Impacts of Crapemyrtle Bark Scale on Consumers and the Horticulture Industry
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Research Hypotheses
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Design
2.2. Econometric Models
3. Results
3.1. Demographics
3.2. Change in Consumers’ Willingness-to-Pay Due to Pest Infestation
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- USDA NASS Census of Horticultural Specialties. 2019. Available online: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/Census_of_Horticulture_Specialties/index.php (accessed on 8 July 2019).
- USDA NASS Census of Horticultural Specialties. 1998. Available online: https://agcensus.library.cornell.edu/census_parts/1997-horticulture/ (accessed on 8 July 2019).
- USDA NASS Census of Horticultural Specialties. 2009. Available online: https://agcensus.library.cornell.edu/census_parts/2007-census-of-horticultural-specialties/ (accessed on 8 July 2019).
- USDA NASS Census of Horticultural Specialties. 2014. Available online: https://agcensus.library.cornell.edu/census_parts/2012-2014-census-of-horticultural-specialties/ (accessed on 8 July 2019).
- Marwah, P.; Zhang, Y.Y.; Gu, M. Effect of Crapemyrtle Bark Scale on Crapemyrtle Industry and Consumer Demand. In Proceedings of the 2019 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, USA, 21–23 July 2019; (No. 291310). Available online: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/291310/files/Abstracts_19_05_15_17_33_57_79__165_91_146_5_0.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2021).
- Marwah, P.; Zhang, Y.Y.; Gu, M. Investigating producers’ preferences for crapemyrtle and their perceptions regarding crapemyrtle bark scale. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pooler, M. Crapemyrtle. In Flower Breeding and Genetics; Anderson, N.O., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 439–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, M.; Merchant, M.; Robbins, J.; Hopkins, J. Crape Myrtle Bark Scale: A New Exotic Pest. Available online: https://www.eddmaps.org/cmbs/Resources/TAMUCrapemrytlebarkscaleEHT-049.pdf (accessed on 8 July 2019).
- Gu, M. Alternative Hosts of Crapemyrtle Bark Scale. Available online: https://cdn-ext.agnet.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/EHT-103-alternative-hosts-of-crapemyrtle-bark-scale.pdf (accessed on 8 July 2019).
- Gu, M.; Department of Horticultural Sciences, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, College Station, TX, USA. Personal Communication, 2021.
- Wang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Diaz, R. Temperature-dependent development and host range of crapemyrtle bark scale, Acanthococcus lagerstroemiae (Kuwana) (Hemiptera: Eriococcidae). Fla. Entomol. 2019, 102, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Jin, S.; Zhang, Y.Y.; Yu, X. How Country-of-Origin Influence Chinese Consumers’ Evaluation for Imported Milk? China Agric. Econ. Review. 2021, 5, 150–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassas, B.; Palma, M.; Zhang, Y.Y. The role of incentives on preference revelations in auctions versus rankings. J. Choice Model. 2016, 20, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardener, J.G.; Eastwood, D.B.; Brooker, J.R.; Klingeman, W.E. Consumers’ valuation of disease resistant nursery stock. A case study of dogwoods. J. Agribus. 2003, 21, 103–116. [Google Scholar]
- Sadof, C.S.; Raupp, M.J. Consumer attitudes toward the defoliation of American Arborvitae, Thuja occidentalis, by bagworm, Thyridopteryx ephemeraeformis. J. Environ. Hortic. 1987, 5, 164–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadof, C.S.; Alexander, C.M. Limitations of cost-benefit-based aesthetic injury levels for managing two spotted spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 1993, 86, 1516–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behe, B.; Hardy, J.; Barton, S.; Brooker, J.; Fernandez, T.; Hall, C.; Hicks, J.; Hinson, R.; Knight, P.; McNiel, R.; et al. Landscape plant material, size, and design sophistication increase perceived home value. J. Environ. Hortic. 2005, 23, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, S.C.; Starman, T.W.; Lineberger, R.D.; Behe, B.K. Consumer preferences for price, color harmony, and care information of container gardens. HortScience 2008, 43, 380–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chavez, D.; Palma, M.; Byrne, D.; Hall, C.; Ribera, L. Willingness to pay for rose attributes: Helping provide consumer orientation to breeding programs. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2020, 52, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hensher, D.A. How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load. J. Appl. Econom. 2006, 21, 861–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zlesak, D.C. Rose. In Flower Breeding and Genetics: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities for the 21st Century; Anderson, N.O., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 695–740. [Google Scholar]
- Pest Management Strategic Plan for Container and Field-Produced Nursery Crops [(PMSP) Coordinated by Southern Nursery Integrated Pest Management Working Group]. Available online: https://ipmdata.ipmcenters.org/documents/pmsps/SNIPMnurserycrops2015.pdf (accessed on 8 July 2019).
- 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]
- Lusk, J.L.; Shogren, J.F. Experimental Auctions. In Methods and Applications in Economic and Marketing Research; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Chung, S.J.; Vickers, Z. Long-term acceptability and choice of teas differing in sweetness. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 963–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James, J.S.; Rickard, B.J.; Rossman, W.J. Product differentiation and market segmentation in applesauce: Using a choice experiment to assess the value of organic, local, and nutrition attributes. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2009, 38, 357–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koelemeijer, K.; Oppewal, H. Assessing the effects of assortment and ambience: A choice experimental approach. J. Retail. 1999, 75, 319–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yue, C.; Jensen, H.H.; Mueller, D.S.; Nonnecke, G.R.; Bonnet, D.; Gleason, M.L. Estimating consumers’ valuation of organic and cosmetically damaged apples. HortScience 2007, 42, 1366–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Depositario, D.P.T.; Nayga, R.M., Jr.; Zhang, Y.Y.; Mariano, R.D.E. Revisiting Cash Endowment and House Money Effects in an Experimental Auction of a Novel Agri-food Product in the Philippines. Asian Econ. J. 2004, 28, 201–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.Y.; Depositario, D.; Nayga, R. Possibility of losing own money promotes learning to reduce overbidding: Delayed payment in experimental auctions. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0213568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofstede, G.; Bond, M.H. Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach’s value survey. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1984, 15, 417–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shimp, T.A.; Bearden, W.O. Warranty and other extrinsic cue effectson consumers’ risk perceptions. J. Consum. Res. 1982, 9, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eckel, C.C.; Grossman, P.J. Sex differences and statistical stereotyping in attitudes toward financial risk. Evol. Hum. Behav. 2002, 23, 281–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Z.; Schroeder, T.C. Effects of label information on consumer willingness-to-pay for food attributes. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2009, 91, 795–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lancaster, K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Political Econ. 1966, 74, 132–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lancaster, K. Consumer Demand: A New Approach; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- McFadden, D. The measurement of urban travel demand. J. Public Econ. 1974, 3, 303–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Train, K. Mixed logit with a flexible mixing distribution. J. Choice Model. 2016, 19, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hole, A.R.; Stata Users Group. Mixed Logit Modeling in Stata—An Overview. In United Kingdom Stata Users’ Group Meetings 2013; (No. 23); StataCorp LLC: Lakeway, TX, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Almli, V.L.; Asioli, D.; Rocha, C. Organic consumer choices for nutrient labels on dried strawberries among different health attitude segments in Norway, Romania, and Turkey. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bazzani, C.; Palma, M.A.; Nayga, R.M., Jr. On the use of flexible mixing distributions in WTP space: An induced value choice experiment. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2018, 62, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thurmond, A.A. Defining and Mitigating the Impacts of Acanthococcus lagerstroemiae (Hemiptera: Eriococcidae) Management on Pollinators. Master’s Thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, Al, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Marwah, P.; Zhang, Y.Y.; Gu, M. Impacts of COVID-19 on the green industry. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatson, S.N.; Cisneros, M.; Brown, R.; Aitkenhead-Peterson, J.A.; Zhang, Y.Y. Urban networks, micro-agriculture, and community food security. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2021, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.X.; Zhang, Y.Y. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agricultural exports. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 2937–2945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vafaie, E.K.; Knight, C.M. Bark and systemic insecticidal control of Acanthococcus (=Eriococcus) lagerstroemiae (crapemyrtle bark scale) on landscape crapemyrtles, 2016. Arthropod Manag. Tests 2017, 42, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Gu, M.; Vafaie, E.; Merchant, M.; Diaz, R. Crapemyrtle bark scale: A new threat for crapemyrtles, a popular landscape plant in the US. Insects 2016, 7, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Attribute | Levels |
---|---|
Flowering | Sparse Dense |
Bark color | Brown Sooty Black |
Price | $200 $250 $300 $350 |
Variable | Mean (sd) |
---|---|
Age (in years) | 37.21 (11.41) |
Min | 18 |
Max | 93 |
Gender | Percentage |
Female | 43.82% |
Male | 55.89% |
Other | 0.28% |
Education | Percentage |
Regular high school diploma, GED or equivalent | 6.92% |
Some college, associate’s degree, or bachelor’s degree | 65.14% |
Master’s degree, professional degree or doctorate degree | 27.52% |
Others | 0.42% |
Employment | Percentage |
Do not work | 7.39% |
Full time | 77.38% |
Part time | 11.93% |
Other | 3.16% |
Race | Percentage |
White | 75.72% |
Black | 15.63% |
Asian | 6.33% |
American Indian or Alaska Native | 1.83% |
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander | 0.49% |
Hispanic | 24.22% |
Type of Residence | Percentage |
Owned House/Duplex | 51.64% |
Owned Apartment/Condo/Loft | 12.55% |
Rented Apartment/Condo/Loft | 18.64% |
Rented House/Duplex | 16.40% |
Income (in USD) | USD 69,914.08 (58,609.28) |
Median | USD 55,000 |
Less than USD 30,000 | 17.02% |
USD 30,000 to USD 49,999 | 23.37% |
USD 50,000 to USD 59,999 | 15.90% |
USD 60,000 to USD 69,999 | 8.25% |
USD 70,000 to USD 79,999 | 10.48% |
USD 80,000 to USD 89,999 | 5.44% |
USD 90,000 to USD 99,999 | 5.56% |
USD 100,000 to USD 149,999 | 9.16% |
USD 150,000 to USD 249,999 | 3.92% |
USD 250,000 or more | 1.89% |
Total Subjects | 8089 |
Coef | Se(coef) | Z | P | WTP | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Flower | 0.919 | 0.018 | 52.3 | 0.000 | *** | Flower | 135.36 |
Bark | 0.138 | 0.011 | 12.9 | 0.000 | *** | Bark | 20.37 |
Price | −0.007 | 0.000 | −81.6 | 0.000 | *** | Total | 155.73 |
WTP Flower 1 | WTP Bark 1 | ||||||
Gender (Female = 1; Male, Others = 0) | 165.14 | 20.76 | |||||
Race (White = 1; Others = 0) | 145.76 | 20.43 | |||||
Age | |||||||
18–25 | 163.05 | 20.56 | |||||
26–30 | 109.47 | 20.14 | |||||
31–35 | 126.82 | 20.10 | |||||
36–40 | 142.57 | 20.60 | |||||
41–50 | 140.48 | 20.46 | |||||
51 and older | 159.24 | 20.89 | |||||
Marital status (Married = 1; Others = 0) | 110.77 | 20.32 | |||||
Income | |||||||
Less than USD 30,000 | 132.85 | 20.16 | |||||
USD 30,000 to USD 49,999 | 121.20 | 20.41 | |||||
USD 50,000 to USD 59,999 | 98.97 | 19.96 | |||||
USD 60,000 to USD 79,999 | 134.30 | 20.52 | |||||
USD 80,000 to USD 99,999 | 154.18 | 20.58 | |||||
USD 100,000 or more | 191.21 | 20.87 | |||||
Household size | |||||||
1–2 | 207.38 | 20.93 | |||||
3 | 127.80 | 20.29 | |||||
4 | 106.28 | 20.31 | |||||
5 or more | 100.25 | 20.00 | |||||
Children (Yes = 1; No = 0) | 104.07 | 20.19 | |||||
Education | |||||||
No schooling/high school/GED/others | 150.50 | 20.22 | |||||
Some college/associate’s/bachelor’s | 145.17 | 20.41 | |||||
Master’s/professional/doctorate | 111.44 | 20.43 | |||||
Employment | |||||||
Full time | 117.40 | 20.2 | |||||
Part time | 181.01 | 20.87 | |||||
Others | 224.40 | 21.08 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Marwah, P.; Zhang, Y.Y.; Gu, M. Impacts of Crapemyrtle Bark Scale on Consumers and the Horticulture Industry. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1857. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031857
Marwah P, Zhang YY, Gu M. Impacts of Crapemyrtle Bark Scale on Consumers and the Horticulture Industry. Sustainability. 2022; 14(3):1857. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031857
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarwah, Pulkit, Yu Yvette Zhang, and Mengmeng Gu. 2022. "Impacts of Crapemyrtle Bark Scale on Consumers and the Horticulture Industry" Sustainability 14, no. 3: 1857. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031857