The Future of Four Creeks Farm: Scale-Up, Diversify, or Exit?

This decision-scenario case study is designed to be suitable for both online and face-to-face instruction in an undergraduate-level agribusiness, agricultural policy, or business strategy course. The case challenges students to assume the role of decision makers for a struggling family-owned dairy farm to determine whether the farm should scale-up, diversify, or exit the industry. Students will (1) learn about the unique features of the U.S. dairy market and domestic government support policies for dairy farms, (2) understand the challenges facing small family-operated farms, (3) apply strategic management tools to analyze and select the best strategic option to ensure short-term and long-term survival of the farm, and (4) advance critical thinking and decision-making skills. This case study is versatile and can be adapted to a variety of classroom settings. It can also facilitate broader discussions of management decisions facing agricultural businesses operating outside of the dairy industry

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 or even overcome their concerns. This study uses an experimental approach to test consumer preferences for twenty-one potential branding names for reclaimed water and to determine whether an opportunity for consumers to try this 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 this water 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 preferred is Pure Water. ForFunding support for this research was provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute for Food and Agriculture and the Center for Behavioral and Experimental Agri-Environmental Research (CBEAR). The authors acknowledge the support of Julia Kesselring for assistance in preparing this manuscript and Natalie Brassill for obtaining potable reclaimed water

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

Balancing Act: Unveiling Public Perspectives on Taming Invasive Aquatic Plants

Aquatic invasive species threaten U.S. freshwater bodies throughout the country. One of the most prevalent and prevailing of these is hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillate), which spans from Florida all the way up to Maine, and as far west as California [2]. The state of Florida alone spent $125 million from 2008 – 2015 to manage aquatic invasive species,$66 million of which went toward managing hydrilla [1]. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is estimated to spend $15 million annually on managing hydrilla [3]. This submerged weed is primarily managed through cost effective, safe aquatic herbicides and more costly mechanical harvesting. Due to the prevalence of hydrilla, understanding stakeholder perceptions regarding its management is critical to its successful control. This infographic displays Florida’s stakeholder perceptions around aquatic herbicide and mechanical harvesting usage, which can be utilized as a model for other states as well. Data analysis of 3,000 survey responses concluded that a majority of stakeholders are concerned about both the use of aquatic herbicides and mechanical harvesting. However, they were more concerned about aquatic herbicide application than employing mechanical harvesting. Respondents’ main concern over aquatic herbicide use was the accumulation of chemicals in the lakes upon which it was applied; the main concern over mechanical harvesting was the cost of harvesting operations. When asked what management practice they would prefer FWC to use, a majority of respondents indicated that FWC should use both aquatic herbicides and mechanical harvesting

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

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

Balancing Act: Unveiling Public Perspectives on Taming Invasive Aquatic Plants

Aquatic invasive species threaten U.S. freshwater bodies throughout the country. One of the most prevalent and prevailing of these is hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillate), which spans from Florida all the way up to Maine, and as far west as California [2]. The state of Florida alone spent $125 million from 2008 – 2015 to manage aquatic invasive species,$66 million of which went toward managing hydrilla [1]. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is estimated to spend $15 million annually on managing hydrilla [3]. This submerged weed is primarily managed through cost effective, safe aquatic herbicides and more costly mechanical harvesting. Due to the prevalence of hydrilla, understanding stakeholder perceptions regarding its management is critical to its successful control. This infographic displays Florida’s stakeholder perceptions around aquatic herbicide and mechanical harvesting usage, which can be utilized as a model for other states as well. Data analysis of 3,000 survey responses concluded that a majority of stakeholders are concerned about both the use of aquatic herbicides and mechanical harvesting. However, they were more concerned about aquatic herbicide application than employing mechanical harvesting. Respondents’ main concern over aquatic herbicide use was the accumulation of chemicals in the lakes upon which it was applied; the main concern over mechanical harvesting was the cost of harvesting operations. When asked what management practice they would prefer FWC to use, a majority of respondents indicated that FWC should use both aquatic herbicides and mechanical harvesting

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