Landscape Plant Material, Size, and Design Sophistication Increase Perceived Home Value

Neonicotinoids have recently been implicated by the media as a contributing factor to the decline of honey and bumblebees. We sought to better understand consumer perceptions and willingness to pay for traditional, neonicotinoid-free, bee-friendly, or biological control pest management practices as growers may seek alternative management practices to systemetic insecticides. We conducted a nationwide Internet survey (n = 3082), where consumers answered attitudinal, comprehension, likelihood-to-buy, and demographical questions about indoor (marketed in 10-cm pots) and outdoor (marketed in 30-cm hanging baskets or 10-cm pots) floriculture products. The likelihood-to-buy questions were analyzed using conjoint analysis to determine which attributes had the greatest part-worth scores or which ones were viewed most positively by survey respondents. Of the total participants, 65.1% (n = 2002) of the subjects had purchased an annual flowering plant in the 12 months before the survey. Respondents reported that the most important plant health and appearance factors that affect their purchasing decisions were that the flowering plants have no plant damage, while the second most important factor was that plants have no insects on them. The least important factor in the ranking of stated importance was that no neonicotinoid insecticides were used during the production of the plant. This finding may have resulted from 56.6% of all participants who reported that they did not understand the term. For those who viewed the indoor 10-cm flowering plants (n = 1052), the plant species accounted for 41.2% of the decision to purchase the plant, followed by production type (32.8%) and price (26.0%). All three product attributes were of equal importance to the subjects who viewed the outdoor 10-cm flowering plants (n = 1024), whereas only price had a lower relative importance when compared with production type and species for those who viewed the 30-cm hanging baskets (n = 1006). Across all three studies, use of the term “bee-friendly” had the greatest economic value because it had the highest part-worth utility score, or the greatest willingness-to-buy. For the subjects who viewed the outdoor plants, “bee-friendly” and “use of beneficial insects” had greater economic value (with positive part-worth utility scores), but “neonicotinoid-free” and “traditional insect control” both had negative part-worth utility scores, indicating they were valued less and detracted from the dollar value of the plant. The term “bee-friendly” was worth up to five times more to those respondents that had bought a plant in the last 12 months compared with those who had not. Therefore, if ornamental plants are labeled with pest management practices, most consumers value the term “bee-friendly” more and will likely discount products labeled “neonicotinoid-free.”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer Preferences for Traditional, Neonicotinoid-free, Bee-friendly, or Biological Control Pest Management Practices on Floriculture Crops

Wollaeger

Getter

Behe

2015

“…Rating-based conjoint analysis experiments (Behe et al, 2005;Mason et al, 2008) and eye-tracking analysis (Behe et al, 2014;Khachatryan et al, 2013) were used to assess consumer behavior toward indoor foliage plant attributes. Recently, conjoint analysis experiments have been paired with eyetracking analysis to better understand consumer information acquisition behavior for horticulture products (Behe et al, 2014;Khachatryan et al, 2013).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer Response to Novel Indoor Foliage Plant Attributes: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment and Gaze Analysis

Rihn

Khachatryan

Campbell³

et al. 2015

A rating-based conjoint experiment combined with eye-tracking analysis was used to investigate the effect of plant attributes on consumer purchase likelihood for indoor foliage plants. The experiment assessed the effects of plant type (Dracaena marginata Lam., Guzmania lingulata, or Spathiphyllum wallisii Regel), volatile organic compound (VOC) removal capacity (high, low, or none specified), price ($10.98–14.98/plant), production method [certified organic, organic production (not certified), or conventional], and origin (in-state, domestic, or imported) on consumer preferences. An ordered logit model was used to analyze the data. Organic production methods, in-state origin, domestic origin, and high VOC removal increased participants’ purchase likelihood. Visually attending to the highest price point ($14.98) increased consumers’ purchase likelihood. Age, gender, child (<12 years), pet, relationship status, education, and ethnicity affected participants’ purchase likelihood for indoor foliage plants. Purchasing barriers for indoor foliage plants are also discussed. Results have implications for indoor foliage plant growers and retailers as they produce, promote, and sell their products.

“…It defines consumers' overall preference for a particular product as the sum of the PWU scores for each product attribute level (Gaasbeck and Bouwman, 1991;Hartigan, 1975). Conjoint analysis has been used to understand the purchase drivers and willingness to pay for a wide range of horticultural products, including Christmas trees (Behe et al, 2005b), landscapes (Behe et al, 2005a), mixed flowering annual containers (Mason et al, 2008), impatiens alternatives (Getter and Behe, 2013), eco-friendly plant production practices (Behe et al, 2013;Rihn et al, 2015Rihn et al, , 2016Yue et al, 2010), as well as vegetable and herb plant brands (Behe et al, 2016). For the present study, we built on Behe et al (2016) and used a combination of product attributes and levels that represented two flowering annuals (Callibrachoa and Impatiens hawkeri) and two flowering shrubs (Buddleia davidii and Rosa Oso Easy Red) • four brands (two established national brands: Proven Winners and Monrovia; one fictitious brand Unicorn; and a generic container) • three prices ($5.99, $9.99, and $13.99) factorial design.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Real and Fictitious Plant Brands Differ in Brand Recognition, Awareness, Purchase Intention, and Visual Activity?

Behe¹,

Huddleston²,

Hall³

et al. 2017

Brands differentiate products from each other and help create the perception of added value. They influence product choice at the point of purchase with >70% of all buying decisions made in the store. Brands are often one of a few pieces of information consumers use to make product choices. Prior research showed that consumers had a greater likelihood to buy plant brands they had previously seen. To advance both the academic and practitioners’ understanding of plant brands, we sought to investigate the role of real and fictitious brands and their effects on visual activity and purchase intentions. Would simply including information on the container (e.g., fictitious brand) sway visual activity and purchase intentions? To investigate this notion, we conducted an in-person survey with a conjoint design in four states during May and June, 2015, using two flowering annuals and two flowering shrubs. Our goals were to assess consumers’ expressed and implicit preferences and, at the same time, monitor their gaze to determine how subjects used the real and fictitious brands as cues in their purchase decision. We showed 214 study participants digital images of 16 plants, varying the plant type, brand, and price; asked about brand awareness and familiarity; collected demographic and plant purchase information; and recorded their gaze as they viewed the images. We segmented the sample into three clusters, comparing their brand awareness and familiarity, conjoint analysis results, and the two visual measures: time to first fixation (TFF) and total fixation duration (TFD) on the container. The three clusters identified varied in their level of brand recognition and awareness but were similar in the relative importance and part-worth utility (PWU) mean scores, indicating a relatively similar decision process. The visual activity varied slightly by brand, but the fictitious brand captured and held visual attention similarly to the two established national brands.