Utility Analysis in a Practical Setting
Abstract
An empirical study involving derivations of farmers' utility functions and the accuracy of these functions in predicting practical decisions is here reported. Three models of utility estimation which were used are compared as to their predictive accuracy and usefulness under field conditions. The study tests the hypothesis that maximizing expected utility, as a criterion of decision, is superior to maximizing expected monetary value. Utility functions are derived for two points in time in order to test the hypothesis that, if utility functions are to serve as a guide to the decision maker, they must be derived at each point in time at which decisions are made. Implications for decision‐making research and for practical farm decision making are indicated.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Current patterns of land use are the aggregate outcome of individual farmers acting to maximize their utility, given the assets they are endowed with.
“Existing theory and empirical analysis from agricultural economics and land change science suggest that current patterns of land use are the aggregate outcome of individual farmers acting to maximize their utility, given the assets they are endowed with (Officer andHalter 1968, Walker 2004).”
From Explaining the persistence of low income and environmentally degrading land uses in the Brazilian Amazon (2017) · cites this paper as Officer and Halter 1968
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Garrett, R. D., Gardner, T. A., Morello, T. F., Marchand, S., Barlow, J., Ezzine de Blas, D., Ferreira, J., Lees, A. C., & Parry, L. (2017) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-09364-220327 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
- Authors
- Officer, R. R., & Halter, A. N.
- Affiliations
- University of Chicago (US)
- Oregon State University (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Agricultural Economics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1968-05
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 257-277
- ISSN
- 0002-9092 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8276
- OpenAlex
- W2155538984
- Cited by
- 132
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Agricultural Economics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Agricultural economics and policies
- Keywords
- utility functions, farmer decision-making, expected utility maximization, expected monetary value, prediction accuracy, farm management decisions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
