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.

Peer feedback can decrease consumers' willingness to pay for food: Evidence from a field experiment.

The vast majority of consumer products fail to attract sufficient consumer demand. Word of mouth marketing and online feedback from other consumers have become focal marketing strategies for many products as social media has increased the size of networks and amplified the impact of messages from other consumers. The current literature on the influence that consumer feedback can have on consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) for food products is mixed and often draws upon studies with small samples and hypothetical situations. This study investigates how this feedback can impact other consumers' food preferences using an economic field experiment involving 1,068 adult consumers who make choices on oysters, mushrooms, and chocolate. Results suggest that knowledge of peer preferences, such as the willingness to pay for similar products and/or how often they consume these products, caused a decrease (5%-9%) in consumers' willingness to pay.

Private costs of carbon emissions abatement by limiting beef consumption and vehicle use in the United States.

A popular strategy for mitigating climate change is to persuade or incentivize individuals to limit behaviors associated with high greenhouse gas emissions. In this study, adults in the mid-Atlantic United States bid in an auction to receive compensation for eliminating beef consumption or limiting vehicle use. The auction incentivized participants to reveal their true costs of accepting these limits for periods ranging from one week to one year. Compliance with the conditions of the auction was confirmed via a random field audit of the behavioral changes. The estimated median abatement costs were greater than $600 per tCO2e for beef consumption and $1,300 per tCO2e for vehicle use, values much higher than the price of carbon offsets and most estimates of the social cost of carbon. Although these values may decline over time with experience or broader social adoption, they imply that policies that encourage innovations to reduce the costs of behavior change, such as meat alternatives or emission-free vehicles, may be a more fruitful than those that limit beef consumption or vehicle use.

Paying Americans to take the vaccine-would it help or backfire?

This research investigates the extent to which financial incentives (conditional cash transfers) would induce Americans to opt for vaccination against coronavirus disease of 2019. We performed a randomized survey experiment with a representative sample of 1000 American adults in December 2020. Respondents were asked whether they would opt for vaccination under one of three incentive conditions ($1000, $1500, or $2000 financial incentive) or a no-incentive condition. We find that-without coupled financial incentives-only 58 per cent of survey respondents would elect for vaccination. A coupled financial incentive yields an 8-percentage-point increase in vaccine uptake relative to this baseline. The size of the cash transfer does not dramatically affect uptake rates. However, incentive responses differ dramatically by demographic group. Republicans were less responsive to financial incentives than the general population. For Black and Latino Americans especially, very large financial incentives may be counter-productive.

Conservation outreach that acknowledges human contributions to climate change does not inhibit action by U.S. farmers: Evidence from a large randomized controlled trial embedded in a federal program on soil health.

Technologies and practices that reduce the environmental impacts of US agriculture are well documented. Less is known about how best to encourage their adoption. We report on the results of a large randomized controlled trial conducted with nearly 10,000 agricultural producers in the United States. The experiment was embedded in US Department of Agriculture outreach efforts to improve soil conservation practices. USDA varied the content of mailings to test two sets of competing theories about outreach to agricultural producers. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we find no evidence that acknowledging the link between climate change and agricultural production discourages conservation action. Furthermore, we find that producers who were invited to a webinar were less likely to take any action to learn more about conservation practices than producers who were not told about the webinar, a result that runs counter to the popular wisdom that offering more options leads to more action.

Environmental and Regulatory Concerns During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results from the Pandemic Food and Stigma Survey.

In this article, we present data from the monthly Pandemic Food and Stigma Survey (PFSS), a nationwide representative sample of adults in the United States designed to identify how the pandemic is affecting concerns about food and the environment. Two surveys were conducted in May and June 2020. Our analysis suggests that the public's concern about contracting COVID-19 has been high; however, infection with COVID-19 was not the only concern. A majority of respondents remained strongly concerned about environmental issues, such as climate change, while responses to sudden relaxations of environmental and food safety policies varied. We analyze the PFSS data to identify factors associated with concerns about pandemic and environmental regulatory changes. In general, we find that people whose food security has been threatened by COVID-19 remain concerned about relaxation of environmental regulations, and those most inclined to take steps to reduce spread of the virus, such as wearing masks and social distancing, are more concerned about relaxed regulations than those less willing to take mitigating actions.

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.

Cost-effective conservation planning: lessons from economics.

Economists advocate that the billions of public dollars spent on conservation be allocated to achieve the largest possible social benefit. This is "cost-effective conservation"-a process that incorporates both monetized benefits and costs. Though controversial, cost-effective conservation is poorly understood and rarely implemented by planners. Drawing from the largest publicly financed conservation programs in the United States, this paper seeks to improve the communication from economists to planners and to overcome resistance to cost-effective conservation. Fifteen practical lessons are distilled, including the negative implications of limiting selection with political constraints, using nonmonetized benefit measures or benefit indices, ignoring development risk, using incomplete cost measures, employing cost measures sequentially, and using benefit indices to capture costs. The paper highlights interrelationships between benefits and complications such as capitalization and intertemporal planning. The paper concludes by identifying the challenges at the research frontier, including incentive problems associated with adverse selection, additionality, and slippage.