|
Field
Trial Title
|
Before
Can User-friendly Labels Reduce Pesticide Use? Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial
|
After
Can User-friendly Labels Reduce Pesticides Use? Empirical Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial
|
|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
The overuse and misuse of pesticide is very serious in many developing countries, including China. Many studies have explored solutions from the perspectves of risk aversion, law forbidden, and economic incentive, but no cost-effecyive solution has been found so far. Information and knowledge are important factors affecting decision-making of pesticide use, especially the pesticide label, which is a scientifical and convenient information source for farmers to obtain acurrate and timely information. However, most farners ignore labels in reality and rely on other information providers, such as pesticide retailers or their own experience, which are not realiable. Therefore, we want to figure out why the pesticide label does not work and how to reactivate it again.
|
After
The overuse and misuse of pesticide is very serious in many developing countries, including China. Many studies have explored solutions from the perspectves of risk aversion, law forbidden, and economic incentive, but no cost-effecyive solution has been found so far. Information and knowledge are important factors affecting decision-making of pesticide use, especially the pesticide label, which is a scientifical and convenient information source for farmers to obtain acurrate and timely information. However, most farners ignore labels in reality and rely on other information providers, such as pesticide retailers or their own experience, which are not realiable. Therefore, we want to figure out why the pesticide label does not work and how to activate it again.
|
|
Field
Trial Start Date
|
Before
October 01, 2022
|
After
August 25, 2022
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
October 20, 2022
|
After
September 03, 2022
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
November 30, 2022 04:23 PM
|
After
May 29, 2023 11:14 AM
|
|
Field
Study Withdrawn
|
Before
|
After
No
|
|
Field
Intervention Completion Date
|
Before
|
After
September 03, 2022
|
|
Field
Data Collection Complete
|
Before
|
After
Yes
|
|
Field
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
|
Before
|
After
No
|
|
Field
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
|
Before
|
After
1185 farmers
|
|
Field
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
|
Before
|
After
394 farmers control, 402 farmers simplified graphic label and 389 farmers audiovisual label
|
|
Field
Public Data URL
|
Before
|
After
https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/NS73ZD
|
|
Field
Is there a restricted access data set available on request?
|
Before
|
After
No
|
|
Field
Program Files
|
Before
|
After
Yes
|
|
Field
Program Files URL
|
Before
|
After
https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/NS73ZD
|
|
Field
Data Collection Completion Date
|
Before
|
After
September 03, 2022
|
|
Field
Is data available for public use?
|
Before
|
After
Yes
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
|
After
The three types of labels used in the experiment included the original labels (Control), simplified graphic labels (Treatment 1), and audiovisual labels (Treatment 2). The original label represents a typical pesticide label commonly found in the market. The simplified graphic label highlights essential usage and dosage information from the original label, presenting it in a combination of graphics and text. On the other hand, the audiovisual label incorporates a QR code on the front of the original label. This QR code provides access to a one-minute animated video explaining the appropriate usage and dosage of the pesticide.
By employing these different types of labels, the experiment aimed to observe the effects of the label variations on farmers' pesticide blending behavior.
|
|
Field
Intervention Start Date
|
Before
October 01, 2022
|
After
August 26, 2022
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
October 02, 2022
|
After
September 03, 2022
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
Farmers
|
After
The dosage of pesticides calculated and dispensed by farmers in the various experimental groups.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
We will redesign a current pesticide label and make it more readable, calculable and easy to follow. We have three intervention labels. One of them is original label (not redesigned) and two redesigned labels—calculable label and easy-to-follow label. Then, we randomly showed one of the labels to the farmers participating in the experiment and asked them to complete mixing the pesticides according to the displayed pesticide label. Finally, we collect the liquid they pour out and write down their behavior during the experiment.
|
After
In the experiment, a random assignment was conducted, allocating farmers to three distinct groups. Each group of farmers was presented with pesticides labeled differently. The farmers were then tasked with completing a pesticide blending experiment using the allocated pesticides.
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
400 farmers control, 400 farmers calculable label, and 400 farmers easy-to-follow label
|
After
400 farmers control, 400 farmers simplified graphic labels (Treatment 1), and 400 farmers audiovisual labels (Treatment 2)
|
|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
|
After
Prior to the formal survey, a pilot survey was conducted across Jiangsu, Hebei, Shaanxi, and Guangxi provinces, involving approximately 1000 participants. The primary objective of the pilot survey was to assess the comprehensibility of the label designs for farmers and to identify any potential issues that might arise during the experiment. The minimum sample size for this study was determined based on the pesticide dosage data obtained from the pre-survey. With a minimum detectable effect size of 12% pesticide reduction, a standard deviation of 45.158, and a statistical power of 0.8, a sample size of 370 (control group) and 740 (total sample size of two intervention groups) was calculated to detect the intervention effect of user-friendly labels at a significance level of 5%.
|
|
Field
Additional Keyword(s)
|
Before
|
After
pesticide
|
|
Field
Did you obtain IRB approval for this study?
|
Before
No
|
After
Yes
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
|
After
Whether farmers use pesticide labels.
|
|
Field
Public locations
|
Before
No
|
After
Yes
|