Can behavioural nudges encourage farmers to adopt more sustainable practices? And what happens when they do not?
A new scientific publication associated with the PRUDENT project explored these questions through a large-scale randomised controlled trial in Flanders, Belgium. The study examined whether digital behaviour change interventions could increase farmers’ participation in the Soil Passport eco-scheme, a voluntary tool designed to support soil health management.
The results offer important lessons not only for researchers but also for policymakers working on the future of sustainable agriculture.
Testing Behavioural Interventions at Scale
The study involved 14,285 farmers and tested three commonly used behavioural techniques embedded in digital messages: demonstration, dynamic social norms, and loss framing.
Farmers were divided into groups receiving either no intervention, a simple informational message, or one of the three behavioural interventions. The objective was straightforward: determine whether these approaches could increase enrollment in the Soil Passport eco-scheme.
The Key Finding: Information and Digital Nudges Were Not Enough
The study found no statistically significant increase in eco-scheme enrollment across any of the intervention groups.
Even simple information provision alone had no measurable effect, and none of the behavioural techniques outperformed the status quo. These findings challenge the common assumption that small behavioural prompts, delivered digitally, are sufficient to drive meaningful changes in agricultural decision-making.
Rather than viewing this as a failure, the research provides valuable insight into the complexity of farmer behaviour and the real-world limits of behavioural interventions when used in isolation.
Why Didn’t the Nudges Work?
The publication highlights several possible explanations.
Although enrolling in the Soil Passport eco-scheme was administratively simple, participation still required soil sampling through certified laboratories, data-sharing agreements, and additional procedural steps. At the same time, financial compensation mainly covered costs rather than providing a strong incentive. This suggests that behavioural nudges may have limited influence when practical barriers and perceived risks remain significant.
The study also points to the importance of trust in the messenger. The messages were delivered by a governmental agency, which may have influenced how farmers perceived the intervention. The researchers note that farmers’ trust in institutions , especially regarding agricultural data sharing, can strongly shape engagement. In this context, the issue may not have been the behavioural techniques themselves, but who delivered them. This highlights the potential role of trusted intermediaries such as farmer organisations or advisory services in future behavioural interventions.
Another important factor was the delivery mode. The interventions relied entirely on digital communication, which may simply be less visible, memorable, or persuasive than other channels such as postal letters, advisory meetings, or face-to-face communication. The study suggests that demonstration techniques may work better through videos or live examples, while social norms and loss framing could become more effective through visual or interactive formats.
Why These Findings Matter?
One of the most important contributions of this publication is its transparency.
In behavioural science, positive results are often published more frequently than null findings. Large-scale, preregistered studies like this one are essential for understanding what actually works in real-world policy settings and for building a more reliable evidence base.
The findings reinforce several important lessons. Behavioural interventions are not universal solutions. Context, trust, incentives, and communication channels all matter. Sustainable transitions in agriculture require more than information alone.
The publication also supports a broader message central to PRUDENT’s work: green nudging should complement structural, relational, and policy-based approaches, not replace them.
Moving Forward
The study outlines several directions for future research and policy design. These include combining multiple behavioural techniques, increasing the frequency or “dose” of interventions, tailoring communication channels to different farmer groups, using trusted intermediaries, and testing more interactive or visual approaches.
Most importantly, the research demonstrates the value of rigorous field experimentation in agricultural policy. Understanding why an intervention does not work is just as important as discovering one that does.
Through projects like PRUDENT, these insights help build more realistic, evidence-based approaches to supporting sustainable farming transitions across Europe.