Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
OCTOBER 2015 SEEDWORLD.COM 63 Table 1. Turfgrass Attributes and the Attribute Categories Tested in This Study Attributes Category Texture Fine Coarse Color Dark green Light green Weed presence Yes No Native Native U.S. Nonnative Shade adaptation Sun Sun or shade Fertility Requirement 1 lb nitrogen1000 ft2 per year 2 lb nitrogen1000 ft2 per year 3 lb nitrogen1000 ft2 per year Irrigation requirement Low less than once a week Medium 1-2 times a week High 3-5 times a week Mowing Requirement Once a month Every other week 1-2 times per week Price 5 per 1000 ft2 10 per 1000 ft2 15 per 1000 ft2 20 per 1000 ft2 To capture the effects of aesthetic characteristics on con- sumer choice behavior we gave participants the opportunity to see and evaluate actual turfgrass plots instead of seed. Although showing a sample turfgrass plot is not typical for tur- fgrass varieties in retail stores plots of new varieties are com- monly tested in various public displays. Although consumers purchase seed the turfgrass is the ultimate product that deter- mines the demand for new turfgrass varieties. Therefore having participants evaluate turfgrass plots allowed us to evaluate the market potential for several novel low-input turfgrass varieties. The choice experiment was conducted on field plots at the Turfgrass Research Outreach and Education Center at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul Minn. in June 2010. The tur- fgrass field plots 1.52 m X 0.91 m each were seeded in August 2009 each species was seeded at the recommended seeding rate and typical turfgrass establishment procedures were fol- lowed. The following six turfgrass species from the field plots were used in the study colonial bentgrass hard fescue tufted hairgrass prairie junegrass perennial ryegrass and Kentucky bluegrass. Additionally multiple cultivars of each species were available for the choice experiment. The six different species and the multiple cultivars of each provided the necessary com- binations of aesthetic attributes. We conducted a survey of 136 homeowners in the Minneapolis and St. Paul Minn. metropolitan area. The main component of the survey was a choice experiment to investi- gate consumer preference and estimate willingness to pay for several low-input turfgrass attributes e.g. water use as well as aesthetic attributes such as origin and shade adaptation. Participants were recruited by placing an advertisement in 13 local newspapers in and around the Minneapolis and St. Paul Minn. metropolitan area including both urban and suburban communities and also from www.minneapolis.craigslist.org. Participants were compensated 30.00 each for their time. To ensure that the sample was representative of the consumer market only those consumers who had a home lawn and only members of the household who were able to make lawn care decisions and purchases were allowed to participate. Participants were presented with a series of choice sce- narios which consisted of adjacent or nearly adjacent turf- grass plots. To lessen the cognitive burden on participants only two turfgrass plots were included in each scenario. The two turfgrass plots in each scenario varied in aesthetic quality. For example if Plot A was dark green fine in texture and had weeds then Plot B was light green coarse in texture and had no weeds. The two plots in each scenario also varied in shade adaptation and origin levels of maintenance inputs and price which were displayed on labels in front of each turfgrass plot. Participants were asked to choose which alternative i.e. tur- fgrass plot in each choice scenario they would rather purchase. They were also given the option to choose neither for each scenario indicating they would not purchase either alternative. The opt-out alternative was included in the experimental design to make the choice situation more realistic. Participants were asked to choose which grass seed in each choice scenario they would rather purchase. Of the 136 homeowners who partici- pated 128 provided enough information for analysis. On average participants were approximately 45 years old and 51 percent of the participants were female. Sixteen percent of participants had a high school diploma or less approximately 63 percent of them had some college or a college diploma and 21 percent had some graduate school or had a graduate degree. Twenty percent of participants had children younger than 12 years old. Thirty-one percent of the participants house- hold income was less than or equal to 50000 47 percent of participants household income was greater than 50000 and less than 100000 and approximately 23 percent of partici- pants household income was over 100000. Eighteen percent of participants home lawns were larger than 8000 ft2 and when asked what type of grass do you currently have on your lawn 61.8 percent indicated they did not know. Twelve percent of participants stated that they had Kentucky bluegrass on their lawn and only 6.9 percent stated that they had perennial ryegrass. Findings The price premiums for low-input attributes are shown in Figure 1. Compared to a high irrigation requirement grass seed partici- pants were willing to pay 9.70 per 1000 ft2 more for a turf- grass with a low irrigation requirement and they were willing to pay 5.85 per 1000 ft2 more for a turfgrass with a moderate irrigation requirement. Another characteristic evaluated was the frequency at which the turfgrass would need to be mowed. Compared to the most