|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
Peer effects are a subject of increasing attention in many areas of economics research. Influence from peers can indeed generate social multiplier effects, whereby an initial investment targeting one small group can lead to larger changes, since individuals close to the target group tend to imitate them and learn from their experience. When it comes to the green transition in agriculture, the diffusion of new knowledge through peers could play a crucial role in promoting the adoption of agroecological practices. However, the conditions for successful peer learning in this context are still poorly understood. In particular, it is unknown whether the profile of the first individuals in peer groups to receive information affects its diffusion to other peers.
To answer this question, we run a randomized-controlled-trial (RCT) from a large sample of voluntary French farmers, where individuals are randomly assigned to peer groups and receive informative content for 18 months through a digital platform. Only one farmer per peer group receives the information directly, serving as the injection point of the group. Treatment varies depending on the profile of the designated injection point, which is either chosen randomly among early adopters of agroecological practices (Treatment~A) or among ordinary peers (Treatment~B). Farmers assigned to the control arm are also placed in peer groups but they receive no specific information on innovative practices (Treatment~C).
We can first verify that farmers' knowledge of agroecology can be improved by injecting informative content using a digital platform. In addition, we can measure the sharing of information between peers and test the hypothesis that receiving second-hand information can improve knowledge level. A major advantage of this protocol is that it can test the hypothesis that early adopters do better than ordinary peers, whether it is improving their own knowledge or transmitting newly acquired knowledge to their peers. Focusing on ordinary peers who receive information second-hand, who are the most representative farmers and therefore the target of public programs outside the experiment, we can further verify whether they acquire more knowledge when the information comes from an early adopter rather than from another ordinary peer.
|
After
The diffusion of knowledge between peers is a subject of increasing attention in many areas of economics research. Influence from peers can indeed generate social multiplier effects, whereby an initial investment targeting one small group can lead to larger changes, since individuals close to the target group tend to imitate them and learn from their experience. When it comes to the green transition in agriculture, the diffusion of new knowledge through peers could play a crucial role in promoting the adoption of agroecological practices. However, the conditions for successful peer learning in this context are still poorly understood. In particular, it is unknown whether the profile of the first individuals in peer groups to receive information affects its diffusion to other peers, which includes the action of transmitting, the action of receiving and possibly also the action of catalyzing transfers and creating an emulation that makes the information more salient.
To answer this question, we run a randomized-controlled-trial (RCT) from a large sample of voluntary French farmers, where individuals are randomly assigned to peer groups and receive informative content for 18 months through a digital platform. Only one farmer per peer group receives the information directly in treated groups, serving as the injection point of the group. Treatment varies depending on the profile of the designated injection point, which is either chosen randomly among early adopters of agroecological practices (treatment arm A) or among ordinary peers (treatment arm B). We compare these two treatments to a benchmark group where we broadcast the information directly to all participants (treatment arm C).
Using this experimental design, we measure peer information sharing and test the hypothesis that receiving second-hand information can improve knowledge levels, as well as, and perhaps better than, receiving first-hand information. A major advantage of this protocol is that it can test the hypothesis that early adopters do better than ordinary peers, whether it is improving their own knowledge or transmitting newly acquired knowledge to their peers. Focusing on ordinary peers who receive information second-hand, who are the most representative farmers and therefore the preferred target of possible public programs in the future, we can further verify whether they acquire more knowledge when the information comes from an early adopter rather than from another ordinary peer.
|
|
Field
Trial Start Date
|
Before
March 15, 2024
|
After
November 24, 2024
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
June 30, 2026
|
After
December 31, 2026
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
July 18, 2024 08:47 AM
|
After
January 22, 2025 08:39 AM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
The digital platform, managed by the service provider Landfiles, has been customized for the experiment. In particular, participants do not have the possibility to share the content outside the platform, or even outside their peer group. Only the injection points receive the information specially designed for the study; they can only share it with members of their group. Members of the same peer group can exchange with each other, but not with members of other peer groups.
While all participants receive some generic content linked to environmental regulations (non-technical and not focused on agroecological practices) throughout the experiment, participants assigned to treatment arms A and B will also receive a specific content on ecological practices, which we call the intervention. The content of the intervention will take the form of portraits of innovative farms, follow-up of agronomic trials, and newsletters. It will include several agroecological topics, including companion plants, plant cover, non-tillage associated with the reduction of herbicides, cereal-vegetable association, foliar fertilization. In practice, the injection points in arms~A and~B will receive one portrait of an innovative farm every two weeks, one agronomic trial follow-up every three weeks, and one newsletter every month.
|
After
The digital platform, managed by the service provider Landfiles, has been customized for the experiment. In particular, participants do not have the possibility to share the content outside the platform, or even outside their peer group. In treatment arms A and B, only the injection points receive the information specially designed for the study; they can only share it with members of their group. treatment A and B differ because of the characteristics of the injection point, who will be an earlyt adopter of agroecology in arm A and an ordinary peer in arm B. In treatment C, the content is directly sent to all participants. Members of the same peer group can exchange with each other, but not with members of other peer groups.
Participants will receive a specific content on ecological practices, which we call the intervention. The content of the intervention will take the form of portraits of innovative farms, follow-up of agronomic trials, and newsletters. It will include several agroecological topics, including companion plants, plant cover, non-tillage associated with the reduction of herbicides, cereal-vegetable association, foliar fertilization. In practice, the injection points in arms A and B as well as each participant in arm C will receive one portrait of an innovative farm every two weeks, one agronomic trial follow-up every three weeks, and one newsletter every month.
|
|
Field
Intervention Start Date
|
Before
September 01, 2024
|
After
January 23, 2025
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
We run a stratified randomized control trial (RCT) that include three arms: two treatment arms(A and B) and one control arm. The first strata includes farmers previously identified as early adopters. The second strata include ordinary peers. In the first phase of randomization, individuals are randomly assigned to the arms of the trial. Thereafter, we form peer groups of around ten farmers within each treatment arm. After peer groups are defined, we then randomly select injection points within peer groups of treatment arms A and B. In treatment arm A (resp., B), the injection point is randomly selected among early adopters (resp., ordinary peers) in each peer group. In the control group, no one is designated as an injection point (neither early adopters nor ordinary peers) since no information is disseminated in this treatment arm.
|
After
We run a stratified randomized control trial (RCT) that include three arms: two treatment arms (A and B) and one control arm (C). The first strata includes farmers previously identified as early adopters. The second strata include ordinary peers. In the first phase of randomization, individuals are randomly assigned to the arms of the trial. Thereafter, we form peer groups of around ten farmers within each treatment arm. After peer groups are defined, we then randomly select injection points within peer groups of treatment arms A and B. In treatment arm A (resp., B), the injection point is randomly selected among early adopters (resp., ordinary peers) in each peer group. In the control group, no one is designated as an injection point (neither early adopters nor ordinary peers): information is delivered directly to all participants, as in a traditional broadcasting strategy.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
1,500 farmers
|
After
847 farmers
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
500 individuals in treatment arm A, 500 individuals in treatment arm B, 500 individuals in the control group.
|
After
283 individuals in treatment arm A, 282 individuals in treatment arm B, 282 individuals in the control group.
|
|
Field
Intervention (Hidden)
|
Before
The digital platform, managed by the service provider Landfiles, has been customized for the experiment. In particular, participants do not have the possibility to share the content outside the platform, or even outside their peer group. Only the injection points receive the information specially designed for the study; they can only share it with members of their group. Members of the same peer group can exchange with each other, but not with members of other peer groups.
While all participants receive some generic content linked to environmental regulations (non-technical and not focused on agroecological practices) throughout the experiment, participants assigned to treatment arms A and B will also receive a specific content on ecological practices, which we call the intervention. The content of the intervention will take the form of portraits of innovative farms, follow-up of agronomic trials, and newsletters. It will include several agroecological topics, including companion plants, plant cover, non-tillage associated with the reduction of herbicides, cereal-vegetable association, foliar fertilization. In practice, the injection points in arms~A and~B will receive one portrait of an innovative farm every two weeks, one agronomic trial follow-up every three weeks, and one newsletter every month.
|
After
|
|
Field
Did you obtain IRB approval for this study?
|
Before
No
|
After
Yes
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
Secondary outcomes include scores of knowledge tests relating to the content distributed to the treated peer groups through the platform. The control peer groups take the knowledge tests too.
|
After
Secondary outcomes include scores of knowledge tests relating to the content distributed to the treated peer groups through the platform.
|