5 minute read
Cover Story
Consumer Sod Preferences
By Grady Miller, North Carolina State University
There are all kinds of studies that look at consumers’ preferences for everyday items based on personal taste, perceived value, quality, and convenience – everything from automobiles to Ziplock bag brands. But what about consumer sod preferences? As part of our USDA Specialty Crop Research Initiative grant, researchers from our group polled Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Texas homeowners to determine turfgrass attributes that consumers preferred and their willingness to pay extra for these attributes (Ghimire et al., 2016 and Ghimire et al., 2019). A few years before these studies, scientists at the University of Minnesota sought to determine if consumers in their region had a preference for low-input turfgrasses (Hugie et al., 2012). This article will highlight some of the findings of these studies. For more specifics on study methods and results, consult the original peer reviewed papers referenced at the end of this article.
In the questionnaire used in the study reported in 2019, Ghimire et al. found that household consumers could be classified into one of two groups based on similar preference attitudes. The first group, labeled “willing hobby gardeners” were more likely to be new homeowners, younger (<45 years), hobbyist, and more willing adopters of improved turfgrasses. Members of this group were more interested in do-it-yourself projects. They tended to have higher incomes and were more likely to buy organic products in general. This group was more likely to pay more for improved turfgrasses. Consumer responses from this group suggested that they would be more attracted to suggestions from home-improvement shows. There was also an expressed interest in USDA certified or “pesticide free” labeling of turfgrasses.
The second group, labeled “reluctant mature homeowners” were on average older (>45 years) and more reluctant adopters of improved turfgrass cultivars that minimize environmental stressors. They were more price sensitive and often feared changes and challenges. Their research showed this group was more willing to accept a turfgrass variety with higher maintenance costs if the initial price was lower compared to a newer variety. It was most evident that marketing strategies for this group must emphasize the price points of the turfgrasses. This group may be best served by using extension programs such as Master Gardeners for promoting turfgrasses.
The other two articles presented consumers’ preferences of turfgrass traits. This type of information is helpful for not only turfgrass breeders but also sod producers since both groups seek to match a product to consumer preferences. While the Hugie et al. (2012) paper concentrated on targeted consumer preferences within the cool-season turfgrass region of Minnesota, I believe it provided good information that can also be applied in our transition zone. One surprise was that participants in their study placed greater importance on maintenance attributes than on aesthetic attributes. The most important turfgrass attribute in their study was a low irrigation requirement. An environmental concern was a larger motivating factor for desiring a turfgrass with a low water requirement than the cost of irrigation water.
The second most importance in their study was placed on a reduced mowing requirement. As with water, the high importance on reduced mowing was not only based on cost and time savings, but also potential environmental concerns about fossil fuel use. A secondary level of importance was associated with shade adaptation, turfgrass color, turfgrass texture, and the presence of weeds. They found there was a strong demand for shade tolerant turfgrasses. Participants also had a strong preference for turfgrass areas without weeds. The majority of their participants (69%) indicated they would likely purchase a different type of turfgrass if it required fewer pesticide applications. Lastly, the vast majority (96%) indicated they would be more likely to purchase low-input turfgrasses if provided more information. These findings illustrate the greater need for marketing turfgrasses with specific traits.
The study reported by Ghimire et al. (2016) polled consumers in Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Texas and found that in all states surveyed, the most preferred turfgrass attribute was low maintenance cost (54%), followed by shade tolerance (23%), and water conservation (19%). It just so happened that the top three attributes were the same in NC as for “all states”. The least valued attributes across the five states were low purchase price (0.1%), winterkill tolerance (0.7%), and salinity tolerance (4%). In NC, winterkill tolerant turfgrass was more preferred than salinity-tolerant turfgrass. The low importance in sod price was partially attributed to sod cost being a small factor in the overall replacement of a lawn.
So, what is the take home message for sod producers? First, it can be helpful to understand the consumer groups that will be purchasing your turfgrasses and their willingness to adopt and pay for new turfgrasses. This can assist sod growers in targeting new turfgrasses to willing gardeners, while altering their marketing strategy to persuade reluctant homeowners. Secondly, sod producers may also have to change the turfgrasses they grow to align with traits that are valued by their consumers. The sod industry, as a whole, may need to increase marketing of specific grasses with documented traits in comparison to older standard cultivars to increase awareness. The economic impact of adopting new cultivars may take time. But the inevitable mandated irrigation restrictions during droughts, suggest turfgrasses with drought tolerance would see quicker adoption and offer significant economic impacts to the industry sooner than other traits.
References
1. Ghimire, M. T.A. Boyer, C. Chung, and J.Q. Moss. 2016. Consumers’ shares of preferences for turfgrass attributes using a discrete choice experiment and the best-worst method. HortScience 51(7):892-898. 2016.
2. Ghirmire, T.A. Boyer, and C. Chung. 2019. Heterogeneity in urban consumer preferences for turfgrass attributes. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 38:183-192. 2019.
3. Hugie, K, C. Yue, and E. Watkins. 2012. Consumer preferences for low-input turfgrasses: A conjoint analysis. HortScience 47(8):10961101. 2012.
