The amount Nebraskans are willing to pay to improve soil health is affected by what others think, according to a study by researchers at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
The study, published in the Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, surveyed participants on how much they were willing to pay for benefits, such as productivity, soil carbon sequestration and water quality received through soil health improvements. The research team found that how a policy is presented has measurable impacts on participants’ willingness to pay, both positively and negatively.
“It’s important to understand the value the local community places on certain environmental services,” said Tala Awada, professor in the School of Natural Resources and associate dean in the Agricultural Research Division.
The researchers measured support for soil health initiatives because of soil’s role in agricultural productivity and sustainability, and ecosystem resilience.
The article cites studies stating that population growth and soil degradation make it increasingly necessary to promote conservation policies. These policies would aim to incentivize production practices to help maintain and improve soil health, enhance ecoysystem services and/or reverse soil degradation. As soil health improves, ecosystem services associated with soil — improved productivity, soil carbon sequestration, and water quality and quantity — are enhanced.
“The health of the soil directly influences the food we eat, both in quality and quantity,” said Emie Yiannaka, a professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics.
Despite this pressure for policy, Karina Schoengold, another professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics and associate director of the Nebraska Water Center, said little empirical evidence exists that can estimate how much the general population values these services.
To address this, the team studied people’s perceptions of benefits of increased soil health based on what they were willing to pay for the benefits.
“It’s hard to put a dollar value on air quality or soil quality,” she said. “So, this helps show a broader perspective.”
More than just gauging the general willingness of Nebraskans to pay a one-time fee for ecological benefits, the researchers investigated if, and how, the way the fee is presented could influence that amount.
They divided participants into three groups: a control group, a county group and a state group. The county and state groups received information about the percentage of others in a county or state similar in size to theirs who supported paying for an agricultural conservation program.
The groups then faced a choice among three policies and stated which they would prefer. Two policies scaled in price but promised scaled returns in crop yield, water quality and soil carbon sequestration. The third option was “no policy.” Respondents considered a hypothetical budget as well as other things they could spend their money on.
The researchers used social norms — behaviors seen as worthy of emulating — to attempt to “nudge” participants to form their opinions based on a perceived norm. To avoid deception, the researchers used information from a recent survey of Iowa households in establishing the norms.
Study results showed that nudges effectively influenced the participants to pay for these environmental benefits, though the effect was not entirely positive. While those in the state group were positively incentivized, demonstrating a higher willingness to pay, those in the county group were less incentivized than those in the control group.
“You have to be careful with which nudge you’re using,” Yiannaka said. “You don’t want to make people less likely to contribute.”
Studies such as these are important for gauging opinion as well as informing the public about the impacts policy can have.
“Recognizing that we as a public are harmed and benefited by actions we don’t have a choice in is important,” Schoengold said.
She also said it is important for people facing an environmental decision to know how their decision might affect others.
The willingness to pay, while hypothetical, indicates the potential for public support for future conservation projects. Overall, the study shows the potential effects of social norm-based nudging in informing and securing support for policies that benefit the environment and people.
“To increase support for sustainable policy initiatives, you have to come to where people are to help them understand these concepts,” Awada said. “People differ in their knowledge when evaluating these things.”
This study was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Long-Term Agroecosystem Research network.
