Article by Clare Otridge, Director of Grounded Research
What can the ADOPT Fund learn from the successes and the mistakes of farming policy past and present?
As interest in behavioural science continues to grow across public policy, agriculture presents a fertile ground for applying behavioural insights to improve outcomes.
From the uptake of environmental schemes to the design of application processes, behavioural science has proven valuable in shaping how farmers engage with new initiatives – think, agriculture is slow to move… think again, these techniques have been in place for well over a decade.
With the recent launch of the ADOPT Fund by Defra and Innovate UK, aimed at supporting farmer-led innovation through collaborative, on-farm trials, there is an opportunity to embed these behavioural lessons from the outset.
Drawing from past experience with the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF), and wider behavioural frameworks like MINDSPACE (Dolan et al., 2010) and EAST (Behavioural Insights Team, 2014), we can anticipate what will work, what to avoid, and how to design this scheme for maximum farmer engagement.
What Are MINDSPACE and EAST?
MINDSPACE is a framework developed by the UK’s Cabinet Office and the Institute for Government in 2010 to help policymakers understand the psychological levers behind individual behaviour. The acronym stands for Messenger, Incentives, Norms, Defaults, Salience, Priming, Affect, Commitments and Ego. It was one of the first major attempts to translate behavioural economics into practical policy tools in the UK. It is primarily a diagnostic framework that helps identify where and how behavioural change can be facilitated.
EAST, developed by the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) in 2014, simplified this approach into four practical principles: make it Easy, Attractive, Social and Timely. This tool is action-oriented and designed to be more accessible for non-specialist policy teams. Together, MINDSPACE and EAST have informed government initiatives ranging from tax compliance to health behaviours, and increasingly, agricultural policy.
Trust, identity and the power of messengers
Catchment Sensitive Farming, led by Natural England, highlighted the role of trust in behavioural engagement. Farmers are far more likely to respond to individuals they know or who are grounded in farming communities. This trust-based engagement is core to the CSF model, which relies on local advisers delivering personalised advice. ADOPT should similarly ensure its facilitator network is local, credible, and practically experienced, not just administratively appointed.
Reducing friction: lessons from SFI
One of the turning points in the success of the SFI scheme was Defra’s decision to simplify eligibility, language, and the online journey. Farmers, who are often time-poor and tech-averse, respond best to simple, actionable steps. The EAST framework begins with ‘Easy’ for a reason. For ADOPT, this means using plain English, pre-filled forms where possible, mobile-accessible platforms, and clear next steps for Support Grant and Full Grant applicants.
Nudging through social norms and framing
SFI and earlier HMRC tax letters used social norms effectively. Communications referencing peer behaviour (“Thousands of farmers have already signed up”) were especially powerful. The AHDB (2021) found that farmers often seek validation through peer reassurance. ADOPT can apply this insight by promoting case studies and showcasing early adopters through newsletters, FarmPEP, and at rural events.
Commitment and momentum
The use of commitment devices, such as registering interest or scheduling an advisor call, creates a small psychological contract that increases follow-through. This is supported by Freedman and Fraser’s (1966) “foot-in-the-door” technique, and by the ‘Commitment’ principle in MINDSPACE. ADOPT’s Support Grant should be framed not only as a funding tool, but as an action step toward future trial success.
Timely and targeted messaging
Behavioural insight tells us that when information is delivered is as important as what is said. For example, the success of SFI letters was amplified by aligning them with familiar farming deadlines such as BPS applications or the financial year-end. ADOPT communications could be similarly staggered to coincide with key seasonal moments like harvest downtime or planning windows.
Beware the pitfalls: policy instability and sludge
As Loewenstein and Chater (2023) argue, nudges only go so far without systemic alignment. Policy instability has a chilling effect on farmer confidence. A 2022 NFU survey found that only 39 per cent of farmers felt confident in engaging with post-Brexit schemes like SFI. Frequent changes in guidance, delayed payments, or over-complicated application processes (referred to as “sludge” by Oliver, 2017) can erode trust and reduce engagement. ADOPT must prioritise consistency and clarity across all rounds of its rollout.
A window for nudge by design
Unlike retrofitting behavioural science into failing programmes, ADOPT is being launched with a clean slate. This presents a rare opportunity to build behavioural design into the DNA of the scheme. If Defra and its delivery partners integrate learnings from SFI and CSF, they stand a better chance of building a scheme that is not only innovative but also deeply engaging to the farmers it seeks to empower.
What has the fund already adopted?
The ADOPT Fund has already embraced some key behavioural principles. The structure of the two-stage application process (support grant followed by full grant) mirrors the idea of commitment devices and the “foot-in-the-door” technique. Farmers are encouraged to take small, low-friction steps, like consulting a facilitator, which increases the likelihood of them following through with a full application. The fund also incorporates the EAST principle of making things Easy through pre-published guidance, multiple rounds, and support from the ADOPT Support Hub.
What could it still adopt?
However, opportunities remain. Messaging around peer participation could be more explicit, leveraging the power of social norms – perhaps that will come as the applications take off? Communications might benefit from more vivid framing, real farmer testimonials, and clearer articulation of outcomes. Again, we have yet to pull case studies together but this could easily be applied by using examples of the types of farmer-led innovations that are likely to apply. Additionally, the scheme could borrow from CSF by embedding local, trusted messengers earlier in the application process, not just as support staff but as proactive ambassadors. Doing so could boost uptake among hard-to-reach or more sceptical groups.
The farmer is not a typical consumer
Finally, it is critical to remember that farmers do not always conform to standard behavioural models. Their decisions are shaped by factors like long-term land stewardship, community influence, weather dependency, and a deep sense of identity tied to farming practice. Traditional nudges may fall short without acknowledging these contextual realities. The SFI experience demonstrates that policymakers often only get one chance to establish trust and engagement. If farmers perceive a scheme as unclear, burdensome, or unstable, re-engagement becomes much harder. ADOPT must therefore get its first impression right, designing for the behavioural context of farming from the outset.
Find out more about the ADOPT Fund
References:
- Dolan, P. et al. (2010). MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy. Institute for Government and Cabinet Office.
- Behavioural Insights Team (2014). EAST: Four simple ways to apply behavioural insights. London: Cabinet Office.
- AHDB (2021). Learning styles research report: An analysis of the learning preferences of UK farmers.
- Freedman, J.L. and Fraser, S.C. (1966). “Compliance without pressure: the foot-in-the-door technique.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), pp.195–202.
- Oliver, A. (2017). “Nudges, shoves, and budges: Behavioural economic policy frameworks.” Public Administration, 95(3), pp.700–714.
- Loewenstein, G. and Chater, N. (2023). “The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioural public policy astray.” Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 46, e348.