Jayson L. Lusk

Effect of Experimental Design on Choice-Based Conjoint Valuation Estimates

In this article, we investigate the effect of several commonly used experimental designs on willingness-to-pay in a Monte Carlo environment where true utility parameters are known. All experimental designs considered in this study generated unbiased valuation estimates. However, random designs or designs that explicitly incorporated attribute interactions generated more precise valuation estimates than main effects only designs. A key result of our analysis is that a large sample size can substitute for a poor experimental design. Overall, our results indicate that certain steps can be taken to achieve a manageably sized experimental design without sacrificing the credibility of welfare estimates. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.

How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior

We compare the ability of three preference elicitation methods (hypothetical choices, nonhypothetical choices, and nonhypothetical rankings) and three discrete-choice econometric models (the multinomial logit [MNL], the independent availability logit [IAL], and the random parameter logit [RPL]) to predict actual retail shopping behavior in three different product categories (ground beef, wheat flour, and dishwashing liquid). Overall, we find a high level of external validity. Our specific results suggest that the nonhypothetical elicitation approaches, especially the nonhypothetical ranking method, outperformed the hypothetical choice experiment in predicting retail sales. We also find that the RPL can have superior predictive performance, but that the MNL predicts equally well in some circumstances. Copyright 2007, Oxford University Press.

The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy

Historically, the challenge for humans has been to secure a sufficient supply of food to stave off hunger and starvation. As a result, much of the research on food and agriculture in the past century has focused on issues related to production efficiency, food supply, and farm profitability. In recent years, however, farmers, agribusiness, policy makers, and academics have increasingly turned their attention away from the farm and toward the food consumer and to issues related to food consumption. This handbook provides an overview of the economics of food consumption and policy and is a useful reference for academics and graduate students interested in food economics and the consumer-end of the supply chain. It is also relevant to those employed in food and agricultural industries, policy makers, and activist groups. The first section covers the application of the core theoretical and methodological approaches of the economics of food consumption and policy. The second part concentrates on policy issues related to food consumption. Several chapters focus on the theoretical and conceptual issues relevant in food markets, such as product bans, labeling, food standards, political economy, and scientific uncertainty. Additional chapters discuss policy issues of particular interest to the consumer-end of the food supply chain, such as food safety, nutrition, food security, and development. The final section serves as an introduction to particular issues and current topics in food consumption and policy. Contributors to this volume - Awudu Abdulai, University of Kiel, Germany W.L. Adamowicz, University of Alberta, Canada Luis Miguel Albisu, Agro-Food Research and Technology Centre of Aragon (CITA), Spain Frode Alfnes, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway Sven M. Anders, University of Alberta, Canada Fredrik Carlsson, University of Gothenburg, Sweden Sean B. Cash, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA Julie A. Caswell, University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA Marco Costanigro, Colorado State University, USA Sven-Olov Daunfeldt, Dalarna University, Sweden Andreas C. Drichoutis, University of Ioannina, Greece Fabrice Etile Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, France and Paris School of Economics, France Jacinto F. Fabiosa, Iowa State University, USA John A. Fox, Kansas State University, USA Konstantinos Giannakas, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA Azucena Gracia, Agro-Food Research and Technology Centre of Aragon (CITA), Spain Roland Herrmann, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Germany Sandra A. Hoffmann, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA Wallace E. Huffman, Iowa State University, USA Helen H. Jensen, Iowa State University, USA Olof Johansson-Stenman, University of Gothenburg, Sweden David R. Just, Cornell University, USA Harry M. Kaiser, Cornell University, USA Christian Kuhlgatz, University of Kiel, Germany Panagiotis Lazaridis, Agricultural University of Athens, Greece Mariah L. Loureiro, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain Jayson L. Lusk, Oklahoma State University, USA Stephan Marette, UMR Economie Publique INRA-AgroParisTech, France Thomas L. Marsh, Washington State University, USA William A. Masters, Tufts University, USA Jill J. McCluskey, Washington State University, USA Pierre R. Merel , University of California-Davis, USA Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., University of Arkansas, USA Jonas Nordstrom, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, and Lund University, Sweden Nicholas E. Piggott, North Carolina State University, USA Kyrre Rickertsen, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway Jutta Roosen, Technische Universitat Munchen, Germany Ana Isabel Sanjuan, Agro-Food Research and Technology Centre of Aragon (CITA), Spain Ted C. Schroeder, Kansas State University, USA Richard J. Sexton, University of California-Davis, USA Ian Sheldon, The Ohio State University, USA Jason F. Shogren, University of Wyoming, USA Hayden Stewart, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, USA Joffre D. Swait, University of Alberta, Canada Johan F.M. Swinnen, University of Leuven, Belgium Mario F. Teisl, Professor, University of Maine, USA Ramona Teuber, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Germany Linda Thunstrom, The Swedish Retail Institute (HUI), Sweden Glynn T. Tonsor, Kansas State University, USA Thijs Vandemoortele, University of Leuven, Belguim Joachim von Braun, Bonn University, Germany Christoph R. Weiss, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria Parke Wilde, Tufts University, USA Michael K. Wohlgenant,North Carolina State University, USA

Who Participates in Household Scanning Panels

We compare two widely used household scanning panels maintained by the Nielsen Company and Information Resources Inc. to a random sample of the U.S. population. Results indicate that the demographic characteristics of the random sample more closely match the Census Bureau data than the household scanning panels. We also show that after controlling for demographic differences, participants in the household scanning panels are slightly more price sensitive than participants in the random sample. The two household scanning panels yield similar results in relation to one another, which suggests that the household scanning panels may suffer from sample selection and participation biases. Copyright 2010, Oxford University Press.

Is Hypothetical Bias a Universal Phenomenon?: A Multinational Investigation

A concern with the contingent valuation method (CVM) is the finding that hypothetical and real statements of value often differ. We test whether hypothetical bias, broadly defined, is independent of location by comparing real and hypothetical votes on a dichotomous choice referendum in China, France, Indiana, Kansas, and Niger. We find significant differences in hypothetical bias across locations and reject the hypothesis that hypothetical bias is independent of location. As opposed to the typical finding reported in the literature, subjects in Niger significantly understated their willingness-to-pay in the hypothetical referendum. (JEL Q51)

A survey to determine public opinion about the ethics and governance of farm animal welfare

OBJECTIVE To determine the attitude of the public toward farm animal welfare and identify beliefs regarding how decisions about farm animal welfare should be made. DESIGN Telephone survey. STUDY POPULATION A random sample of 1,019 US households. PROCEDURES US households were contacted by telephone and asked to take part in a survey consisting of 48 items. RESULTS A majority (437/773 [56.4%]) of respondents believed decisions about farm animal welfare should be made by experts rather than being based on the views of the public. Such advocates of expert decision making were less likely to believe the government should regulate farm animal welfare. Most (420/773 [54.3%]) respondents believed decisions about farm animal welfare should be based on scientific measures of animal well-being, as opposed to moral and ethical considerations. Those individuals who believed farm animal welfare decisions should be made by experts and be based on scientific measures were the least concerned about farm animal welfare issues. People who believed animal welfare decisions should be made by experts and be based on scientific measures were most responsive to information about use of gestation crates for sows. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE These results should help increase recognition that changing public opinion is not simply a matter of convincing the public to support positions established by veterinarians and animal scientists. Peoples views about the role of the democratic process in regulating technologic change are important determinants of whether people accept the changes in animal agriculture that have occurred during the past century.

Economic Assessment of FMDv Releases from the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility.

This study evaluates the economic consequences of hypothetical foot-and-mouth disease releases from the future National Bio and Agro Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas. Using an economic framework that estimates the impacts to agricultural firms and consumers, quantifies costs to non-agricultural activities in the epidemiologically impacted region, and assesses costs of response to the government, we find the distribution of economic impacts to be very significant. Furthermore, agricultural firms and consumers bear most of the impacts followed by the government and the regional non-agricultural firms.

Market Price Endogeneity and Accuracy of Value Elicitation Mechanisms

This book explores frontier work at the intersection of experimental and environmental economics, with cutting edge research provided by premier scholars in the field. The book begins by focusing on improving benefit–cost analysis, which remains the hallmark of public policy decision-making around the globe. The contributors provide innovative avenues to credibly lead to more efficient policies. T

The Economic Value of Improvements in Beef Tenderness by Genetic Marker Selection

A genetic simulation model is combined with an economic model of the U.S. beef industry to determine how consumer demand shifts, resulting from bull and heifer selection strategies that improve steak tenderness, affect economic profitability at four points in the beef supply chain. The results indicate that a selection strategy in which bulls in the upper 30% of genetic merit are selected each year would result in increased profitability of

Risk aversion in the presence of background risk: Evidence from an economic experiment

9.60/head for feeder cattle and