ROOTED IN RESEARCH
DO NORTH AMERICAN CONSUMERS PREFER LOW-INPUT TURFGRASSES FOR THEIR HOME LAWNS?
By Chengyan Yue, PhD; Jingjing Wang, PhD student; Eric Watkins, PhD; Brian Horgan, PhD; Stacy A. Bonos, PhD; Kristen Nelson, PhD; James Murphy, PhD; and William Meyer, PhD
Turfgrasses have the potential to enhance the built environment and provide functional and environmental benefits such as pollinator habitat, stormwater management, mitigate soil erosion and urban heat island effect, and microclimate moderation. Turfgrasses also are important landscape components that contribute to quality of life by providing recreational and aesthetic benefits. In the United States, turfgrasses occupy 1.9 percent of the continental surface and cover an area three times larger than any irrigated crop.
In the past decades, turfgrass breeders have developed turfgrasses that exhibit low-input characteristics such as drought tolerance and reduced nitrogen requirements. Although previous studies document the relative strengths and comparable advantages of low-input turfgrass species, little is known about consumers’ preferences for turfgrass attributes at a national or international level. Our specific objectives were to (1) estimate U.S. and Canadian consumers’ willingness to pay for various turfgrass attributes, (2) identify the possible consumer preference differences and market segments, and (3) draw marketing implications based on identified consumer preferences and market segments.
The Method and Findings An online turfgrass consumer preferences survey was conducted in 2014, with 1,934 usable U.S. responses and 723 usable responses from Canada. Te average age of U.S. participants was 51. Among them, 49 percent were male, 61 percent were married, and 23 percent had one or more children under 12 years old. Te average household size was two to three people, the mean education level was some college to a college diploma, and the average
TPI Turf News May/June 2019
annual household income was $50,000. Tis sample was consistent with the U.S. census data (United States Census Bureau 2014) in terms of age (age group 15–83), gender, household size, education level, and income. Compared to the U.S. participants, Canadian participants were younger (average age of 41), more educated, with larger household size and higher household income.
With the online survey data, consumer preference was estimated using a statistical analysis that determined willingness to pay (the maximum price at which an individual was willing to buy one unit of the product) for each improved turfgrass trait assuming they were seeding 1000 square feet of a lawn. Te estimated willingness to pay (WTP) premiums are shown in Figure 1. Te price premiums represent how much more participants are willing to pay for turfgrass with a particular attribute level compared to the corresponding base level. Te base level attributes were narrow leaf turfgrass, dark green, a lawn containing weeds, turfgrass that required high fertilizer inputs, a turfgrass that had the potential to lay over, high water use rates, high mowing frequency and poor ability to withstand foot traffic. Te overall rankings of WTP premiums reflected similar preferences for turfgrass attributes among U.S. and Canadian participants, but Canadian participants had higher WTP premiums.
• In general, both U.S. and Canadian consumers were willing to pay the highest premium for better ability to withstand foot traffic (around $16 for seed to cover 1000 square feet for U.S. consumers), followed by low mowing frequency (around $13 for U.S. consumers), low fertilizer requirement ($6 for U.S. consumers), and low water usage ($6 for U.S. consumers).
• For the appearance attributes, participants would pay a high premium for turfgrass with no weeds ($9 for U.S. consumers and $15 for Canadian consumers). Texture (wide or narrow leaf) was not as important as other traits.
59
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
