Water Conserving Message Influences Purchasing Decision of Consumers
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Homeowner Perceptions of Water Conservation in the Landscape
1.2. Water Messaging in Signage
1.3. Visual Information Processing
1.4. Plant Guarantees
1.5. Pricing and Sales
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Procedures
2.2. Stimuli
2.3. Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Demographic Characteristics
3.2. Conjoint Findings
3.3. Principal Component Analyses
3.4. Conjoint Clusters
4. Discussion
4.1. Demographic Characteristics
4.2. Conjoint Findings
4.3. Part-Worth Conjoint Utility Values and Visual Attention
4.4. Conjoint Clusters
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Nations, U. Available online: http://www.unwater.org/water-facts/scarcity/ (accessed on 1 August 2020).
- Gregory, G.D.; Leo, M.D. Repeated behavior and environmental psychology: The role of personal involvement and habit formation in explaining water consumption. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 33, 1261–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syme, G.J.; Seligman, C.; Thomas, J.F. Predicting water consumption from homeowners’ attitudes. J. Environ. Syst. 1991, 20, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gato-Trinidad, S.; Jayasuriya, N.; Roberts, P. Understanding urban residential end uses of water. Water Sci. Technol. 2011, 64, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Majsztrik, J.C.; Behe, B.; Hall, C.R.; Ingram, D.L.; Lamm, A.J.; Warner, L.A.; White, S.A. Social and Economic Aspects of Water Use in Specialty Crop Production in the USA: A Review. Water 2019, 11, 2337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fan, Y.; McCann, L.; Qin, H. Households’ adoption of drought tolerant plants: An adaptation to climate change? J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2017, 42, 236–254. [Google Scholar]
- Diaz, H.F.; Anderson, C.A. Precipitation trends and water consumption related to population in the southwestern United States: A reassessment. Water Resour. Res. 1995, 31, 713–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knuth, M.; Behe, B.K.; Hall, C.R.; Huddleston, P.; Fernandez, R.T. Consumer perceptions of landscape plant production water sources and uses in the landscape during perceived and real drought. HortTechnology 2018, 28, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behe, B.K.; Knuth, M.; Hall, C.R.; Huddleston, P.T.; Fernandez, R.T. Consumer involvement with and expertise in water conservation and plants affect landscape plant purchases, importance, and enjoyment. HortScience 2018, 53, 1164–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Knuth, M.; Behe, B.K.; Hall, C.R.; Huddleston, P.T.; Fernandez, R.T. Sit Back or Dig In: The Role of Activity Level in Landscape Market Segmentation. HortScience 2019, 54, 1818–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beal, C.D.; Stewart, R.A.; Fielding, K. A novel mixed method smart metering approach to reconciling differences between perceived and actual residential end use water consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 60, 116–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gilg, A.; Barr, S. Behavioural attitudes towards water saving? Evidence from a study of environmental actions. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57, 400–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helfand, G.E.; Park, J.S.; Nassauer, J.I.; Kosek, S. The economics of native plants in residential landscape designs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Loss, S.R.; Ruiz, M.O.; Brawn, J.D. Relationships between avian diversity, neighborhood age, income, and environmental characteristics of an urban landscape. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 2578–2585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mini, C.; Hogue, T.; Pincetl, S. Estimation of residential outdoor water use in Los Angeles, California. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 127, 124–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Worthington, A.C.; Hoffman, M. An empirical survey of residential water demand modelling. J. Econ. Surv. 2008, 22, 842–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hilaire, R.S.; VanLeeuwen, D.M.; Torres, P. Landscape preferences and water conservation choices of residents in a high desert environment. HortTechnology 2010, 20, 308–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dolnicar, S.; Hurlimann, A.; Nghiem, L.D. The effect of information on public acceptance–the case of water from alternative sources. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 1288–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Price, J.; Fielding, K.; Gardner, J.; Leviston, Z.; Green, M. Developing effective messages about potable recycled water: The importance of message structure and content. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 2174–2187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McClaran, N.; Behe, B.K.; Huddleston, P.; Fernandez, R.T. Recycled or reclaimed? The effect of terminology on water reuse perceptions. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 261, 110144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McClaran, N.; Behe, B.; Huddleston, P.; Fernandez, R. The Influence of Priming Messages on the Acceptance of Recycled Water. Sci. Commun. 2020. in review. [Google Scholar]
- Huddleston, P.; Behe, B.K.; Jones, A.; Fernandez, R.T. Can You Read the Sign? Consumers’ Utilization of Water Use Information and Price as Sign Cues. In Marketing Challenges Turbulent Business Environment; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 651–652. [Google Scholar]
- Katz, D.; Kronrod, A.; Grinstein, A.; Nisan, U. Still waters run deep: Comparing assertive and suggestive language in water conservation campaigns. Water 2018, 10, 275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khachatryan, H.; Behe, B.K.; Campbell, B.L.; Hall, C.R.; Dennis, J.H. Does Eye Tracking Reveal More about the Effects of Buying Impulsiveness on the Green Industry Consumer Choice Behavior? In Proceedings of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA) 2013 Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 4–6 August 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Wedel, M.; Pieters, R. Introduction to visual marketing. In Visual Marking; Psychology Press: East Sussex, UK, 2007; pp. 13–20. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, E.E.; Kosslyn, S.M. Cognitive Psychology: Mind and Brain; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Adaval, R.; Saluja, G.; Jiang, Y. Seeing and thinking in pictures: A review of visual information processing. Consum. Psychol. Rev. 2019, 2, 50–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Norman, J. Two visual systems and two theories of perception: An attempt to reconcile the constructivist and ecological approaches. Behav. Brain Sci. 2002, 25, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Olson, J.C. Inferential belief formation in the cue utilization process. ACR N. Am. Adv. 1978, 5, 706–713. [Google Scholar]
- Behe, B.K.; Campbell, B.L.; Khachatryan, H.; Hall, C.R.; Dennis, J.H.; Huddleston, P.T.; Fernandez, R.T. Incorporating eye tracking technology and conjoint analysis to better understand the green industry consumer. HortScience 2014, 49, 1550–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rihn, A.; Khachatryan, H.; Campbell, B.; Hall, C.; Behe, B. Consumer response to novel indoor foliage plant attributes: Evidence from a rating-based conjoint experiment and gaze analysis. HortScience 2015, 50, 1524–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rihn, A.; Khachatryan, H.; Campbell, B.; Hall, C.; Behe, B. Consumer preferences for organic production methods and origin promotions on ornamental plants: Evidence from Eye-tracking Experiments. Agric. Econ. 2016, 47, 599–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grebitus, C.; Roosen, J.; Seitz, C.C. Visual attention and choice: A behavioral economics perspective on food decisions. J. Agric. Food Ind. Organ. 2015, 13, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gidlof, K.; Anikin, A.; Lingonblad, M.; Wallin, A. Looking is buying. How visual attention and choice are affected by consumer preferences and properties of the supermarket shelf. Appetite 2017, 116, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knuth, M.; Behe, B.K.; Huddleston, P.T. Simple or complex? Consumer response to display signs. Interdiscip. J. Signage Wayfinding 2020, 4, 7–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khachatryan, H.; Rihn, A.; Behe, B.; Hall, C.; Campbell, B.; Dennis, J.; Yue, C. Visual Attention, Buying Impulsiveness, and Consumer Behavior. Mark. Lett. 2018, 29, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behe, B.K.; Knuth, M.J.; Huddleston, P.T.; Hall, C.R. Seeing red? The role of font color, size, and sale sign location in retail garden center displays. J. Environ. Hort. 2020, 38. in press. [Google Scholar]
- Evans, M.R.; Clark, J.D.; Knutson, B.J. The 100-percent, unconditional, money-back guarantee. Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 1996, 37, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dictionary, M.-W. Available online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/risk (accessed on 3 May 2017).
- Derbaix, C. Perceived risk and risk relievers: An emperical invesitigation. J. Econ. Psychol. 1983, 3, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dennis, J.H.; Behe, B.K.; Fernandez, R.T.; Schutzki, R.; Page, T.J.; Spreng, R.A. Do plant guarantees matter? The role of satisfaction and regret when guarantees are present. HortScience 2005, 40, 142–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behe, B.; Barton, S. Consumer perceptions of product and service quality attributes in six U.S. States. J. Environ. Hortic. 2000, 18, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rihn, A.L.; Yue, C.; Hall, C.; Behe, B.K. Consumer preferences for longevity information and guarantees on cut flower arrangements. HortScience 2014, 49, 769–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Behe, B.K.; Fry, J. How do Plant Guarantees Reduce Consumer Risk Perceptions? J. Risk Res. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, P.; Coulter, K.S. It’s Not All Relative: The effects of mental and physical positioning of comparative prices on absolute versus relative discount assessment. J. Retail. 2012, 88, 512–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, M.; Morwitz, V.G. Penny wise and pound foolish: The left-digit effect in price cognition. J. Consum. Res. 2005, 32, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Coulter, K.S.; Norberg, P.A. The effects of physical distance between regular and sale prices on numerical difference perceptions. J. Consum. Psychol. 2009, 19, 144–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grewal, D.; Krishnan, R.; Baker, J.; Borin, N. The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions. J. Retail. 1998, 74, 331–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kukar-Kinner, M.; Carlson, J.R. A fresh look at consumers’ discounting of discounts in online and bricks-and-mortar shopping contexts. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2015, 32, 442–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González, E.M.; Esteva, E.; Roggeveen, A.L.; Grewal, D. mount off versus percentage off—when does it matter? A J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1022–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banerjee, S. Effect of product category on promotional choice: Comparative study of discounts and freebies. Manag. Res. News 2009, 32, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cobanoglu, C.; Moreo, P.J.; Warde, B. A comparison of mail, fax and web-based survey methods. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2001, 43, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dillman, D.A.; Smyth, J.D.; Christian, L.M. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- McCullough, D. Web-based market research: The dawning of a new age. Direct Mark. Gard. City 1998, 61, 36–38. [Google Scholar]
- Behe, B.K.; Fernandez, R.T.; Huddleston, P.T.; Minahan, S.; Getter, K.L.; Sage, L.; Jones, A.M. Practical field use of eye-tracking devices for consumer research in the retail environment. HortTechnology 2013, 23, 517–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brennan, M.; Esslemont, D. The accuracy of the Juster scale for predicting purchase rates of branded, fast-moving consumer goods. Mark. Bull. 1994, 5, 47–52. [Google Scholar]
- Kaufman, L.; Rousseeuw, P.J. Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; Volume 344. [Google Scholar]
- Jolliffe, I.T. Principal components in regression analysis. In Principal Component Analysis; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1986; pp. 129–155. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.; Tatham, R.; Anderson, R.; Black, W. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.; Prentice-Hall: London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Costello, A.B.; Osborne, J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2005, 10, 7. [Google Scholar]
- Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, H.F. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974, 39, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syme, G.J.; Shao, Q.; Po, M.; Campbell, E. Predicting and understanding home garden water use. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, P. National Gardening Survey, 2018th ed.; GardenResearch. Com: Jacksonville, TX, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Database, U.C. Available online: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=income&tid=ACSST1Y2018.S1901&moe=false&hidePreview=false (accessed on 1 August 2020).
- Yue, C.; Hall, C.R.; Behe, B.K.; Campbell, B.L.; Dennis, J.H.; Lopez, R.G. Are consumers willing to pay more for biodegradable containers than for plastic ones? Evidence from hypothetical conjoint analysis and nonhypothetical experimental auctions. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2010, 42, 757–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Z.; Behe, B.; Huddleston, P.; Sage, L. How do pricing and the representation of price affect consumer evaluation of nursery products? A conjoint analysis. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2017, 20, 477–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United States Drought Monitor. Available online: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Data/Timeseries.aspx (accessed on 1 August 2020).
- Atalay, A.S.; Bodur, H.O.; Rasolofoarison, D. Shining in the center: Central gaze cascade effect on product choice. J. Consum. Res. 2012, 39, 848–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dennis, J.H.; Behe, B.K. Evaluating the role of ethnicity on gardening purchases and satisfaction. HortScience 2007, 42, 262–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Attributes | Levels |
---|---|
Plant | Annuals |
Shrubs | |
Water Message | Needs Irrigation |
Needs No Irrigation | |
Price Type | Regular Price |
25% Off of Regular Price | |
Buy-3-Get-1-Free | |
Plant Guarantee | Blank |
30-Day | |
90-Day | |
6 Month | |
1 Year |
Mean (S.D.) or % | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
By State | ||||||
Demographic Variables | Total Sample | FL | TX | MI | Statistic, p-Value | |
(Categorical) | N = 288 | N = 80 | N = 106 | N = 102 | ||
Gender (M = 0; F = 1) | Male | 32.22% | 36.71% | 30.09% | 28.00% | = 291.49, 0.000 |
Female | 68.61% | 63.29% | 69.91% | 72.00% | ||
Ethnicity (White = 0; Not White = 1) | White | 67.92% | 78.75% | 50.00% | 70.59% | = 2500.00, 0.000 |
Not White | 32.08% | 21.25% | 50.00% | 29.41% | ||
Ethnicity | White | 67.92% | 78.75% | 50.00% | 70.59% | F = 5800.00, 0.0000 |
African American | 2.93% | 1.25% | 6.60% | 1.96% | ||
Hispanic | 7.33% | 6.25% | 18.87% | 0.98% | ||
Asian | 14.09% | 6.25% | 15.09% | 19.61% | ||
Other | 6.03% | 6.25% | 7.55% | 4.90% | ||
Education (Less than = 0; Greater than = 1) | Less than 4 yr. degree plus | 42.52% | 45.57% | 23.30% | 52.00% | = 2400.00, 0.0000 |
4 yr. college degree or more | 57.48% | 54.43% | 76.70% | 48.00% | ||
Education | Less than High School | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0% | 0.00% | F = 4800.00, 0.0000 |
High school or GED | 7.81% | 10.13% | 2.91% | 9.00% | ||
Some college | 27.66% | 24.05% | 15.53% | 38.00% | ||
2-year college degree | 7.06% | 11.39% | 4.85% | 5.00% | ||
4-year college degree | 29.49% | 31.65% | 33.98% | 25.00% | ||
Master’s degree | 20.35% | 21.52% | 29.12% | 14.00% | ||
Doctoral degree | 5.81% | 1.27% | 9.71% | 7.00% | ||
Professional Degree (JD, MD) | 1.83% | 0.00% | 3.88% | 2.00% | ||
Age (years old) | 60.76 (17.73) | 47.71 (15.29) | 60.84 (17.94) | 71.29 (11.19) | F = 25,000.00, <0.0001 | |
Adults in HH (18 or over) | 2.46 (1.115) | 2.22 (0.94) | 2.58 (1.31) | 2.05 (0.35) | F = 2800.00, 0.000 | |
Children in HH (under 18) | 0.33 (0.67) | 0.46 (0.82) | 0.33 (0.66) | 0.24 (0.51) | F = 1100.00, 0.000 | |
HH Income (USD $, 000) | 70.51 (5.44) | 70.38 (5.12) | 63.59 (5.14) | 74.70 (5.83) | F = 3600.00, 0.000 | |
No. Plant Types Purchased | 2.66 (01.79) | 3.29 (1.91) | 2.66 (1.74) | 2.17 (1.56) | F = 5300.00, 0.000 | |
Plant Knowledge Quiz (0 min, 10 max) | 4.47 (2.72) | 5.28 (2.79) | 4.33 (2.91) | 3.97 (2.36) | F = 550,000.00, 0.000 | |
Spent on Plants (USD) | 123.02 (127.71) | 176.73 (132.15) | 113.40 (127.79) | 85.49 (108.14) | F = 9300.00, 0.000 |
Attribute | Mean (S.E.) Relative Importance | |||||
All | By State | |||||
Subjects | FL | TX | MI | (DF) F, p | ||
N = 288 | N = 80 | N = 106 | N = 102 | |||
Plant Type | 30.3645 (0.11) | 26.07 (0.15) | 29.14 (0.24) | 35.01 (0.18) | (1) 1254.74, 0.000 | |
Water Message | 22.8684 (0.09) | 25.49 (0.15) | 24.79 (0.20) | 18.82 (0.13) | (1) 1035.02, 0.000 | |
Price Type | 19.405 (0.07) | 19.60 (0.11) | 19.50 (0.14) | 19.15 (0.11) | (1) 8.40, 0.0037 | |
Plant Guarantee | 27.3617 (0.07) | 28.84 (0.11) | 26.57 (0.14) | 27.02 (0.11) | (1) 107.88, 0.000 | |
Attribute | Level | Mean (S.E.) Utility Score | ||||
All | By State | |||||
Subjects | FL | TX | MI | (DF) F, p | ||
Plant Type | Annual | 0.8678 (0.0050) | 0.8604 (0.0085) | 0.6141 (0.0107) | 1.0319 (0.0079) | (1) 15.96, 0.000 |
Shrub | −0.8678 (0.0050) | −0.8604 (0.0085) | −0.6141 (0.0107) | −1.0319 (0.0079) | (1) −15.96, 0.000 | |
Water Message | Needs Irrigation | −0.7002 (0.0040) | −0.8469 (0.0079) | −0.7327 (0.0084) | −0.5648 (0.0050) | (1) 938.49, 0.000 |
Needs No Irrigation | 0.7002 (0.0040) | 0.8469 (0.0079) | 0.7327 (0.0084) | 0.5648 (0.0050) | (1) 938.49, 0.0000 | |
Price Type | Regular | −0.438 (0.0030) | −0.4750 (0.0055) | −0.5106 (0.0054) | −0.3638 (0.0045) | (1) 287.84, 0.000 |
Buy-3-Get-1-Free | 0.1365 (0.0029) | 0.0833 (0.0057) | 0.2448 (0.0050) | 0.1108 (0.0043) | (1) 7.20, 0.0073 | |
25% Off | 0.3015 (0.0024) | 0.3917 (0.0046) | 0.2659 (0.0040) | 0.2530 (0.0037) | (1) 585.36, 0.000 | |
Plant Guarantee | Blank | −0.2334 (0.0026) | −0.3538 (0.0051) | −0.3167 (0.0046) | −0.0846 (0.0035) | (1) 2207.40, 0.000 |
30-Day | −0.4389 (0.0037) | −0.4246 (0.0070) | −0.2914 (0.0070) | −0.5422 (0.0053) | (1) 228.45, 0.000 | |
90-Day | 0.0324 (0.0033) | 0.0629 (0.0073) | 0.1345 (0.0053) | −0.0552 (0.0043) | (1) 614.70, 0.000 | |
6 Month | 0.0606 (0.0031) | −0.0038 (0.0060) | −0.0289 (0.0051) | 0.1670 (0.0047) | (1) 614.70, 0.000 | |
1 Year | 0.5783 (0.0037) | 0.7192 (0.0072) | 0.5025 (0.0072) | 0.5150 (0.0050) | (1) 525.17, 0.000 |
Water Sign Attribute | TTFF (sec) | TFD (sec) | FC | LTB | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Plant | Message | Price | Guarantee | Location | Mean (S.D.) | (DF) F, p | Mean (S.D.) | (DF) F, p | Mean (S.D.) | (DF) F, p | Mean (S.D.) | (DF) F, p | ||||
Annual | 2.78 (3.64) | a | (1) 12.96, 0.0003 | 1.13 (1.79) | a | (1) 5.03, 0.0249 | 4.85 (7.30) | a | (1) 2.09, 0.1484 | 5.73 (2.54) | a | (1) 2664.27, 0.000 | ||||
Shrub | 2.92 (3.86) | b | 1.09 (1.79) | b | 4.75 (7.47) | a | 4.45 (2.62) | b | ||||||||
Needs No | 2.84 (3.76) | a | (1) 0.00, 0.9709 | 1.11 (1.80) | a | (1) 0.24, 0.6223 | 4.81 (7.42) | a | (1) 0.01, 0.9131 | 5.72 (2.62) | a | (1) 2573.32, 0.000 | ||||
Needs | 2.85 (3.74) | a | 1.11 (1.78) | a | 4.80 (7.35) | a | 4.46 (2.54) | b | ||||||||
Regular | 2.66 (3.62) | b | (2) 2.68, 0.000 | 0.98 (1.61) | b | (2) 81.57, 0.000 | 4.42 (6.91) | c | (1) 30.59, 0.000 | 4.63 (2.65) | b | (2) 355.49, 0.000 | ||||
25% Off | 2.94 (3.85) | a | 1.19 (1.92) | a | 5.10 (7.85) | a | 5.37 (2.62) | a | ||||||||
B3G1 | 2.95 (3.77) | a | 1.17 (1.83) | a | 4.89 (7.34) | b | 5.33 (2.64) | a | ||||||||
Blank | 2.89 (3.84) | b | (4) 3.39, 0.0089 | 1.12 (1.84) | b | (4) 2.84, 0.0229 | 4.83 (7.54) | a | (4) 3.53, 0.0068 | 4.93 (2.64) | c | (4) 392.03, 0.000 | ||||
30-Day | 2.74 (3.64) | a | 1.15 (1.81) | b | 4.91 (7.17) | a | 5.54 (2.51) | b | ||||||||
90-Day | 2.77 (2.57) | a | 1.13 (1.79) | b | 4.86 (7.42) | a | 5.93 (2.56) | a | ||||||||
6 Month | 2.95 (3.68) | b | 1.05 (1.77) | a | 4.49 (7.36) | b | 4.40 (2.55) | e | ||||||||
1 Year | 2.85 (3.92) | ab | 1.11 (1.70) | ab | 4.85 (7.26) | a | 4.84 (2.74) | d | ||||||||
Left | 4.42 (4.31) | a | (2) 328.09, 0.000 | 0.66 (.80) | c | (2) 176.04, 0.000 | 2.81 (3.36) | c | (1) 246.99, 0.000 | 5.13 (2.67) | b | (2) 20.51, 0.000 | ||||
Middle | 2.01 (3.30) | c | 1.10 (1.08) | a | 4.92 (4.45) | a | 5.35 (2.67) | a | ||||||||
Right | 3.26 (3.45) | b | 0.91 (1.00) | b | 3.82 (3.87) | b | 4.93 (2.64) | c |
Component | Means Comparison | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Florida | Texas | Michigan | |||||
Means (S.D.) | F, p | ||||||
Active Landscape Enjoyment | 0.0126 (1.0789) | b | 0.0543 (1.0063) | c | −0.1378 (0.9245) | a | 151.20, 0.000 |
Landscape Aesthetic | 0.1487 (1.0117) | c | −0.0486 (1.0304) | b | −0.1292 (0.9571) | a | 309.14, 0.0000 |
Plant Expertise | 0.3399 (1.0247) | c | −0.0182 (1.0147) | b | −0.2825 (0.8731) | a | 1560.45, 0.000 |
Variable | Mean (S.D.) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Big Spenders | Ambivalents | Plant Buyers | p-Value | ||||
N = 167 | N = 43 | N = 78 | |||||
Age | 60.49 (18.08) | a | 61.53 (16.57) | b | 61.31 (17.46) | b | 0.0000 |
Gender (% Female) | 0.69 (0.46) | b | 0.72 (0.45) | c | 0.65 (0.48) | a | 0.0000 |
White (% non-white) | 0.32 (0.46) | a | 0.36 (0.48) | b | 0.31 (0.46) | a | 0.0000 |
4 yr. college degree or more (% with) | 0.53 (0.50) | a | 0.65 (0.48) | c | 0.63 (0.48) | b | 0.0000 |
Adults in HH (≥18 years) | 2.54 (1.25) | c | 2.24 (1.09) | a | 2.45 (0.93) | b | 0.0000 |
Children in HH (>18 years) | 0.33 (0.67) | b | 0.24 (0.56) | a | 0.39 (0.74) | c | 0.0000 |
HH Income (USD $, 000) | 73.93 (54.98) | a | 70.48 (62.50) | c | 62.80 (47.05) | b | 0.0000 |
No. Plant Types Purchased | 2.86 (1.90) | c | 2.16 (1.74) | a | 2.53 (1.48) | b | 0.0000 |
Spent on Plants (USD) | 135.19 (128.15) | c | 82.37 (114.05) | a | 118.18 (129.40) | b | 0.0000 |
Plant Knowledge Quiz | 4.46 (2.68) | a | 4.42 (2.94) | a | 4.60 (2.64) | b | 0.0000 |
Active Landscape Enjoyment | 0.04 (0.97) | b | −0.13 (1.13) | a | −0.14 (0.98) | a | 0.0000 |
Landscape Aesthetic | 0.027 (0.98) | c | −0.099 (1.06) | a | −0.062 (1.00) | b | 0.0000 |
Plant Expertise | 0.048 (1.02) | c | −0.264 (1.13) | a | −0.008 (0.83) | b | 0.0000 |
Plant Relative Importance | |||||||
Annual | 0.59 (0.86) | b | 2.66 (0.78) | c | 0.33 (0.60) | a | 0.0000 |
Shrub | −0.59 (0.86) | b | −2.66 (0.78) | c | −0.33 (0.60) | a | 0.0000 |
Message Relative Importance | |||||||
Needs | −0.29 (0.41) | c | −0.39 (0.48) | b | −1.76 (0.81) | a | 0.0000 |
Needs No | 0.29 (0.41) | a | 0.39 (0.48) | b | 1.76 (0.81) | c | 0.0000 |
Price Relative Importance | |||||||
Regular Price | −0.52 (0.70) | a | −0.27 (0.46) | c | −0.40 (0.45) | b | 0.0000 |
Buy-3-Get-1-Free | 0.19 (0.61) | c | 0.02 (0.62) | a | 0.14 (0.56) | b | 0.0000 |
25% Off | 0.32 (0.53) | b | 0.26 (0.45) | a | 0.26 (0.45) | a | 0.0000 |
Guarantee Relative Importance | |||||||
Blank | −0.27 (0.54) | a | −0.10 (0.51) | c | −0.26 (0.52) | c | 0.0000 |
30-Day | −0.33 (0.69) | c | −0.80 (0.94) | a | −0.39 (0.77) | b | 0.0000 |
90-Day | 0.12 (0.54) | b | −0.50 (0.93) | c | 0.20 (0.63) | a | 0.0000 |
6 Month | −0.02 (0.56) | b | 0.48 (0.70) | c | −0.05 (0.66) | a | 0.0000 |
1 Year | 0.51 (0.70) | a | 0.92 (0.94) | b | 0.50 (0.77) | a | 0.0000 |
Water Message Mean (S.D.) | Big Spenders | Ambivalents | Plant Buyers | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N = 167 | N = 43 | N = 78 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
TTFF | TFD | FC | LTB | TTFF | TFD | FC | LTB | TTFF | TFD | FC | LTB | |||||||||||||
Needs No | 2.85 (1.80) | ab | 1.12 (1.80) | a | 4.81 (7.47) | b | 5.63 (2.57) | b | 2.94 (1.89) | b | 1.07 (1.89) | a | 4.61 (7.32) | a | 5.37 (2.91) | d | 2.80 (1.78) | ab | 1.13 (1.78) | a | 4.95 (7.38) | b | 6.19 (2.50) | e |
Needs | 2.89 (1.76) | b | 1.12 (1.76) | a | 4.81 (7.38) | b | 4.71 (2.48) | c | 2.96 (1.86) | b | 1.08 (1.86) | a | 4.63 (7.22) | a | 4.18 (2.73) | a | 2.72 (1.78) | a | 1.13 (1.78) | a | 4.91 (7.41) | b | 4.12 (2.54) | a |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Knuth, M.J.; Behe, B.K.; Huddleston, P.T.; Hall, C.R.; Fernandez, R.T.; Khachatryan, H. Water Conserving Message Influences Purchasing Decision of Consumers. Water 2020, 12, 3487. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123487
Knuth MJ, Behe BK, Huddleston PT, Hall CR, Fernandez RT, Khachatryan H. Water Conserving Message Influences Purchasing Decision of Consumers. Water. 2020; 12(12):3487. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123487
Chicago/Turabian StyleKnuth, Melinda J., Bridget K. Behe, Patricia T. Huddleston, Charles R. Hall, R. Thomas Fernandez, and Hayk Khachatryan. 2020. "Water Conserving Message Influences Purchasing Decision of Consumers" Water 12, no. 12: 3487. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123487