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 water remains one of the greatest hurdles for widespread farm-level adoption. Using survey data from 540 adults 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 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 health 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.Funding support for this research was provided by the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (grant number: 20166800725064), the USDA Economic Research Service, and the Center for Behavioral and Experimental Agri-Environmental Research (CBEAR). The authors acknowledge the support of James Geisler, Julia Parker, Francesca Piccone, Kaitlynn Ritchie, Maddi Valinski, and Huidong Xu for their assistance administering the field experiment

Nudge or Sludge? An In-Class Experimental Auction Illustrating How Misunderstood Scientific Information Can Change Consumer Behavior

Scientific information can be used to help people understand and describe the world. For example, consumers regularly seek out information about their food and drink to help inform their purchasing decisions. Sometimes, however, consumers can respond negatively to this information, even when the information did not intend to convey a negative signal. These negative responses can be the result of misunderstandings or strong, visceral, emotional behavior, that can be challenging to foresee and once arisen, difficult (and expensive) to mitigate. In this paper, we show how educators can use an in-class economic experiment to introduce the power of a sludge—a small behavioral intervention that leads to worse outcomes. We provide a step-by-step guide to take students through a demand revealing design using a second-price, willingness-to-accept (WTA) auction that tests preferences for tap water and bottled water when students receive total dissolved solids (TDS) information. Additional classroom discussion topics are presented, including comparing nudges and sludges, the public response to the treatment of tap water, and the role of safety information in consumer response

Gaps in Risk Perceptions Between the United States and Israel: Field Experiments on Various Types of Nontraditional Water

In the first half of 2018, approximately 31% of the continental United States was experiencing some level of drought, conditions that are predicted to spread as climate change hastens shifts in the global water cycle. Despite nontraditional water being a cost-effective, safe, and commonly proposed solution for inadequate water supplies, broad adoption of nontraditional irrigation water at the farm level in the United States and across the world will depend on consumer acceptance of such practices. This study utilized field experiments in the United States and Israel to examine consumer preferences in two countries that are heterogenous in terms of the impacts of drought and experience level. We investigate how consumers respond to different types of nontraditional water and if exposure to scientific information about the benefits and risks of recycled water affects these preferences. The results suggest that Israeli consumers are significantly more accepting than U.S. consumers of produce irrigated with nontraditional water. We also find that the use of nontraditional water diminishes consumer demand by 87% in the United States and 20% in Israel, and that reductions in WTP vary by water type in both countries.Funding support for this research was provided by the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture. The authors want to acknowledge the support of Maddi Valinski, Wendy Hutchinson, Moshe Manshirov, and Irit Orlovich for their assistance administering these field experiments

Does Food Processing Mitigate Consumers’ Concerns about Crops Grown with Recycled Water?

This paper presents results of a field experiment designed to evaluate whether food processing alleviates consumers’ concerns about crops grown with recycled water. Recycled water has emerged as a safe and cost-effective way to increase supplies of irrigation water. However, adoption of recycled water by U.S. agricultural producers has been modest, in part, because of concerns that consumers will be reluctant to accept recycled water for uses that involve ingestion or personal contact. Therefore, both policymakers and food producers must understand how consumers’ aversion to recycled water can be mitigated, especially when the products are safe. To date, most of the existing literature has focused on fresh food, yet our results suggest that, for food, simple processing such as drying or liquefying can relieve some of consumers’ concern about use of recycled irrigation water. We find that consumers of processed foods are indifferent between irrigation with recycled and conventional water, however, they are less willing to pay for fresh foods irrigated with recycled water relative to conventional water. We also find that the demographic and behavioral characteristics tested in the experiment mostly had no statistically significant effect. The one exception is age—older consumers are less likely than younger ones to purchase processed foods irrigated with recycled water. Our analysis further reveals that informational nudges that provide consumers with messages about benefits, risks, and both the benefits and risks of using recycled water have no statistically significant effect on consumers’ willingness to pay for fresh and processed foods irrigated with recycled water relative to a no-information control group.Funding support for this research was provided by the U.S Department of Agriculture National Institute for Food and Agriculture. The authors acknowledge the support of James Geisler, Julia Parker, Francesca Piccone, Kaitlynn Ritchie, Maddi Valinski, and Huidong Xu for their assistance administering the field experiment

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 water remains one of the greatest hurdles for widespread farm-level adoption. Using survey data from 540 adults 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 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 health 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.Funding support for this research was provided by the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (grant number: 20166800725064), the USDA Economic Research Service, and the Center for Behavioral and Experimental Agri-Environmental Research (CBEAR). The authors acknowledge the support of James Geisler, Julia Parker, Francesca Piccone, Kaitlynn Ritchie, Maddi Valinski, and Huidong Xu for their assistance administering the field experiment