Nudging Experiments for Biodiversity Prioritisation
Purpose
To subtly influence behaviour by activating social norms and emotional responses that support biodiversity-conscious decision-making. Nudging experiments use low-cost, non-coercive interventions – such as messages, images, or default options – to steer choices without restricting freedom. This method is particularly suited to retail, policy and research contexts.
Key Features
Participants:
- General public (via surveys) or participants of real-world decision-making situations (e.g. shoppers; commuters; patients; policymakers)
- Suitable for quota-representative samples or diverse field settings
Estimated Timeframe:
- Survey design and piloting: several weeks
- Field experiment: 1–2 days per site
- Data analysis and reporting: variable depending on scope
Budget Level:
- Low to Medium
- Costs may include survey platform access, printing materials, staff time and incentives
Materials Needed:
- Survey instruments (digital or paper)
- Nudging materials (e.g. trolley inserts, posters, messages)
- Institutionally approved ethical information and consent forms (if collecting data)
- Data collection tools (e.g. receipts, questionnaires)
- Optional: collaboration agreements with field sites (e.g. supermarkets)
Skills Required:
- Experimental design and data analysis
- Ethical oversight and informed consent procedures
- Stakeholder engagement and communication
- Optional: behavioural science or social psychology expertise
Case Study
Method in Practice
Context of Use
Used in PLANET4B to test how nudges – framed around social norms and emotional appeal – could influence biodiversity-conscious shopping behaviour. A survey experiment assessed intended behaviours, while a field experiment in supermarkets tested real-world responses using trolley inserts and follow-up questionnaires.
How It Worked
Participants were exposed to biodiversity-related messages (e.g. fact-based social norms, emotional appeals) and asked about their shopping intentions or observed in real settings. Data was collected via surveys and receipts. Analysis compared control and treatment groups to assess impact.
Engagement & Participation
Participants engaged passively (via exposure to nudges) and actively (via surveys or interviews). The method allowed for broad reach, including groups less likely to participate in traditional research. Facilitators ensured ethical standards and clear communication. Young people accompanied the research throughout its different phases - learning about the method earlier and later contributing to its design, setup in the field, and finally serving as enumerators.
Outcomes & Insights:
- Identified effective nudges for biodiversity prioritisation
- Highlighted differences between intended and actual behaviour
- Informed institutional strategies for retail and policy settings
- Demonstrated potential for scalable, low-cost interventions
- Supported inclusive engagement across social groups, including by providing a learning opportunity for the involved young researchers
Strengths & Considerations
Strengths:
- Low-cost and scalable
- Suitable for both research and practice
- Can reach diverse and hard-to-reach populations
- Can generate actionable insights for institutional change
- Supports ethical, non-coercive behaviour change
Considerations:
- Ethical approval and informed consent are essential
- Impact depends on careful framing and context
- Deception must be avoided; transparency is key
- Best used with follow-up reflection or complementary methods
