ArticlePDF Available

Landscape Plant Material, Size, and Design Sophistication Increase Perceived Home Value


Abstract and Figures

Little consumer research is available to help landscape design and installation businesses develop service marketing strategies. We investigated the effect of three components of a landscape design on the perceived value of a home. This information would be useful in marketing lawn and landscape services to prospective clients. Our objective was to provide a consumer perspective on the value of the components in a ‘good’ landscape and determine which attributes of a landscape consumers valued most. Using conjoint design, 1323 volunteer participants in seven states viewed 16 photographs that depicted the front of a landscaped residence. Landscapes were constructed using various levels of three attributes: plant material type, design sophistication, and plant size. Results showed that the relative importance increased from plant material type to plant size to design sophistication. Across all seven markets, study participants perceived that home value increased from 5% to 11% for homes with a good landscape.
Content may be subject to copyright.
127J. Environ. Hort. 23(3):127–133. September 2005
Landscape Plant Material, Size, and Design Sophistication
Increase Perceived Home Value1
B. Behe2, J. Hardy2, S. Barton3, J. Brooker4, T. Fernandez2, C. Hall4, J. Hicks2,
R. Hinson5, P. Knight6, R. McNiel7, T. Page8, B. Rowe2, C. Safley9, and R. Schutzki2
Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Little consumer research is available to help landscape design and installation businesses develop service marketing strategies. We
investigated the effect of three components of a landscape design on the perceived value of a home. This information would be useful
in marketing lawn and landscape services to prospective clients. Our objective was to provide a consumer perspective on the value of
the components in a ‘good’ landscape and determine which attributes of a landscape consumers valued most. Using conjoint design,
1323 volunteer participants in seven states viewed 16 photographs that depicted the front of a landscaped residence. Landscapes were
constructed using various levels of three attributes: plant material type, design sophistication, and plant size. Results showed that the
relative importance increased from plant material type to plant size to design sophistication. Across all seven markets, study participants
perceived that home value increased from 5% to 11% for homes with a good landscape.
Index words: conjoint analysis, consumer, marketing.
1Received for publication February 11, 2005; in revised form April 18, 2005.
Partial funding was provided by a grant from The Horticultural Research
Institute, 1000Vermont Ave., NW., Suite 360, Washington, DC, 20005.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of many colleagues in
the USDA multi-state S-290 project for their assistance in data collection
and manuscript revisions.
2Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
3Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark,
DE 19716.
4Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Tennessee, Knox-
ville, TN 37996.
5Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803.
6Coastal Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University,
Poplarville, MS 39470.
7Department of Horticulture, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY 40546-
8Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
9Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC 27695.
Significance to the Nursery Industry
While realtors and realty-related Websites can provide in-
formation to homeowners regarding the amount of a home
improvement that can be recovered upon the sale of a home,
there is insufficient information available as to the value of
landscaping as a home improvement across multiple mar-
kets. Specifically, how much do plant size, plant material
type, and design sophistication in a landscape affect the per-
ceived value of a home? If these questions were answered,
landscape professionals would have more information to
present to potential clients on the soundness of an invest-
ment in landscape services. Our objective was to provide a
consumer perspective on the value of the components in a
‘good’ landscape and determine which landscape attributes
consumers valued most, and to see if that was consistent
across markets. Overall, participants valued the landscape
design sophistication most. Landscape professionals should
emphasize to customers that island beds and curved bed lines
add to the perceived value of a home. Results showed that in
the seven states, plant material type was relatively least im-
portant. Plant size was of intermediate importance in all
markets analyzed here, but was most important in results
previously published (18). Still, the largest affordable plant
size should be used as it consistently provided a higher per-
ceived value in all markets. Landscape professionals should
indicate the type of plants used in a landscape, but realize
that potential clients will not likely value this as much as
design sophistication and plant size. Professional landscape
mangers can show potential clients that a good landscape
adds 5 to 11% to the perceived value of a home.
Gardening leads the nation as the leisure activity in which
more Americans participate than any other (6). For garden-
ers, a general profile emerged from the literature showing
individuals who were highly involved with gardening or those
who spent large amounts of money on gardening were more
likely to be female and older, wealthier, and more educated
than average (4, 18). Higher average home value was an-
other important characteristic of an avid gardener (18). In
another study, primary purchasers of nursery plants ranged
in age from 25 to 44 years, with a higher than average in-
come and level of education (17). Yet, gardening can be an
activity in which participants are active or passive. Active
participants may choose to ‘do-it-yourself’ while passive
participants may elect to have someone provide services of
landscape design, installation, and maintenance.
The profile of the ‘typical’ landscape service buyer can be
gleaned from The National Gardening Survey (9). The aver-
age purchasers of landscape installations were 50 years of
age or older, college educated, with a household income of
$75,000 or more. The American Nursery and Landscape As-
sociation conducted a consumer study, segmenting the mar-
ket of landscape consumers into three categories: Partners,
Pro-Purchasers, and Hardcore Do-it-Yourselfers (2). Partners
preferred to work with landscape professionals on an ad-hoc
basis. The Hardcore Do-It-Yourselfers wanted to do most of
the work themselves and were not likely clients for profes-
sional design and installation. Pro-Purchasers were the larg-
est group of customers and preferred no interaction with their
128 J. Environ. Hort. 23(3):127–133. September 2005
landscape jobs. This group consisted of single-family house-
holds with annual household incomes exceeding $100,000.
Results showed that 22% of the Pro-Purchasers (2.8 million
households) were the most likely group to purchase profes-
sional landscape services. Yet, there is little understanding
of what these consumers want from a home landscape and
what features of this highly personalized product are impor-
tant to them.
The market for landscape design and installation is con-
siderably smaller than the market for plants and garden cen-
ter products. Butterfield (9) reported that less than 2.5% of
American homes used landscape design and 3.3% purchased
installation services in 2003, percentages that have changed
little in the prior decade. Khatamian (25) reported that 9.5%
of those surveyed at garden centers, and flower, lawn and
garden shows, preferred to contract with a professional in-
stallation firm. With approximately 109 million households
in the United States in 2003, approximately two million may
be potential targets for services. In the most recently avail-
able statistics (1997), there were 37,853 landscape contrac-
tors (SIC 0781-02) and 9826 landscape designers (SIC 0781-
03) (10). The relatively small size of this market and prolif-
eration of firms willing to do this work suggests that much
competition exists.
Motivations for improving a home vary widely. For the
resident of a newly constructed home, the exterior landscap-
ing may serve as a ‘frame’ to the home, enhancing its aes-
thetics. For the resident desiring to sell a home, landscaping
could enhance market value. Realtors have data showing that
the value of a home is enhanced with the renovation of a
kitchen, bath, or bedroom, or with the addition of a deck or
patio. Realtors can also convey the return on investment for
renovations and additions. Recent estimates of recovered
costs show that 94% of a mid-priced bathroom addition can
be recovered, 74% of the cost of window replacement can be
recovered, and 79% of the cost of a family room addition
can be recovered (12).
A Weyerhaeuser publication (3) estimated that landscap-
ing added approximately 15% from a homeowner perspec-
tive, but only 7.3% by real estate appraisers. Neither data
nor methodology were reported for arriving at the percent-
ages. Nearly all other studies of landscape value investigated
one attribute in a single market. Prior work by Hardy et al
(18) added to the body of knowledge by showing that par-
ticipants at a flower and garden show perceived the well-
landscaped residence to increase in value by 12.7%. Plant
size was most important in the conjoint analysis, followed
by design sophistication, and plant material. The 12.7% in-
crease in home value was also consistent with several other
reports (20, 21, 22, 28, 29, 31, 32). Given that most publica-
tions reported a 10–15% increase in perceived home value,
we hypothesized that a consistent and similar increase would
be seen across in several markets. Using identical materials
and methodology from the Hardy et al. study (18), we ex-
pected that across all venues included, we would observe a
12% increase in perceived home value by the consumer.
Materials and Methods
Generation of plans and photographs. A researcher pho-
tographed a two-story, newly-built home in a Delaware sub-
urb, as the test home. Given the researchers’ specifications, a
commercially employed landscape architect prepared 16 flat
plans. The designer was given the factor level parameters
and definitions for each plan, and also received a set of guide-
lines that included incorporating only plants whose hardi-
ness extended from USDA plant hardiness zones 4–7. Re-
searchers did instruct the landscape designer to select plant
material common across all hardiness zones to be included
in the study. Research on cross-national preferences for tree
canopy form showed that preferences for tree form were as-
sociated with the tree shape reported as most common in the
geographical area where the respondents grew up (32). The
architect was instructed to use only common plants that were
readily available in all growing zones in the study. Computer
generated color perspective images of the home and land-
scaping were prepared from each flat plan [Adobe PhotoShop
version 5.0] (1). Each photograph depicted the home and land-
scaping as viewed from the street.
Generation of orthogonal design, factor level definitions
and conjoint analysis. Using the methodology of Hardy et
al. (18), the respondent’s overall preference for a particular
landscape was defined as the dollar value assigned to the
landscaped home by the respondent. Conjoint analysis was
previously used in horticultural studies to assess relative
importance of attributes and predict consumer demand for
blue geraniums (6) and colored bell peppers (15); investi-
gate consumer preference for packaging of edible flowers
(24); and analyze consumer preference for retail evergreen
shrubs (13). Conjoint analysis defines overall preference for
a particular product, in this case a landscape, as the sum of
the part-worths (also termed utilities) for each factor level
(7, 16, 19). By definition, the sum of the part-worths is analo-
gous to the value added to the home by the landscape as pre-
dicted by the conjoint analysis procedure. Researchers chose
plant size, diversity of plant material (type), and design so-
phistication as the factors that most comprehensively describe
all landscape attributes. In this model, the preference for plant
size plus preference for design sophistication plus preference
for the type of plant material used resulted in the overall pref-
erence (measured in dollars) for a particular landscape.
For each factor, we determined a measurable, hierarchical
set of levels for each variable. The plant size levels were
defined as small, medium, or large. Small was the smallest
available size for the product, large was the largest available
size for the product, and medium was the intermediate size
between large and small. Design sophistication levels were:
(1) foundation planting only, (2) foundation planting with
one large, oblong island planting and one or two single speci-
men or shade trees in the lawn, or (3) a foundation planting
with adjoining beds and two or three large island plantings,
all incorporating curved bedlines. The plant material types
were: (1) evergreen only, (2) evergreen and deciduous plants,
(3) evergreen and deciduous plants with 20% of the visual
area of the landscape beds planted in annual or perennial
color, or (4) evergreen and deciduous plants, 20% annual or
perennial color, and the addition of a colored brick sidewalk
While all 36 (3 size × 3 design × 4 material levels) pos-
sible combinations of factor levels could have been used for
full profile conjoint analysis, researchers chose to reduce
respondent fatigue by minimizing the number of photographs
evaluated. By using a partial factorial design, the number of
photographs required to maintain orthogonality was reduced
from 36 to 16. Conjoint Designer [version 3.0 produced by
Bretton-Clark, 1992] (7) was used to generate the list of 16
129J. Environ. Hort. 23(3):127–133. September 2005
stimuli. Conjoint and other statistical analyses were facili-
tated using SPSS 10.0 (25).
Survey administration and instrument. Churchill and
Iancobucci (11) classify survey type by method of adminis-
tration or data collection. While variations are possible, gen-
erally surveys are classified as telephone, mail, electronic
(email or Internet) and intercept. The latter refers to recruit-
ing participants in a public setting, such as mall or other pub-
lic venue. Lysaler (27) noted that mall-intercept interview-
ing has increased substantially in use in the 1990s. While
there is no one best method, each has applications and ad-
vantages (11). Yet, several studies that use identical ques-
tions by vary data collection indicate that respondents’ de-
mographic characteristics and responses to questions are simi-
lar (8, 11, 14, 33). Several published studies used an inter-
cept technique for data collection to recruit potential respon-
dents from a variety of plant-related venues (5, 6, 10, 13, 23,
26, 30).
Between April and July of 1999, surveys were adminis-
tered in seven markets throughout the eastern and central
United States: Delaware (DE), Kentucky (KY), Louisiana
(LA), Mississippi (MS), North Carolina (NC), South Caro-
lina (SC), and Texas (TX). Responses were collected at con-
sumer home and garden shows. Responses from South Caro-
lina were collected both at local garden center and a zoo. For
each survey site, the same protocol was used for survey ma-
terials and the recruitment of participants. Multiple partici-
pants could self-administer the questionnaire simultaneously.
Researchers asked every second or third individual who
passed the booth and expressed some interest (by making
eye contact) if they would be willing to participate. This var-
ied by time of day and pedestrian traffic at each location.
Researchers estimate mall intercept surveys achieve approxi-
mately a 29% response rate, but this would be higher for
surveys in which the potential respondent has a high interest
(11). The sample size target was approximately 160 responses
from each state, determined by having at least 10 responses
per photograph included in the study. Given the anticipated
standard deviation in change in perceived home value, a
sample size of 160 was expected to provide sufficient re-
sponses to conduct the planned statistical analyses. The
sample was a convenience sample, drawn to reflect perspec-
tives of visitors to home and garden shows in seven markets
who likely had an elevated interest in enhancing the value of
their home.
Visitors were recruited to participate in the survey as they
passed the display table on which the 16 photographs were
displayed. Participants were asked to examine a photograph
of the survey home with only a lawn and a straight poured
cement walk and driveway (Fig. 1). They were told the home
value, as estimated by local realtors in each market, and also
the county in which the home was hypothetically located.
Researchers also stipulated in writing that the home was in a
subdivision with similar new homes, and that the home was
a 4-bedroom, 2-1/2 bathroom two-story structure located on
a half-acre lot (approximately 100 ft by 200 ft). Participants
were asked to look at the 16 additional photographs. Consid-
ering the price of the home assigned by realtors and the land-
scaping and features around the homes, they were asked to
assign a value to each home. The second part of the survey
asked respondents to provide demographic information about
themselves, their family, home, landscape and landscape ser-
vice usage. All questionnaires were identical in format.
Statistical methods. The overall conjoint analysis results
were defined as the mean of the conjoint results generated
for each respondent. Since this method of analysis allows for
calculation of variance, typical tests of significance were
employed using SPSS 10.0 (34).
Results and Discussion
Demographic profile of respondents. Female respondents
outnumbered male respondents in all states except North
Carolina (Table 1). North Carolina had the youngest respon-
dents with a mean average age of 40.4 years while Missis-
Fig. 1. Base home with no landscape.
130 J. Environ. Hort. 23(3):127–133. September 2005
sippi and Kentucky had the oldest at a mean age of 48.4 years
(Table 1). Although over 99% of respondents in the Dela-
ware sample stated they had finished at least 12 years of for-
mal education, they were the least educated group, with only
14.8% of the respondents completing formal education be-
yond high school. Mean household size varied from 3.3
people in Louisiana to 2.6 people in Kentucky. Average per
capita income ranged from $28,198 to $34,361 with no dif-
ferences among states.
The 2003 National Gardening Survey reported 84 million
households participated in lawn and gardening activities (9).
Those more likely to participate in lawn and gardening ac-
tivities were married, ages 35–54 years, college educated,
have children, employed full-time with an annual income of
>$35,000. This sample averaged 57% female respondents,
whereas the National Gardening Survey sample had 52%
female respondents. The average age was 45 years in this
study which was the midpoint of the age range from the Na-
tional Gardening Survey. The average level of formal educa-
tion completed by the respondents in this sample was nearly
16 years, equivalent to a college education. Forty-seven per-
cent of the National Gardening Survey sample had completed
some college while 43% had earned a college diploma. There
were similar parallels in household size and income. Statisti-
cal tests between the two samples were not possible without
the standard deviation in the National Gardening sample, but
many similarities were evident among them.
Time and money expenditures on lawn and garden. The
mean number of hours respondents stated they spent on their
lawn and yard during a typical summer week in 1998 ranged
from 3.9 hours in Delaware to 9.8 hours in Mississippi (Table
1). In several individual cases in each state, respondents stated
that they work over 30 hours per week on their lawn and
garden. With these extremes, the median hours per week was
a better indicator of the average for each sample. The me-
dian hours ranged from 2.0 hours in Delaware to 9.8 hours in
Mississippi. For the remaining states (KY, LA, NC, SC, TX)
the median time spent on lawn and garden ranged from 5 to
6 hours.
The National Gardening Association (9) reported average
lawn and garden expenditures in 2003 were $457, up slightly
from $452 in 1998. Respondents to the study spent from $445
(Mississippi) to $2327 (Kentucky) with a broad range of re-
sponses, yet there were no statistically significant differences
among them.
Model fit. Because the base price assigned to each home
reflected the local housing market, a direct comparison of
the dollar values predicted for various combinations of land-
scapes was inappropriate. We limited analysis to relative
importance of factors and to the percentage increases in value
for various factor levels over the base home value.
Each of the individual conjoint models for each of the seven
states explained at least 94% of the variance in respondent
answers. In the context presented, plant size, design sophis-
tication and plant material type were good indicators of the
perceived change in home value. Thus, across all seven states,
the experimental stimuli yielded a similar range of respon-
dent answers.
Relative importance of attributes. For each of the seven
states, relative importance of factors increased from plant
material type to plant size to design sophistication (Table 2).
Design sophistication was the most important landscape fac-
tor in these seven states, accounting for 40 to 45% of the
value added to the home. Paired sample t-tests indicated that
for each state, there was one significant difference between
the relative importance of the three factors in each location.
Louisiana respondents valued sophistication less than North
Table 1. Demographic characteristics showing means ± standard deviation of survey participants from seven states evaluating landscaped homes.
Survey Percent Age Education Persons in Per capita Hours spent Gardening
location (state) nfemale (years) (years) household income ($) in the garden expenditures ($)
Delaware 174 52.6 42.8 ± 12.4 14.7 ± 2.21 3.1 ± 1.4 28,198 ± 17,156 3.9 ± 6.8 771 ± 1,960
Kentucky 238 50.6 48.4 ± 11.0 16.0 ± 2.63 2.6 ± 1.1 34,361 ± 19,301 8.8 ± 10.3 2,327 ± 5,625
Louisiana 191 63.2 41.7 ± 7.7 16.0 ± 2.57 3.3 ± 1.4 28,231 ± 19,513 8.0 ± 12.8 800 ± ,997
Mississippi 199 65.7 48.4 ± 11.3 15.6 ± 2.58 2.7 ± 1.3 32,895 ± 18,632 9.8 ± 14.6 445 ± ,984
North Carolina 182 46.2 40.4 ± 11.4 15.7 ± 2.18 2.7 ± 1.1 29,480 ± 21,314 4.3 ± 5.7 1,508 ± 2,760
South Carolina 164 63.4 47.0 ± 12.8 15.8 ± 2.41 2.9 ± 1.3 29,280 ± 16,328 5.6 ± 5.5 1,861 ± 8,683
Texas 175 50.3 45.5 ± 13.0 15.9 ± 2.67 2.7 ± 1.1 28,906 ± 17,248 5.2 ± 5.2 902 ± 1,233
Total 1323 57.3 45.8 ± 12.1 15.8 ± 2.51 2.8 ± 1.2 31,903 ± 19,586 6.9 ± 9.2 1,409 ± 4,640
Table 2. Relative importance percentages of three landscape attributes for participants from seven states and the average percent increase over base
home value for the highest level of each factor in the landscape design.
Plant Plant Design Average percent increase
State material size sophistication over base home value
Delaware 24.8 30.6 44.6 6.79%
Kentucky 20.8 36.4 42.8 8.74%
Louisiana 23.4 32.9 43.7 5.54%
Mississippi 23.9 34.1 42.0 10.76%
North Carolina 24.4 34.5 41.2 7.06%
South Carolina 23.3 34.1 42.6 11.36%
Texas 21.0 39.0 40.1 10.16%
Average (mean) 22.4 35.9 41.7 9.0%
131J. Environ. Hort. 23(3):127–133. September 2005
Carolina (p = 0.003). There were no significant differences
between any other pairs of states for design sophistication.
Relative importance of plant size was of intermediate im-
portance between design sophistication and plant material,
and ranged from 39% in Texas to 30.6% in the Delaware
sample. In paired t-tests, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Mississippi were similar (NC to SC p = 0. 191; NC to MS
p = 0. 523; MS to SC p = 0.455) with res pect to the relative
importance of plant size. Additionally, Louisiana was simi-
lar to Mississippi (p = 0.184) and North Carolina (p = 0.567).
Texas was similar to Kentucky (p = 0.188). Kentucky was
similar to South Carolina (p = 0.134). Generally, plant size
importance appeared to decrease as plant growing zone num-
ber increased.
For respondents from all states, the diversity of plant ma-
terial type installed contributed the least to the value added
to the home landscape. In all states, plant material type con-
tributed 16 to 22% less to the added home value than did
design sophistication. The relative importance of plant ma-
terial in Delaware and North Carolina was similar. Louisi-
ana was different than North Carolina (p = 0.042). The re-
maining comparisons of Delaware and Louisiana to any other
states showed significant differences (p < 0. 01). Generally,
plant material type was perceived as having half the impor-
tance of design sophistication and less important than plant
Changes in perceived home value. Across all states, smaller
plant sizes reduced perceived home values (as indicated by
utility scores), while larger plant sizes increased perceived
home values (Table 3). The medium-sized plants produced
virtually no change to existing home values. The greatest
increase in perceived value due to plant size was seen in North
Carolina, where the base home value was $220,000. When
the smallest plants were used, perceived home values de-
creased by 2.3%. When the largest plant sizes were used,
perceived home value increased by 2.8%. Louisiana showed
the smallest difference in perceived home value due to plant
size. The estimated home value for Louisiana was $176,000.
When small plants were used, perceived home value de-
creased 1.2%, while the use of the largest plant sizes increased
values by 0.6%. In northern climates, plant size will increase
at a slower rate than in more southern climates.
For respondents across all states, the simplest design (foun-
dation-only plantings) decreased perceived home value by
an average of 2.1%, while the most sophisticated landscape
design increased home values by an average of 1.9% (Table
3). Island plantings added to foundation-only beds had virtu-
ally no effect on perceived home value. Texas showed the
greatest range in perceived home value due to design sophis-
tication. The estimated base home value for Texas was
$125,000. Foundation-only plantings decreased perceived
home value by 3.3%, while sophisticated designs increased
perceived home values by 2.6%. Louisiana had the smallest
variation between foundation and sophisticated plantings.
Foundation plantings decreased home values by 0.9%, while
sophisticated plantings increased home values by 0.8%.
Generally, the additional diversity of plant material in-
creased perceived home value (Table 3). Data from respon-
dents across all states found that material levels 1 and 2 de-
creased home values, while material level 3 increased per-
ceived home values somewhat. The use of materials described
in level 4 increased perceived home values most. Missis-
sippi, with a base home value of $150,000, showed the larg-
est fluctuation between material levels 1 and 2 when com-
pared to designs containing all four material levels. Material
levels 1 and 2 decreased home values by 1.0%, while levels
3 and 4 increased perceived home values by 1.7%. Louisi-
Table 3. Utility score and percentage change over base home values for three levels of landscape plant size, design sophistication, and four levels of
diversity of landscape material in seven locations.
Delaware Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Texas
Utility %Utility %Utility %Utility %Utility %Utility %Utility %
Base home value $180,000 $140,000 $176,000 $150,000 $220,000 $150,000 $125,000
Plant sizez
Small –1971.7 –1.1 –2210.2 –1.6 –2094.8 –1.2 –2738.4 –1.8 –2698.6 –1.2 –2785.9 –1.9 –2442.6 –2.0
Medium 68.3 0.0 26.5 0.0 1097.9 0.6 –530.4 –0.4 –433.5 –0.2 –187.0 –0.1 615.2 0.5
Large 1903.4 1.1 2183.8 1.6 996.9 0.6 3268.8 2.2 3132.1 1.4 2973.0 2.0 1827.4 1.5
Design sophisticationy
Foundation –2792.1 –1.6 –2732.3 –2.0 –1561.3 –0.9 –3872.1 –2.6 –3655.5 –1.7 –3901.0 –2.6 –4105.0 –3.3
Island –57.6 –0.0 295.7 0.2 98.2 0.1 345.4 0.2 348.0 0.2 598.3 0.4 856.5 0.7
Sophisticated 2849.7 1.6 2436.6 1.7 1463.0 0.8 3526.7 2.4 3307.5 1.5 3302.8 2.2 3248.6 2.6
Diversity of landscape materialx
Evergreen –1199.1 –0.7 –1101.6 –0.8 –1340.5 –0.8 –1752.7 –1.2 –1663.4 –0.8 –1371.6 –0.9 –229.8 –0.2
+ Deciduous –850.3 –0.5 –722.6 –0.5 –1186.8 –0.7 –1449.6 –1.0 –1421.0 –0.7 –1562.3 –1.0 –2171.7 –1.7
+ 20% Color 115.8 0.1 414.5 0.3 1666.1 1.0 728.4 0.5 728.4 0.3 555.1 0.4 1816.3 1.5
+ Hardscape 1933.6 1.1 1409.6 1.0 861.1 0.1 2473.9 1.7 2473.9 1.1 2378.8 1.6 585.3 0.5
zPlant size was defined as: (1) small = smallest plant size commercially available for the product, (2) medium = intermediate plant size between small and large
which was commercially available and (3) large = largest plant size commercially available.
yDesign sophistication was defined as (1) Foundation = foundation planting only, (2) Island = foundation planting with one large, oblong island planting and one
or two single specimen or shade trees in the lawn and (3) Sophisticated = a foundation planting with adjoining beds and two or three large island plantings, all
incorporating curved bedlines.
xThe plant material types were defined as : (1) Evergreen = evergreen only, (2) + Deciduous = evergreen and deciduous plants, (3) + 20% Color = evergreen and
deciduous plants with 20% of the visual area of the landscape beds planted in annual or perennial color, and (4) + Hardscape = evergreen and deciduous plants,
20% annual or perennial color, and the addition of a colored brick sidewalk entrance.
132 J. Environ. Hort. 23(3):127–133. September 2005
ana showed the smallest variation in perceived home value;
material levels 1 and 2 decreased home value by 0.7%, while
the addition of all four levels increased perceived home value
by 0.1%. For Louisiana and Texas, the addition of material
levels 3 and 4 to existing levels 1 and 2 increased perceived
value by 1.0 and 1.5% respectively. In these locations, the
addition of material level 4 decreased home values in com-
parison to the landscape containing only material levels 1, 2
and 3. However, the addition of material level 4 to existing
material levels 1–3 in the remaining states (DE, KY, MS,
NC and SC) increased base home values by an average of
Overall preference. All states shared the same most pre-
ferred landscape: a sophisticated design incorporating large
deciduous, evergreen, and annual color plants and colored
hardscape. The percent increase in home value from the least
valued to the most valued varied among states from 5.5% in
South Carolina to 11.4% in Mississippi (Table 2). In all states,
the ranking from least percentage added to most percentage
added followed the same pattern for percent increase from
the least favored to most favored, percent increase of the most
favored over the predicted base and percent decrease of the
least favored over the predicted base. Additionally, the order
of the state rankings of the percent increase from the least
favored to the most favored bore no resemblance to the rank
order of the base price of the house. In other words, large
percent increases in home value were not associated with
larger base prices.
Why were these results somewhat different than Hardy
(13) found, using identical methodology? The first differ-
ence was the venue. Michigan participants were the oldest
and had the highest income when compared to other respon-
dents. Yet they were not dissimilar in age and income to par-
ticipants in all states (data not shown). Michigan respondents
were similar to respondents from other states in terms of
number of persons in the household, and hours and dollars
spent in the garden. Michigan respondents did place a higher
relative value on plant size than respondents from all other
markets. A flower show venue was used to collect data in
Michigan, not a home and garden show. Participants to the
former venue may have added even more value for having a
colorful landscape than the participants from other venues.
The second reason for some discrepancy may be USDA har-
diness zone. The authors speculate that perhaps in colder
hardiness zones, where plants grow more slowly, gardeners
value plant size more and perceive that more colorful plants
add greater value. Respondents from warmer hardiness zones,
where plant material has a longer growing season and grows
more quickly, may value landscape design sophistication
more than plant size. Design sophistication was the second
most important attribute to Michigan participants. Respon-
dents from all venues agreed that plant material used in the
landscape was relatively the least important factor.
We found that in all markets, consumers preferred the larg-
est, most sophisticated, and colorful landscape design. The
sophisticated planting category consisting of a foundation
planting with adjoining beds and two or three large island
plantings, all incorporating curved bedlines, increased home
values by an average of 1.8%. This indicates that consumers
in the states tested could increase home values by $2,375–
$3,648 depending upon the initial base home value and cost
of materials and installation of the plants.
Results of this study indicate that a ‘good’ landscape adds,
depending on region of the country, anywhere from 6 to 11%
to the base value of the home. The landscape attributes that
contributed most to the increase in perceived home value
were, in order, design sophistication, plant size, and plant
material type. Clearly, the investment in a good landscape
can be recovered and increase the perceived value of a home.
The minimalist landscapes, with small plant size and little
sophistication, even detracted from the perceived value of
the home. The landscape company manager now has con-
crete data to show that a good landscape adds to the value of
a home, and is a home improvement that will increase per-
ceived home value and, unlike most home improvements,
appreciate over time.
Literature Cited
1. Adobe Systems, Inc. Adobe PhotoShop version 5.0. Adobe Systems,
Inc. San Jose, CA.
2. American Nursery and Landscape Association. 2002. Understanding
the Landscape Consumer. American Nursery and Landscape Association.
Washington, DC.
3. Anonymous. 1986. The Value of Landscaping. Weyerhaeuser Nursery
Products Division. Tacoma, WA.
4. Barton, S., J. Brooker, C. Hall, and S. Turner. 1999. Review of
customer preference research in the nursery and landscape industry. J.
Environ. Hort. 16:118–124.
5. Behe, Bridget K., Elizabeth C. Moore, Arthur C. Cameron, and Forest
S. Carter. 2003. Consumer perceptions for and uses and perceptions of
selected flowering perennial plants. HortScience 38:460–464.
6. Behe, B., R. Nelson, S. Barton, C. Hall, C. Safley, and S. Turner.
1999. Consumer preferences for geranium flower color, leaf variegation and
price. HortScience 34:740–742.
7. Bretton-Clark. 1992. Conjoint Designer version 3. Bretton-Clark,
Morristown, NJ.
8. Bush, A.J. and A. Parasuraman. 1985. Mall intercept versus telephone-
interviewing environment. J. Advertising Res. 25:36–44.
9. Butterfield, B.W. 2004. National Gardening Survey 2003. The
National Gardening Association, Inc. Burlington, VT.
10. Census of Retail Trade, 1997.
econ97.html accessed April 18, 2005.
11. Churchill, G.A. and D. Iacobucci. 2005. Marketing Research:
Methodological Foundations. Ninth Edition. South-Western, Mason, OH.
12. Cory, J. 2003. 2002 Cost vs. Value Report. Remodeling Online.
Accessed September 23, 2003.
13. DeBossu, A. 1988. What do people want to buy? Amer. Nurseryman.
May 1, 1988. 91–96.
14. Denstadli, J.M. 2000. Analyzing Air Travel: A Comparison of different
survey methods and data collection procedures. J. Travel Res. 39:4–11.
15. Frank, C., E. Simonne, B. Behe, and A. Simonne. July 2001.
Consumer preferences for color, price, and Vitamin C content of bell peppers.
HortScience 36:795–800.
16. Gaasbeck, A. and V. Bouwman. 1991. Conjoint analysis in market
research for horticultural products. Acta Hort.: Hort. Economics and Mktg.
17. Gineo, M. 1988. Nursery marketing can be improved. J. Environ Hort.
18. Hardy, J., B. Behe, S. Barton, T. Page, R. Schutzki, K. Muzii, R.T.
Fernandez, M.T. Haque, J. Brooker, C. Hall, R. Hinson, P. Knight, R. McNiel,
D.B. Rowe, and C. Safley. 2000. Consumers preferences for plant size, type
of plant material and design sophistication in residential landscaping. J.
Environ. Hort. 18:224–230.
19. Hartigan, J.A. 1975. Clustering Algorithms. John Wiley and Sons.
New York, NY.
133J. Environ. Hort. 23(3):127–133. September 2005
20. Henry, M. 1999. Landscape quality and the price of single family
houses: further evidence from home sales in Greenville, South Carolina. J.
Environ. Hort. 17:25–30.
21. Henry, M. 1994. The contribution of landscaping to the price of single
family homes: A study of home sales in Greenville, South Carolina. J.
Environ. Hort. 12:65–70.
22. Kalmbach, K. and J. Kielbaso. 1979. Resident attitudes toward
selected characteristics of street tree plantings. J. Arboriculture 5:124–129.
23. Kelley, Kathleen M., Bridget K. Behe, John A. Biernbaum, and
Kenneth L. Poff. 2002. Combinations of colors and species of containerized
edible flowers: Effect on consumer preferences. HortScience 37:218–221.
24. Kelley, Kathleen M., Bridget K. Behe, John A. Biernbaum, and
Kenneth L. Poff. 2001. Consumer preference for edible flower color,
container size, and price. HortScience 36:801–804.
25. Khatamian, H. and A. Stevens. 1994. Consumer marketing preferences
for nursery stock. J. Environ. Hort. 12:47–50.
26. Klingeman, W.E., D.B. Eastwood, J.R. Brooker, C.R. Hall, B.K. Behe,
and P.R. Knight. 2004. Consumer survey identifies plant management
awareness and added value of dogwood powdery mildew resistance.
HortTechnology 14:275–282.
27. Lysaker, R.L. 1989. Data collection methods in the U.S. J. Market
Research Soc. 31:477–489.
28. Morales, D. 1980. The contribution of trees to residential property
value. J. Arboriculture 6:305–308.
29. Nasar, J. 1983. Adult viewers’ preference in residential scenes: a study
of the relationship of environmental attributes to preference. Environ. and
Behavior 15:589–614.
30. Oppenheim, P. 2000. Segmentation and target marketing in a floral
market. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 536:529–536.
31. Orland, B., J. Vinning, and A. Ebreo. 1992. The effect of shade trees
on perceived value of residential property. Environ. and Behavior 24:298–
32. Sommer, R. 1997. Further cross-national studies of tree form
preference. Ecological Psychology 9:153–160.
33. Spooner, C. and B. Flaherty. 1993. Comparison of three data collection
methodologies for the study of young illicit drug users. Australian J. of Public
Health 17:195–203.
34. SPSS Inc. 1998. SPSS Base 8.0 for Windows user’s guide. SPSS Inc.
Chicago, IL. SPSS Inc. 1997. SPSS Conjoint 8.0. SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL.
... A landscaped patio was found to result in a 12.4% increase in home value and landscaped curbs were found to increase home value by 4.4%. Behe et al. 2005 Conjoint analysis and surveying ...
... The inclusion of demographic factors (age, gender, etc.) in the interactive variables provide further specificity in the understanding of implicit value placed on landscape elements, specifically showing a higher resulting value placed by those over 65 for neighborhood trees. Behe et al. (2005) analyzed three different landscape components (plant diversity, size, and design sophistication) for their resulting effect on perceived home value. The authors obtained consumer perceptions of value from study participants looking at images with varying landscape components. ...
This paper provides a review of the key research efforts that provide evidence of one of the more prominent economic benefits associated with plants and improved landscaped areas – improved property values. These benefits may persuade reluctant residential homeowners to purchase plants and improve their landscapes, may aid municipal leaders and policymakers in justifying green infrastructure-related funding decisions, and may provide grounds for the landscape and general construction industries for using biophilic design principles to ensure the built environment offers opportunities for green space interactions. In this way, the green industry can play a pivotal role not only in providing quality plants for these applications, but in educating stakeholders regarding the economic benefits discussed herein. This research should also be strategically incorporated into both industry-wide and firm-specific marketing messages that highlight the quality-of-life value proposition in order to maintain the industry's sense of value and relevance to residential and municipal landscape consumers of the future. If implemented effectively, the demand for green industry products and services may be affected positively.
... These analyses allow us to understand the effects of product attributes as well as the influence of demographics on choice decisions (Behe et al., 2014). Conjoint analysis on landscape plant material revealed that landscapes with annual and perennial color increased the perceived value of homes (Behe et al., 2005). Color differences have shown to be very important factors in purchasing decision making (Behe et al., 1999). ...
... Floral characteristics alone are not the only important driving factors in decision making with regard to ornamental plants. Consumers have shown preference and aversion to differing plant sizes and growth habits (Baidu-Forson et al., 1997;Behe et al., 2005). In R. columnifera, conjoint analysis could be performed on different foliage characteristics, plant size, and plant habit as well. ...
Full-text available
Conjoint analysis can be used to simultaneously investigate consumer preferences on multiple attributes and levels. Our objective was to gain insight regarding consumer preferences for attributes and levels attributed to Ratibida columnifera , a wildflower of potential commercial interest. A ratings-based conjoint analysis using petal color (bicolor, marble, red, yellow), petal shape (circular, oval, notched, lobed), petal number (less than 10, more than 10), and price ($10.00, $15.00, $20.00) was conducted to elucidate part-worth utility from data from 1000 subjects recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a crowdsourcing marketplace. Subjects were then clustered according to their conjoint utility scores. In addition to the conjoint analysis, a principal component analysis was performed based on native plant knowledge of the respondent. Conjoint results revealed that petal color was the most important attribute in decision making, followed by price, petal shape, and petal number. Utility values revealed preference for bicolor petals, followed by red, yellow, and marbled color petals. Preference for price went from least expensive to most expensive. Circular petals were favored over oval, notched, and lobed. Subjects also preferred to have 10 petals or more, vs. less than 10 petals. Cluster analysis yielded three consumer segments, which differed in their utility values. These clusters differed in both demographics and R. columnifera preferences. Overall, consumers preferred R. columnifera with partial (bicolor) or complete red coloration over other options, lower prices, more petals, and entire circular or oval petals.
... This research out to elicit consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) for important attributes affected by infestation. Extant literature consists of several studies that show that there is a neg correlation between plant purchasing and damage caused by pests [14][15][16][17][18]. ...
... This research sets out to elicit consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) for important attributes affected by pest infestation. Extant literature consists of several studies that show that there is a negative correlation between plant purchasing and damage caused by pests [14][15][16][17][18]. ...
Full-text available
In this study, we conducted a nationwide online survey, including discrete choice scenarios, to understand consumers’ purchasing behavior for flowering trees and shrubs for home landscapes in the US. In particular, we studied crapemyrtle, which is the most popular summer flowering tree in the US. This research evaluates the change in consumer willingness to pay for crapemyrtle plants due to pest infestation damage. Our study showed that the consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for crapemyrtles will decrease, due to the changes in their attributes, such as flower density and bark color, if infested by crapemyrtle bark scale (CMBS). We also analyzed the effect of consumers’ personal characteristics, including their risk attitude, on their willingness to pay for crapemyrtle plants.
... Photos showing rich plant landscapes scored the most points, while photos showing poor plant landscapes scored the least points. In other words, in residential areas, plants may affect people's perceived value of housing; additionally, the complexity of the plant landscape has a great impact on the perceived value [92]. Bernasconi et al. proposed, in their study on automated transport, that lawns, shrubs, and especially trees have a positive effect on visual preferences [93]. ...
Full-text available
The urban village represents a particular problem in urban design and renewal in China. Many cities in China have started the redevelopment of urban villages. Based on the investigation of four urban village redevelopment projects in Guangdong Province, China from 2010 to 2020, building façades, plant landscape, roads, and municipal public facility variety were taken as physical factors in this study. Urban village residents with different demographic characteristics, such as gender, age, income, family size, and urban village-native status, were selected as respondents, and the influence of the considered village physical factors on the visual preference assessments performed by the respondents was analyzed by means of photo stimulation. The results show that all four village factors exerted a certain influence on the respondents’ visual preference assessment. Redeveloped urban villages presenting repaired and decorated building façades, various species of plants, resurfaced roads, and medium municipal public facility variety were favored by the respondents. Urban village residents with different demographic characteristics also provided different visual preference assessments of different physical factors of the redeveloped urban villages.
... A landscape comprised of appropriate, well-designed plantings contributes economic value through "curb appeal"-the public's view of the front yard from the street. Numerous studies conducted in the east, central, southwest, and southeast U.S. reveal that a well-designed and managed landscape contributes 5 to 12% of the perceived value of single-family homes 2,6,15,16,17,22 . A study on single family homes in Texas reported the combined curb appeal of a home's exterior features and surrounding landscape can contribute up to 17% of a property's value 12 . ...
Horticulture and plants can be a benefit to those who live in housing and residential areas by: • Providing aesthetically pleasing and valuable landscapes that increase property value • Providing landscape plants that improve the physical conditions and improve energy efficiency • Improving the quality of life in residential neighborhoods
... Each tree helps to fight global warming via reducing the quantity of greenhouse gases within the environment. Vegetation in the campus environment provides color to break out the warmth of the sun and additionally they provide green areas for rest, relaxation and pastime or recreation (Behe et al., 2005). The respondents also rated the change in the main campus environment as there is drastic change (75.8%) while the rest claimed as beautification, greening and landscaping work doesn't include all the campus areas (Table 1). ...
Full-text available
Landscaping is making visual improvements to academic institutions, urban and other private organizations with plants and attractive materials. People all over the world are attracted to green and beautiful landscapes which initiate them to be happy and creative. Especially students in higher educational institutions who spend much of their time focused on their studies need of clean, green and attractively well-designed landscape in their campus. So far data on plant species composition and perception of university towards landscape work is lacking. With this understanding, the study was conducted to investigate plant species composition and community perception towards landscaping work executed at Hawassa University’s main campus using questionnaires, interviews, observation and group discussion methods. In addition, vegetation data were collected using systematic sampling method. In the study, 221 respondents were drawn from academic staff, administrative workers and students using random sampling method. Key informants were selected using purposive sampling method. In order to identify the plant species, systematic sampling along the transect line was employed. Twelve (12), 40m X 40 m (i.e. 1600 m2) area quadrat plots were laid and all the plants species in the quadrats were collected and identified. The distance between each transects and quadrat was 200 m and 100m, respectively. 52 plant species with 44 genera and 29 families were recorded. The study showed that, the most dominant family was Fabaceae with 9 species followed by Cupressaceae as well as Moraceae with 4 species each respectively. The results revealed that, campus landscaping work was the most significantly important and made the campus more attractive by plantation (61.1%), landscaping (27.1%) and walkways (5.7%). Plantation could also modify the micro-climate of the campus environment (94.3%) due to the plants photosynthesis process which produces O2 and takes in Co2 from the atmosphere. In general educational institutions landscaping need to be encouraged to enhance the teaching-learning process, and to make the working environment attractive. A great educational environment is guided by the most powerful teacher of all, nature itself
... Diversity of plant species and product types, as well as production systems, and uncertainty about how various species may respond to mechanical handling are challenges for automating nursery crop production (Caplan et al., 2014;Simonton, 1992). Furthermore, given that the esthetic appearance of ornamental crops can influence consumer acceptance and product salability (Behe et al., 2005;Nambuthiri et al., 2015), there is a need to reduce potential esthetic damage (mechanical or otherwise), especially as plants approach market size. ...
Labor issues are an increasingly important challenge to agriculture operations across various crops, including agricultural firms in food and specialty crop (e.g., ornamental nursery) sectors. The use of technologies to automate production processes is one means to address labor challenges. This study investigates ornamental nursery industry firms' current use of specific automation technologies, including granular fertilizer applicators, foliage pruners, irrigation scheduling, and trikes. Additionally, this study evaluates the correlation between perceived barriers of adoption, firm characteristics, and the US nursery industry's likelihood of adopting automated technologies. A mixed‐mode survey was used to elicit responses from firms. Overall, barriers to adoption include the costs associated with the initial purchase and installation costs. Several firm characteristics and actions to address labor issues are correlated with the use of the automated technologies evaluated in this study. We observed both positive and negative associations between actions to address labor issues and adoption of specific technologies that suggest that decisions are complicated by the firms' production needs, strategies, perceived benefits, and potential return‐on‐investment of the various automation and mechanization. Perceived improvements in product quality from adopting automation technologies are positively correlated with the likelihood of adopting all of the technologies evaluated. [EconLit Citations: D240, J20, O30, Q13].
... Policies and programs designed by regulatory agencies and relevant stakeholders could be more efficient and effective if public preferences and perceptions are incorporated into the decision-making process. Previous residential landscape preference studies have investigated plant materials selection, visual quality, maintenance, and environmental benefits [10,11,[13][14][15][16]. Landscape preferences have been linked with perceptions of value added aspects of sustainable landscapes [15,[17][18][19][20][21][22]. ...
Full-text available
The influence of traditional residential landscapes on humans and the environment has provoked a discussion on maintaining landscapes in a sustainable way and conserving water resources. Traditional American landscapes require water-intensive management. Previous research has discussed potential negative impacts on the environment from prevalent improper landscaping maintenance techniques. To mitigate long-term consequences, sustainable landscape management programs aim at protecting the environment from harmful inputs and conserving water. Among alternative practices, converting fully turfgrass lawns to sustainable landscapes is recommended. The Florida Friendly Landscaping (FFLTM) initiative is one such program designed to minimize negative impacts while maintaining and improving landscapes’ aesthetic characteristics. Although technological advancements in lawn care services have rapidly developed in the past few decades (e.g., smart irrigation systems), the level of homeowners’ knowledge and perceptions regarding sustainable practices are still at the forefront of potential factors that influence the widespread adoption of sustainable lawn management. Relatively few studies have investigated how homeowners’ knowledge and perceptions of sustainable landscapes affect adoption decisions. This study adapted Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior as a framework to examine how individuals’ knowledge and perceptions of sustainable landscapes influence their adoption intention, and to predict their pro-environmental behavior. We found that homeowners’ knowledge about lawns and landscapes (more knowledgeable) is positively correlated with their sustainable landscape adoption intention. Additionally, homeowners’ perceptions of landscape conservation practices (more agreeable with sustainable landscape practices) are positively correlated with sustainable landscape adoption intentions. The implications for policymakers and water conservation programs are discussed.
Full-text available
Individuals with greater plant knowledge likely differ in purchase behavior compared to those with less plant knowledge. The goal of this study was to investigate consumer preferences for plants based on availability, price, and type, comparing plant experts with novices. Researchers employed an online survey and sub-contracted with a survey panel to recruit participants, yielding 1,010 complete and useful responses. Participants responded to a 10-item plant knowledge test adopted from Knuth et al. (2020). The number of correct answers to the knowledge test was used to categorize respondents into plant novice and expert groups (those intermediate in plant knowledge were excluded from analyses) and differences were explored. Experts had a slightly higher percentage of females compared to novices, were eight years older, and were slightly more educated compared to novices. Experts spent nearly twice as much on plants in 2021 as novices and bought more plants but from fewer plant categories. Plant type was the most important contributor to the expert's purchase decision, followed by price, and then availability. Novices valued more (had a higher mean utility score) plants that were moderately common when compared to experts, while experts valued rare plants more than novices.
The socioeconomic factors influencing consumer demand for landscape plants and services and nursery sector growth were investigated. Data that shows a shifting age composition, gains in consumer inconle, higher education levels, and increases in construction starts provides a socioeconomic rationale for continued expansion of the nursery industry. Through surveys and a review of published information it was revealed that the industry needs additional information on production costs, pricing strategies, profit margins for individual plants, product distribution and market planning. Research aimed at incorporating these components into appropriate economic analyses and models designed to investigate production and marketing of landscape plants and related services would assist the industry in capitalizing on the anticipated growth in demand.
The market for housing is often analyzed from the hedonic perspective where the characteristics of the house and its location together influence its market price. In this study, the contribution of the quality of landscaping to the house price is estimated. Using data from a sample of 288 recent home sales in Greenville, South Carolina, a linear in the logs regression of house price on house characteristics, location and landscape quality was estimated. A house that obtained an excellent landscaping rating from a local landscaping professional could expect a sales price of about 4 to 5 percentage points higher (depending on the size of the lot) than equivalent houses with good landscaping. Homes with landscaping appeal far below (fair or poor) neighboring homes with excellent landscapes can expect a sales price 8–10% below equivalent homes with good landscaping appeal.
This paper outlines current, descriptive information about the retail plant customer's profile and identifies information needed to complete the profile as well as areas for continued research. Demographic studies that characterize the retail customer base vary with regional market and product lines included in the study. Mass merchandisers attract lower income customers; large, multiple outlet garden centers attract unmarried customers with higher incomes and greater value homes; and independent garden centers attract married, white females. Multiple studies support the conclusion that customers select outlets based primarily on plant quality and selection. Product quality is also the most important characteristic used by retailers when selecting a supplier. Location, price and professional staff also affect outlet selection. Mass merchandisers are selected for familiar, low-risk purchases, while independent garden centers are used for major purchases, when information is desired. The availability of trained, professional sales help is the service most desired by customers. Customers prefer to receive information in the garden center from professional staff and from nursery care tags. Customers prefer to purchase shrubs in containers. In one study, customers preferred to purchase balled and burlapped trees, while in another study trees were preferred in containers. Landscape architects prefer to purchase balled and burlapped plants.
The main purpose of this study was to determine consumer preferences as influenced by type of packaging, size of container, and price when purchasing ornamental plants. From February to May 1991 over 1000 questionnaires were completed through personal on site interviews conducted at Flower/Garden shows and Garden Centers. Forty one percent of participants preferred to purchase their trees as balled in burlap form and 47% chose to buy their shrubs in containers. Shoppers purchased 60% of their nursery plants from Garden Centers followed by 22% at discount outlets such as K-mart. The most important factors in purchasing nursery stock were the price and quality of the plants followed by its size. Packing was an important factor but ranked much lower than price and quality.
A survey of social attitudes toward selected characteristics of street tree plantings in five midwestern cities indicates that trees are aesthetically desirable in urban settings and that street trees over twenty-five feet tall are aesthetically preferable to smaller trees. Street tree planting densities of one tree per house appear satisfactory to a large segment of the population and street tree size preference is largely independent of a person's age, degree of education and sex.
In this study, the contribution of the quality of landscaping to house prices was estimated for a sample of 218 home sales in Greenville, SC, from 1996 to 1997. The estimates were made using regressions of house price on house characteristics, location and landscape quality. The results obtained in this research were similar to an earlier study of Greenville home sales, from 1991 to 1993. For homes with the same square footage and other house characteristics, selling prices were 6% to 7% higher if landscaping quality was judged excellent rather than good. The price premium obtained by upgrading landscaping from average to good was approximately 4% to 5%.
This study was conducted to determine whether or not trees contribute to residential property value and the extent of that contribution in the areas observed. To accomplish this, homes were observed with a substantial amount of mature tree cover and homes were observed without tree cover. It is realized that there are other variables that contribute to residential property value and this information was obtained from tax cards on file in the town tax assessor's office. All possible variables were noted for each house observed including the sale price. Factor and multiple regression analysis was used to determine the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable which is sales price of the house. The results showed that trees do contribute to property value in the areas observed. By using the equation formulated by the regression analysis, we can predict the value of homes. From the values derived by the regression analysis, it was found that good tree cover added $2,686 (or six percent of the total) to the property value of the homes observed.