Abstract
How much value do consumers place on a good landscape? Self-selected attendees to a Detroit, MI, flower show indicated that plant size was the most important factor in the perceived value of a landscape. Holding other factors equal, increasing from the smallest size plant generally available for installation to the largest size defined in our study increased perceived home value by 5.0%. Design sophistication was almost as important as size. Holding other factors equal, upgrading from a traditional foundation planting to a sophisticated design that incorporated multiple bed and curved bedlines increased perceived home value by 4.5%. The type of plant material used was the least important. The relative importance of plant material selection as a factor contributing value added to the home by the landscape was almost half that of plant size and over 40% less than design sophistication. The conjoint model produced from 158 survey responses predicted that from the least valued landscape to the most valued landscape the perceived value of the home increased 12.7%.
Author notes
This project was generously funded by The Horticultural Research Institute, 1250 I St. NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, and completed under the auspices of S-290 Regional Research Project “Technical and Economical Efficiencies of Producing, Marketing, and Managing Environmental Plants.”
2Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Horticulture, Michigan State University.
3Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticulture, Michigan State University.
4Extension Specialist, Dept. of Horticulture, University of Delaware.
5Associate Professor, Dept. of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Michigan State University.
6Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticulture, Michigan State University.
7Former Graduate Student, Dept. of Horticulture, Clemson University.
8Assistant Professor, Dept. of Horticulture, Michigan State University.
9Professor, Dept. of Horticulture, Clemson University.
10Professor, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Tennessee.
11Professor, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Texas A & M University.
12Associate Professor, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Louisiana State University.
13Assistant Professor, Dept of Horticulture, Mississippi State University.
14Professor, Dept. of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, University of Kentucky.
15Assistant Professor, Dept. of Horticulture, Michigan State University.
16Professor, Dept. of Agriculture and Economics, North Carolina State University