Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 10 of 10 items for
- Author or Editor: Julie Campbell x
Over the past decade, pecans (Carya illinoinensis) have experienced slow to stagnant growth as other nuts see continual growth. Given demand, producers and retailers are needing to finding new ways to market pecans. Using a conjoint experiment with market segmentation, the market for several value-added pecan products (e.g., cinnamon sugar, chocolate-covered, salted and roasted, pralines, and plain roasted) were assessed. Three to four segments within the market were found depending on product size. For a 1.5-oz product, there are three segments (Budget Traditional, Sugar Origin, and Sugar High) that value product attributes differently. The Budget Traditional values plain roasted pecans and has the largest negative reaction to higher prices. The Sugar Origin segment values pralines and chocolate-covered pecans while also valuing Oklahoma- and Texas-produced pecans. The Sugar High segment has a positive preference for chocolate-covered, and pralines and a disdain for cinnamon sugar, salted and roasted, and plain roasted. Examining the 8-oz package size, there are four market segments. The Budget Traditional and Sugar High are similar to the 1.5-oz package size; however, the 8-oz market also has a Price Sensitive segment that highly values low prices as well as a Cinnamon Hater segment that does not like cinnamon sugar pecans. Demographics and past purchasing are key factors for explaining how a consumer is likely to be grouped into segments. Age (i.e., generation) and whether a consumer had purchased nuts within the past year were important indicators across package size.
Boxwood blight is a significant threat to nurseries, garden centers, landscaping businesses, and homeowners, causing both financial and ecological damage. This fungal disease is primarily caused by two species, with Calonectria pseudonaviculata being the only reported casual species in the United States. The pathogen is spread by wind-driven rain, water splash, and contaminated plants, emphasizing the need for exclusion, sanitation protocols, cultural practices, and fungicides to manage its spread. Recently, efforts have shifted from containment to disease management, focusing on fungicide efficacy, diagnostic assays, and boxwood production analysis. Agricultural extension programs promote best practices to prevent disease introduction into nursery and landscape environments. Understanding consumer awareness and perceived risk regarding infestations is crucial as control measures evolve. In our Jul 2020 survey, which had 2795 completed responses from across the United States, we assessed consumer knowledge and opinions regarding boxwood shrubs and Boxwood light. The findings revealed demographic variations in awareness and opinions. Suburban residents were more aware of boxwood blight, whereas urban residents had a higher opinion of boxwood shrubs. From the tobit model, men were more likely to purchase boxwood compared with women despite knowing about blight, and Caucasians compared with non-Caucasians exhibited decreased liking for boxwood after seeing pictures of blight-infected plants. These insights can inform targeted communication strategies and assist consumers, vendors, and related industries in addressing the challenges posed by Boxwood blight. Further research into alternative plant preferences among consumers is also warranted for better development of boxwood blight management strategies.
A survey of Connecticut consumers was used to investigate perceptions of various green industry retailers. Consumer perceptions of independent garden centers (IGC), home improvement centers (HIC), and mass merchandisers (MM) business practices and their perceived value were assessed. Analysis of variance and ordinary least squares regression models were used to analyze the data. Results indicated that customer service, knowledgeable staff, and high-quality plants are important factors when consumers are deciding where to shop. IGCs were ranked highest in perceived customer service, knowledgeable staff, and plant quality, followed by HICs. MMs were ranked lowest for the majority of measured business practices, with the most notable exception being price. Additionally, IGCs, HICs, and MMs are perceived differently across age cohorts.
Using conjoint analysis and market simulations, the impact of the introduction of certified genetically modified organism (GMO)-free; GMO-free, not certified; and nonlabeled turfgrass was examined for Connecticut consumers. We categorized consumers into five distinct segments according to their preferences. The largest segment consisted of 38% of respondents (multifaceted), whereas the smallest consisted of 8% of respondents (extremely price sensitive). For most consumers GMO labeling was not a major driver for purchasing decisions, accounting for only 11% of purchasing decisions. However, holding all factors constant except GMO labeling and price, 66% of the market preferred a noncertified GMO-free label, with a significant number of consumers willing to pay for the certified GMO-free label. Based on market simulations, the noncertified GMO-free-labeled seed would maximize revenue at a 60% premium whereas the certified GMO-free label maximizes revenue when there is no premium.
Home lawn fertilizer use throughout the United States is coming under increased scrutiny due to potential negative environmental impacts. A better understanding of how consumer perceptions and socio-demographics impact their choices of types of lawn fertilizers can aid industry stakeholders when marketing products. This research uses a nationwide survey to evaluate factors that impact respondents’ choice of lawn fertilizer brands. Respondents with home lawns selected the lawn fertilizer brands they purchased the most frequently and rated the importance of various fertilizer attributes (e.g., nitrogen–phosphorus–potassium ratio, brand, price, etc.) when selecting lawn fertilizers. Given many lawn fertilizer brands share commonalities, respondents’ answers were grouped into five categories: most popular brand, primarily turf brands, sustainable/organic brands, other brands, and “I don’t remember the brand.” The most popular brand of fertilizer was chosen by 69% of respondents, with the primarily turf brands and other fertilizers being chosen by 25% and 23% of respondents, respectively. This study finds that brand selection is impacted by important fertilizer features, frequented retail outlets, geographical region of residence, and demographic variables. For example, brand importance and purchasing from mass merchandisers or wholesale clubs increased respondents’ selection likelihood of the most popular brand by 6.9% and 20.5% points, respectively. Marketing implications are discussed.
Concern over the use of pesticides in public areas, such as schools, daycare centers, and parks, has prompted some state and local governments to severely restrict or ban pesticides in these locations. Connecticut currently has bans for daycare centers, school grounds with kindergarten through eighth grade classes, and playgrounds in municipal parks. This study was designed to understand general public awareness of these bans and the public sentiment for these additional bans. An online survey was conducted in late 2016 asking Connecticut residents about their levels of awareness of the current pesticide bans, and whether they supported the current ban or would support additional bans. Demographics and other individual characteristics/perceptions are used to explain whether a respondent knows there is a pesticide ban and if the respondent thinks there should be a pesticide ban. Only 7% of the respondents could correctly identify where pesticide bans are currently in place, with most respondents being unsure (74%) if a ban was, in fact, in place. No respondents correctly identified the location of the ban without also identifying an incorrect location as well. A large percentage of respondents indicated the state should have a pesticide ban, with those respondents supporting a ban across all locations listed. Pesticide bans on school grounds and athletic fields from kindergarten to 12th grade were strongly supported, with scores ranging from 85.9 to 86.6 on a 100-point scale, with 100 representing extreme support for pesticide bans. The results indicate that general awareness of the current pesticide ban, as well as knowledge of where current bans are in place, is low. Most respondents support a statewide ban that exceeds current Connecticut law.
A mail survey was distributed to school turfgrass managers throughout Connecticut focusing on the differences between turfgrass management practices for kindergarten through eighth-grade (K-8) school grounds before, during, and after a 2010 ban on pesticide use at these facilities. The results indicate that as turf care protocol transitioned from an integrated pest management (IPM) program to new pesticide-free regulatory requirements, school grounds/athletic field managers did not significantly adjust their management programs. The percentage of managers applying pesticides on K-8 grounds decreased, as expected, with the implementation of the new pesticide ban; however, pesticide applications on high school grounds/athletic fields also decreased. Furthermore, it was observed that there had been minimal adoption of minimum risk 25(b) products, the suggested alternative to traditional synthetic pesticides. With respect to other cultural practices, we found that few changes have been made to other cultural practices that would improve turf quality. Budgetary issues facing school grounds/athletic field managers may have limited their ability to implement potentially costly management practices necessary to offset the loss of pesticides. Educational efforts to promote new management practices have the potential to inform school grounds/athletic field managers about new methods, thereby, potentially increasing adoption.
This study examined how different presentation formats affected knowledge gain among school grounds managers. Results indicate large-group participants (presentation to ≈50 participants at a turfgrass field day) had greater knowledge retention than small-group participants (presentation to 6–10 participants at an interactive workshop). Small-group attendees had more flexibility to discuss issues that affected them directly and may have focused on those issues instead of the targeted information. Large-group meetings were more ridged in format and attendees were less able to deviate from the main subject matter being presented. However, the value of the small-group meeting should not be discounted, especially when athletic field grounds managers and staff require information specific to their situation. When disseminating more general information, the large-group meeting format is a better means of delivery.
In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic changed the way many businesses conducted business. Notably, regulations imposed by states impacted how green-industry firms sold their plants and landscape products. However, not all states implemented the same stringency of regulations. Using an online consumer survey implemented in Jan 2021, we examine the impact of varying regulation stringencies across five treatment groups (Michigan, and New York, and low, medium, and high stringency). We estimate the difference between 2020 and 2019 self-reported expenditures, in conjunction with propensity score matching to compare each treatment with the other treatments. Results indicate that, for the most part, states with greater stringency associated with their COVID regulations did not impact plant and landscape expenditures negatively between 2019 and 2020. However, Michigan consumers did spend significantly less than medium- and high-stringency states for landscape products. Michigan was one of only two states that put qualifications on green-industry firms, and it was the only state to list green-industry firms as nonessential. Also, New York consumers spent more than low-stringency states, and low-stringency states spent less than high-stringency states for plants. Furthermore, there were no differences in online expenditures between state treatment groups. From a policy perspective, regulation type (i.e., shutting down green-industry sectors as Michigan did) had varying impacts across product categories within the green industry.
The COVID-19 pandemic altered the way many consumers and businesses transacted business. Concerning the green industry, many households began gardening and/or purchased more green industry products. As the pandemic ends and households begin to return to normal, green industry firms need to understand this new normal. Using an online national survey of households, we assessed which households were more likely to remain in the market after entering during the height of the pandemic (2020). Findings indicated that younger consumers (i.e., Millennials and younger individuals who were born in 1985 or after) were less likely to indicate they always garden (before the pandemic) but more likely to have started gardening during the pandemic and perceived that they would not continue to garden as states returned to normal (2021). This age group was also more likely to not have gardened in 2020, but they intended to garden in 2021. This finding shows a dichotomy in gardening preferences in this young age group. Further findings indicated that race, household income, number of children in the household, and the impact of the pandemic on the household also help explain the household’s decision to garden or not.