IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v99y2017i4p914-931..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Addressing Participant Inattention in Federal Programs: A Field Experiment with The Conservation Reserve Program

Author

Listed:
  • Steven Wallander
  • Paul Ferraro
  • Nathaniel Higgins

Abstract

Voluntary land conservation programs depend upon the willingness of land owners to participate. Since participation requires commitment to long-term contracts, most studies on participation focus on changes to the pecuniary incentives facing land owners. This study presents a large-scale field experiment within the USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that examines whether informational outreach, including behavioral nudges, could improve land owners’ willingness to participate. The experiment evaluates the impact of three types of reminder letters on the rate at which land is offered into the CRP. We find that for the most well-informed group, farms with expiring CRP contracts, the reminder letters did improve participation. We interpret this result as evidence of inattentive behavior. We do not detect any differences in the estimated treatment effects among the basic reminder letter and the letters augmented with peer comparisons and social norm messaging, nor do we detect any treatment effect among currently unenrolled farms. From a policy perspective, these results imply that the USDA can generate additional CRP offers among farms with expiring contracts at an average cost of $39 per additional offer. Assuming a twenty-five million acre program, reminder letters sent during every sign-up period would result in re-enrollment offers from an additional 420,000 acres. Using simulations based on offers from prior CRP sign-ups, we estimate that these additional offers in the CRP auction would reduce program costs. Depending on the year of simulation, the outreach effort achieves a benefit-cost ratio of between 20:1 and 90:1.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven Wallander & Paul Ferraro & Nathaniel Higgins, 2017. "Addressing Participant Inattention in Federal Programs: A Field Experiment with The Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(4), pages 914-931.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:99:y:2017:i:4:p:914-931.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aax023
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    2. Dietrich Earnhart & Paul J. Ferraro, 2021. "The Effect of Peer Comparisons on Polluters: A Randomized Field Experiment among Wastewater Dischargers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(4), pages 627-652, August.
    3. Sylvain Chabé-Ferret & Philippe Le Coent & Arnaud Reynaud & Julie Subervie & Daniel Lepercq, 2019. "Can we nudge farmers into saving water? Evidence from a randomised experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 393-416.
    4. Mitani, Yohei & Shimada, Hideki, 2021. "Self-selection bias in estimating the determinants of landowners' Re-enrollment decisions in forest incentive programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    5. Wallander, Steven & Hellerstein, Daniel M. & Johnsen, Reid, 2018. "Cost Effectiveness of Conservation Auctions Revisited: The Benefits of Information Rents," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274457, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2018. "Can RCTs help improve the design of CAP," Working Papers hal-01974425, HAL.
    7. Rola-Rubzen, Maria Fay & Sarmiento, Jon Marx & Villano, Renato A. & Murray-Prior, Roy & Khan, Md. Farid Uddin & Alam, Md Mahafuj & Timsina, Krishna Prasad & Das, Kalyan K., 2023. "Nudging Via Text Reminders: Can Behavioural Economics Increase the Adoption of Conservation Agriculture-based Sustainable Intensification Technologies in South Asia?," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335953, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Leah H. Palm-Forster & Paul J. Ferraro & Nicholas Janusch & Christian A. Vossler & Kent D. Messer, 2019. "Behavioral and Experimental Agri-Environmental Research: Methodological Challenges, Literature Gaps, and Recommendations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 719-742, July.
    9. R. Aaron Hrozencik & Jordan F. Suter & Paul J. Ferraro & Nathan Hendricks, 2024. "Social comparisons and groundwater use: Evidence from Colorado and Kansas," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(2), pages 946-966, March.
    10. Assogba, Noel Perceval & Zhang, Daowei, 2022. "The conservation reserve program and timber prices in the southern United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    11. Shimada, Hideki, 2020. "Do monetary rewards for spatial coordination enhance participation in a forest incentive program?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    12. Collin Weigel & Laura A. Paul & Paul J. Ferraro & Kent D. Messer, 2021. "Challenges in Recruiting U.S. Farmers for Policy‐Relevant Economic Field Experiments," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 556-572, June.
    13. Benjamin Ouvrard & Raphaële Préget & Arnaud Reynaud & Laetitia Tuffery, 2020. "Nudging and Subsidizing Farmers to Foster Smart Water Meter Adoption," Working Papers hal-02958784, HAL.
    14. Douadia Bougherara & Lea Gosset & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2023. "Innovativeness, innovation adoption and priming: Nudging farmers in a large-scale randomized experiment in France," Post-Print hal-04227775, HAL.
    15. Karsyn Lamb & Kristiana Hansen & Christopher Bastian & Amy Nagler & Chian Jones Ritten, 2019. "Investigating Potential Impacts of Credit Failure Risk Mitigation on Habitat Exchange Outcomes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 815-842, July.
    16. Mykel R. Taylor & Nathan P. Hendricks & Gabriel S. Sampson & Dillon Garr, 2021. "The Opportunity Cost of the Conservation Reserve Program: A Kansas Land Example," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 849-865, June.
    17. Sergei Schaub & Jaboury Ghazoul & Robert Huber & Wei Zhang & Adelaide Sander & Charles Rees & Simanti Banerjee & Robert Finger, 2023. "The role of behavioural factors and opportunity costs in farmers' participation in voluntary agri‐environmental schemes: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 617-660, September.
    18. Thilo W. Glebe, 2022. "The influence of contract length on the performance of sequential conservation auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(2), pages 739-764, March.
    19. Higgins, Nathaniel & Hellerstein, Daniel & Wallander, Steven & Lynch, Lori, 2017. "Economic Experiments for Policy Analysis and Program Design: A Guide for Agricultural Decisionmakers," Economic Research Report 262456, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    20. Sean F. Ellis & Mark Masters & Kent D. Messer & Collin Weigel & Paul J. Ferraro, 2021. "The Problem of Feral Hogs and the Challenges of Providing a Weak‐Link Public Good," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(3), pages 985-1002, September.
    21. Yann Raineau & Éric GIRAUD-HÉRAUD, 2021. "Why do Social Nudges Actually Work? Theoretical and Experimental Elements from a Randomized Controlled Trial with Bordeaux Winegrowers," Bordeaux Economics Working Papers 2021-22, Bordeaux School of Economics (BSE).
    22. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Banerjee, Simanti & Burbach, Mark E., 2019. "Encouraging farmers' participation in the Conservation Stewardship Program: A field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 130-143.
    23. Lim, Siew & Wachenheim, Cheryl, 2022. "Predicted enrollment in alternative attribute Conservation Reserve Program contracts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    24. Laepple, Doris, 2022. "Framing of Agricultural Climate Change Information," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322173, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    25. Janusch, Nicholas & Palm-Forster, Leah H. & Messer, Kent D. & Ferraro, Paul J., 2017. "Behavioral Insights for Agri-Environmental Program and Policy Design," 2018 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 5-7, 2018, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 266299, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land conservation; auction participation; outreach effects; field experiment; inattention; peer comparison;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:99:y:2017:i:4:p:914-931.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.