4.7 Article

Walk in my shoes: Nudging for empathy conservation

Journal

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
Volume 118, Issue -, Pages 147-158

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.010

Keywords

Dual-interest theory; Conservation; Empathy; Nudge; Downstream water pollution; Environmental policy; Conservation compliance

Funding

  1. US Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Policy Research Centers Grant Program [2012-70002-19387]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The traditional policy approaches to encourage conservation, including offering monetary incentives and direct regulation, may lead to unintended consequences which may undermine their effectiveness. In this paper we experimentally test the effectiveness of complementing financial nudging/incentives with nudging for empathy. Our framed experiment models a situation in which an upstream farmer influences the water quality downstream by choosing the level of conservation. Financial nudging is represented by a crop insurance subsidy conditional on conservation compliance (consistent with the 2014 Farm Bill policy). Empathy nudging is represented by a downstream water user sending a message to the upstream farmer encouraging the latter to walk-in-the-shoes/take the perspective of the former. We found that empathy nudging can counteract the elimination of financial incentives. However, it is less effective than financial nudging. Empathy nudging coupled with financial incentives has a synergic effect and conservation increased significantly compared to using one of the nudges alone. Furthermore, the combination of empathy and financial nudging was particularly effective in low (initial) conservation cases. We argue that policy makers and the public should encourage empathy conservation and that the environmental policy narrative should appeal to empathy and call for farmers to join the cause for conservation and environmental protection. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available