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.