Green Technology for the Green Industryjschrade/Bioplastic/Supplementary/Chapter... · Green...

This chapter is part of a book titled:

Bioplastic Container Cropping Systems:

Green Technology for the Green Industry

The proper citation for this chapter is:

Kratsch, H.A. and M.L. Hefner. 2016. Factors that influence consumer preference and willingness to pay for bioplastic plant containers. In: J.A. Schrader, H.A. Kratsch, and W.R. Graves, (Eds). Bioplastic Container Cropping Systems: Green Technology for the Green Industry. Sustainable Hort. Res. Consortium, Ames, IA, USA.

183

CHAPTER 10

Factors that Influence Consumer Preference and Willingness to Pay for Bioplastic Plant Containers

Heidi A. Kratsch and Melody L. HefnerUniversity of Nevada Cooperative Extension

AbstractConsumers are increasingly seeking to purchase products whose manufacture and use place fewer demands on limited natural resources and the environment. The industry standard petroleum-based plastic plant container, although currently low in cost and convenient for the horticulture industry, does not fit these qualifications demanded by environmentally aware consumers. In April 2015, we conducted an internet-based nationwide survey of over 1500 U.S. consumers with an interest in gardening to determine which demographic and attitudinal factors were predictive of willingness to purchase and pay a premium for plants in bioplastic containers of various types. Results revealed that greater than 90% of respondents were willing to purchase plants in bioplastic containers, and they would pay a median premium of $0.50 to $0.75 for them. Bioplastic plant containers that are biodegradable and also have a fertilizing effect have the potential for the broadest market and elicited will-ingness to pay a higher premium than plant containers that will only degrade under composting (higher-temperature) conditions. Willingness to purchase compostable plant containers was associated with consumer willingness to compost them; this container type is likely to appeal more to experienced gardeners and others who are strongly motivated to take a more active role in gardening.

IntroductionPetroleum-based plastic plant containers are the industry standard and set the bench-mark for plant container performance, durability, availability, and cost. However, this type of container cannot be considered sustainable because its production relies on extraction of a limited resource, petroleum, and containers made from petro-leum do not biodegrade under any conditions in a reasonable time period, usually decades. The search for a more sustainable plant container has been ongoing since

184 Factors that Influence Consumer Preference and Willingness to Pay

the 1970s, when fuel prices began to rise, and consumers became increasingly inter-ested in reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. The search for products made from biorenewable materials continues to this day, and many types of bio-based plant con-tainers have been manufactured and marketed (Lubick, 2007).

The ideal biorenewable container would perform as well as the industry standard petroleum-based container, be easy to manufacture, have an aesthetically acceptable appearance, and be cost-competitive (Kratsch et al., 2015). However, there is no one accepted definition of sustainability, and each container type has characteristics that make it more or less acceptable in the framework of efficient plant production, lower water use, acceptable aesthetic appeal in a retail setting, and ultimately, end-of-life decomposition in either soil or compost.

Ultimately, it will be growers and consumers who decide the fate of the current round of biorenewable containers because growers will demand acceptable per-formance during plant production (Dennis et al., 2010), and consumers will only purchase plants in biorenewable containers if they consider them to have enough value to justify their higher price (Yue et al., 2010). Manufacturers and wholesalers will need to balance pricing of such containers with their cost of production.

Researchers have surveyed consumers to determine characteristics of biodegradable containers they deemed valuable, and some have investigated consumer perceptions of the aspects of the plant-production process they considered sustainable. Hall and colleagues (2010) used a clustering model to identify discrete consumer markets that could be targeted by the retail horticulture industry. They also discovered that con-tainer type could be an important factor in plant-purchasing decisions. Behe and others (2013) further investigated consumer ideas about sustainability and origin of plant production, and linked them to preferences for purchase of certain plant types. Their survey revealed that energy-saving plant-production practices were pre-ferred over other types of environmentally friendly practices, including water-saving plant-production practices. They also found that local plant production was gener-ally preferred over regional or international plant production.

Willingness to pay a premium for bio-based plant containers has been investigated using experimental auction scenarios. Yue and others (2010) discovered that consum-ers will pay more for a geranium in a rice-hull or straw container than for one in a wheat-starch container that looked similar to their petroleum-based plastic control. Ellison and colleagues (2015) investigated more specifically how much consumers will pay for bioplastic plant containers with varying formulations. They found that containers marketed as improving plant health and being able to biodegrade in soil at a relatively rapid rate elicited a higher premium than those that biodegrade more slowly or that require industrial composting to decompose.

Heidi A. Kratsch and Melody L. Hefner 185

We conducted a nationwide survey of consumers with an interest in gardening to discover which factors, including demographic characteristics, attitudes, and behav-iors regarding gardening and the environment, were related to willingness to purchase and pay a premium for plants in bioplastic containers with various characteristics. Our objectives were to investigate 1) which factors determine consumer willingness to purchase plants in bioplastic containers of three types: biodegradable, compostable, and fertilizing and 2) and which factors influence the price that consumers are willing to pay for plants in such containers. We used this information to propose strategies to facilitate the successful introduction of various bioplastic plant-container types into the horticulture market.

Review of Preliminary ResearchIn 2014, we conducted a preliminary internet survey of 800 consumers of University of Nevada Cooperative Extension horticulture education programs (master garden-ers, green industry professionals, and general public) to determine the characteristics of biorenewable containers they considered most desirable. Our response rate was 26.9%, with the results of 215 usable surveys recorded. The survey format and ques-tions were similar to our 2015 nationwide survey, but because of the relatively smaller sample size, we were able to include open-ended questions to gain insight into why participants responded the way they did. We used this preliminary survey to vet questions for our nationwide survey, and we used answers to open-ended questions to refine and improve the questions we selected for our nationwide survey. Questions in our nationwide survey regarding genetically modified organisms and use of edi-ble crops for biofuels came directly from comments we received in our preliminary survey in Nevada.

Results of this preliminary survey indicated that over 75% of respondents would be willing to purchase plants in biodegradable or compostable containers, as long as the consumers were sure that the containers improved or were neutral to plant health and to the environment. Similar to our nationwide survey results, willingness to pay a premium for plants in bioplastic containers was greatest for plants in containers that provided a fertilizer effect.

Method

Sample SelectionWe used a web-based tool, SurveyMonkey, to administer our survey. Our qualifica-tions were that the survey include: 1) all major regions of the U.S., 2) consumers with an interest in gardening, and 3) at least 1500 responses. SurveyMonkey recruits from


a pool of over 30 million members, who complete surveys for non-cash incentives, such as charitable donations or sweepstakes entries. Individual members are limited by SurveyMonkey in how often they may participate in surveys, and benchmarking surveys are run by SurveyMonkey to ensure the membership is representative of the U.S. population. The survey was launched on 29 April 2015, and we received 1578 responses within 48 hours. Responses were filtered for completeness, leaving 1524 usable survey responses. The survey was reviewed by University of Nevada, Reno Social Behavior and Education Institutional Review Board and approved as Project 746474.

Survey ProcedureDescriptions of container types were provided with the survey. We aimed to clarify the characteristics of bioplastic containers that were most desired by consumers. Each of our prototypes is unique in its qualities and functionality, and none fits neatly into discreet categories. However, to provide survey participants with information on which to base their survey answers, we published three short descriptions early in the survey that described the potential end-of-life functions to which these contain-ers could be subjected. These descriptions were:

Biodegradable: This type of bioplastic container can decompose in soil within six months.Compostable: This type of bioplastic container will not decompose in soil within six months, but will decompose under normal composting (high-temperature) conditions.Fertilizing: This type of bioplastic container will decompose in soil within six months. It is made from plant-based materials that release nutrients as they decompose. It does not contain added fertilizers.

Data AnalysisData were analyzed for frequency distribution, central tendency, and dispersion using SurveyMonkey Basic Statistics. Hypothesis testing was conducted using inde-pendent samples t-tests at α=0.05. Multivariate relationships were investigated using cross-tabulation of the means of raw data. Cross-tabulated data were further analyzed for statistical significance and measures of association by using the FREQ procedure of SAS/STAT® version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). The Pearson Chi-square statis-tic (χ) was used to test the significance of categorical variables. Cramer’s V was used to measure the strength of the relationship for nominal variables, and the strength of trends in ordinal variables was analyzed using Gamma’s Ȥ (γ). The Chi-square goodness-of-fit test was used to determine whether the responses of a subset of sur-vey respondents was consistent with the proportions expected based on responses


of the total survey population. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic was used to measure possible interactions with stratification variables (e.g., gender or age). The level of confidence for all statistical tests was 95%.

Survey Results

Demographic DetailsAll major regions of the United States were represented by respondents to this sur-vey (Fig. 10.1). Over half of survey respondents were female (62.6%; n=954), and over two-thirds were homeowners (70.1%; n=1069). Figure 10.2 indicates the types of dwellings inhabited by homeowners and renters. Overall, most respondents lived in detached single-unit dwellings (73.6%; n=1122), but renters were just as likely to live in apartments or condos as they were in detached single-unit dwellings (1:1.2). Of the seven age categories presented to survey respondents, the greatest percent-age were in the age 45 to 54 category (29.5%; n=450), with over 90% of respondents between the ages of 25 and 64 (n=1394) (Fig. 10.3).

The majority of survey participants identified their ethnicity as white (81.1%; n=1236). African-Americans made up 6% of respondents (n=97), and 5% identi-fied as Hispanic (n=77). The remaining identified as Asian (n=54), Native American (n=13), Pacific Islander (n=6), or Mixed ethnicity (n=31). Over half of respondents were married at the time they completed the survey (54.8%; n=835) (Fig. 10.4).

New England

West North Central

East South Central

Mountain

Pacific

West South Central

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

South Atlantic

19%

18%

15% 13%

9%

7%

7%

7%4%

Figure. 10.1. Proportion of nationwide survey respondents residing in the nine major U.S. regions (N=1524).


Of the respondents, 30% had never been married (n=459), and 15% (n=230) were divorced. The overall median number of children under age 18 living at home reported by respondents was 0. This median value did not vary based on marital status. The median household income of survey respondents was between $25,000 and $49,999, with almost one-third of respondents in this income category (30.5%; n=465) (Fig. 10.5). Over 50% of respondents had a household income of less than $50,000 annu-ally. Greater than three-fourths of survey participants had attended college (77.4%; n=1180), with just under 50% achieving at least a 2-year degree (Fig. 10.6).

Detached single-unit housing

Semi-detached dwelling (such as a duplex)

Attached multi-unit dwelling (such as apartment or condo)

Moveable dwelling (such as a mobile home or houseboat)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Owner (70%)

Renter (30%)

Figure 10.2. Numbers of nationwide survey respondents by home ownership and dwell-ing type (N=1524).

0.1%

0.7%

17.6%

29.5%

20.7%

23.6%

7.7%

75 or older

65 to 74

55 to 64

45 to 54

35 to 44

25 to 34

18 to 24

Figure 10.3. Age of bioplastics nationwide survey respondents (N=1524).


We asked survey respondents to tell us which term best described their interest in gardening. Nearly 50% described themselves as experienced gardeners (47.5%; n=724), 43% identified as beginning gardeners (43.4%; n=662), and 6% identified as reluctant gardeners (5.8%; n=89) (Fig. 10.7).

Willingness to Purchase and PayMost survey respondents would purchase plants in bioplastic containers of any of the three functional types. More than 4 out of 5 respondents would purchase plants in fertiliz-ing (90.6%; n=1380) and biodegradable (85.6%; n=1305) bioplastic containers (Fig. 10.8). A lower number of respondents would purchase plants in compostable bioplas-tic containers (63.6%; n=970). Therefore, we further investigated the attitudes and behaviors that may have accounted for willingness to purchase plants in bioplastic containers of different types (Table 10.1). The strongest association for willingness to purchase plants in biodegradable and fertilizing bioplastic containers was their desire to purchase them locally. As respondents’ desire for local availability of bioplastic containers increased, so did their willingness to purchase plants in them. Similarly, respondents who reported they preferred to shop at locally owned nurseries rather than chain stores were more willing to purchase plants in bioplastic containers (Table 10.1). This finding is consistent with those of Behe et al. (2013), who reported that

76%Never married (30%)

74%

Divorced (15%)

50%

Married (55%)

0 1 2 3 4 More than 4 children under age 18

Figure 10.4. Marital status and number of children under 18 living in the household for nationwide survey respondents. Percentages shown on the vertical axis are of the over-all total number of respondents. Percentages shown adjacent to data bars represent proportion of the number in each marital status category (N=1524).


“plant fanatics” (i.e., those who regularly purchased plants of all types) placed a high value on local production.

On the other hand, the behavior most strongly associated with respondents’ will-ingness to purchase plants in compostable containers was their reported willingness to compost the containers (Table 10.1). Respondents who were willing to compost bioplastic plant containers were also more willing to purchase plants in them. Over 90% of those who would purchase plants in compostable containers were willing to

1.6%

0.6%

2.0%

3.5%

7.1%

13.3%

20.5%

20.9%

$200,000 and up

$175,000-$199,999

$150,000-$174,999

$125,000-$149,999

$100,000-$124,999

$75,000-$99,999

$50,000-$74,999

$25,000-$49,999

$0-$24,999

30.5%

Figure 10.5. Annual household income of nationwide survey respondents (N=1524).

2.7%

19.9%

13.1%

11.4%

Some high school

High school diploma or GED

Some college

Associates degree from college(2 years)

Bachelor’s degree from college(4 years)

Graduate studies from college(Masters or doctorate)

28.2%

24.9%

Figure 10.6. Education level of bioplastics nationwide survey respondents (N=1524).


compost them, whereas only 35% of respondents who were unwilling to compost bioplastic containers would purchase plants sold in them.

Survey respondents who reported satisfaction with the performance of commer-cial peat-based plant containers were more likely to be willing to purchase plants in bioplastic containers of all types (Table 10.1). Conversely, those who were not sat-isfied with the performance of commercial peat-based containers were less likely to purchase plants in bioplastic containers. For example, nearly half of those who were

48%

43%

6%

1%1% 1%

Farmer or crop producer

Green industry professional

Certified Master Gardener

Reluctant gardener

Beginnning gardener

Experienced gardener

Figure 10.7. Gardening interest of nationwide survey respondents (N=1524).

14% Biodegradable bioplastic pot

36% 64%

Compostable bioplastic pot

9% Fertilizing bioplastic pot

Would purchase

Would not purchase

86%

91%

Figure 10.8: Proportion of nationwide respondents who would or would not purchase plants in bioplastic containers of three types (N=1524).


dissatisfied with commercial peat-based plant containers (44%) would not purchase plants in compostable bioplastic containers. Behe et al. (2013) reported that com-postable containers were generally preferred over containers that could be planted in the ground with the plant, which may reflect a general distrust of labels direct-ing the gardener to install plants with the container whole in the ground. Some

Table 10.1. Attitudes and behaviors associated with increased willingness to purchase different container types. As the strength of agreement about the listed attitudes or be-haviors increased, survey respondent willingness to purchase various container types increased. The gamma (γ) association describes the strength of the relationship. Gamma associations between 0.30 and 0.59 = moderate association and between 0.10 and 0.29 = low association. (n=1524)

Attitudes/Behaviors

Biodegradable Compostable Fertilizing

γ ASE z γ ASE γ ASE

Would buy bioplastic containers if available locally

0.54 0.037 0.35 0.039 0.57 0.037

Willing to compost bioplastic containers

0.37 0.036 0.51 0.031 0.35 0.037

Satisfaction with performance of peat-based containersy

0.32 0.042 0.21 0.040 0.30 0.042

Recycle conventional plastic containers

0.26 0.036 0.23 0.034 0.24 0.037

Reuse conventional plastic containers

0.28 0.038 0.22 0.035 0.29 0.038

Prefer to shop at locally owned nurseries rather than chain stores

0.24 0.038 0.16 0.036 0.25 0.039

Look for products labeled non-GMOx

0.20 0.035 0.17 0.032 0.16 0.036

Believe synthetic fertilizers are harmful to our soils

0.20 0.038 0.11 0.035 0.17 0.038

Never use pesticides 0.18 0.036 0.11 0.032 0.14 0.036

z ASE = asymptotic standard error. All reported gamma associations are significant at the 99 percent confi-dence level.

y n=1238. The remaining 286 respondents had not heard of peat-based containers.x GMO stands for genetically modified organism. The process, also called genetic engineering, refers to the

deliberate alteration of the characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material in a laboratory.


companies that market peat-based plant containers provide instructions to plant seed-lings in the ground while still in their containers. A cursory look at gardening blogs and conversations with master gardeners (W. Mazet, pers. comm., May 2016) indi-cates that peat-based plant containers planted whole in the ground with the seedling may inhibit growth of seedling root systems. Based on our data and observations, we recommend that clear instructions to break up the container before planting in the ground, or before composting, should be provided on bioplastic container outer wraps. Although, in our survey, the numbers in the group dissatisfied with peat-based containers were small (just over 10% of the survey population), it should be consid-ered in marketing and labeling of bioplastic plant containers.

Although the association was low, respondents who were likely to recycle or reuse conventional plastic containers were more willing to purchase plants in bioplastic containers (Table 10.1). Similarly, Behe et al. (2010) found that plant purchasers were more likely to recycle their products. In our survey, respondents who believed syn-thetic fertilizers harm soils, who reported they never use pesticides, and who seek out products labeled non-GMO also were more likely to purchase plants in bioplas-tic containers. In fact, survey respondents generally concerned about the issue of GMOs are more willing to purchase plants in bioplastic containers of all types (Table 10.2). When asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement, “I would not buy a plant in a pot made from genetically engineered (GMO) plants,” nearly 60% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement (Fig. 10.9). Further, 82% of those that agreed or strongly agreed with the statement said they actively seek out products labeled non-GMO.

82% actively seek out products labeled non-GMO.

21%

38%

34%

7%

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree

Figure 10.9. Respondents to nationwide survey were asked about the extent of their agreement or disagreement with the statement, “I would not buy a plant in a pot made from genetically engineered (GMO) plants.” (N=1524).


Two of the major crops that have been used to manufacture bioplastic plant contain-ers, corn and soy, may also be genetically modified. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are plants or other living organisms whose characteristics have been altered by laboratory insertion of genetic material into their DNA. Although no negative effects to human health or the environment caused by the use of GMOs have been demonstrated, the process of genetic engineering remains controversial among con-sumers. A recent Pew Research survey indicated that only 37% of respondents believe GMOs are safe to eat (Pew Research Center, 2015), and another poll indicated nearly two-thirds of Americans favor labeling of products that have been genetically mod-ified (AP-GfK, 2015).

Another factor associated with increased willingness to purchase bioplastic contain-ers represents consumer controversy: use of food crops for biofuels. Survey respondents

Table 10.2. Factors associated with increased willingness to purchase different bioplas-tic container types. As the degree of concern about the listed factors increased, survey respondent willingness to purchase various container types increased. The gamma (γ) association describes the strength of the relationship. Gamma associations between 0.30 and 0.59 = moderate association and between 0.10 and 0.29 = low association. (n=1524)

Factors (degree of concern)

Biodegradable Compostable Fertilizing Sample sizey γ ASE z γ ASE γ ASE

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)x

0.17 0.035 0.13 0.032 0.11 0.036 n=1465

Use of food crops for biofuels

0.16 0.034 0.20 0.032 0.10 0.035 n=1433

Climate change 0.25 0.034 0.14 0.032 0.23 0.035 n=1499

Conserving water 0.33 0.034 0.15 0.034 0.31 0.036 n=1495

Protecting water quality

0.31 0.038 NAw 0.37 0.036 n=1489

z ASE = asymptotic standard error. All reported gamma associations are significant at the 99 percent confi-dence level.

y Respondents who reported “I never heard of this” were excluded from this analysis. x GMO stands for genetically modified organism. The process, also called genetic engineering, refers to the

deliberate alteration of the characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material in a laboratory.w Negligible Association


more concerned about this issue were more likely to say they would be willing to pur-chase plants in bioplastic containers of all types (Table 10.2). This is relevant because bioplastic containers can be manufactured using byproducts of corn and soybean production, both of which are also common in biofuel production. Concerns with use of food crops for biofuels are related to the potential increase in food prices that could be associated with increases in biofuel production (Babcock, 2008), and to potential decreases in food supply caused by the use of agricultural land for non-food purposes. Other issues related to increased willingness to purchase plants in bioplastic containers include concern about climate change, conserving water, and protecting water quality (Table 10.2).

Environmental sensitivity of survey respondents influenced their willingness to purchase plants in bioplastic containers. Because a number of environment-friendly behaviors and attitudes were associated with willingness to purchase plants in bioplastic con-tainers (Tables 10.1 and 10.2), we sought to further investigate the possibility that environmental sensitivity influences willingness to purchase bioplastic plant con-tainers. For the purposes of our survey, the term “environmentally sensitive,” was defined by respondents’ answers to six survey questions. Survey respondents who reported an interest in or concern about: climate change, water quality, water con-servation, reusing plant containers, recycling plant containers, and shopping local were categorized as environmentally sensitive (39%; n=589) (Behe et al., 2010; Hall et al., 2010; Ellison et al., 2015). We compared the responses of the environmentally sensitive survey population to the responses of the total survey population to see if differences in willingness to purchase existed based on sensitivity to environmental issues. This was found to be the case, with the most noticeable differences for response to willingness to purchase plants in compostable (χ2=33.2; p=0.000) (Fig. 10.10A) and biodegradable (χ2=28.8; p=0.000) (Fig. 10.10B) plant containers. Willingness to purchase plants in fertilizing bioplastic containers was less susceptible to bias based on environmental sensitivity (χ2=15.6; p=0.001) (Fig. 10.10C). In other words, the market for fertilizing bioplastic plant containers may be broader than for either bio-degradable or compostable bioplastic plant containers.

Marketing Bioplastic Plant ContainersGardening interest and experience influence plant purchasing behavior. We asked survey participants how often they purchase plants for their garden or landscape over the course of a year. The median response of the overall survey population was twice per year. The median varied by gardening interest: once per year for reluctant gar-deners, twice per year for beginning gardeners, and three to five times per year for experienced gardeners (Fig. 10.11). The types of plants purchased over the past year


Figure 10.10. Comparison of responses of nationwide survey participants with attitudes and behaviors consistent with environmental sensitivity (n=589) to those of the general survey population (N=1524). Respondents were asked how willing or unwilling they were to purchase plants in compostable (A), biodegradable (B), and fertilizing (C) bioplastic containers. Environmental sensitivity was defined by survey respondents’ answers to questions about climate change, water quality, water conservation, reuse or recycling of plant containers, and tendency to shop locally. Compostable χ2=33.2 (p=0.000); Biode-gradable χ2=28.8 (p=0.000); Fertilizing χ2=15.6 (p=0.001).

0

20

40

60

Definitelywould notpurchase

Probablywould notpurchase

Probablywould

purchase

Definitelywould

purchase

Compostable bioplastic plant container

Environmentally sensitive (n=589)

Total survey population (N=1524)

0

20

40

60



Probablywould

purchase

Definitelywould

purchase

Biodegradable bioplastic plant container



0

20

40

60



Probablywould

purchase

Definitelywould

purchase

Fertilizing bioplastic plant container



A

B

C


did not vary by gardening interest, with over two-thirds of respondents purchasing vegetable starts (71%), annual flowers (69%), and perennial flowers (66%) (data not shown). Only 4% of survey respondents purchased no plants at all last year.

Experienced gardeners are likely to be an important and reliable early target for mar-keting bioplastic containers. Although there was no association between gardening interest and willingness to purchase plants in bioplastic containers overall, the pro-portion of experienced gardeners who definitely would purchase plants in bioplastic containers was significantly greater than the proportion of beginning gardeners who definitely would (α=0.05) for all three container types (Fig. 10.12). Respondents sure enough to select “definitely would purchase” have a strong opinion and are not likely to be easily swayed in their decision. The percentage of experienced gardeners who definitely would purchase plants in fertilizing containers, in particular, is greater than that of either beginning or reluctant gardeners (Fig. 10.12). Further, our survey showed that respondents who identified as experienced gardeners are more likely to have the knowledge to make informed choices when they are purchasing plants and plant containers (γ=0.43, ASE=0.041, p<0.01) (data not shown). Respondents who have the knowledge to make informed choices when buying plant containers are more likely to purchase biodegradable (γ=0.32, ASE=0.041, p<0.01), compostable (γ=0.26, ASE=0.038, p<0.01), and fertilizing (γ=0.33, ASE=0.038, 0.041, p<0.01) (data not shown). In addition, willingness to compost bioplastic containers increased

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Less than once per

year

Once per year

Twice peryear

3 to 5 times per year

6 or more times per

year

Reluctant gardener

Beginning gardener


Median number of plant purchases per year:

Reluctant gardener = onceBeginning gardener = twiceExperienced gardener = 3 to 5 times

Figure 10.11. How often respondents to the nationwide survey purchase plants for their garden or landscape by gardening interest or experience (n=1475).


with gardening experience (γ=0.18, ASE=0.046, p<0.01), with experienced garden-ers most willing to compost (data not shown). This association was independent of respondent age. Because willingness to compost was associated with willingness to purchase compostable containers (Table 10.1), experienced gardeners are the most likely consumers for this container type.

Plant price tops the list of factors influencing plant purchasing decisions. It is important to know which factors influence plant purchasing decisions as these may determine how a plant is produced or marketed. Plant price received a mean rating of 3.2 out of 4, where 1 means “not important” and 4 means “very important” (Fig. 10.13). Over 80% of survey respondents indicated that plant price was important or very important. This is an indication that the ultimate price of a plant sold in a bioplastic container must not exceed by too much that of a plant sold in a conventional plastic container, and that the extra cost associated with manufacture of bioplastic plant containers should be balanced with other factors that may influence plant purchasing decisions.

When purchasing plants, more than half of respondents also considered whether the plant is regionally native (66%), is produced locally (57%), uses less water (51%), and is produced organically (51%) (Fig. 10.13). Whether or not a neighbor is grow-ing the same plant was considered by respondents to be relatively unimportant, with only 19% of respondents considering it important or very important. These results did not vary significantly by gardening experience or interest.

34% 29%

35% Biodegradable

24% 18%

24% Compostable

43% 46%

54% Fertilizing

Experienced gardener Beginning gardener Reluctant gardener

Definitely would purchase by gardening interest

Figure 10.12. Proportion of respondents to the nationwide survey who would definitely purchase plants in bioplastic containers of three types, organized by gardening interest or experience (n=1475).


Just over half of survey respondents (50.1%; n=775) considered whether the plant is produced organically to be important in their plant purchasing decisions (Fig. 10.13). The issue of GMOs is relevant here as well, because organic production forbids the use of genetically modified ingredients. How this will influence the manufac-ture and use of bioplastic plant containers remains unclear. Consumers of organic products expect bioplastics to be environmentally friendly, but some scientists and industry professionals feel there is a need for clarification of the type of raw material (e.g., genetically modified plants) acceptable for the manufacture of materials used in production and packaging of organic products (Yeh et al., 2015), and this could include bioplastic containers used to produce organic crops.

Survey respondents would pay more for a plant in a fertilizing bioplastic container than they would for plants in containers labeled either compostable or biodegradable. That consumers would pay more for fertilizing plant pots was originally revealed using an experimental auction method at a Midwest farmer’s market (Ellison et al., 2015), and it was confirmed in our nationwide survey of the gardening public (Fig. 10.14). Depending on the materials and process used to manufacture them, bioplastic plant containers are likely to be priced higher than conventional petroleum-based plastic containers (Robinson, 2009). Although it is difficult to predict exactly how much a person would pay for an item based on a survey, how much a person is willing to pay is an indication of the value a person places on that item. We asked survey respondents how much more they would be willing to pay for a garden plant in a 4.5-inch bioplas-tic container than for the same plant in a 4.5-inch conventional plastic container. In

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

1.7 Neighbor grows it

2.5 Produced organically

2.5 Uses less water

2.6 Produced locally

2.8 Regionally native

3.2

21

51

51

57

66

81 Plant price

Mean rating Percent indicating choices 3 and 4

Figure 10.13. List of factors influencing plant purchasing decisions of respondents to the nationwide survey. Respondents rated each factor’s importance on a scale of 1 (not im-portant) to 4 (very important). The box to the right of the chart indicates the percentage of respondents that indicated 3 (Important) or 4 (Very important) (N=1524).


our survey, respondents reported they were willing to pay a median amount of $0.50 extra for a plant in either a biodegradable or a compostable bioplastic container, and a median amount of $0.75 extra for a plant in a fertilizing bioplastic plant container (Fig. 10.14). This is consistent with the work of Ellison and others (2015), who found that participants in their experimental auction would pay $0.67 to $1.14 for the bio-plastic container itself. Yue and colleagues (2010) found respondents to their survey would pay $0.23 more for a geranium in a wheat-starch bioplastic container than for the same plant in a conventional plastic container.

The overall willingness to pay a premium amount for a plant in a fertilizing bio-plastic container may have to do with the perceived added value of containers that have a fertilizing effect. We asked survey participants whether they added amend-ments to their soil and for what purpose. The top three reasons respondents reported they added amendments to their soil were to add nutrients (68.7%; n=1047), bene-fit their plants (58.1%; n=886), and increase organic matter content (45.9%; n=700) (data not shown). Fertilizing bioplastic plant containers may provide all of those soil benefits when added to the planting hole at the time of transplanting into the ground. Biodegradable bioplastic plant containers may add organic matter, but not nutrients, to the soil as they decompose. A savvy marketer could highlight these “added-value” benefits to increase the appeal of bioplastic plant containers to con-sumers of gardening products.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

0 cents

10 cents

25 cents

50 cents

75 cents

$1.00

>$1.00

How much more would you be willing to pay? Fertilizing

Compostable

Biodegradable

Premium willing to pay (median):

Fertilizing = 75 centsCompostable = 50 centsBiodegradable = 50 cents

Figure 10.14. Respondents to the bioplastics nationwide survey were asked how much more they would be willing to pay for a garden plant in a 4.5-inch bioplastic container than for the same plant in a 4.5-inch conventional plastic container. Results varied by container type (N=1524).


The premium amount respondents were willing to pay for plants in bioplastic plant containers was not influenced by gardening experience. However, there was an asso-ciation between willingness to compost bioplastic containers and willingness to pay extra for plants in bioplastic containers of all types, and it was especially strong for plants in compostable containers (Table 10.3). That said, nearly one-fourth of sur-vey respondents (24.7%; n=376) would not pay extra for a plant in a compostable container (Fig. 10.14).

Age also influenced willingness to pay extra for plants in bioplastic containers, with younger respondents more willing to pay higher amounts than older respondents (Table 10.3). Our results are in contrast with results of the experimental auction con-ducted by Ellison et al. (2015). They found willingness to pay increased with age. It is unclear why there is a discrepancy in our studies; however, there is a tendency for consumers to overstate the amount they are willing to pay (Ellison et al., 2015), and that could be exaggerated in younger people. Using an experimental auction approach may have alleviated that inherent bias. Ethnicity also influenced willingness to pay extra for plants in bioplastic containers (Table 10.3), with non-white respondents willing to pay more than respondents identifying as white.

Consistent with Ellison et al. (2015), renters in our survey were more willing to pay higher amounts than homeowners for plants in bioplastic containers, but only for plants in fertilizing containers (Table 10.3). This association was independent of age. When we controlled for gender during our analysis, however, we found that the association with renters was caused by their gender, with female renters willing to pay more. We found no independent association of willingness to pay extra based on gender for plants in bioplastic containers of any type. Similar to Ellison et al. (2015), we found no association between willingness to pay extra for bioplastic containers and income or education level of respondents.

With respect to marketing bioplastic plant containers, the appearance of the con-tainer itself has to be considered. Some bioplastic plant container types do not look like they would biodegrade in soil, and this may discourage some consumers. Hall and colleagues (2010) found that a biodegradable plant container made out of wheat starch, with an appearance similar to that of the conventional plastic plant container, was rated lower than containers having a more “organic” appearance. Further, in a recent survey we conducted of purchasers of strawberry plants sold in bioplastic con-tainers (Hefner and Kratsch, unpublished data), we found that some buyers did not follow the instructions to break up the container and plant it in the soil with their plant; they gave the reason that “the pot did not look like it would break down in soil.” We recommend using textures or colors that have a more “natural” appearance for biodegradable plant containers made from bioplastic materials.


Although we found fewer survey respondents would purchase compostable bioplastic plant containers than would purchase biodegradable or fertilizing containers, a market exists for this container type. Our data suggest that experienced gardeners (Fig. 10.12) and others who take a more active role in gardening activities, such as composting (Table 10.1 and 10.3), could make up a significant, stable market for such contain-ers. Compostable plant containers could also be taken to a commercial composting facility, but not all communities have such facilities, and many of them compost only yard trimmings (Platt and Goldstein, 2014). The U.S. states reporting the greatest vol-umes of materials composted by municipal composting facilities included California, Florida, Iowa, Washington, and New York. There is a national call to increase com-posting activities at the state level, to overcome lack of composting infrastructure, and to remove barriers to existing facilities regarding what is composted (Platt and Goldstein, 2014). As the movement gains momentum, more gardeners may be will-ing to compost, increasing the potential market for compostable plant containers.

Table 10.3. Factors associated with increased willingness to pay more for a plant sold in a bioplastic container than for the same plant in a conventional plastic containers. Chi-square (χ2) is a test of the significance among relationships for nominal-level data. Cramer’s V and gamma (γ) (for ordinal-level data) describe the strength of associations. Values between 0.10 and 0.29 = weak association; NA = negligible association. (n=1524)

Biodegradable Compostable Fertilizing

Nominal factors χ2 p V χ2 p V χ2 p V

Ethnicityz 58.7 <0.0001 0.10 71.7 <0.0001 0.11 NA

Rentersy NA NA 14.0 0.03 0.10

Female rentersx NA NA 13.2 0.04 0.12

Ordinal factors γ ASE w γ ASE γ ASE

Willing to compost bioplastic containers

0.24 0.029 0.35 0.029 0.21 0.030

Age -0.27 0.027 -0.22 0.028 -0.26 0.027

z n=1495. The remaining 29 respondents chose not to identify by ethnicity.y Age had no influence on willingness of renters to pay more.x There was no association between home ownership of males and willingness to pay more.w ASE = asymptotic standard error. All reported gamma associations are significant at the 99 percent confi-

dence level.


SummaryBased on our comprehensive survey of 1524 gardening-interested U.S. consumers, more than 90% would purchase plants in bioplastic containers of the three types we specified: biodegradable, compostable, and fertilizing. Fertilizing containers were the least susceptible to bias related to consumer environmental sensitivity, meaning fertil-izing bioplastic containers held broad appeal for gardeners of many types, whether or not their behaviors and attitudes reflected a concern for the environment. Gardening consumers would also pay a higher premium for plants in fertilizing bioplastic con-tainers, likely because of an “added-value” effect conferred by the fertilizing function and the reduced need for adding supplemental fertilizer during plant growth. The market for compostable bioplastic containers is likely to be smaller and may consist of those gardeners who are willing to compost their containers, and those who take a more active approach to gardening in general.

Companies interested in producing and marketing bioplastic containers should keep the price as low as possible, as price was the primary factor influencing plant-pur-chasing decisions. Early efforts at marketing bioplastic plant containers should be targeted at experienced gardeners and consumers who, by their attitudes and behav-iors, exhibit a sensitivity to environmental issues. The appearance of bioplastic plant containers should be optimized, and those with an “earthy” look may be more suc-cessful in cases where the containers are meant to be broken up and planted in the ground or composted. Clear instructions on package labels regarding how the prod-uct can be used successfully may help overcome potential barriers created by previous negative experiences with commercial biodegradable plant containers. Finally, mar-keters would do well to consider controversial issues, such as GMOs and use of crops as biofuels, when they consider sourcing materials for their product, and in the selec-tion of terminology to be used in labeling and marketing.

AcknowledgementsThis research was supported in part by the USDA Specialty Crops Research Initiative (NIFA-SCRI 2011-51181-30735), Iowa State University, and the University of Nevada, Reno.

Literature CitedAP-GfK. 2015. AP-GfK Poll: An appetite for labeling genetically modified foods. 8 July

2016. <http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/ap-gfk-poll-an-appetite-for-labeling-genetically-modified-foods>.

Babcock, B.A. 2008. Breaking the link between food and biofuels. Iowa Ag Review Online. Summer 2008, Vol. 14, No. 3. 29 January 2015. <http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/summer_08/article1.aspx>.


Behe, B., B. Campbell, J. Dennis, C. Hall, R. Lopez, and C. Yue. 2010. Gardening consumer segments vary in eco-practices. HortScience 45:1475-1479.

Behe, B.K., B.L. Campbell, C.R. Hall, H. Khachatryan, J.H. Dennis, and C. Yue. 2013. Consumer preferences for local and sustainable plant production characteristics. HortScience 48(2):200-208.

Dennis, J.H., R.G. Lopez, B.K. Behe, C.R. Hall, C. Yue, and B.L. Campbell. 2010. Sustainable production practices adopted by greenhouse and nursery plant growers. HortScience 45(8):1232-1237.

Ellison, B., B. Kirwan, and A. Nepal. 2015. Consumers’ willingness to pay for bioplastic plant containers: an experimental auction approach. Agr. & Appl. Econ. Assn. and Western Agr. Econ. Assn. Annu. Mtg., San Francisco, 26-28 July 2015.

Hall, C.R., B.L. Campbell, B.K. Behe, C. Yue, R.G. Lopez, and J.H. Dennis. 2010. The appeal of biodegradable packaging to floral consumers. HortScience 45(4): 583-591.

Kratsch, H.A., J.A. Schrader, K.G. McCabe, G. Srinivasan, D. Grewell, and W.R. Graves. 2015. Performance and biodegradation in soil of novel horticulture containers made from bioplastics and biocomposites. HortTechnology 25(1):119-131.

Lubick, N. 2007. Plastics in from the bread basket. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1:6639-6640.Pew Research Center. 2015. Public and scientists’ views on science and society, 13 July 2016.

<http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_ScienceandSociety_Report_012915.pdf>.Platt, B. and N. Goldstein. 2014. State of composting in the U.S. BioCycle 55(6): 19. 16 July

2016. <https://www.biocycle.net/2014/07/16/state-of-composting-in-the-u-s/>.Robinson, T. 2009. Containers evolve to satisfy industry, retailer, and consumer needs.

GMPro 28(1):35-40.Yeh, C.H., F.K. Lücke, and J. Janssen. 2015. Bioplastics: acceptable for the packaging of

organ food? A policy analysis. J. Agr. Food Systems Community Dev. 6(1):95-105.Yue, C., C.R. Hall, B.K. Behe, B.L. Campbell, J.H. Dennis, and R.G. Lopez. 2010. Are

consumers willing to pay more for biodegradable containers than for plastic ones? Evidence for hypothetical conjoint analysis and nonhypothetical experimental auctions. J. Agr. Appl. Econ. 42(4):757-772.


Iowa State University and the University of Nevada, Reno are testing new types of plant pots made from bioplastics. Bioplastic plant pots are made from biological products and are biodegradable. We are asking for your help with a research study being conducted by the University of Nevada, Reno. This research study involves a survey to gather information on consumer preferences for different kinds of plant pots. We hope you will help us by answering a few questions. We greatly value your input.

The survey should be completed by an adult 18 years of age or older. The information from this anonymous survey may be made available for use by the general public in the form of public presentations, journal or newspaper articles, and/or other publications. No individually identifiable information will be collected, recorded, or reported in this research study. Your reply will be recorded by Survey Monkey, and the final data we receive will contain no names or IP addresses.

There are no known risks to you to take this survey. Your answers to the questions are anonymous. Any reports prepared will be written as summaries in which no individual’s answers can be identified. This survey is voluntary. You are free to not participate in the survey without harming your relationship with the researchers or the institutions involved. However, you can help us by taking 15 minutes to answer these questions. There may be no direct benefits for participants of the survey, but we hope to obtain information on plant pots and consumer preferences.

If you have questions or comments about the survey, please contact either: Heidi Kratsch (775) 784-4848 [email protected] Melody Hefner (775) 784-4848 [email protected]

You may ask about your rights as a research subject or you may report (anonymously if you so choose) any comments, concerns or complaints to the University of Nevada Reno Social Behavioral Institutional Review Board, telephone number (775) 327-2368, or by addressing a letter to the Chair of the Board, c/o UNR Office of Human Research Protection, 205 Ross Hall/331, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, Nevada 89557.

We greatly appreciate your participation! Sincerely, Heidi Kratsch, IRB Protocol # 652206-1 Melody Hefner Sponsor: USDA - NIFA

* 1. Tell us about your interest in gardening:

Reluctant gardener

Beginning gardener


Certified Master Gardener

Green industry professional (landscaper, nursery worker, greenhouse, arborist, etc.)

Farmer or crop producer

Plant researcher or educator

Appendix

Nationwide Bioplastics Survey Tool


* 2. How often do you purchase plants for your garden or landscape?

Less than once per year

Once per year

Twice per year

3 to 5 times per year

6 or more times per year * 3. What types of plants have you purchased over the past year? (Check all that apply)

Annual plants

Perennial plants

Vegetable starts

Herbs

Shrubs

Fruit trees and vines

Shade trees

Did not purchase plants last year * 4. The following are examples of plant pots advertised as biodegradable that are currently on the market.

How satisfied or dissatisfied have you been with the performance of these types of pots?

Very Dissatisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied

I've never used this type of pot

Peat pots

Paper pots

Cow pots

Coconut coir pots

Straw pots

Wood fiber pots


We have created and field-tested 3 new types of biodegradable plant pots made from bioplastics. Your answers on this survey will assist us in making these bioplastic plant pots available to consumers.

Biodegradable bioplastic pot: This type of bioplastic pot can decompose in soil within 6 months.

Compostable bioplastic pot: This type of bioplastic pot will not decompose in soil within 6 months, but will decompose under normal composting (high temperature) conditions.

Fertilizing bioplastic pot: This type of bioplastic pot will decompose in soil within 6 months. It is made from plant-based materials that release nutrients as they decompose. It does not contain added fertilizers.

* 5. Using the descriptions above, indicate your willingness or unwillingness to purchase plants in these types

of pots.

Definitely would not purchase

Probably would not

purchase Probably would purchase Definitely would purchase

Biodegradable bioplastic pot


Fertilizing bioplastic pot

* 6. As with conventional plastic pots, the cost of producing a bioplastic pot will be built into the retail price of

a garden plant in its pot. How much MORE would you be willing to pay for a garden plant in a 4.5-inch bioplastic pot than for the same plant in a 4.5-inch conventional plastic pot?

10 cents 25 cents 50 cents 75 cents $1.00 More than

$1.00 I would not pay more

Biodegradable bioplastic pot


Fertilizing bioplastic pot


* 7. Indicate how important the following factors are in your plant purchasing decisions:

Not important

Somewhat important Important Very important

Plant uses less water

Plant is native to my region

Plant is produced organically

Plant is produced locally

Price of the plant

A similar plant is growing in my neighbor's yard

* 8. Do you add any of the following amendments to your soil? (check all that apply)

Animal manure

Compost

Gypsum

Lime or limestone

Peat moss

Sand

Sulfur

Wood ashes

Worm castings

Other (please specify)


* 9. For what purpose(s) are you adding soil amendments? (check all that apply)

Make my soil more acidic (lower pH)

Make my soil less acidic (higher pH)

Increase organic matter in my soil

Improve water drainage from my soil

Add nutrients to my soil

Help my soil hold onto water Help

my soil hold onto nutrients

Remove excess salt from my soil

To benefit my plants

I'm not sure

Other (please specify) * 10. Rate your degree of concern or unconcern about the following:

Not at all

concerned Somewhat concerned Concerned

Very concerned

Never heard of this

Genetically engineered plants (GMOs)

Use of food crops for biofuels

Climate change

Conserving water

Protecting water quality


* 11. Indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree

I like to shop at locally owned nurseries rather than chain stores.

I look for products labeled non-GMO.

Certified Organic products are not worth the price.

Synthetic fertilizers are harmful to our soils. I

never use pesticides.

I use herbicides to get rid of weeds. * 12. Indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:


Strongly Agree

I believe I have the knowledge to make informed choices when buying plant pots.

I would not buy a plant in a pot made from genetically engineered (GMO) plants.

I believe that the increased price of bioplastic pots will be justified by their increased value.

Plants in bioplastic pots should cost the same as plants in conventional plastic plant pots.

* 13. Indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:


Strongly Agree

I would buy plants in bioplastic pots if they were available locally.

I would be willing to compost bioplastic pots. I

currently recycle my conventional plastic pots.

I currently reuse my conventional plastic pots.


* 14. You're almost done!

Do you own or rent your home?

Owner

Renter * 15. Please indicate what type of home you live in:

Detached single unit housing, also referred to as a single family dwelling

Semi detached dwelling, such as a duplex (share one wall with a neighbor)

Attached multi unit dwelling, such as an apartment or condo

Moveable dwelling, such as a mobile home or houseboat

Other (please specify) * 16. What is your marital status?

Never married, living alone

Never married, living with at least one other person

Divorced, living alone

Divorced, living with at least one other person

Married, living together

Married, living apart


* 17. How many children under age 18 live in your home?

0

1

2

3

4

More than 4 * 18. What is the highest level of formal education that you have achieved?

Some high school

High school diploma or GED

Some college

Associates degree from college (2 years)

Bachelor's degree from college (4 years)

Graduate studies from college (Masters or Doctorate) * 19. Please indicate your race or ethnicity:

White

Hispanic

African-American

Native-American

Pacific Islander

Asian

Mixed

Other (please specify)


* 20. What is your age?

18 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 44

45 to 54

55 to 64

65 to 74

75 or older

* 21. What is your gender?

Female

Male

* 22. What is your approximate average household income?

$0-$24,999

$25,000-$49,999

$50,000-$74,999

$75,000-$99,999

$100,000-$124,999

$125,000-$149,999

$150,000-$174,999

$175,000-$199,999

$200,000 and up


* 23. In which region of the United States do you live?

1. New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut)

2. Middle Atlantic (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania)

3. East North Central (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin)

4. West North Central (Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas)

5. South Atlantic (Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida)

6. East South Central (Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi)

7. West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas)

8. Mountain (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada)

9. Pacific (Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii)

Date post:	13-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vuongcong
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

Green Technology for the Green Industryjschrade/Bioplastic/Supplementary/Chapter... · Green...

Documents