Nursery Tree Trait Preferences Among Florida (United States) Homeowners

Andrew Koeser; Taylor Sherer; Ryan Klein; John Roberts

doi:10.20944/preprints202604.0986.v1

Submitted:

13 April 2026

Posted:

14 April 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract

Nursery producers and tree giveaway hosts must do their best to anticipate demand for the wide range of species and traits available. When trying to gauge customer response to various product design choices, companies often employ conjoint analysis to determine what features garner the most customer interest. For this study, we used the method to assess various tree attributes ranging from mature size to hurricane resistance. Our findings indicate that large nursery trees significantly deter consumer interest, though it remains unclear whether this is due to their cost or physical bulk. Similarly, consumers preferred trees that grew to small- and medium-stature at maturity over large-stature trees. Trees labeled as Florida-Friendly, native, or hurricane-resistant had a strong positive effect on purchasing interest among Florida residents.

Keywords:

consumer preference

;

nursery production

;

tree giveaways

;

tree selection

Subject:

Environmental and Earth Sciences - Other

Introduction

Predicting consumer demand for trees is difficult, whether you are a nursery owner planning a crop that will take 3–10 years to reach marketable size (Hilbert et al. 2023b) or a tree giveaway host trying to distribute as many trees as possible into your community during Arbor Day (Dinkins et al. 2025). This uncertainty can lead tree providers to rely heavily on species that have historically been in high demand, creating a feedback loop that limits experimentation with underused species (Hilbert et al. 2023a). This is especially true in nursery production, where the financial stakes are considerably higher (Koeser et al. 2025).

In many industries, product developers work directly with their customer base to determine consumer preferences and make more informed production decisions. One approach commonly used for this purpose is conjoint analysis (Miller 2013). In ratings-based conjoint analysis, customers are shown a range of products in which features (i.e., attributes) have been systematically varied (i.e., differing levels), creating an array of configurations and, often, differing price points (Koeser et al. 2015). They are then asked to rate their interest in—or choose between—these options, allowing researchers to determine which features most influence purchasing decisions.

Horticultural and agricultural economists have employed consumer preference analyses to address questions of potential demand in plant production and landscape design. For example, Behe et al. (2013) used conjoint analysis to determine how price, use of sustainable production practices, use of non-plastic container alternatives, and origin of production (local, regional, or global) influenced consumer interest in potted flowers, vegetables, and herbs. Similarly, Khachatryan et al. (2014a, 2014b) investigated how price, sustainable production practices, container type, and origin of production impacted willingness to pay for potted basil and tomato plants. More recently, Khachatryan and Rihn (2017) investigated how consumers felt about plant production practices when viewed through the lens of pollinator health.

Regarding urban trees, conjoint and consumer preference studies have been conducted to gauge consumer preferences both as nursery products and in landscape or urban forestry contexts. Hardy et al. (2000) examined how landscape design and use of larger-sized nursery stock impacted perceived home value. Nearly two decades later, Dawes et al. (2018) investigated preferences of Broward County, Florida residents for tree traits, including whether trees flowered, produced edible fruit, or were native to the region. That same year, Soto et al. (2018) examined consumer preferences for home properties with differing levels of shade, trees in differing conditions, stated increases in property value attributed to tree cover, and differing levels of monthly tree maintenance costs.

For this study, we investigated Florida-specific consumer preferences for tree traits using ratings-based conjoint analysis. We examined how price, container size, mature size, native status, and traits such as flowering, hurricane resistance, and appropriateness for Florida landscapes (i.e., Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ status) impacted consumer interest. We hypothesized that consumer interest would decrease as container size, mature size, and sales costs increased. In contrast, we hypothesized that Florida-Friendly, native, hurricane resistance, and flowering status would increase interest. Results of this work can be used by growers and tree giveaway program planners within Florida and beyond for traits that are broadly applicable outside of Florida Friendly status.

Methods

To assess consumer interest in different tree species, we used conjoint analysis to examine seven attributes that could potentially influence planting decisions. These attributes and their associated levels were as follows: mature tree height (small, medium, large), flower production (yes/no), hurricane resistance (yes/no), native status (yes/no), Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ (i.e., Florida-Friendly) labeling (yes/no), container size at planting (5-gallon, 15-gallon, 30-gallon), and cost (low, medium, high). Medium cost levels were based on the median tree cost for a sampling of 5-, 15-, and 30-gallon trees for sale on a statewide wholesale website (www.plantant.com). Low and high prices were set below and above these median values for each container size.

A total of 35 randomized tree profiles were generated using the caFactorialDesign() function in R (Bak and Bartłomowicz, 2012), employing a fractional, non-orthogonal design to balance attribute coverage with respondent burden. Each profile included descriptive text outlining the seven attributes and their assigned levels. To enhance respondent engagement and comprehension, we provided visual materials for each profile: an AI-generated (Copilot, Microsoft, Redmond, WA), depiction of mature tree size in front of a single-story home, an image of tree flowers when applicable, the Florida-Friendly logo when relevant, and a nursery tree image shown beside a person icon to illustrate container size at the time of purchase (Figure 1). Respondents were asked to rate their interest in purchasing the tree on a 1 to 10 scale.

An online panel company, Centiment (Denver, Colorado), was contracted to administer the survey. The sample was designed to be representative of Florida’s demographics with respect to age, race, and gender. The study received an exemption from the University of Florida’s Institutional Review Board. Prior to the full launch, we conducted a soft launch with 48 respondents to evaluate question clarity and make necessary adjustments. During this phase, we identified an inconsistency in the wording of the hurricane resistance attribute and excluded these initial responses from the final dataset. Ultimately, 955 individuals were surveyed, yielding a ±3% margin of error at a 95% confidence level.

Analysis was conducted using the conjoint() function in R (Bak and Bartłomowicz, 2012), which generates a matrix of partial utilities for each attribute level across respondents, along with vectors representing attribute-level utilities and the relative importance of each attribute. These were plotted using ggplot2 (Wickham 2016). All attributes selected for this study were statistically significant predictors of consumer interest at the p = 0.05 level.

Results and Discussion

Survey Respondents

Demographics for our respondents are listed in Table 1. These are in line with broader statewide demographics for Florida. For example, the U.S. Census estimates that 50.8% of the state’s population is female (our sample: 50.5%). The racial makeup of our sample was less closely aligned but still similar to Census estimates for Florida: 76.5% White, 16.9% Black or African American, 3.4% Asian, 0.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and 2.5% two or more races. Our largest divergence was among Hispanic or Latino respondents, where our sample was notably lower than the Census estimate of 28.7%. Our respondents were somewhat evenly split among our age categories.

Respondents were broadly distributed across income categories, with the largest share falling in the $58,021–$94,000 range (25.9%), followed closely by the $94,001–$153,000 range (24.9%; Table 1). Together, these two middle-to-upper-middle income brackets accounted for just over half of the sample (50.8%). Lower-income households (≤$30,000) represented the smallest share at 11.4%, while the highest earners (≥$153,001) comprised 16.6% of respondents. Educational attainment was similarly skewed toward higher levels, with nearly half of respondents holding at least a four-year degree (28.1%) or graduate degree (21.6%), together totaling 49.7%. High school degree holders represented the next largest group (19.2%), followed by those with some college (17.8%). Respondents with less than a high school diploma were rare, comprising just 1.2% of the sample.

Relative Importance of the Attributes Tested

In assessing the relative importance of the attributes tested in this study, we found that container size was the most important, accounting for 20.5% of the rating decision (Figure 2). Mature tree size was the second most important attribute (17.3%), followed by Florida-Friendly labeling (14.9%) and purchase cost (14.0%). The attributes of lowest importance with regard to rating decisions were whether the tree was native (12.3%), hurricane resistance (11.5%), and whether it produced flowers (9.5%).

Container Size and Cost

Moving beyond importance, we can look at the marginal means plots to get a sense of the magnitude and directionality of change in interest associated with each level of each attribute. With regard to our most important attribute, container size, interest was significantly diminished for the 30-gallon offerings (Figure 3). Interest was increased for both the 15-gallon and 5-gallon scenarios, but was greatest for the smaller of the two sizes. With regard to cost, medium and high cost scenarios were both associated with decreased consumer interest, while respondents were most favorable to the low cost scenario (Figure 3).

The deterrent effect of the 30-gallon container size on consumer interest runs somewhat contrary to past research showing that consumers saw greater value in large nursery materials when installed in hypothetical landscape scenarios (Hardy et al. 2000). It is also contrary to the typical preferences of urban foresters who purchase trees for their planting initiatives (Burcham and Lyons 2013), though these decisions are often based largely on limiting losses associated with vandalism and other mechanical injuries. As container size is a key factor in tree cost (Hilbert et al. 2023a), the price of 30-gallon trees—whether low, medium, or high—likely factored into this disinterest. Additionally, consumers aware of the weight associated with larger container sizes may have been dismayed by the effort required to transport, maneuver, and plant these trees.

Beyond the costs associated with differently sized nursery stock, we did find, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the lowest cost category (below median price) within each container size level elicited the greatest interest among our participants. Past focus groups have highlighted the pressure growers feel to produce low-cost trees (Koeser et al. 2025)—noting that large-scale competition and liquidation sales associated with nursery closures can make it difficult for nurseries to produce higher-quality trees that may come at a price premium given the effort required.

Florida-Friendly Labelling and Native Status

Our largest marginal mean was observed for trees carrying the Florida-Friendly label. The Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ program is a University of Florida Extension and Florida Department of Environmental Protection initiative that promotes evidence-based urban landscape design and maintenance practices (Clem et al., 2021). Plants featured on Florida-Friendly plant lists adhere to Principle 1 of the Florida-Friendly Landscape framework—right plant, right place (Florida-Friendly Landscaping Program, 2025). Specifically, they are non-invasive, Florida-adapted species without known pest problems that require little to no irrigation once established.

Past research has similarly examined the impact of various environmental labels on horticultural product interest. Khachatryan et al. (2014a) found that customers were willing to pay more for plants grown using energy-saving production practices, alternatives to plastic pots (compostable, plantable, etc.), and locally grown plants. In a companion study, the authors found that these preferences were most pronounced among consumers concerned with the future impacts of their present-day decisions (Khachatryan et al., 2014b). We did not ask questions to identify the underlying drivers of our respondents’ interest in Florida-Friendly labeled trees. However, a recent study examining drivers of homeowner adoption of Florida-Friendly principles found that greater landscaping knowledge and program awareness were key predictors of participation (Knuth et al., 2025). In contrast, financial incentives, cost savings, and perceived environmental benefits were not significant drivers of willingness to adopt Florida-Friendly Landscaping principles.

Our respondents also responded favorably to trees labeled as native (Figure 3). While Florida-Friendly principles do not directly advocate for the use of native plants, the two attributes are related in that trees native to the area are not at risk of becoming invasive. Interest in native trees was a consistent theme in recent focus groups examining tree supply chains and demand in the Chesapeake Bay area (Koeser et al., 2025). Similarly, Conway and Vander Vecht (2015) noted that 98% of responding landscape architects indicated that native species status was either always or sometimes important in influencing their plant selection decisions. This noted, the importance placed on native status may vary by region and geographical context. In an assessment of urban tree composition and retail nursery offerings in the arid western United States, Avolio et al. (2018) found that native species accounted for only 11% of urban plantings and 9% of nursery stock—reflecting a general lack of native woody vegetation in the area presettlement.

Flowering

Flowering, while increasing consumer interest, was our least important factor. This was somewhat surprising given our past personal experiences with local tree giveaways where flowering trees were often the first to be taken (though attendees often appeared to be garden enthusiasts trying to add one more tree to their property). This preference for smaller flowering (and fruiting) trees was noted by northeastern United States tree distribution program leaders in a study by Nguyen et al. (2017). This noted, our findings align with those of Dawes et al. (2018), who found flowering to be less of a draw than other potential traits—such as being native to the region or producing fruit—among potential south Florida (United States) tree giveaway participants. Similarly, Avolio et al. (2018) noted that flowering was among the least important services listed by residents in the Salt Lake Valley area (United States).

Hurricane Resistance and Mature Size

Hurricane resistance was a significant predictor of consumer interest (Figure 2 and Figure 3). These results are consistent with prior work documenting that Florida homeowners tend to associate urban trees with safety risks, such as structural damage, falling branches, and vulnerability to high-wind events like hurricanes, as well as unwanted yard debris, including leaves, acorns, and woody material (Koeser et al. 2024). Tree species is one of the most commonly assessed predictors of failure in hurricane and tropical storm research (Salisbury et al. 2025). It is also one of the most significant factors. Practitioner guides exist that aggregate these research findings and use them to create qualitative wind resistance ratings for more informed tree selection in both nursery and urban forest settings (Koeser et al. 2023).

In contrast, and perhaps relatedly, trees with a large mature size generated lower levels of consumer interest than smaller trees (Figure 3). Homeowners have long perceived large-growing trees as a potential risk to their property, leading to ill-advised practices such as topping (Karlovich et al. 2000). These fears are not entirely unwarranted, as large-stature trees are subject to greater wind loading than shorter alternatives (Ibrahim et al. 2025), and large trees and their parts have greater potential to cause harm should they fail and contact a target such as a vehicle or structure (Smiley et al. 2025). While such failures are relatively rare, all trees eventually decline or die, and homeowners have cited potential removal costs as a barrier to planting new trees (Carmichael and McDonough 2019).

Beyond risk and maintenance and removal costs, large trees are more likely to come into conflict with other aspects of the built environment than smaller trees (Koeser et al. 2022). In their study of urban residents in Florida, Koeser et al. (2024) found that nearly a third of all respondents who indicated they would like fewer trees in their neighborhood had experienced trees growing into and damaging their property. Similar patterns have been documented in the urban tree giveaway literature, where Pearsall et al. (2024) and Riedman et al. (2022) found that residents were hesitant to accept trees because they felt space was too limited and they wanted to avoid conflicts with infrastructure.

Often the planting of larger shade trees is prioritized in planting programs, as they have the greatest potential to maximize ecosystem services—especially carbon sequestration and those linked to canopy size. However, in densely developed sites, large-stature trees can lead to conflicts such as sidewalk lifting. These ecosystem disservices decrease the net benefits offered by urban trees (Roman et al. 2021). Future research should examine whether small-stature trees offer greater net benefits when the full range of potential disservices is accounted for. Such work should also factor in lost planting opportunities associated with property owners who are unwilling to accept the larger shade trees offered to them and its implication for urban forest policy and codes.

Conclusions

This study examined how seven tree attributes influenced purchasing interest among a demographically representative sample of Florida homeowners. Container size and mature tree size emerged as the strongest deterrents to consumer interest, possibly reflecting concerns about cost, physical manageability, perceived risk, and potential conflicts with the built environment. In contrast, Florida-Friendly designation, native status, and hurricane resistance were all associated with increased consumer interest, suggesting that environmentally adaptive and safety-oriented attributes resonate strongly with Florida residents. These findings have practical implications for both nursery producers and tree giveaway program managers.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscape Association and the University of Florida ISA Center for Land Use Efficiency (CLUE). A large-language model application (Claude, Anthropic, San Francisco, CA) was used to copyedit this manuscript.

References

Avolio, M.L.; Pataki, D.E.; Trammell, T.L.E.; Endter-Wada, J. Biodiverse cities: The nursery industry, homeowners, and neighborhood differences drive urban tree composition. Ecol. Monogr. 2018, 88, 259–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bak, A.; Bartłomowicz, T. Conjoint analysis method and its implementation in the conjoint R package. In Data Analysis Methods and Its Applications; Pociecha, J., Decker, R., Eds.; C.H. Beck: Warsaw, Poland, 2012; pp. 239–248. [Google Scholar]
Behe, B.K.; Campbell, B.L.; Hall, C.R.; Khachatryan, H.; Dennis, J.H.; Yue, C. Consumer preferences for local and sustainable plant production characteristics. HortScience 2013, 48, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Burcham, D.C.; Lyons, R.E. An evaluation of tree procurement and acquisition strategies for urban planning. J. Environ. Hortic. 2013, 31, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Carmichael, C.E.; McDonough, M.H. Community stories: Explaining resistance to street tree-planting programs in Detroit, Michigan, USA. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2019, 32, 588–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Clem, T.B.; Hansen, G.M.; Dukes, M.D.; Momol, E.; Kruse, J.; Harchick, C.; Bossart, J. Sustainable residential landscapes in Florida: Controlled comparison of traditional versus Florida-friendly landscaping. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2021, 147, 04021025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Conway, T.M.; Vander Vecht, J. Growing a diverse urban forest: Species selection decisions by practitioners planting and supplying trees. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 138, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dawes, L.C.; Adams, A.E.; Escobedo, F.J.; Soto, J.R. Socioeconomic and ecological perceptions and barriers to urban tree distribution and reforestation programs. Urban Ecosyst. 2018, 21, 657–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dinkins, L.; Clarke, M.; Klein, R. Branching out: The underexamined role of urban tree giveaway programs and urban greening in Florida. Urban For. Urban Green. 2025, 112, 128924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Florida-Friendly Landscaping™ Program—Principle 1: Right Plant, Right Place; University of Florida IFAS Extension: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2025; Available online: https://ffl.ifas.ufl.edu/about-ffl/9-principles/principle-1-right-plant-/ (accessed on 11 March 2026).
Hardy, J.; Behe, B.K.; Barton, S.S.; Page, T.J.; Schutzki, R.E.; Muzii, K.; Fernandez, R.T.; Haque, M.T.; Brooker, J.; Hall, C.R.; et al. Consumers preferences for plant size, type of plant material and design sophistication in residential landscaping. J. Environ. Hortic. 2000, 18, 224–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hilbert, D.R.; Koeser, A.K.; Andreu, M.; Clarke, M.; Hansen, G.; Roman, L.A.; Thetford, M. Expanding Urban Tree Species Diversity in Florida (USA): Challenges and Opportunities for Practitioners. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2023, 36, 891–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hilbert, D.R.; Koeser, A.K.; Andreu, M.G.; Hansen, G.; Roman, L.A.; Thetford, M.; Thompson, G.L. Conceptualizing the Human Drivers of Low Tree Diversity in Planted Urban Landscapes. Ambio 2023, 52, 1532–1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ibrahim, H.A.; Ahmed, F.; Metwally, O.; Elawady, A.; Pinelli, J.P. Balancing protection and risk: Understanding the dual impact of trees on low-rise buildings during extreme wind events. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2025, 265, 106179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Karlovich, D.A.; Groninger, J.W.; Close, D.D. Tree condition associated with topping in southern Illinois communities. J. Arboric. 2000, 26, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Khachatryan, H.; Campbell, B.; Hall, C.; Behe, B.; Yue, C.; Dennis, J. The effects of individual environmental concerns on willingness to pay for sustainable plant attributes. HortScience 2014, 49, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Khachatryan, H.; Rihn, A. Consumer perceptions of plant production practices that aid pollinator insects’ health. HortScience 2017, 52, 749–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Khachatryan, H.; Yue, C.; Campbell, B.; Behe, B.; Hall, C. The effects of consideration of future and immediate consequences on willingness to pay for eco-friendly plant attributes. J. Env. Hortic. 2014, 32, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Knuth, M.; Wei, X.; Zhang, X.; Khachatryan, H. Exploring drivers and barriers to Florida homeowners’ intentions to adopt Florida-friendly landscaping. HortScience 2025, 60, 1833–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Koeser, A.K.; Hauer, R.J.; Andreu, M.G.; Northrop, R.; Clarke, M.; Diaz, J.; Hilbert, D.R.; Konijnendijk, C.C.; Landry, S.M.; Thompson, G.L.; et al. Using the 3-30-300 rule to assess urban forest access and preferences in Florida (United States). Arboric. Urban For. 2024, 50, 241–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Koeser, A.K.; Hauer, R.J.; Hilbert, D.R.; Northrop, R.J.; Thorn, H.; McLean, D.C.; Salisbury, A.B. The tripping point—Minimum planting widths for small-stature trees in dense urban developments. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Koeser, A.K.; Hilbert, D.R.; Locke, D.; Riley, C.B.; Sonti, N.F. Increasing urban tree diversity, quality, and abundance in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Challenges and opportunities. Arboric. Urban For. 2026, 52, 22–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Koeser, A.K.; Klein, R.W.; Hasing, G.; Northrop, R.J. Factors driving professional and public urban tree risk perception. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 968–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Koeser, A.K.; Salisbury, A.B.; Hauer, R.J. Improving Community Hurricane Resilience Through a Comprehensive Assessment of Tree Species Wind Resistance; Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
Miller, T.W. Modeling Techniques in Predictive Analytics: Business Problems and Solutions with R. Upper; Pearson FT Press: Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2013; 699p. [Google Scholar]
Nguyen, V.D.; Roman, L.A.; Locke, D.H.; Mincey, S.K.; Sanders, J.R.; Smith Fichman, E.; Duran-Mitchell, M.; Tobing, S.L. Branching out to residential lands: Missions and strategies of five tree distribution programs in the U.S. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 22, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pearsall, H.; Riedman, E.; Roman, L.A.; Grant, A.; Davis, A.L.; Dentice, D.; Ifill, T.; Maslin, M.; Samaha, J. Barriers to resident participation in tree-planting initiatives across a metropolitan area. Urban For. Urban Green. 2024, 95, 128326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Riedman, E.; Roman, L.A.; Pearsall, H.; Maslin, M.; Ifill, T.; Dentice, D. Why don’t people plant trees? Uncovering barriers to participation in urban tree planting initiatives. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 73, 127597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Roman, L.A.; Conway, T.M.; Eisenman, T.S.; Koeser, A.K.; Ordóñez Barona, C.; Locke, D.H.; Jenerette, G.D.; Östberg, J.; Vogt, J. Beyond ‘trees are good’: Disservices, management costs, and tradeoffs in urban forestry. Ambio 2021, 50, 615–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Salisbury, A.B.; Koeser, A.K.; Andreu, M.G.; Chen, Y.; Freeman, Z.; Miesbauer, J.W.; Herrera-Montes, A.; Kua, C.S.; Nukina, R.H.; Rockwell, C.; et al. Expanding a hurricane wind resistance rating system for tree species using machine learning. Arboric. Urban For. 2025, 51, 128–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Smiley, E.T.; Matheny, N.; Lilly, S.; Kane, B.; Klein, R.; Brantley, B. Best Management Practices—Tree Risk Assessment, 3rd ed.; International Society of Arboriculture: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2025; 118p. [Google Scholar]
Soto, J.R.; Escobedo, F.J.; Khachatryan, H.; Adams, D.C. Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: Examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling. Ecosyst Serv. 2018, 29, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
U.S. Census Bureau. QuickFacts: Florida. 2025. Available online: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/FL/RHI425224#RHI425224.
Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Available online: https://ggplot2.tidyverse.orgISBN 978-3-319-24277-4.

Figure 1. A representative tree scenario as shown to survey participants, pairing text descriptions with imagery illustrating mature size, size at planting, and additional tree attributes. The survey produced 955 valid responses from Florida residents sampled to reflect statewide demographics.

Figure 2. Relative importance of the seven attributes tested in our consumer choice survey.

Figure 3. Marginal means plot from the conjoint analysis showing the relative influence of attribute levels on consumer preference. Values greater than 0 (shown in green) indicate a positive contribution to consumer interest, while values less than 0 (shown in red) reflect a negative contribution. Each bar represents the average utility score for a given attribute level across all respondents.

Table 1. Demographic breakdown of survey panel. All participants (N = 955) were residents of the State of Florida (United States). Total percentages for each demographic category may not sum to 100 given rounding errors.

Demographic Category	Category Level	Frequency	Percent (%)
Age	18–24	65	6.8
	25–34	166	17.4
	35–44	172	18.0
	45–54	184	19.3
	55–64	180	18.8
	≥65	188	19.7
Gender	Male	471	49.3
	Female	482	50.5
	Prefer not to say	2	0.2
Race	White	691	72.4
	Hispanic or Latino	113	11.8
	Black or African American	109	11.4
	Asian	18	1.9
	Native American or Alaska Native	5	0.5
	Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	3	0.3
	Middle Eastern or North African	4	0.4
	Two or more races	12	1.3
Annual Income	≤$30,000	109	11.4
	$30,001–$58,020	202	21.2
	$58,021–$94,000	247	25.9
	$94,001–$153,000	238	24.9
	≥$153,001	159	16.6
Education	Some high school	11	1.2
	High school degree	183	19.2
	Some college	170	17.8
	2-year degree	87	9.1
	4-year degree	268	28.1
	Some graduate school	30	3.1
	Graduate degree	206	21.6

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2026 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/).

Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.