Consumer Perceptions, Attitudes, and Purchase Behavior with Landscape Plants during Real and Perceived Drought Periods

in HortScience

In the coming decades, no natural resource may prove to be more critical to human health and well-being than water. There is abundant evidence that the condition of water resources in many parts of the United States is deteriorating. In some regions of the country, the availability of sufficient water to meet growing domestic uses, and the future sufficiency of water to support the use of landscape plants where we live, work, and play is in doubt. Conservation through water efficiency measures and water management practices may be the best way to help resolve water problems. Yet, consumer perceptions and attitudes and behavior toward water conservation may differ widely, particularly in the presence of drought. This study sought to add to the current horticulture and water conservation literature by exploring consumer attitudes and behavior during real and perceived drought situations, especially in terms of their landscape purchases and gardening/landscaping activities. Study findings could better inform educational programs and marketing strategies, helping to ensure the future demand of Green Industry products and services. With a national sample of 1543 subjects, an online survey tool was used to classify respondents into categories based on whether they accurately perceived if the region in which they lived was experiencing drought. We hypothesized that consumers were heterogeneous in their attitudes and behavior regarding plants and water conservation, depending on their real and perceived drought situations, and that their attitudes affected their behavior regarding plant purchases. Results confirmed this hypothesis. Attitudes and behaviors for those who correctly perceived they were in drought were different from those who correctly perceived they were not in drought, as well as those who incorrectly did not perceive they were in an actual drought.

Contributor Notes

Funding for this study was provided by USDA SCRI Clean WateR3—Reduce, Remediate, Recycle Grant Number 2014-51181-22372; USDA NIFA Hatch Projects MICL 02085, MICL 1011569, and TEX0-1-7051; Michigan State University AgBioResearch, and MSU Project GREEN and Texas A&M AgriLife Research.

Doctoral Student.

Professor.

Professor and Ellison Chair.

Corresponding author. E-mail: behe@msu.edu.

Headings

References

AdamsL.2017Learning a new skill is easier said than done. Gordon Training International Solana Beach CA. 9 Nov. 2017. <http://www.gordontraining.com/free-workplace-articles/learning-a-new-skill-is-easier-said-than-done/>.

AkbariH.2005Energy saving potentials and air quality benefits of urban heat island mitigation. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley CA

AlfredoK.2016America’s water: Developing a road map for the future of our nation’s infrastructure. Columbia Water Center Columbia University New York NY. 13 Mar. 2017. <http://water.columbia.edu/2016/03/22/americas-water-developing-a-road-map-for-the-future-of-our-nations-infrastructure/>.

BealC.D.StewartR.A.FieldingK.2013A novel mixed method smart metering approach to reconciling differences between perceived and actual residential end use water consumptionJ. Clean. Prod.60116128

BeheB.K.BaeM.HuddlestonP.T.SageL.2015The effect of involvement on visual attention and product choiceJ. Retailing Consum. Serv.241021

BeheB.K.CampbellB.L.HallC.R.KhachatryanH.DennisJ.H.YueC.2013Consumer preferences for local and sustainable plant production characteristicsHortScience48209215

BoyerT.A.KanzaP.GhimireM.MossJ.Q.2015Household adoption of water conservation and resilience under drought: The case of Oklahoma CityWater Econ. Policy1021550005

ButterfieldB.BaldwinI.2015National gardening survey. Natl. Gardening Assn. Williston VT

CobanogluC.WardeB.MoreoP.J.2001A comparison of mail, fax and web-based survey methodsIntl. J. Mkt. Res.43441455

DillmanD.SmythJ.ChristianL.2009Internet mail and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Wiley Hoboken NJ

EspeyM.EspeyJ.ShawW.D.1997Price elasticity of residential demand for water: A meta-analysisWater Resources Res.33613691374

FanY.McCannL.QinH.2017Households’ adoption of drought tolerant plants: An adaptation to climate change?J. Agr. Res. Econ.422236254

GilgA.BarrS.2006Behavioral attitudes towards water saving? Evidence from a study of environmental actionsEcol. Econ.573400414

GregoryG.D.LeoM.D.2003Repeated behavior and environmental psychology: The role of personal involvement and habit formation in explaining water consumptionJ. Appl. Soc. Psychol.33612611296

HaydenL.CadenassoM.L.HaverD.OkiL.R.2015Residential landscape aesthetics and water conservation best management practices: Homeowner perceptions and preferencesLandsc. Urban Plan.14419

HeimR.1999United States Drought Monitor. The National Drought Mitigation Center Lincoln NE. 8 Feb. 2017. <http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/>.

HelfandG.E.ParkJ.S.NassauerJ.I.KosekS.2006The economics of native plants in residential landscape designsLandsc. Urban Plan.783229240

HurdB.H.2006Water conservation and residential landscapes: Household preferences, household choicesJ. Agr. Res. Econ.312173192

JonesJ.M.2008In the U.S. 28% report major changes to live “green.” GALLUP. 7 Dec. 2016. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/106624/us-28-report-major-changes-live-green.aspx>.

JorgensenB.GraymoreM.O’TooleK.2009Household water use behavior: An integrated modelJ. Environ. Mgt.911227236

LossS.R.RuizM.O.BrawnJ.D.2009Relationships between avian diversity, neighborhood age, income, and environmental characteristics of an urban landscapeBiol. Conserv.1421125782585

MaupinM.A.KennyJ.F.HutsonS.S.LovelaceJ.K.BarberN.L.LinseyK.S.2014Estimated use of water in the United States in 2010. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1405:56. 15 Dec. 2016. <https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1405/>.

McCulloughD.1998Web-based market research: The dawning of a new ageDirect Mktg.613638

MiniC.HogueT.S.PincetlS.2014Estimation of residential outdoor water use in Los Angeles, CaliforniaLandsc. Urban Plan.127124135

NowakD.J.DwyerJ.F.2007Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems p. 25–46. In: J.E. Kuser (ed.). Urban and community forestry in the northeast. Springer Dordrecht The Netherlands

RandolphB.TroyP.2008Attitudes to conservation and water consumptionEnviron. Sci. Policy115441455

RenwickM.E.ArchibaldS.O.1998Demand side management policies for residential water use: Who bears the conservation burden?Land Econ.743343359

SeyranianV.SinatraG.M.PolikoffM.S.2015Comparing communication strategies for reducing residential water consumptionJ. Environ. Psychol.418190

SomervilleC.BriscoeJ.2001Genetic engineering and waterScience29255252217

SpintiJ.E.St. HilaireR.S.VanLeeuwenD.2004Balancing landscape preferences and water conservation in a desert communityHortTechology147277

SpringerA.C.2011Creating water conscious communities: An examination of household water conservation in a decade of drought. Univ. Arizona Tucson AZ PhD Diss. Abstr. 10150-205213

St. HilaireR.S.ArnoldM.A.WilkersonD.C.DevittD.A.HurdB.H.LesikarB.J.PittengerD.R.2008Efficient water use in residential urban landscapesHortScience4320812092

St. HilaireR.S.Van LeeuwenD.M.TorresP.2010Landscape preferences and water conservation choices of residents in a high desert environmentHortTechology20308314

SymeG.J.ShaoQ.PoM.CampbellE.2004Predicting and understanding home garden water useLandsc. Urban Plan.68121128

U.S. Census Bureau2017American FactFinder. U.S. Dept. Commerce. 08 Feb. 2017. <https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_DP05&src=pt>.

WorthingtonA.C.HoffmanM.2008An empirical survey of residential water demand modellingJ. Econ. Surv.225842871

Article Information

Google Scholar

Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 60 60 60
Full Text Views 7 7 7
PDF Downloads 0 0 0