Existing agri-environment schemes have suffered from poor uptake and high burden. This article leverages behavioral economics to test choice framing in three hypothetical policy scenarios. Using a randomized survey experiment on U.K. farmers, we find that changing policy framing based on mental accounting and loss aversion can significantly influence agricultural policy-related decision making. Our findings highlight the following considerations for the design of future policy: (1) whether application costs are integrated into or segregated from a subsidy is important, (2) the labeling of agricultural schemes may affect expenditure allocation, and (3) reference points can affect the evaluation of new scheme alternatives.
展开▼
