Healthy Soils and Regenerative Agriculture: What Does the Public Know and Who Wants to Learn?

How much does the U.S. public know about soil health and regenerative agriculture—and are those who know less interested in learning more? In a recent study, we found that when provided with an opportunity to learn, respondents with lower initial knowledge were more likely to decline additional information, whereas those who chose to receive it already knew more. 

Soil health and regenerative agriculture have received increasing attention for their potential to support agricultural productivity while providing broader environmental benefits. Yet previous studies (IFICF, 2019; Balagtas et al., 2024) suggest that much of the public remains unfamiliar with regenerative agriculture and the practices associated with it. While providing credible information may improve public understanding, making information available does not necessarily mean that people will engage with it. Understanding who chooses to receive or decline information and why, which information sources they prefer, and whether knowledge changes after information exposure can provide useful insights for developing more effective communication strategies.

We examined these issues in a study funded by the USDA Long-Term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) Network, using a survey-based experiment involving 1,840 U.S. adults and demographic quotas designed to approximate national distributions with respect to age, gender, education, income, race, and geographic region. Before receiving any information, participants answered questions to assess their subjective and objective knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards soil health and regenerative agriculture to set a baseline. Objective knowledge was assessed using 15 true-or-false questions. Participants were then randomly assigned to one of three groups. The Control group (n = 310) automatically received information about soil health and regenerative agriculture. In the Treatment 1 group (TRT1; n = 610), respondents could either receive the same information or decline it. In the Treatment 2 group (TRT2; n = 920), respondents could receive or decline information as well, and unlike TRT1, could also choose the source of the information. Information sources included University researchers and Extension educators, federal and state government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), agri-food companies, or artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The information content was similar across all treatments. After the information treatment, we reassessed participants’ knowledge and attitudes.

What Did the U.S. Public Know at Baseline?

At baseline, respondents answered an average of 57% of the questions correctly. Overall, knowledge was higher for soil health than regenerative agriculture (63% versus 53% accuracy). More than three-quarters of the respondents understood that improved soil health supports high-quality, nutrient-dense food, and nearly three-quarters recognized its role in providing ecosystem services. In contrast, fewer than half knew that regenerative agriculture could incorporate modern technology, is not limited to large industrial farms or organic agriculture, and extends beyond soil health to water management, erosion control, and biodiversity. 

How Did Participants Engage with Information?

The majority of respondents who were given the choice to receive additional information chose to access it (69.2% in TRT1 and 66.1% in TRT2), while approximately one-third declined. Among TRT2 respondents who sought information, the most frequently selected source was University researchers and Extension educators (47.2%), followed by federal or state government agencies (27.3%). NGOs, agri-food companies, and AI accounted for much smaller shares (10.5%, 8.2%, and 6.7%, respectively). The most common reason for declining information was lack of time (cited by 41.4% of those who declined), followed by the belief that there was little they could personally do to make a difference (22.2%), while only 5.8% cited distrust of the information sources. 

Who Chose Information—and Did They Learn More?

An interesting pattern emerged: respondents who chose to receive information already knew more than those who declined it. Table 1 shows that before the information treatments, TRT1 respondents who subsequently chose to receive information averaged 8.92 correct answers out of 15, compared with 7.70 among those who declined the information. In TRT2, those who selected an information source averaged 9.34 correct answers, compared with 7.55 among those who declined. These differences were statistically significant. Thus, respondents who already knew more about soil health and regenerative agriculture were more likely to seek additional information. In addition, knowledge overestimators (those who thought they knew more than they actually did) were significantly more likely to avoid information when given the choice, compared to underestimators and those who accurately assessed their knowledge.

Knowledge increased after the information treatments for all three groups that received information (Table 1). The Control group, which automatically received information, increased from 8.34 to 9.82 correct answers. Scores increased from 8.92 to 10.24 among TRT1 respondents and from 9.34 to 10.19 among TRT2 respondents who chose to receive information. All three increases were statistically significant. As expected, respondents who declined information did not show any statistically significant change in knowledge. Thus, those who sought information not only entered the information treatment stage with greater knowledge but also were the ones who improved their knowledge, further widening the initial knowledge difference between information receivers and avoiders.

Table 1. Knowledge changes after the information treatments 

Knowledge gains were greater for regenerative agriculture where initial knowledge was lower. Across the regenerative-agriculture questions, correct responses increased by an average of 7.8 percentage points, compared with 4.1 percentage points for soil-health questions. Some of the largest increases involved concepts that were initially less well understood, including regenerative agriculture’s relationship with carbon sequestration and climate mitigation and the misconception that it is limited to organic agriculture.

What Do These Findings Mean?

The results point to an important challenge for communicating information about soil health and regenerative agriculture. Knowledge improved among respondents who received information, yet those with lower initial knowledge were more likely to decline it. Simply making credible information available may therefore not be sufficient to reach less informed audiences. The reasons respondents gave for declining information provide some insight into this challenge. Lack of time was the most common reason, while some respondents felt there was little they could personally do to make a difference on these issues or believed they already knew enough. Communication efforts may therefore benefit from making information concise, accessible, and clearly relevant to decisions or actions that matter to the intended audience. The information source also matters. Nearly half of TRT2 respondents who sought information selected University researchers and Extension educators, making them the most preferred source among those offered. Universities and Extension programs may therefore be particularly well positioned to communicate credible information about soil health and regenerative agriculture.

Lana Awada
Visiting Faculty
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
lawada2@unl.edu                                                       

Emie Yiannaka
Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
ayiannaka2@unl.edu

Karina Schoengold
Professor, Agricultural Economics
Associate Director, Nebraska Water Center
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
kschoengold2@unl.edu                                               

Simanti Banerjee
Professor
Agricultural Economics
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
simanti.banerjee@unl.edu

Konstantinos Giannakas                                          
Harold W. Eberhard Distinguished Professor             
Department of Agricultural Economics                      
University of Nebraska-Lincoln                                 
kgiannakas2@unl.edu             

Tala Awada
Agricultural Research Division
Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
tawada2@unl.edu                                                                               

This article is based on the working paper “Soil Health, Regenerative Agriculture, and the Knowledge Gap: How Knowledge (Mis)calibration Shapes Information Avoidance, Learning, and Attitude Change” by L. Awada, A. Yiannaka, K. Schoengold, S. Banerjee, K. Giannakas and T. Awada.  

Acknowledgements: This research was funded by the USDA – Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Long-Term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) Network.   

References

International Food Information Council Foundation (IFICF). 2019. 2019 Food & Health Survey. Washington, DC: International Food Information Council Foundation.  ⁠2019 Food & Health Survey.

Balagtas, J., Bryant, E., Hubbell, C., and Monaco, L. 2024. Consumer Food Insights Report, Volume 3, Issue 8. Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability, Purdue University.  ⁠Consumer Food Insights Report.