Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: Do testimonials by experts work?

Using non-pecuniary interventions to motivate pro-environmental behavior appeals to program administrators seeking cost-effective ways to increase adoption of environmental practices. However, all good-intended interventions should not be expected to be effective and reporting when interventions fail is as important as documenting their successes. We used a framed field experiment with 308 adults from the Mid-Atlantic in the United States to test the effectiveness of an expert testimonial in encouraging adoption of native plants in residential settings. Though studies have found testimonials to be effective in other contexts, we find that the video testimonial had no effect on residents' willingness to pay for native plants. Our analysis also shows that consumers who are younger, have higher incomes, and use other environmentally friendly practices on their lawns are more likely than other consumers to purchase native plants.

What's in a name? Branding reclaimed water.

Reclaimed water is often presented as a cost-effective, reliable, and safe solution to increasingly common water shortages in the United States and across the globe, but studies have shown that consumers tend to object to the use of this water. Broad adoption of this technology will require consumer acceptance or at least tolerance of it, and studies have suggested that better branding could minimize consumers' concerns. In this study, we first test twenty-one potential branding names for reclaimed water using survey responses to identify the top-six most favored names. We then determine whether an opportunity for consumers to try reclaimed water can change their preferences. The results suggest that the common names for this water, such as Recycled, Reclaimed, Nontraditional, Treated Wastewater, and Reused, are the least appealing, as they all scored at the bottom. In contrast, names that invoke desirable characteristics of the water-Pure, Eco-Friendly, and Advanced Purified, were viewed significantly more favorable than the others. Having an opportunity to taste reclaimed water treated to a potable standard seems to clarify consumers' preferences by increasing the differences in favorability between the names. Based on these results, it appears that while there are a couple of appealing names, the most consistently preferred is Pure Water.

Reclaimed water and food production: Cautionary tales from consumer research.

Reclaimed water has been identified as a viable and cost-effective solution to water shortages impacting agricultural production. However, lack of consumer acceptance for foods irrigated with reclaimed and treated water remains one of the greatest hurdles for widespread farm-level adoption. Using survey data from 760 participants in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S., this paper examines consumer preferences for six sources of reclaimed irrigation water and identifies statistically significant relationships between consumers' demographic characteristics and their preferences for each type of reclaimed water. Key findings suggest that adult consumers prefer rain water to all other sources of reclaimed water. Women are less likely than men to prefer reclaimed irrigation water sources and are particularly concerned about the use of black and brackish water. Consumers who had heard about reclaimed water before are more likely to accept its use. Drawing on evidence from survey and experimental research, this paper also identifies disgust, neophobia and safety concerns as the key issues that lead consumers to accept or reject foods produced with reclaimed water. Finally, we identify avenues for future research into public acceptance of reclaimed water based on our analysis and evidence from prior research.