Vol. 15 No. 2 (2026)
Full Research Articles

Farmers, experts and students’ subjective probability distributions on methane emission reductions in livestock farming: An experimental comparison across elicitation methods

PDF Suppl. Mat.
  • Claudia Magnapera,
  • Austėja Kažemekaitytė,
  • Roberta Raffaelli ,
  • Simone Cerroni
Claudia Magnapera
Institute of Natural Resource Sciences (IUNR), Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW), Wädenswil, Switzerland
Austėja Kažemekaitytė
Faculty of Economics and Management, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano: Bolzano, Italy
Roberta Raffaelli
Department of Economics and Management, University of Trento, Trento, Italy
Simone Cerroni
Department of Economics and Management, University of Trento, Trento, Italy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-17310

Published 2025-09-22

Keywords

  • subjective probability distributions,
  • quadratic scoring rule,
  • frequency method,
  • interval method,
  • methane emission reductions

How to Cite

Magnapera, C., Kažemekaitytė, A., Raffaelli , R., & Cerroni, S. (2025). Farmers, experts and students’ subjective probability distributions on methane emission reductions in livestock farming: An experimental comparison across elicitation methods. Bio-Based and Applied Economics, 15(2), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-17310

Copyright (c) 2026 Claudia Magnapera, Austėja Kažemekaitytė, Roberta Raffaelli , Simone Cerroni

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Subjective probabilities are important determinants of economic choice behaviour, and their elicitation is not trivial. Different methods are available in the literature. This paper compares three of them using an economic experiment with farmers, other experts (animal nutrition and production scientists, vets, as well as animal feed, dairy, and meat company representatives), and agricultural students: the frequency method (FM), the interval method (IM), and the quadratic scoring rule method (QSR). These methods vary in the degree of complexity and saliency of the incentive scheme. Elicited subjective probability distributions refer to methane emissions reductions that can be achieved by changing animal diets in livestock farming. The study investigates whether these methods produce consistent results across methods and participant groups. Subjective probability distributions do not significantly differ across methods and participant groups. Overall, these results support that the use of less complex methods such as the FM and IM may be preferable.

PDF Suppl. Mat.

References

  1. Andersen, S., Fountain, J., Harrison, G. W., et al. (2014). Estimating subjective probabilities. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 48: 207–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-014-9194-z
  2. Arata, L., Cerroni, S., Santeramo, F. G., Trestini, S., Severini, S. (2023). Towards a holistic approach to sustainable risk management in agriculture in the EU: A literature review. Bio-Based and Applied Economics, 12(3): 165-182. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-14492
  3. Arndt, C., Hristov, A. N., Price, W. J., McClelland, S. C., Pelaez, A. M., Cueva, S. F., … & Yu, Z. (2022). Full adoption of the most effective strategies to mitigate methane emissions by ruminants can help meet the 1.5°C target by 2030 but not 2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(20). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111294119
  4. Beauchemin, K. A., Ungerfeld, E. M., Abdalla, A. L., Alvarez, C., Arndt, C., Becquet, P., … & Kebreab, E. (2022). Invited review: Current enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Dairy Science, 105(12). https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22091
  5. Belanche, A., Newbold, C. J., Morgavi, D. P., Bach, A., Zweifel, B., & Yáñez-Ruiz, D. R. (2020). A meta-analysis describing the effects of the essential oils blend Agolin Ruminant on performance, rumen fermentation and methane emissions in dairy cows. Animals, 10(4): 620. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040620
  6. Belot, M., Duch, R. and Miller, L. (2015). A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 113, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.02.007
  7. Block, J. B., Michels, M., Mußhoff, O., & Hermann, D. (2024). How to reduce the carbon footprint of the agricultural sector? Factors influencing farmers’ decision to participate in carbon sequestration programs. Journal of Environmental Management, 359, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121019
  8. Brier, G. W. (1950). Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly Weather Review, 78(1): 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078%3C0001:vofeit%3E2.0.co;2
  9. Cerroni, S., Bozzola, M., & Rippo, R. (2023). Eliciting farmers’ risk and uncertainty preferences using contextualized field experiments in developing countries: A pilot study. In Managing Risk in Agriculture: A Development Perspective, 85-100. GB: CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781800622289.0006
  10. Cerroni, S. (2020). Eliciting farmers’ subjective probabilities, risk, and uncertainty preferences using contextualized field experiments. Agricultural Economics, 51(5): 707-724. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12587
  11. Cerroni, S., Notaro, S., & Shaw, W. D. (2012). Eliciting and estimating valid subjective probabilities: An experimental investigation of the exchangeability method. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 84(1): 201-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.08.001
  12. Cerroni, S., & Rippo, R. (2023). Subjective probabilities and farmers’ decision-making in developing countries. In Managing Risk in Agriculture: A Development Perspective : 35-49. GB: CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781800622289.0003
  13. Charness, G., & Dufwenberg, M. (2006). Promises and partnership. Econometrica, 74(6): 1579-1601. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00719.x
  14. Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Halladay, B. (2016). Experimental methods: Pay one or pay all. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 131: 141-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.08.010
  15. Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Rasocha, V. (2021). Experimental methods: Eliciting beliefs. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 189: 234-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.06.032
  16. Chen, D. L., Schonger, M., & Wickens, C. (2016). oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 9: 88-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2015.12.001
  17. Čop, T., Cerroni, S., & Njavro, M. (2023). Farmers’ acceptance of the income stabilisation tool: a discrete choice experiment application. European review of agricultural economics, 50(4): 1520-1546. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbad025
  18. Crosetto, P., & De Haan, T. (2023). Comparing input interfaces to elicit belief distributions. Judgment and Decision Making, 18: e27. https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2023.21
  19. Danz, D., Vesterlund, L., & Wilson, A. J. (2022). Belief elicitation and behavioral incentive compatibility. American Economic Review, 112(9): 2851-2883. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20201248
  20. Delavande, A., Giné, X., & McKenzie, D. (2011). Measuring subjective expectations in developing countries: A critical review and new evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 94(2): 151-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2010.01.008
  21. Dessart, F. J., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., & Van Bavel, R. (2019). Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 417-471. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz019
  22. Dufwenberg, M., & Gneezy, U. (2000). Measuring beliefs in an experimental lost wallet game. Games and Economic Behavior, 30(2): 163-182. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1999.0715
  23. Feyisa, A. D., Maertens, M., & de Mey, Y. (2023). Relating risk preferences and risk perceptions over different agricultural risk domains: Insights from Ethiopia. World Development, 162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.106137
  24. Fezzi, C., Menapace, L., & Raffaelli, R. (2021). Estimating risk preferences integrating insurance choices with subjective beliefs. European Economic Review, 135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2021.103717
  25. Glasson, C. R., Kinley, R. D., de Nys, R., King, N., Adams, S. L., Packer, M. A., … & Magnusson, M. (2022). Benefits and risks of including the bromoform containing seaweed Asparagopsis in feed for the reduction of methane production from ruminants. Algal Research, 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2022.102673
  26. Grisley, W., & Kellogg, E. D. (1983). Farmers’ subjective probabilities in Northern Thailand: an elicitation analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(1): 74-82. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240339
  27. Grüner, S., Lehberger, M., Hirschauer, N., & Mußhoff, O. (2022). How (un)informative are experiments with students for other social groups? A study of agricultural students and farmers. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 66(3): 471-504. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12485
  28. Hardaker, J. B., & Lien, G. (2010). Probabilities for decision analysis in agriculture and rural resource economics: the need for a paradigm change. Agricultural Systems, 103, 345–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.01.001
  29. Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4): 1009–1055. https://doi.org/10.1257/0022051043004577
  30. Harrison, G. W., Martínez-Correa, J., Swarthout, J. T., & Ulm, E. R. (2017). Scoring rules for subjective probability distributions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 134: 430-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.12.001
  31. Honan, M., Feng, X., Tricarico, J. M., & Kebreab, E. (2021). Feed additives as a strategic approach to reduce enteric methane production in cattle: Modes of action, effectiveness, and safety. Animal Production Science, 62: 1303-1317. https://doi.org/10.1071/an20295
  32. Höhler, J., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., Czajkowski, M., Dessart, F. J., Ferraro, P. J., Li, T., … & Rommel, J. (2024). Perspectives on stakeholder participation in the design of economic experiments for agricultural policymaking: Pros, cons, and twelve recommendations for researchers. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 46(1): 338-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13385
  33. Hristov, A. N., Oh, J., Firkins, J. L., Dijkstra, J., Kebreab, E., Waghorn, G., … & Tricarico, J. M. (2013). Special topics—Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science, 91(11): 5045-5069. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6583
  34. Hurley, T. M., & Shogren, J. F. (2005). An experimental comparison of induced and elicited beliefs. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 30: 169-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-005-6565-5
  35. Kadane, J. B., & Winkler, R. L. (1988). Separating probability elicitation from utilities. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(402): 357-363. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478605
  36. Kleinlercher, D., & Stöckl, T. (2018). On the provision of incentives in finance experiments. Experimental Economics, 21: 154-179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-017-9530-7
  37. Manski, C. F. (2004). Measuring expectations. Econometrica, 72: 1329–1376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00537.x.
  38. Manski, C. F. (2018). Survey measurement of probabilistic macroeconomic expectations: progress and promise. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 32(1): 411-471. https://doi.org/10.1086/696061
  39. Matheson, J. E., & Winkler, R. L. (1976). Scoring rules for continuous probability distributions. Management Science, 22(10): 1087-1096. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.22.10.1087
  40. Menapace, L., Colson, G., & Raffaelli, R. (2013). Risk aversion, subjective beliefs, and farmer risk management strategies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95(2): 384-389. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aas107
  41. Meraner, M., & Finger, R. (2019). Risk perceptions, preferences and management strategies: evidence from a case study using German livestock farmers. Journal of Risk Research, 22(1): 110-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1351476
  42. Meraner, M., Musshoff, O., & Finger, R. (2018). Using involvement to reduce inconsistencies in risk preference elicitation. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 73: 22-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2018.01.001
  43. Offerman, T., Sonnemans, J., Van De Kuilen, G., & Wakker, P. P. (2009). A truth serum for non-Bayesians: correcting proper scoring rules for risk attitudes. Review of Economic Studies, 76: 1461–1489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00557.x.
  44. Oprea, R. (2020). What makes a rule complex? American Economic Review, 110(12): 3913-3951. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191717
  45. Papke, L. E., & Wooldridge, J. M. (1996). Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(6): 619–632. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1255(199611)11:6<619::aid-jae418>3.0.co;2-1
  46. Purvis, A., Boggess, W. G., Moss, C. B., & Holt, J. (1995). Technology adoption decisions under irreversibility and uncertainty: an ex ante approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77: 541-551. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243223.
  47. Rabin, M., & Schrag, J. L. (1999). First impressions matter: a model of confirmatory bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(1): 37-82. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399555945
  48. Reynaud, A., & Couture, S. (2012). Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers. Theory and Decision, 73: 203-221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-012-9296-5
  49. Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 1: 236–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.3800010316.
  50. Schlag, K., & Tremewan, J. (2021). Simple belief elicitation: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 62: 137-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-021-09349-6
  51. Schlag, K. H., Tremewan, J., & van der Weele, J. J. (2015). A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs. Experimental Economics, 18: 457–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-014-9416-x.
  52. Schlag, K. H., & van der Weele, J. J. (2015). A method to elicit beliefs as most likely intervals. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(5): 456–468. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500005593.
  53. Smith, J., & Mandac, A. M. (1995). Subjective versus objective yield distributions as measures of production risk. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(1): 152-161. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243897
  54. Smith, C., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Armour, K., Collins, W., Forster, P., Meinshausen, M., … & Watanabe, M. (2021). The Earth’s energy budget, climate feedbacks, and climate sensitivity supplementary material. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., … Zhou, B. (eds.)]. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/.
  55. Trautmann, S. T., & van de Kuilen, G. (2015). Belief elicitation: A horse race among truth serums. The Economic Journal, 125(589): 2116-2135. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12160
  56. Trujillo-Barrera, A., Pennings, J. M., & Hofenk, D. (2016). Understanding producers’ motives for adopting sustainable practices: the role of expected rewards, risk perception and risk tolerance. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 43(3): 359-382. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbv038
  57. Tjernström, E., Lybbert, T. J., Hernández, R. F., & Correa, J. S. (2021). Learning by (virtually) doing: experimentation and belief updating in smallholder agriculture. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 189: 28-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.03.001
  58. van Winsen, F., de Mey, Y., Lauwers, L., Van Passel, S., Vancauteren, M., & Wauters, E. (2016). Determinants of risk behaviour: effects of perceived risks and risk attitude on farmer’s adoption of risk management strategies. Journal of Risk Research, 19(1): 56-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.940597
  59. Villacis, A. H., Mishra, A. K., Barrera, V., & Dominguez, J. (2023). Risk perceptions of climate change, risk preferences and cacao farming. In Managing Risk in Agriculture: A Development Perspective, 225-237. GB: CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781800622289.0016
  60. Zappalà, G. (2023). Drought exposure and accuracy: motivated reasoning in climate change beliefs. Environmental Resource Economics, 85: 649–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-023-00779-1.
  61. Wells, C. W. (2023). Effects of essential oils on economically important characteristics of ruminant species: a comprehensive review. Animal Nutrition, 16: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2023.05.017
  62. Winkler, R. L., & Murphy, A. H. (1970). Nonlinear utility and the probability score. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 9(1): 143-148. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1970)009<0143:nuatps>2.0.co;2