Weigel et al.: Testing Conservation Strategies with Surprising Results

In Using a Randomized Controlled Trial to Develop Conservation Strategies on Rented Farmlands, Collin Weigel (Johns Hopkins & Nature Conservancy), Seth Harden (Nature Conservatory), Yuta J. Masuda (Nature Conservatory), Pranay Ranjan (Purdue), Chloe B. Wardropper (Idaho), Paul J. Ferraro (Johns Hopkins Business), Linda Prokopy (Purdue), and Sheila Reddy (Nature Conservatory) evaluate actual landowner responses to various conservation program designs — with surprising results.

The authors used a randomized controlled trial to test conservation strategies in a sample of 2,225 non-operating agricultural landowners (NOLs) in the Mississippi River Basin. These landowners were divided into three groups: The control group received a packet containing information on conservation. The second group received the same packet and an example of legal language that could be used as a lease addendum requiring their tenant operator to use cover crops. The third group received the packet, sample lease language, and a financial incentive of $1,500 for actually adding a lease requirement that the tenant plant at least 40 acres of cover crops.

The authors found no statistically significant difference in adoption rates among each of the three groups. Neither the sample lease language nor the financial incentive created any discernable effect on actual take-up rates for cover crop requirements.

Perhaps even more importantly, the actual take-up rate of conservation measures was only one-tenth the expected rate based on NOL responses to a hypothetical offer in a survey. This is a huge discrepancy between NOLs’ actual actions and their stated preferences. Actual conservation actions are significantly lower than predicted from survey responses.

Combining this discrepancy between action and stated beliefs with the fact that there is no statistically significant difference among incentive programs (information only, information plus a nudge of sample lease language, and information plus a nudge plus a financial incentive) creates a real challenge for policy-makers. The authors emphasize the need for more testing of real-world outcomes when making choices about how to allocate resources and pursue environmental goals.

This digest was produced with significant contribution from Aurora Kenworthy, UNL Law Student.