Survey 1: Research gaps in CH

A survey entitled research gaps in CH was developed and containing 12 questions to qualitatively understand where research gaps and needs among CH/extension researchers exist. The Institutional Review Board determination of exempt human subjects research was applied for and approved through North Dakota State University (AG20279). The survey was created using an online survey platform (Qualtrics XM; Qualtrics, Provo, UT) and distributed using the NICH e-mail listserv and the EMG coordinator listserv. The NICH listserv included 1427 contacts, of which 243 self-identified as educator/teaching/extension, 8 self-identified as health care/social science professionals, 132 self-identified as industry, 35 self-identified as public horticulture, 15 self-identified as strictly research, and 103 self-identified as other. Remaining contacts did not indicate their affiliation with CH. The EMG coordinator listserv, which includes state-level and county-level members, consisted of 335 contacts. The survey was distributed through online communications in early June 2020. The survey questions are listed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Results of a survey questionnaire disseminated to the consumer horticulture (CH) industry at large to identify research gaps in CH. The total number of survey responses for each selection is indicated.

View Table

View Table

Survey 2: Bridging the divide between CH and public gardens

A survey was developed with 12 questions directed toward the staff of botanic gardens to qualitatively evaluate their understanding of CH, whether they considered the work they perform would qualify as CH, and the barriers to direct engagement in the CH community. The Institutional Review Board determination of exempt human subjects research was applied for and approved through North Dakota State University (AG20278). The online survey was distributed to members of key communities of the American Public Gardens Association (APGA) through internal e-mail and discussion forums in early June 2020. The communities to which the survey was distributed were garden management, public engagement, horticulture, plant collections, food and agriculture, and native plants. Collectively, across all communications, 810 unique members of the APGA were reached. The survey questions are listed in Table 3.

Question 1: What does CH mean to you?

Participants could select multiple responses for this question. The categories with the highest number of responses were home vegetable and fruit production with 208 responses (11.56%), followed by cultivation, use, and enjoyment of plants with 204 (11.33%), plant and people connections with 191 (10.61%) responses; 177 participants (9.83%) selected landscaping as the number 4 response (Table 1). The economic category received the least number of responses [85 (4.7%) respondents], followed by recreation (playing fields, parks, public gardens, sports, golf) [93 (5.17%)], thereby showing a disconnect in participants’ perceptions of the role of CH in economy and recreation.

Question 2: What is your role or horticultural affiliation?

Most participants were extension service personnel, which included county extension agents and state-wide extension specialists (167), followed by coordinators (106), green industry personnel (72), academia personnel (54), research personnel (46), public gardens personnel (30), wholesale growers (25), floriculture personnel (21), retail center personnel (20), green industry suppliers (17), landscape architecture personnel (13), and turf industry personnel (7) (Table 1).

Question 3: What knowledge gaps do you see in CH commodities?

Respondents were asked to rank the commodities using a scale of 1 to 5 as a perceived knowledge gap, with 1 being the smallest and 5 being the largest. The answers were, for the most part, evenly distributed among the commodities listed (Table 1). There were six categories provided for respondents to choose. Respondents selected basic horticultural practices (planting, pruning, soil preparation, etc.) as the highest knowledge gap, with a score of 261. Trees and shrubs (woody) had the second highest knowledge gap with a score of 259, followed by fruits and vegetables with 253, houseplants/tropicals and herbaceous ornamentals with 249 and 248 scores, respectively, and turf with the lowest gap with a score of 247.

Question 4: What knowledge gaps do you see in CH issues? Please rank on a scale of 1 to 5 as a perceived gap; 1 being the smallest gap and 5 being the largest gap

For Question 4, there were 11 categories listed as CH issues (Table 1). The results are presented as the mean for each category ranked in order from highest gap to lowest gap perceived (Table 2). Knowledge gaps for all categories were above the average of 2.5, with the highest knowledge gap perceived as chemicals and organics, with a mean (± sd) of 4.02 ± 0.9.

Table 2.

Knowledge gaps in consumer horticulture (CH) ranked on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the largest gap. Gaps are listed from the largest identified gap to smallest gap. Means and standard deviation (sd) are listed.

View Table

Table 3.

Results of a survey questionnaire sent to public garden personnel to identify gaps in knowledge about consumer horticulture (CH). Results are presented as the total number of responses for each selection.

View Table

View Table

Question 5: Are you involved in CH research? If yes, then what area of specialty?

To understand how many of the survey participants are involved in CH research, we asked the above question. There were 77 participants who selected yes and 183 who selected no (Table 1). The areas of research specialty ranged greatly and included native plants, pollinators, invasive plants, plant breeding, ornamentals, vegetable disease control, small urban farms, consumer food production, pollinators and people, water-wise gardening, invasive/ornamental interface, landscape management, public gardens, landscape design, urban horticulture, integrated pest management, fruit production, plant trials, best landscape practices, urban garden ecology, market research, human/environment interactions, rain gardens, indoor houseplant care, sustainability, consumer interests, growing media, entomology, turfgrass, xeriscape trials, cold-hardy grape (Vitis sp.) variety trials, amendments, use of hospital gardens by patients, families, and employees, right plant–right place, extension education, hemp (Cannabis sativa) seed and flower production, and care of african violets (Saintpaulia ionantha).

Question 6: What is needed to fill these research gaps?

Funding was the number one choice among the options (with 50 responses), followed by understanding the importance of CH by researchers and educators (with 41 responses), support from administration and leadership (with 35 responses), personnel (with 33 responses), and enrollment of graduate students (with 20 responses); five participants selected “not sure’ as an answer (Table 1). The last option was other, with seven responses. Under the “other” category, comments included engaging high school and middle school students, partnerships with scientists in other disciplines, volunteer assistance, and education and research of microbes and organic amendments without corruption from corporate funding to promote chemically sustained landscapes

Question 7: How important is collaboration to your research? 1 - Not important to 10 - Very important

The majority of participants selected within your institution (70 responses), followed by green industry (67 responses) and with other universities (67 responses) (Table 1). Public gardens received 64 responses and federal agencies (USDA, National Science Foundation, etc.) received 63 responses. “Other” received three responses; of which, policymakers, private foundations, and volunteers were listed.

Questions 8 and 9: Have you ever applied for a specialty crop grant? If funded, please select the type and number of times for each below

Of the participants who answered this question, 47 (65.28%) answered no and 25 (34.72%) answered yes.

Those funded by specialty crop block grants included 15 respondents (20.83%), with five funded once, four funded twice, and the remainder funded four or more times. Those funded by the Specialty Crop Research Initiative included five respondents, with three funded twice and two funded three times.

Question 10: Do you know of any other federal, national, or state grants that support CH research? Please list below

Participants shared funding sources, such as National Horticulture Foundation, Horticulture Research Institute, Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, Green Plants for Green Buildings, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education grants, United Fresh Start grants, Newman Foundation, local sponsors, National Urban and Community Advisory Council, Colorado Tree Coalition, Seed Your Future, USDA-Agriculture Marketing Service federal state marketing improvement program, American Floral Endowment, United Plant Saver, Farmer Veteran Coalition, Fruit Guys, Ohio Invasive Pest Council, Awesome Foundation, University of Arizona Haury Grant, and Colorado State Department of Agriculture (Table 1).

Question 11: If you had all the funding, support, and personnel, what would be your next big research project?

There were 43 participants who answered this question. Although individual responses varied, the general themes were sustainable landscapes (7), pollinators and biodiversity (3), value to society (5), economics (3), pests and diseases (5), cultural practices (5), horticultural trials and demonstration gardens (6), food production (3), and other (6) (Table 1).

Question 12: In your line of work associated with CH, what are the three big questions you want answered? What are some issues you are faced with that go unaddressed or you need further support in?

There were 157 participants (or 52% of the respondents) who answered this question (Table 1). Respondents gave three answers that varied greatly. However, there were common themes repeated among the answers. Themes are summarized as follows. 1) The environment, with issues such as sustainable landscapes, less turf, more natives, environmental impacts of gardening practices, concerns with climate change, minimizing invasive plants, organic gardening, pollinators and the issues with harmful insecticides, monocultures vs. gardening for habitats, and urban garden. 2) The benefits of gardening to our economy, to our environment, to our society, health, and well-being, and horticulture therapy. 3) Gardening techniques, including gardening basics, proper pest and disease identification, responsible pesticide use, disease and pest management, and integrated pest management. 4) Economics with issues such as how to link incomes or marginalized citizens with plants, helping consumers to buy more, and how to understand and teach others about the value of plants to local economies. 5) Educating consumers about issues such as how to reach the next generation of gardeners, a need to educate younger generations about CH, how to reach larger audiences to educate them on CH, and how extension across the nation could work together to better share information. 6) The need to address CH issues such as a lack of funding for CH research and marketing, a lack of personnel in CH, and a lack of support for EMGs.

Question 1: What does CH mean to you?

Participants could select multiple responses for this question. The categories of cultivation, use and enjoyment of plants, and retail garden center received the highest number of responses, with 49 (12.22%) responses each (Table 3). This was followed by landscaping with 43 (10.72%) responses, indoor plants and home vegetable and fruit production with 41 (10.22%) responses each, and people and plant connection with 40 (9.98%) responses. The three categories with the least number of responses were economy, recreation, and environmental sustainability with 24 (5.99%), 24 (5.99%), and 23 (5.74%) responses, respectively.

Question 2: What is your role in your public garden?

Most of the participants were horticulturists (17), followed by curators and directors (15 each) (Table 3). There were 15 participants in the “other” category. The roles that were specified in the “other” category were volunteer manager, fundraiser, plant recorder, head of horticulture, horticulture assistant, advocate for outdoor play, plant clinic manager, editor, assistant director, communications, and designer.

Question 3: Have you heard about the NICH?

Of the 55 responses received for this question, 80% (44 participants) had not heard of the NICH (Table 3). Only 11% (6 participants) were aware of the NICH and the remainder were unsure.

Question 4: If you answered yes to Question #3, how did you hear about NICH?

As expected, a majority of those who had heard about the NICH (10 respondents) had heard about it through the APGA, which is the industry association for public gardens (Table 3). Of these, five respondents had answered “no” to the previous question. Three had heard about the NICH through the ASHS, one head about it from colleagues, and one was familiar with the NICH through their website.

Question 5: Have you used or engaged in any of the NICH marketing tools?

The selection options for this question were NICH infographics, social media, and the #plantsdothat campaign. Only three respondents answered this question; of these, one respondent selected all three options (Table 3). The two others had engaged with the #plantsdothat campaign.

Question 6: Are you a member of any professional societies?

Horticultural societies that covered multiple organizations (Table 3) received the highest number of responses (33), followed by specialty societies (20). Arboriculture, entomology, pathology, and landscape architecture received the lowest number of responses. The organizations specified under the “other” category included irrigation association, APGA, Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Center for Plant Conservation, Garden Communicators International, special public garden plant collecting consortium, EMGs, Council on Botanical and Horticultural Libraries, and American Alliance of Museums.

Question 7: Are most of your memberships personal or institutional?

The majority of the memberships were supported by institutions [36 responses (69%)], with 31% (16 responses) of the memberships being personal (Table 3).

Question 8: Do you collaborate with your green industry?

Of the 53 responses completed, 76% (40 respondents) engage with their local green industry and 15% (eight respondents) do not engage with their local green industry (Table 3). Five respondents (9%) were unsure.

Question 9: If you collaborate, can you describe your collaboration?

There were many interesting ways in which those who collaborate with their local green industry engage. These engagements include the following: 1) access to plant material/propagules (public gardens’ living collections consist of many unique plant species that are not commonly available in the green industry and many gardens collaborate by providing source material for unique landscape plants); 2) work with nursery associations to develop and promote plants that perform well in their region, collaborate on annual plant sales, purchase plants for plant display and sale at gift shops, and purchase specialty crops from specialty growers; 3) collaborate on special projects (e.g., school projects) and work with local vendors for irrigation upgrades and technology advancements; 4) host professional tours, training, workshops, and meetings for green industry professionals; 5) speak at industry events; 6) serve as a resource for horticultural/arboricultural advice to the landscape industry, provide on-call advice for green industry professionals through plant clinics and serve as an inspiration for design ideas for industry professionals; 7) solicit sponsorships and donations; 8) hire green industry members as instructors for community education classes; 9) sustainable landscape certificate program; and 10) green industry members serve on public garden committees (Table 3)

Question 10: Do you think of your guests as participants in CH?

Of the 52 respondents who completed this question, 33 (63%) answered that they considered their guests as participating in CH, whereas 19 (37%) responded “no” (Table 3). This is consistent with the responses to Question 1, for which cultivation, use, and enjoyment of plants comprised one of the categories that received the highest score for what CH means.

Question 11: How do you engage with the public?

Classes and workshops received the highest response (27), followed by plant sales, interpretation, and outreach with 23, 22, and 20 responses each, respectively (Table 3). Landscape consultation, horticultural therapy programs, urban food programs, and plant introduction programs received very few responses. Items listed in the “other” category included social media posts, demonstrations, volunteerism, and website.

Question 12: If you are not involved in CH, what is preventing you from engaging?

A majority of the responses received for this question came from those who had responded “no” to Question 10, indicating they did not consider their guests as participants in CH (Table 3). The main responses were lack of staff time and resources, limited collaborations, and lack of buy-in from senior management. There were a few responses indicating confusion about what CH is. One respondent perceived CH as sale of plants and considered consumerism as against the mission.