck, and
    3. W. Verbeke

    . 2002. “Determinants of the Willingness of Belgian Farmers to Participate in Agri-environmental Measures.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 53: 489–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2002.tb00034.x.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
69. ↵
    1. Villamayor-Tomas, S.,
    2. J. Sagebiel, and
    3. R. Olschewski

    . 2019. “Bringing the Neighbors In: A Choice Experiment on the Influence of Coordination and Social Norms on Farmers’ Willingness to Accept Agro-environmental Schemes across Europe.” Land Use Policy 84: 200–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.006.

    OpenUrl
70. ↵
    1. Villanueva, A. J.,
    2. J. A. Gómez-Limón,
    3. M. Arriaza, and
    4. M. Rodríguez-Entrena

    . 2015. “The Design of Agri-environmental Schemes: Farmers’ Preferences in Southern Spain.” Land Use Policy 46: 142–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.009.

    OpenUrl
71. ↵
    1. Wallander, S.,
    2. P. Ferraro, and
    3. N. Higgins

    . 2017. “Addressing Participant Inattention in Federal Programs: A Field Experiment with The Conservation Reserve Program.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 99: 914–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aax023.

    OpenUrl
72. ↵
    1. Weber, M., and
    2. C. F. Camerer

    . 1998. “The Disposition Effect in Securities Trading: An Experimental Analysis.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 33: 167–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(97)00089-9.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
73. ↵
    1. Zhang, C. Y., and
    2. A. B. Sussman

    . 2017. “The Role of Mental Accounting in Household Spending and Investing Decisions.” SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3051415. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.