Floridian Consumer Perceptions of Local Versus Organic Ornamental Plants 1

Similar documents
Florida Consumer Preferences for Ornamental Landscape Plants 1

Factors Affecting Consumer Preferences and Demand for Ornamental Plants 1

Florida Nursery Crops and Landscaping Industry Economic Impacts, Situation, and Outlook 1

Floriculture Crops Economic Outlook for 20141

Farm Family Exposure to Glyphosate 1

Eco-Attitudes and Behaviours of Annual, Perennial and Herb and Vegetable Buyers from Four US States

Farm Bill Survey: Florida Producer Views on Farm Programs and Budget Priorities, Commodity Programs and Risk Management Policy 1

Custom and Retail Exempt Meat Processing 1

Economic Impacts of Drought on the Florida Environmental Horticulture Industry 1

2006 Florida Land Value Survey 1

Florida Agricultural Land Values Increase: 2000 Survey Results 1

Meeting US Nursery and Greenhouse Growers Needs with Water Conservation Extension Programs 1

South Florida ornamental plant grower perspectives: water conservation management practices 1

Production Budget for Tomatoes in Southwest Florida 1

Production Budget for Tomatoes in the Manatee-Ruskin Area of Florida 1

Wetlands, 4-H Project Record Page 2

Nematode Assay Form 1

Pesticide Calibration Formulas and Information 1

Irrigated Acreage in Florida: A Summary through

Archival copy: for current recommendations see or your local extension office.

Florida Nursery and Landscape Industry Outlook for 2013

Comparative Costs of Growing Citrus in Florida and Sao Paulo (Brazil) for the Season 1

Seed Piece Spacing Adjustment for Florida Chipping Potato 1

Business Practices of Landscape Firms

To Certify or Not to Certify: How marketplace relationships affect the adoption of organic certification by fruit and vegetable farmers

Economic Feasibility of Anaerobic Digestion To Produce Electricity on Florida Dairy Farms 1

Characteristics of Indiana Vegetable Farmers

Peanut Variety Performance in Florida,

Economic Impacts of Citrus Greening (HLB) in Florida, 2006/ /11 1

Facts on Direct-to-Consumer Food Marketing

Economic Impacts of Citrus Greening (HLB) in Florida, 2006/ /11 1

Update and Outlook for 2005 of Florida's BMP Program for Vegetable Crops 1

Water and Nitrogen BMPs for Tomato and Watermelon: Water Quality and Economics 1

Worker Protection Standard: Requirements for Commercial Pesticide Handler Employers 1

World, U.S. and Florida Avocado Situation and Outlook 1

Perception and Misperception of Food Labelling: Local and Organic

2000 Precision Agricultural Services and Enhanced Seed Dealership Survey Results

2000 Precision Agricultural Services and Enhanced Seed Dealership Survey Results

The Local Food Movement: Definitions, Benefits, and Resources

Relationship of Cow Size to Nutrient Requirements and Production Management Issues 1

Is It Still Profitable to Grow Lychee in Florida? 1

Introduction... 2 Asparagus... 4 Basil... 5 Beans, Speciality Green... 6 Carrots... 7 Eggplant... 8 Garlic... 9 Greens, Salad Peas, Snow...

Environmental Controls - Florida Greenhouse Vegetable Production Handbook, Vol 2 1

Assessing Economic Impacts and Benefits of Commercial Horticulture Extension Programs 1

Economic Contributions of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Food Industries in Florida in

Measuring Organic Matter in Everglades Wetlands and the Everglades Agricultural Area 1

Irrigated Acreage in Florida 1

Background. Do-It-Yourself Supply Curves

Microirrigation in Mulched Bed Production Systems: Irrigation Depths 1

Agricultural Producer Attitudes Toward Agri-Tourism in Miami-Dade County, Florida 1

Calculating Recommended Fertilizer Rates for Vegetables Grown in Raised-Bed, Mulched Cultural Systems 1

IFAS Standardized Fertilization Recommendations for Environmental Horticulture Crops 1

Study Questions for the Certified Pesticide Applicator Examination: Natural Areas Weed Management 1

How to Calibrate Your Fertilizer Spreader 1

The 1/128th of an Acre Sprayer Calibration Method 1

What Types of Educational Efforts on Biotechnology are Available for Students and Consumers? 1

Forest Groundcover Restoration 1

WORKSHEET #2. Markets: Who are your target customers? Commodity:

Sugarcane Variety Census: Florida

Best Management Practices in the Everglades Agricultural Area: Soil Testing 1

Economic Analysis of an Intensive, Zero-Water Exchange, Saltwater Shrimp Culture Demonstration Project in Nicaragua 1

South Florida Tropical Fruit Grower Perspectives: Water Conservation Management Practices 1

Establishment and Production Costs for Southern Highbush Blueberry Orchards in Florida: Enterprise Budget and Profitability Analysis 1

A Brief Summary of the Water Bill, SB 552 1

Irrigation Practices for Peaches in Florida 1

4-H SWINE RECORD BOOK 2

Incorporating Growth Performance with Youth Market Hog Shows 1

AN ECONOMIC DESCRIPTION OF THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR IN LYON COUNTY

Growing Pomegranates in Florida: Establishment Costs and Production Practices 1

Chemical Injection Methods for Irrigation 1

2003 Precision Agricultural Services Dealership Survey Results Staff Paper No. 3-10

Process of Drying Post-Harvest Hops (Humulus lupulus) for Small-Scale Producers Using a Novel Drying Rig 1

Economic Impact of Agriculture and Agribusiness in Miami-Dade County, Florida

Materials Handling - Florida Greenhouse Vegetable Production Handbook, Vol 2 1

Locally Led Conservation & The Local Work Group. Mark Habiger NRCS

Making the Case for Organic. Marty Mesh, Executive Director

ORGANIC CERTIFICATION & INTEGRITY. Karen Klonsky Dept. of Agricultural & Resource Economics University of California, Davis

Use of Telone II and Temik 15G to Improve Yields and Returns of Cotton Grown in Northwest Florida Fields Infested with Root-Knot Nematodes 1

The Impact of New Best Management Practices on Profitability of Dairies in the Lake Okeechobee Drainage Basin 1

Creep Grazing for Suckling Calves A Pasture Management Practice 1

2006 PRECISION AGRICULTURAL SERVICES DEALERSHIP SURVEY RESULTS

Guide to OSHA Standard Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases 1

A New Modular Cropping System. Compost Growing Media. Increasing Compost Value and Sales Volume, While Achieving Superior Crop Performance.

The Savvy Survey #11: Mail-Based Surveys 1

Use of Telone II and Temik 15G to Improve Yields and Returns of Cotton Grown in Northwest Florida Fields Infested with Reniform Nematodes 1

Seasonal High Tunnels. Conservation Benefits Interim Practice Standard Financial Assistance Guidance

Pricing is as important to a customer s perception of value

Converting from seepage irrigation to plasticulture for vegetable production: A case study 1

Engaging Volunteers through ISOTURES: Identifying Opportunities for Volunteer Involvement 1

2005 PRECISION AGRICULTURAL SERVICES DEALERSHIP SURVEY RESULTS

Community Supported Agriculture Pricing and Promotion Strategies: Lessons from Two Ithaca, NY Area Farms

Conservation Planning on Organic* Farms *Certified Organic, Transitioning-to-Organic, & Exempt from Certification

Sugarcane Variety Census: Florida

Economic Impacts of the Green Industry in the United States

Review of Current Sugarcane Fertilizer Recommendations: A Report from the UF/IFAS Sugarcane Fertilizer Standards Task Force 1

Common Labels and Certifications

COTTON BRIEFINGS 2011 Organic by Choice

Central American Free Trade Agreement-Dominican Republic (CAFTA-DR): What's in It for Florida Agriculture? 1

Irrigation Scheduling for Tropical Fruit Groves in South Florida 1

Prairie Strips Consultant Educational Needs Assessment: 2017 Survey

Transcription:

FE964 Floridian Consumer Perceptions of Local Versus Organic Ornamental Plants 1 Hayk Khachatryan and Alicia Rihn 2 Introduction Both local origin and organic production methods are potential value-added attributes that ornamental plant growers and retailers can use to promote their products. Some consumers are willing to pay (WTP) premiums (up to 10% more) for organic or local plants (Hawkins et al. 2012). However, implementing, maintaining, and promoting local and/or organic products require substantial economic and labor inputs. Therefore, it is important to know consumer perceptions toward these attributes to decrease grower and retailer risks before producing and offering these products. Previous studies on local and organic food products show consumers value local and organic attributes (Yiridoe et al. 2005). Studies investigating consumer preferences for these traits in ornamental plants, however, are less common and often provide conflicting results. Occasionally, local origin is viewed as more important than organic production (Yue et al. 2011), while other times organic production is perceived as being more important than local origin (Hawkins et al. 2012; Schimmenti et al. 2013). Studies suggest that consumers value local and organic ornamental plants, but the level of importance that they assign to these features varies across geographical locations, making it important to study consumer groups by location. For instance, plants with local origins were perceived as more important than those produced using organic production methods for Minnesota, Indiana, Michigan, and Texas consumers (Yue et al. 2011). However, Maine consumers preferred organic plants to locally grown plants (Hawkins et al. 2012). Variances in consumer preferences for organic and local plant attributes may be related to confusion about what the attributes mean. A recent investigation of consumer preferences in the United States and Canada showed that almost one out of five people confused local and organic attributes (Campbell et al. 2014). In order to sell their products as organic, growers must meet United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) criteria. Specifically, the National Organic Program indicates that in order for a product to be labeled as certified organic, it must be grown using methods to protect natural resources, conserve biodiversity, and use only approved substances (USDA/ 1. This is EDIS document FE964, a publication of the Food and Resource Economics Department, UF/IFAS Extension. Published April 2015. Please visit the EDIS website at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu. 2. Hayk Khachatryan, associate professor, and Alicia Rihn, postdoctoral research associate, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Mid-Florida Research and Education Center, Apopka, FL, UF/IFAS Extension, Gainesville, FL 32611. The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other UF/IFAS Extension publications, contact your county s UF/IFAS Extension office. U.S. Department of Agriculture, UF/IFAS Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A & M University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Nick T. Place, dean for UF/IFAS Extension.

AMS 2013). Prohibited substances include irradiation, sewage sludge, synthetic fertilizers, prohibited pesticides, and genetically modified organisms (USDA/AMS 2013). The USDA/ERS (2014) defines local food systems as farmers selling directly to consumers. Furthermore, the 2008 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act states that the total transported distance must be less than 400 miles from origin to point-of-sale or within the state of production for the product to be considered local (Harris et al. 2008). In this document, we define local and organic ornamental plants from the perspective of Floridian consumers. We also compare the two attributes in terms of plant-purchasing behavior and interest. Knowing consumer preferences reduces grower and retailer risk when determining production and promotional strategies. A better understanding of consumer preferences by growers and retailers also serves as an important feedback loop and benefits consumers through increased access to plants with desirable traits. Definitions Local Ornamental Plants In June/July 2014, approximately 300 plant consumers in central Florida were asked to define local by distance and proximity to their residences. Most consumers (>50%) perceive local ornamental plants to be grown within 19 miles of where they are sold (Figure 1). A fair number of consumers (36 47%) view local plants as grown within 20 59 miles of where they are sold, while fewer consumers (<27%) define local plants as being grown more than 60 miles from where they are sold. is one of the leading states in ornamental plant production (USDA/NASS 2007). Consequently, Floridian consumers may consider ornamental plants grown within the state as local. Additionally, familiarity with the Fresh from Florida campaign may have positively influenced their perspectives. Of the respondents, 83% indicated that they had noted Fresh from Florida on plants before the study. The differences in perceptions of state of residence and Fresh from Florida indicate that broader in-state origin designation promotions are associated less with local origins. Figure 2. Floridian consumers definitions of local ornamental plants, by proximity to their residences Figure 3. Percent of Floridian consumers who perceive Fresh from Florida ornamental plants as local Figures 4 and 5 provide a snapshot of the benefits consumers associate with local ornamental plants. The surveyed consumers agree that the most important benefits are those related to improving the local economy (jobs/money), product safety, product quality, and reduced pollution. Figure 1. Floridian consumers definitions of local ornamental plants, by distance Regarding proximity to consumers residences, the majority of the respondents perceive local plants as those grown within their county of residence and neighboring counties (70%), within 10 miles of their residence (59%), or solely within their county of residence (58%) (Figure 2). Approximately 43% of consumers view plants grown within their state of residence as local. However, 96% perceive Fresh from Florida plants as local (Figure 3). There are several factors that may contribute to this difference. First, Florida Figure 4. Perceived benefits of local ornamental plants 2

Figure 5. Perceived attributes of local ornamental plants Organic Ornamental Plants Central Floridian plant consumers were also asked to define organic plants. Over 70% of the surveyed consumers believe organic plants use natural fertilizers and pesticides and are more environmentally friendly than conventionally produced plants (Figure 6). About 60 70% view organic plants as pesticide free, not genetically modified, healthier, more expensive, and safer for children compared to conventional plants. Approximately 50 59% perceive organic plants as having less pesticide residue, lower toxicity, more compost use, and better soil structure, as well as being safer for pets, and more pollinator friendly, than conventional plants. In addition, 40 49% associate organic plants with integrated pest management, decreased pollution (smaller carbon footprint and reduced greenhouse gasses), and the use of non-synthetic fertilizers (Figure 7). Fewer of these Floridians (<40%) identify organic ornamental plants with synthetic additives (fertilizers/pesticides) and decreased transportation distance (transportation, local). Figure 6. Perceived attributes that define organic ornamental plants Figure 7. Perceived attributes that define organic ornamental plants (continued) When compared to the National Organic Program (NOP) standards (USDA/AMS 2013), consumer perceptions are fairly accurate with regards to natural fertilizers/pesticides, environmental health, genetically modified organisms, and compost usage (Figure 5). One area where consumer perceptions were inaccurate was no pesticides used; in fact, organic producers can use non-synthetic pesticides provided they are on the NOP list of allowed substances. Many of the attributes selected by participants highlight their perceptions of organic (i.e., healthier, higher priced, safer for children/pets, low toxicity, higher quality) rather than the NOP standards. These perceptions are consistent with previous research (Campbell et al. 2014) and provide points of differentiation for retailers and growers. Approximately 35% of the participants wrongly connected organic production to local origins (as indicated by the percent of participants who selected less transportation miles and produced locally). This percentage is slightly higher than previous research (Campbell et al. 2014). The NOP standards do not include a maximum distance traveled or origin requirement. Local Versus Organic Regarding purchasing frequency, 40% of Floridian consumers frequently purchase local ornamental plants (Figure 8). Conversely, only 8% frequently purchase organic ornamental plants. In fact, 57% state they rarely or never purchase organic ornamental plants. Similarly, their purchasing decisions are more likely to be impacted by local (Fresh from Florida) plants than organic plants (Figure 9). Often the benefits associated with organic production are improved personal or environmental health, which consumers may perceive as not applying to ornamental plants (Yue et al. 2011). In contrast, local product benefits often include 3

higher quality, local economy support (assuming that the relative cost of local production is lower compared to that of non-local economies), product availability, and suitability for local environment. Conversely, local plants are more prevalent in Florida since it is a primary production state (USDA/NASS 2007). Consumer perceptions of benefits and product availability likely impact the frequency of purchasing local and organic plants. as requiring fewer chemical additives (fertilizer/pesticides) and being healthier for the environment. The importance of these traits varies by plant type. Figure 10. Consumer interest in organic or local plants, by plant type (1=no interest, 5=high interest) Figure 8. Participants purchasing frequency of ornamental plants, by attribute Figure 9. Ornamental plant attributes impact on consumers purchasing likelihood (1=unlikely, 5=very likely) Since perceived benefits of local and organic plant attributes differ, the importance that consumers assign to these attributes may vary by the type of plant. Overall, consumer interest is greater for local plants than for organic plants (Figure 10); however, some interesting trends are evident if one considers different types of plants. While consumers are interested in all types of plants produced locally (as indicated by greater ratings), they exhibit the most interest in local perennials, vegetables, herbs, flowering annuals, and ornamental plants that are better acclimated to the local environmental conditions. Consumers are also interested in local seeds, shrubs and trees. They are least interested in local houseplants (flowering or foliage). Floridian consumers are more interested in organic edible plants (vegetable and herb plants), and less interested in organic non-edible plants. This is not surprising because edible plants can directly impact human health. Summary Horticultural consumers in Florida are interested in local and organically produced plants. They define local as plants that are grown near where they are sold. They identify the most important local benefits as product safety and quality, as well as community support. Organic plants are perceived Overall, our results suggest that growers could benefit from growing and promoting local ornamental plants and organic edible plants. Garden center retailers could benefit through promoting the origins of local plants. Retailers specializing in edible plants could benefit through promoting the health benefits of organic plants. In addition, all potential benefits depend on the cost of local or organic production/being less than that of alternative production methods. It is important to note that the cost of sourcing plants locally or from organic producers needs to be considered by growers, wholesalers, and retailers when contemplating producing and carrying products with these attributes. Additionally, the premium that consumers are willing to pay for local and/or organic plants impacts the profitability of offering these products. Sourcing costs and WTP premiums were not discussed in this report but suggest an interesting direction for future research. References Campbell, B., H. Khachatryan, B.K. Behe, J.H. Dennis, and C.R. Hall. 2014. US and Canadian consumer perceptions of local and organic terminology. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 17:21-40. Harris, W., B. Lubben, J. Novak, and L. Sanders. 2008. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 summary and consequences. Extension National Farm Bill Train the Trainer Conference, Kansas City, MO. Hawkins, G., S.E. Burnett, and L.B. Stack. 2012. Survey of consumer interest in organic, sustainable, and local container-grown plants in Maine. HortTechnology 22:817-825. 4

Schimmenti, E., A. Galati, V. Borsellino, C. Ievoli, C. Lupi, and S. tinervia. 2013. Behaviour of consumers of conventional and organic flowers and ornamental plants in Italy. Horticultural Science 40:162-171. USDA/AMS. 2014. National Organic Program website. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA/AMS), Washington, D.C. http:// www.ams.usda.gov/amsv1.0/nop. USDA/ERS. 2014. Local Foods. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA/ERS), Washington, D.C. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/foodmarkets-prices/local-foods.aspx. USDA/NASS. 2007. 2007 Census of Agriculture Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture Operations. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), Washington, D.C. Yiridoe, E.K., S. Bonti-Ankomah, and R.C. Martin. 2005. Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: A review and update of the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20:193-205. Yue, C., J.H. Dennis, B.K. Behe, C.R. Hall, B. Campbell, and R.G. Lopez. 2011. Investigating consumer preference for organic, local, or sustainable plants. HortScience 46:610-615. 5