consumer lawn care and fertilizer use in the...
TRANSCRIPT
Hayk Khachatryan and Alicia Rihn Center for Landscape Conservation and Ecology Mid-Florida Research and Education Center Food and Resource Economics Department University of Florida Michael Dukes Center for Landscape Conservation and Ecology Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering
University of Florida
2014
Consumer Lawn Care and Fertilizer Use in the United States
Contact Information Hayk Khachatryan | E-mail: [email protected] | Phone: (407) 410-6951 Horticulture Economics and Marketing Research Program Mid-Florida Research and Education Center 2725 S. Binion Road, Apopka, FL 32703 Web: http://www.fred.ifas.ufl.edu/horticulture-economics/
Table of Contents
Experimental Procedure and Participant Background Information 3 Experimental Procedure 3 Sample Demographics 3
Executive Summary 6
Top 10 Key Insights 8
Chapter 1. U.S. Lawn Care Practices 9 Background 9 Results and Conclusions 9 Lawn Composition 9 Lawn and Landscape Benefits 10 Existing Lawn Care Practices 12 Recommendations to the Industry 17
Chapter 2. Lawn Fertilizer Application Strategies 19 Background 19 Results and Conclusions 19 Seasonality 19 Fertilization Practices 20 Fertilizer Spreader 20 Other Pesticides 21 Recommendations to the Industry 23
Chapter 3. U.S. Homeowner Lawn Fertilizer Purchasing Behavior 24 Background 24 Results and Conclusions 24 Pre-purchase Preparation 24 Retail Outlet Selection 25 Frequency of Purchase 25 Amount Spent 27 Fertilizer Brands and Branding 27 Recommendations to the Industry 29
Chapter 4. Fertilizer Attributes 31 Background 31 Results and Conclusions 31 Fertilizer Features that Influence Purchasing Behavior 31 Fertilizer Attributes (Choice Experiment) 32 Willingness-to-pay (WTP) 33
1 | P a g e
Recommendations to the Industry 34
Chapter 5. Lawn Care and the Environment 35 Background 35 Results and Conclusions 35 Organic and/or Natural Lawn Fertilizer Perceptions 35 Perceptions of Environmental Impacts 35 Runoff and Water Quality Perceptions 36 Recommendations to the Industry 37
2 | P a g e
Experimental Procedure and Participant Background Information
Experimental Procedure In December 2013, an internet survey was administered to homeowners throughout the greater United States. Only participants whose homes included a lawn and who were the primary decision makers/care givers for that lawn participated in the survey. The survey questions were designed to assess consumers’ lawn care practices, fertilizer usage, application preferences, and socio-demographic characteristics. Participants were also asked to complete six choice experiments where they were given two fertilizers (choice A, choice B, and neither A or B) with different attributes and asked to select which they would purchase. The choice experiment results were used to determine participant interest in fertilizer attributes and their willingness-to-pay for those attributes. Participation lasted approximately 20 minutes and participants were compensated with online rewards points for their time.
Sample Demographics A total of 1,066 homeowners participated in the study. All 50 U.S. states were represented, plus participants from the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The highest concentration of participants were from Florida (29%), followed by California (8%), Texas (5%), and New York (4%). Fifty-nine percent of participants lived in the suburbs, followed by 21% in rural areas, and 20% in urban areas. Sixty-six percent of participants owned their homes and were still paying a mortgage, 26% owned their homes (no mortgage), and 8% rented their residences. Approximately 23% of participants were in a homeowner’s association. Only 5% of participants were affiliated with an environmental group.
The mean age of participants was 49 years old. Fifty-one percent of participants were male and 81% were white/Caucasian (Figure 1). The average household size was between 2-3 adults with the majority (61%) not having any children (<18 years old) living at home. Forty-five percent had obtained a 4-year college degree or higher at the time of the study (Figure 2). Participants’ mean household income was between $40,000-59,999 per year (Figure 3). Fifty-one percent were full-time or self-employed while 23% were retired (Figure 4). Sixty-four percent of participants had pets with access to their yards.
3 | P a g e
81%
6%
6% 4%
2% 1%
Figure 1. Ethnic Background
White/CaucasianAfrican AmericanHispanicAsianOtherNative American
1%
17%
23%
14%
29%
12%
1% 3%
Figure 2. Education Level
Less than high schoolHigh school/GEDSome college2-year college degree4-year college degreeMaster's degreeDoctoral degreeProfessional degree (JD, MD)
4 | P a g e
5%
19%
23% 21%
12%
7% 5% 4%
2% 2% 2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure 3. Household Income
41%
10% 10%
10%
3%
23%
3%
Figure 4. Employment Status
Employed full timeEmployed part timeSelf-employedUnemployedStudentRetiredNone above
5 | P a g e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The results of the U.S. consumer lawn care and fertilizer study provides insights into residential landscaping practices. The information within this survey serves to assist turf and landscape professionals that are involved with lawn/landscape care. Results also provide a snapshot of consumers’ fertilizer use and perceptions. Professionals involved in the fertilizer industry (development, production, packaging/marketing, regulation, etc.) could also benefit from gaining insights on current consumer behavior towards fertilizers.
Findings include:
St. Augustine grass, bluegrass and Bermuda grass are the primary turfgrass species used in residential lawns across the U.S. Twenty percent of homeowners do not know the species of turfgrass in their lawn.
Ninety-two percent of participants perceive improving the property value as the primary benefit provided by a lawn.
Ninety-one percent of participants plan to continue do-it-yourself (DIY) lawn care. The
primary reason behind DIY popularity is reduced cost. Eighty-three percent of participants are willing-to-pay between $25-150 per month for
lawn care services. Mowing regularly is the primary lawn maintenance activity done by 88% of participants
with 74% mowing three times or more per month. Fertilizer is primarily applied during spring or fall and drops off during the winter
months. The most popular fertilizer spreader is the walk-behind broadcast spreader.
Approximately 77% of participants used herbicide on their lawns last year.
Participants were willing-to-pay between $20-49/year for herbicides or insecticides and
$25-74/year for fertilizers for their lawns. Seventy-one percent of participants calculate the amount of fertilizer they need and 61%
read the fertilizer labels prior to purchase. Very few (26%) participants conducted soil tests.
6 | P a g e
Sixty-four percent of participants purchase their lawn care products from home
improvement / hardware stores. Fifty-two percent of participants prefer controlled-release nitrogen fertilizer.
Only 24% of participants purchase phosphorus-free fertilizer.
Scotts brand had the greatest brand recall with 69% of participants purchasing it based on
quality perceptions and past experience. Word-of-mouth advertising is the primary purchasing driver behind lawn fertilizer brand
selection. Important lawn fertilizer features include effectiveness longevity, price, water smart
technology, quick acting, and kid/pet friendly. The most important lawn fertilizer attribute was granular application type. Participants
were willing-to-pay $27.82 for granular fertilizer. Participants are concerned that excess lawn / landscape fertilizer and pesticides can have
negative environmental impacts.
7 | P a g e
TOP 10 KEY INSIGHTS
1. Property appearance is the most important attribute provided by the lawn.
2. Landscape and lawn health influence community safety perceptions.
3. Sixty-four percent of participants purchase lawn fertilizer from home improvement / hardware stores.
4. Participants exhibited low awareness and knowledge about phosphorus in their lawn fertilizers.
5. Quality perceptions and positive experiences greatly influence consumers’ selection of lawn fertilizer brands.
6. Word-of-mouth advertising was the most effective means of influencing consumers’ lawn fertilizer purchasing decisions.
7. Length of effectiveness, price, water smart, quick acting, and kid/pet friendly were all important lawn fertilizer features.
8. Fertilizers in granular form were valued by participants. They were willing-to-pay $27.82 for granular fertilizer.
9. Kid/pet friendly was the second most important attribute with participants being willing-to-pay $16.49 for a kid/pet friendly option.
10. Cost is a major factor in lawn fertilizer selection and lawn care company use (versus do-it-yourself).
8 | P a g e
Chapter 1. U.S. Lawn Care Practices
BACKGROUND Current lawn care practices need to be discussed to better understand the potential for different lawn care products and services. The following chapter provides an overview of current U.S. consumer lawn care practices and attitudes toward their lawns. Understanding consumer perceptions is important because lawn care practices influences their purchasing choices, needs and perceptions of available products.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Lawn Composition Lawn size was highly fragmented among respondents with the majority (26%) having lawns between 3000 – 4000 square feet, followed by 4000-5000 square feet, then less than 3000 square feet and greater than 6000 square feet (Figure 5). Forty-nine percent of participants had rejuvenated their lawns (either through reseeding or laying new turf) within the past year. Most participants (22%) indicated their turfgrass primarily consisted of St. Augustine grass, followed by bluegrass, and Bermuda grass (Figure 6). Other frequently selected options included ‘I don’t know’, fescues and ryegrass. Centipede grass, Bahia grass, Zoysia grass, bentgrass, and other (blend, regular grass, orchard grass, URI seed, athletic, crab grass, buffalo grass, Floratem, and clover) were selected less frequently.
20%
26%
21%
12%
20%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Less than 3000sq. ft.
3000 - 4000 sq.ft.
4000 - 5000 sq.ft.
5000 - 6000 sq.ft.
6000 + sq. ft.
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure 5. Participants' Lawn Size
9 | P a g e
Lawn and Landscape Benefits Participants indicated that well-maintained lawns and landscapes were beneficial to their personal property, community and psychological well-being. Specifically on the community/neighborhood level, they strongly agreed that they enjoyed having healthy, green landscaping in the neighborhood and that it improved their quality of life, enhanced public safety, and reduced crime (Figure 7). On the individual level, they strive to keep up with the neighbors in terms of lawn aesthetics. However, they do not believe that the neighbors’ lawns look better than their own. Nor do they follow the neighbors’ landscaping practices.
1.4%
1.7%
4.6%
6.5%
9.0%
11.6%
15.4%
19.5%
20.4%
21.7%
22.0%
Other (blend, regular grass, orchard grass, URI…
Bentgrass
Zoysia grass
Bahia grass
Centipede grass
Ryegrass
Fescues
I don't know
Bermuda grass
Bluegrass
St. Augustine grass
% of Respondents
Figure 6. Primary Turfgrass Species
10 | P a g e
Participants agreed that lawns provide homeowners many benefits. The most important benefit (to 95% of participants) was improved property appearance, followed by increased monetary value of the property (90%), and providing a recreation area (86%; Figure 8). Similarly, 92% of participants believed a well-maintained lawn positively contributed to the property’s overall market value.
0 1 2 3 4 5
I always follow my neighbors landscapingpractices.
My neighbors’ lawns always look better than mine.
I always strive to make my lawn look as good asmy neighbors.
Communities with well-maintained landscapesand parks tend to have less crime.
I feel safer in a community that has well-maintained landscaping.
Well-maintained landscaping in my communityenhances the quality of my life.
It is very pleasing to have healthy and greenlandscaping in our neighborhood.
Level of Agreement
Figure 7. Perceptions of Community Benefits (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree)
11 | P a g e
Existing Lawn Care Practices Do-it-yourself (DIY) lawn care is very popular in the U.S. Homeowners’ primary reason for choosing DIY lawn care was reduced cost when compared to hiring a professional (Figure 9). They also perceived DIY lawn care as more productive and efficient than professional services. DIY lawn care provided homeowners the opportunity for outdoor involvement and was also a popular due to peer pressure since the neighbors DIY. Most participants did not switch to DIY based on negative experiences with professional lawn care companies. Relatedly, 91% of participants intend to continue taking care of their own lawns next year. Six percent stated they would like to hire a lawn care company while 3% wanted to hire someone other than a lawn care company. Of the 9% (96 people) planning on hiring lawn care help, 10% were willing-to-pay (WTP) less than $25/month (Figure 10). The majority (35%) were WTP $25-50/month, followed by $51-74/month, and $101-150/month.
4% 1% 1%
5% 1% 3% 4% 3%
6%
34% 33% 34%
52%
62%
56%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Family recreationarea
Improved propertyappearance
Increased monetaryvalue of property
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure 8. Yard Benefits' Level of Importance
Not at all ImportantVery UnimportantUncertainSomewhat ImportantVery Important
12 | P a g e
0
1
2
3
4
5
Lev
el o
f Agr
eem
ent
Figure 9. Homeowner's Reasons for DIY Lawn Care (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree)
10%
35%
20%
14%
14%
3% 4%
Figure 10. Homeowners' Willingness-to-pay (per month) for Lawn Care Services
Less than $25$25 ~ $50$51 ~$74$75 ~ $100$101 ~ $150$151 ~$200More than $200
13 | P a g e
Most participants (59%) checked the condition of their lawns on a weekly bases, while 17% checked their lawns daily, followed by monthly (10%; Figure 11). Some participants checked their lawns on a seasonal basis with 4% focusing on summer and spring. Only 3% ignored their lawns unless a problem occurred.
Consumers use a variety of lawn care practices to care for their yards. The most common practice (selected by 88% of participants) was regular mowing, followed by proper fertilization practices (87.5%), and weed control (82%; Figure 12). Other popular practices include proper irrigation, insect control, reseeding/replacing dead sod, and disease management. ‘Other’ was selected less frequently and included watering, dethatching, aeration, and rodent control.
0.1%
0.1%
3.1%
3.7%
8.0%
9.8%
58.6%
16.6%
Never
Only when I am reminded by others (e.g., HOA,neighbors, or friends)
Only when I notice problems
Only in the summer and spring
Seasonally
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
% of Respondents
Figure 11. Participants' Frequency of Inspecting Their Lawns
14 | P a g e
Forty-two percent of participants mowed their lawns four times per month during the summer months (May – September), followed by twice per month, and three times per month (Figure 13). Most participants mowed their lawns to less than 3 inches (74%) while 22% mowed their lawns to 3-4 inches (Figure 14). Regarding participants strategies for managing the lawn clippings, 43% of participants left the clippings on the lawn, 29% of them removed the clippings, 26% composted the clippings, and 2% used other strategies such as mulch, hire professionals, all of the above, feed the pets, and used around trees (Figure 15).
1.3%
37.2%
44.3%
54.8%
55.1%
81.5%
87.5%
88.3%
Other (watering, dethatching,aerating, rodent control)
Disease management
Reseeding or replacing deadsod
Insect control
Irrigating properly
Weed control
Fertilizing properly
Mowing regularly
% of Respondents
Figure 12. Most Important Lawn Care Practices
15 | P a g e
4% 5%
19% 18%
42%
12%
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
Less than oncea month
Once a month Twice permonth
3 times permonth
4 times amonth
More than 4times a month
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure 13. Participants' Summer (May - September)
Mowing Frequency
21%
53%
19%
3% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1-2 inches 2-3 inches 3-4 inches 4 inches I don't know
% o
f Res
pone
nts
Figure 14. Participants' Typical Mowing Height, in Inches
16 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE INDUSTRY Develop and promote fertilizers and spreaders that are widely adaptable to different sized lawns. Consumers will feel they are obtaining the best value for their money because the product will be usable in many situations. Offer rentals for those individuals who are budget conscious or do not want to own a spreader.
Although many grasses look similar, they may have different nutrient needs. Develop fertilizers that are specifically designed for the most popular turfgrass species. Differentiate and promote these specialty fertilizers.
A fair number of consumers did not know what type of turfgrass was in their lawns. Educate consumers about the different turfgrass species and which are best for different locations and uses. Promote the benefits of different species to the end-consumer.
Many consumers neighborhood perceptions changed based on the lawn/landscape aesthetics. Perceptions included improved personal enjoyment, improved quality of life, enhanced safety, and reduced crime. Use these benefits in value proposition advertisements.
Lawns improve consumers’ property value. Promote products that improve lawn health and aesthetics. Provide value calculators on the company’s website to justify the expensive of lawn maintenance and demonstrate how the property value changes with a few lawn care strategy modifications.
Cost is the number one deterrent preventing homeowners from hiring a lawn care company. Lawn care companies can use creative promotions to justify the higher prices for their services. Lawn care companies can also offer different service packages at different price points to fall within the consumer’s budget.
43%
26%
29%
2%
Figure 15. Strategies for Managing Lawn Clippings
Leave on lawnCompostedRemovedOther
17 | P a g e
For those individuals who enjoy DIY lawn care, retailers can develop a product line specifically targeting the DIYers. Options include selling axillary products to simplify the work, providing information that gives them the opportunity to care for their lawn “just like professionals”, offering to deliver heavier or bulkier products to their homes, and renting out specialty equipment.
Lawn care companies could also offer split packages where they provide some of the expertise by guiding homeowners or provide a checklist/instructions while the homeowner provides the labor. Provide homeowners with a lawn care calendar telling them when to check different parts of the lawn and what actions to take depending upon the time of year and climatic conditions. The calendar could be paper or electronic reminders that are sent to the recipient’s email or cell phone. Electronic options provide the opportunity to easily adjust recommendations based on the current weather conditions. This may be a means of improving consumers’ ease of ‘checking on’ and caring for their lawns.
Educate consumers about the actions they can take to deal with lawn clippings. For instance, most participants left the clippings on their lawns – what actions can they take to aid in clipping decomposition and nutrient recycling?
18 | P a g e
Chapter 2. Lawn Fertilizer Application Strategies
BACKGROUND Fertilizer application methods influence nutrient availability and uptake, environmental health (runoff, water pollution, etc.), and overall plant health. In this chapter, the most common fertilizer and pesticide (insecticide and herbicide) application methods used by homeowners are discussed. By knowing the methods consumers use, industry professionals can offer products and services that better meet consumers’ needs. They can also use this information to identify areas of improvement.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Seasonality Season influences consumers’ application of fertilizer on their lawns. Participants indicated they primarily add fertilizer to their lawns in spring (March – May; Figure 16). Fertilizer use then tapers off during the summer months and spikes again in the fall (September and October). Fertilizer is rarely added during the winter months (November – February). The fertilizer application trends are consistent with industry recommendations to facilitate nutrient uptake before / at primary growing times and before winter to assist in survival. Often, fertilizing during the winter months is restricted to the southern United States.
6.5% 7.0%
26.6%
43.5%
32.2% 27.8%
20.4% 18.6%
32.5%
26.9%
10.3%
3.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure 16. Fertilizer Application, by Month
19 | P a g e
Fertilization Practices Sixty-seven percent of participants indicated their lawns were dry when they applied fertilizer, 19% applied fertilizer when their lawns were wet, and 14% did not care about the lawn moisture condition prior to fertilization (Figure 17). Sixty-nine percent of participants indicated they irrigated after applying fertilizer while 31% did not.
Fertilizer Spreader Participants were asked to identify the type of spreader they used to fertilize their lawns. Most (43.7%) used a walk-behind broadcast spreader, followed by a drop spreader, hose-end sprayer, handheld broadcast spreader, and pump tank sprayer (Figure 18). Very few (<5%) participants used a walk-behind Snap spreader. Spreader choice is influenced by price, product availability, ease of use, and lawn size. Most participants (69%) calibrate their spreaders before use, 19% did not calibrate, and 11% did not care whether it was calibrated or not.
67%
19%
14%
Figure 17. Lawn Condition When Applying Fertilizer
DryWetDoes not matter
20 | P a g e
Figure 18. Types of Fertilizer Spreaders Used by Homeowners
Other Pesticides Participants indicated their lawn pesticide (i.e. herbicide or insecticide) usage. Seventy-seven percent of participants had used herbicides in the past, while 60% had used insecticides, 16% fungicides, and 7% other (i.e. none, lime, turf builder, I don’t know, iron, rodent control; Figure 19). Regarding frequency of purchasing fertilizer-pesticide combinations, participants rarely purchased fertilizer-insecticide or fertilizer-fungicide products. However, fertilizer-herbicide options (such as 2, 4-D containing products to control broadleaf weeds) were purchased more frequently. Results may reflect consumers tend to add pesticides as they need them rather than with fertilizer products.
21 | P a g e
Regarding annual spending on pesticides, results indicate that homeowners typically spend up to $80 with a few rare exceptions exceeding that amount (Figure 20). Specifically, participants spent between $20 – 49 for insecticides and herbicides, followed by $50-79, ‘do not buy separate from fertilizer’, and less than $19.
59.8%
77.4%
16.3% 6.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Insecticide Herbicide Fungicide Other
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure 19. Usage of Other Lawn Care Products
16.4%
14.4%
33.1%
19.5%
7.8%
3.3%
3.5%
0.8%
1.1%
16.4%
15.9%
31.6%
17.7%
8.8%
4.1%
2.6%
1.1%
1.7%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
Never buy separate from…
Less than $19
$20 ~$49
$50 ~$79
$80 ~$119
$120 ~$149
$150 ~$179
$180 ~$199
More than $200
Figure 20. Annual Amount (USD) Homeowners Spend on Pesticides
Insecticides Herbicides
22 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE INDUSTRY Develop and promote a ‘best practices’ handout highlighting seasonal fertilization needs, lawn moisture requirements while fertilizing, and post-fertilizer irrigation amounts/duration/etc. The handout can also provide benefits associated with these different practices (i.e. reduced disease, better nutrient uptake, etc.)
Know the average lawn size and weather conditions in the area. Carry spreaders that are applicable to those metrics. Provide consumers with spreader options that are easy to use and calibrate. Give consumers calibration instructions and the benefits they will obtain by following those instructions. Provide photos of lawns that were fertilized using a calibrated spreader (greater consistency) and those that were fertilized when the calibration was off. Indicate the cost and environmental savings of calibration due to applying the correct amount of fertilizer instead of too much or too little.
Broad-leaf herbicides are the primary pesticide purchased by participants. Provide turfgrass safe herbicide options. Inform consumers on what species the herbicide impacts and that it is safe for their lawns. Offer fertilizer-herbicide combinations and indicate the frequency of use to decrease leaching/run-off potential. Continue to offer additional pesticides (insecticides and fungicides) for when consumers need them. Keep pesticides reasonably priced (<$80/year). Alternatively, offer smaller quantity options for homeowners who have a small area or infestation problem and may not need as much product. These smaller amounts can be offered at lower price points which are more affordable to budget conscious consumers.
23 | P a g e
Chapter 3. U.S. Homeowner Lawn Fertilizer Purchasing Behavior
BACKGROUND Consumers’ purchasing behavior can be influenced by previous experience, product features, retail outlets, unique or situational needs, and promotional materials (including branding). This chapter assesses consumer purchasing behavior for lawn fertilizers. Understanding how consumers make their purchasing decisions can aid retailers and other industry professionals as they develop promotional strategies and plan product placement/availability.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Pre-purchase Preparation Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree) with actions they take prior to purchasing lawn fertilizers. ‘Calculating the amount of fertilizer needed for their lawn’ received the greatest amount of agreement, followed by ‘spending time reading the fertilizer labels’ in-store, and ‘considering the long-term environmental consequences of the fertilizer’ (Figure 21). Few participants agreed that they conducted annual soil tests and based their fertilizer purchases on the soil test results. The soil test results are potentially due to lack of awareness/knowledge, price, or perceptions of soil tests not being necessary for residential lawns.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Calculate theamount of
fertilizer neededfor my lawn area
Spend timereading fertilizer
labels beforepurchase
Consider long-term
environmentalconsequences
Buy fertilizerbased on soil test
results
Conduct annualsoil tests
Lev
el o
f Agr
eem
ent
Figure 21. Actions Homeowners Take Before Purchasing Lawn Fertilizers
24 | P a g e
Retail Outlet Selection The majority (64%) of participants purchased their lawn fertilizers from home improvement or hardware stores (e.g. Lowe’s, Home Depot, Ace Hardware), followed by independent garden centers, mass merchandisers or wholesale clubs (e.g. Costco, Sam’s, BJ’s), and supermarkets or grocery stores (Figure 22). Internet and other (feed store, fertilizer company, co-op, catalog, homemade) retail outlets were rarely selected.
Frequency of Purchase Regarding the types of products purchased, 52% of participants frequently (‘every time’ or ‘most of the time’) purchased controlled-release nitrogen when they were shopping for lawn fertilizers (Figure 23). Only 24% of participants frequently purchased phosphorus-free lawn fertilizers. Interestingly, 20% of participants did not know if their lawn fertilizer was phosphorus-free or not.
64% 14%
13%
7%
1% 1%
Figure 22. Homeowners' Primary Lawn Fertilizer Retail Outlet
Home improvement orhardware storesIndependent garden centers
Mass merchandiser orwholesale clubSupermarket or grocery stores
Other
25 | P a g e
When considering fertilizers from organic or natural sources, only 36% of participants purchased organic or natural lawn fertilizers frequently (i.e. ‘every time’ or ‘most of the time’; Figure 24). For other products (herbicides, insecticides and fungicides), 33% of participants frequently purchased natural or organic varieties.
17%
36% 33%
5% 3%
8% 8%
16%
31%
15% 11%
20%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Every time Most of thetime
Sometimes Rarely Never Don't know
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure 23. Homeowners' Frequency of Purchase -
Lawn Fertilizers
Controlled-release Phosphorus-free
9.6%
26.6% 29.0%
16.1%
11.1% 7.6% 8%
25%
31%
16% 12%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Every time Most of thetime
Sometimes Rarely Never Don't know
% o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure 24. Homeowners' Frequency of Purchase Organic or Natural Fertilizers
Lawn fertilizer Other (herbicide, insecticide, fungicide)
26 | P a g e
Amount Spent On average, most (49%) participants spent less than $74 on lawn fertilizers each year (Figure 25). The majority (23%) of participants spent between $25-50 annually, followed by $50-74, $100-149, and $74-99 (Figure 25). Fourteen percent spent between $150 – 249 annually. Six percent spent less than $24 annually or more than $250.
Fertilizer Brands and Branding Participants were asked which lawn fertilizer brand that they typically purchased. Sixty-nine percent of participants purchased a Scotts Company brand (such as Miracle-Gro), while 20% purchased Turf Gro, and 12% other (including Agway, Fertiloam, Pennington, Green Spot, organic, Weed n Feed, Southern States, ACE, Ventura, Vigiro, Sta-Green, etc.; Figure 26). Eight percent of participants could not recall the brand of fertilizer they purchased. Other frequently recalled brands included Nature Safe, Milorganite, LESCO, Growers, Dyna-Gro, Andersons, MAYO, Sunniland, and Sustane.
6%
23% 20%
14% 17%
8% 6%
3% 3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
$0 ~$24 $25 ~$49 $50 ~$74 $75 ~$99 $100~$149
$150~$199
$200~$249
$250~$299
More than$300
% o
f Sam
ple
Figure 25. Annual Amount Spent (USD) on Lawn Fertilizers
27 | P a g e
When asked why they purchased the previously mentioned brands, participants cited ‘better quality’ as the primary purchasing driver (Figure 27). Positive past experience was also very important to participants. Additional factors influencing their brand selection included product availability, price, environmental impact, recommendations, and other (good value, works with spreader, advertisements, professional recommendations, ease of application, site specific, and wildlife deterrent).
1% 2% 2% 3% 4% 5% 5% 6% 8% 8%
12% 20%
69%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Sustane & regSunniland & reg
MAYO & regAndersons & regDyna-Gro & reg
Growers & reg (Growers Fertilizer Corporation)LESCO & reg
Milorganite & reg (organic nitrogen fertilizer)Nature Safe & regI don't remember
Other brandTurf Gro & reg
Miracle-Gro & reg (Scotts)
% of Respondents
Figure 26. Purchasing Frequency, by Brand
2.2%
14.5%
18.6%
21.2%
23.8%
59.3%
60.6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Other
Recommended by someone who used it before
More environmentally-friendly
Cheaper price
Easier to find in stores (or online)
It worked for me in the past
Better quality
% of Respondents
Figure 27. Motivation Behind Homeowners' Lawn Fertilizer Brand Selection
28 | P a g e
Regarding specific sources of brand information, 32% of participants received fertilizer brand information from their friends or neighbors (Figure 28). Seventeen percent obtained information through mass marketing, followed by the retail outlet staff, in-store advertisements, other (in-store displays, read packaging, experience, trial and error, coupons, internet search, Dad/parents/relatives), lawn care companies, and direct mail. HOAs and extension agents were consulted less frequently.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE INDUSTRY Assist consumers in calculating their fertilizer needs. Provide in-store kiosks that are up-to-date with the available fertilizers and fertilizer rates by lawn area/dimensions. Give homeowners the option to save their lawn information in its memory to aid in future purchases. Develop an online program or phone app with the same information and options to save for future use. Also, provide a pen and paper option in-store for those consumers who prefer that method.
Use promotions to educate homeowners about soil tests, their purpose/benefits, cost and where to go for more information.
Provide lawn care products at convenient locations. Home improvement stores are the primary source of lawn care products because consumers know they will find the product there and that they can also purchase other household items at the same time. Independent retailers can be located near these places to improve convenience.
0.7%
0.8%
4.5%
6.5%
10.4%
11.4%
16.2%
17.4%
32.2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
University Extension Agents
Homeowners' Association
Commercial ads sent to home
Lawn care companies
Other
Commercial ads in store
Store sales assistant
Commercial ads in mass media (e.g., TV, radio,Internet, etc.)
Friends or neighbors
% of Respondents
Figure 28. Source of Brand Information
29 | P a g e
Offer improved ease of use fertilizers (controlled-release) and environmentally friendly products (phosphorus free). Educate consumers on why phosphorus is a problem nutrient and what actions they can take to reduce its pollution of water ways. Build a reputation as being an environmentally friendly fertilizer source. Stock and promote ‘environmentally-friendly’ fertilizers for homeowners. Explore having a return policy for excess fertilizer. The excess product can then either be safely dispose of or recycled. The retailer could provide in-store credit for the product that can be recycled/resold to other customers.
Build brand reputation through promotions, unique packaging, and color coding. Many participants could not remember the brand of fertilizer they used. Color and packaging design can help them in remembering and selecting the products that have worked for them in the past.
Attempt to pair homeowners with the correct products. This will build the company’s reputation by exhibiting superior customer service and giving the homeowner the results s/he is after. Provide homeowners with all of the information they need to have a positive experience with the fertilizer. Stock a variety of fertilizers/pest control options that are relevant for the area and climate. Use in-store promotions to promote products that have minimal/no environmental impacts. Educate staff on the best fertilizer options for different goals and lawn conditions (light conditions, moisture, soil type, etc.) in order to provide homeowners with accurate recommendations.
Encourage consumers to try the products by providing samples. Samples show confidence in the product. They also allow consumers to try it on their lawn with minimal risk. Samples are especially helpful with new products and services.
All of these actions serve to generate word of mouth (WOM) advertising. WOM advertising is free and very effective, especially in the lawn/landscape industry since homeowners are often under pressure to keep up with their neighbors.
30 | P a g e
Chapter 4. Fertilizer Attributes
BACKGROUND Consumers have different motivations behind their purchasing decisions. In the fertilizer industry, there are many different product features to choose from. Understanding how consumers value these features and use them in choosing a fertilizer to purchase is important. In this chapter, fertilizer attributes’ impact on consumers’ choices are discussed. Participants indicated the level of importance of the attributes and also indicated which product (A, B or neither) they would select if given the choice between those products. The choice set provides additional insights (preference and willingness-to-pay) when comparing different levels of the same attribute. By knowing why consumers select different fertilizers, industry professionals (producers, processers, wholesalers, marketers, retailers) can develop products that better meet consumers’ needs. Additionally, industry professionals could benefit from increased consumer interest and satisfaction.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Fertilizer Features that Influence Purchasing Behavior Participants were asked the importance of different lawn fertilizer features. Although all features were considered at least marginally important, the length of effectiveness was rated the most important, followed by price, water smart (assists in water/nutrient uptake), quick acting, and pet/kid friendly (Figure 29). Bag size, environmentally-friendly, controlled-release nitrogen, brand, herbicide, and N-P-K ratio were also important. Contains an insecticide or being organic were marginally important. Participants indicated that while shopping for fertilizers, they noticed the price tag first, followed by the N-P-K ratio, brand name, bag size, additional functions (insecticide, herbicide, fungicide), specialty features (natural, organic, environmentally-friendly), and spreader calibration instructions were noticed last.
31 | P a g e
Fertilizer Attributes (Choice Experiment) As price increased, participants were less likely to choose the fertilizer (Figure 30). Compared to liquid fertilizers, participants were much more likely to select granule fertilizer, followed by water soluble powder. Regarding nutrient source, participants were most receptive to natural organic nutrients, followed by natural inorganic, and synthetic organic when compared to synthetic inorganic. Compared to fast release fertilizers, participants were most interested in slow release at 51-70%, followed by 76-100%. The slow release fertilizers less than 50% also positively influenced participants’ selection choice. Participants were more likely to choose a phosphorus free fertilizer than fertilizers containing phosphorus. Regarding duel action fertilizers (insect/weed control), participants were most interested in fertilizers containing a pre-emergent herbicide, followed by post-emergent herbicide, and insecticide. Participants were very receptive to fertilizers that were kid and/or pet friendly.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Lev
el o
f Im
port
ance
Figuer 29. Importance of Lawn Fertilizer Features
(1=very unimportant; 5=very important)
32 | P a g e
Note: Impact on fertilizer selection results are relative, meaning the results are applicable ‘when compared to base variables’. For instance, the application type (water soluble powder, granules) results are relative to ‘liquid’ application meaning consumers prefer granule and water soluble powder to liquid fertilizer (as indicated by the positive values). Other base variables include: ‘synthetic organic’ for source variables, ‘fast release’, ‘phosphorus free’, ‘insecticide not included’, ‘herbicide not included’, and no label for the kid/pet friendly attribute.
Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) Participants were WTP the greatest premium ($27.82) for granular fertilizer, followed by pet/kid friendly fertilizer ($16.49; Figure 31). They were also WTP more for fertilizers that contained pre-emergent herbicide ($14.30), were synthetic organic ($13.72), slow release 51-75% ($12.03), contained a post-emergent herbicide ($10.98), or were slow release 76-100% ($9.71). They were WTP slightly lower premiums for slow release 15-20% ($6.96), water soluble powder fertilizer ($6.72), natural organic fertilizer ($6.42), slow release 21-30% ($5.94), insecticide included ($5.24), slow release 31-50% ($4.64), phosphorus free ($3.81), and natural inorganic ($3.10).
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Impa
ct o
n Fe
rtili
zer
Sele
ctio
n Figure 30. U.S. Homeowners' Interest in Different
Fertilizer Attributes
33 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE INDUSTRY Since lawns are primarily about aesthetics, the practical elements (effectiveness, price, water smart, quick acting) of fertilizers were deemed the most important. Rate fertilizers on effectiveness, ease of water/nutrient uptake, and speed of effectiveness to aid consumers in the retail setting. This is especially important if the homeowner has a time sensitive event (i.e. graduation, parade of homes, listing a home, etc.) where s/he need an immaculate lawn.
Provide fertilizer types (granule, water soluble, liquid) that align with the most common fertilizer spreaders in the area. Provide options that do not require spreaders for those individuals who do not have a spreader. Have spreaders available to rent. Offer easy to store and easy to apply options.
Use in-store promotions to highlight other beneficial attributes (pet/kid friendly, controlled-release, ratio, etc.) There is a potential opportunity to develop a product line of lawn fertilizers that are pet/kid friendly.
Insecticide – fertilizer combinations were rarely purchased by consumers. This is likely a management strategy where insecticides are only applied if they are needed. Offer the combination if certain pests are very common; otherwise, offer insecticides separately for homeowners who have infestations at a time in the growing season when they are not applying fertilizer.
$6.72
$27.82
$13.72
$6.42 $3.10
$6.96 $5.94 $4.64
$12.03 $9.71
$3.81 $5.24
$14.30 $10.98
$16.49
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
USD
Figuer 31. Homeowners' Willingness-to-Pay for
Different Fertilizer Attributes
34 | P a g e
Chapter 5. Lawn Care and the Environment
BACKGROUND Fertilizers are often from organic or natural sources. These attributes may influence homeowners’ choices. They may serve as a means to differentiate products and attract consumers. In this chapter we explore homeowners’ perceptions of organic and/or natural lawn fertilizer. We also assess their perceptions of long-term environmental impacts that may be associated with excess fertilizer and pesticide use.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Organic and/or Natural Lawn Fertilizer Perceptions Participants agreed that organic and/or natural fertilizers are more expensive than inorganic or synthetic fertilizers (Figure 32). Most participants also agreed that organic and natural lawn fertilizers are equally effective and harmless to the environment. They were ‘uncertain’ over ‘there is no need to pay a premium for organic/natural fertilizers’. They disagreed that organic and natural fertilizers were composed of the same materials.
Perceptions of Environmental Impacts Overall, homeowners agreed that excessive fertilizer and pesticide usage has long-term negative environmental impacts (Figure 33). Participants agreed that ‘excessive fertilizer to my own
0 1 2 3 4 5
Fertilizers labeled "organic" or "natural" aremade from the same materials.
There is no need to pay a price premium forfertilizers of "organic" or "natural" origin.
"Organic" and "natural" fertilizers are harmless tothe environment.
Organic lawn fertilizer is as good as natural lawnfertilizer.
"Organic" and "natural" fertilizers are usuallymore expensive than inorganic or synthetic
fertilizers.
Level of Agreement
Figure 32. Homeowners' Agreement with Organic/Natural Lawn Fertilizer Statements
(1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree)
35 | P a g e
lawn’ and residential landscapes as well as pesticides applied to residential landscapes can cause severe long-term negative environmental effects. Participants also agreed that they considered the long-term environmental consequences before applying lawn care products. Interestingly, they perceived fertilizers as being safer than pesticides.
Runoff and Water Quality Perceptions Recently water pollution and quality degradation due to excess chemical runoff has led to governmental restrictions on fertilizer ingredients (i.e. phosphorus-free) and application times/amounts. We asked homeowners to rate their perceptions of the impact of different runoff sources on their local water quality. There was not a lot of difference between the sources (Figure 34). However, agricultural land runoff was perceived to have the most impact on water quality across the U.S. Storm and rain runoff was next, followed by neighbors’ lawns runoff, and then the participants’ lawn runoff.
0 1 2 3 4 5
Lawn fertilizers applied to residential landscapescan cause severe long-term negative
environmental effects
Fertilizers cause less negative environmentaleffects compared to pesticides
I consider the long-term environmentalconsequences when applying fertilizers or
pesticides to my lawn
Pesticides applied to residential landscapes cancause severe long-term negative environmental
effects
Excessive fertilizer application to my own lawncan cause severe long-term negative
environmental effects
Level of Agreement
Figure 33. Perceptions of Long-term Negative Environmental Effects
(1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree)
36 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE INDUSTRY Source and provide consumers with organic and natural lawn fertilizer options. Use in-store promotions to indicate their effectiveness and to differentiate them from other fertilizer sources. Clearly define organic and natural fertilizers to reduce consumer confusion. Educate consumers about what organic and natural fertilizers are, how they work, and when they are the best option.
Many consumers consider long-term environmental consequences before using lawn care products. Educate the consumer. Provide homeowners with tools, tips and tricks to mitigate negative long-term environmental impacts caused by excessive fertilizer and pesticide usage. Educate them on proper usage and ways to reduce problems in a sustainable way. Offer incentives to decrease excessive use. Promote the company’s dedication to educating the consumer and improving environmental health. Develop an environmentally-friendly product line. Inform consumers about which products are effective but have minimal long-term negative effects.
Educate consumers on the potential water quality issues in their area. Inform them about the best lawn care strategies to minimize runoff and leaching. Promote the benefits associated with minimizing these problems (i.e. less money spent on wasted fertilizer/pesticides, cleaner/safer drinking water, increased sustainability, etc.) Compare and contrast water pollution sources and inform them about how they can reduce their impact.
3.1 2.92 2.88 2.7
0
1
2
3
4
Agricultural landrunoff
Storm or rain runoff Neighbors' lawn runoff My lawn runoff
Impa
ct
Figure 34. Perceptions of the Following Categories' Impacts on Water Quality
(1=none at all; 4=a lot)
37 | P a g e