Editor's note: Bruce Brown is director of research at PRR, a Seattle-based consulting firm. Jennifer Leach is environmental programs manager at Seattle Tilth, a nonprofit organic gardening and urban ecology organization. Dave Ward is regional stewardship program manager at Puget Sound Partnership, Tacoma, Wash. Emily Sanford is social marketing coordinator at Puget Sound Partnership, Tacoma.

The Puget Sound Partnership (PSP), Olympia, Wash., is a small state agency leading a regional effort by citizens, private organizations, governments, tribes, scientists and businesses working together to restore and protect Puget Sound, a coastal area in the state of Washington. In 2007, PSP was charged by the governor and the legislature of Washington to create an action agenda as a roadmap leading to the recovery of Puget Sound.

Seattle-based consulting firm PRR was tasked by the Puget Sound Partnership with conducting audience research around Puget Sound at the sub-regional level to assess residents’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviors regarding pesticide use and to evaluate various outreach efforts to assess their impact on pesticide use.

This research is part of PSP’s efforts to provide partner organizations with the resources they need to advance programs that will improve the health of Puget Sound’s waterways.

Three species of salmonids found in Puget Sound are currently listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): Chinook, Steelhead and Hood Canal Summer Chum. Critical habitat for these species includes freshwater habitat in watersheds that contain many of the major population centers in the Puget Sound region, including urban and suburban areas with large numbers of single-family homeowners. These areas include sites essential to support one or more life stages of these endangered species.

A series of biological opinions published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration between 2008 and 2011 to support the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to re-register the active ingredients of 37 pesticides included an analysis of the impact of the chemicals on ESA-listed species including salmonids. Their findings revealed that the active ingredients in many commonly-used residential pesticides posed a significant threat to salmonids including interfering with reproduction, sensory perception and response, and growth and development. Many of these chemicals have been detected in urban waterways throughout the Puget Sound region.

The Puget Sound partnership, Seattle Tilth – a nonprofit organic gardening and urban ecology organization – and PRR conducted a study to investigate the efficacy of point-of-sale intervention methods that could be broadly applied to retailers by utilizing merchandizing strategies to persuade residential pesticide users to select less-toxic pesticide products at the point of sale. The pilot study was hosted by McLendon Hardware, a local retail chain with seven locations throughout the Puget Sound region.

Results of the quantitative research (telephone and online surveys) and qualitative research (focus groups and in-depth interviews) were used to develop three interventions for testing: stickers, rack cards and product endorsements. Three methods were used to evaluate the efficacy of the interventions: sales data, an online customer survey and follow-up customer phone interviews.

Most customers who participated in the survey did not recall noticing the interventions (unaided), which was attributed to competing signage and the fact that they were already being helped by a sales associate. About half of those who did notice the interventions reported that it did influence their product choice. And about two-thirds of all survey respondents reported they would look for similar signage in the future (aided). A moderate correlation between changes in organic and synthetic pesticide sales during specific intervention-testing periods suggests that the interventions may have – to some extent – shifted sales away from synthetic pesticides towards organic pesticides.

Combination of techniques

PRR used a combination of quantitative and qualitative research techniques to inform the development of the campaign and to evaluate campaign outcomes.

Phase 1: Statistically-valid survey

PRR fielded a telephone survey to a random sample of 2,000 single-family households (with a quota of 400 for each of five regions in the Puget Sound area) drawn from random digit dial (to include both listed and unlisted landline phone numbers) and cell phone sample (to include both cell-only and cell-mostly households).

Survey results indicated that the opportunities for market transformation were good due to some degree of awareness that synthetic pesticide products pose dangers to pet/family health and to the environment. This is the case in spite of peer pressure and personal pride of keeping one’s lawn green and weed-free and the perceived convenience and efficacy of many synthetic yard care products.

For example, our statement-testing found that:

  • Respondents are influenced by the number of public institutions (schools, government buildings, etc.) that no longer use synthetic yard care products due to safety concerns.
  • The most persuasive messaging clearly presents harm done by synthetic pesticides to people, pets and water quality.

Using cluster analysis, the survey research also identified three distinct market segments relative to willingness to use safer pesticide products:

Ready and willing households (43 percent)
This segment is characterized by: high knowledge; low pesticide use; high safety concerns; keeping a green and weed-free lawn is very unimportant; least convinced by statements to stop the use of pesticides.

Persuadable households (48 percent)
This segment is characterized by: medium knowledge; high pesticide use; medium safety concerns; keeping a green and weed-free lawn is very important; most convinced by statements to stop the use of pesticides.

Unwilling households (9 percent)
This segment is characterized by: low knowledge; medium pesticide use; low safety concerns; keeping a green and weed-free lawn is somewhat important; somewhat convinced by statements to stop the use of pesticides.

Phase 2: Focus groups

The second phase of the research consisted of four focus groups held throughout the region as a follow-up to the survey. The groups were designed to learn more about what barriers single-family homeowners perceive that would prevent them from using safer yard care products and practices as well as what would motivate them to do so.

Participant recruitment criteria were based, in part, on cluster analysis results from the telephone survey. We focused on the persuadable households segment. In addition, we recruited participants for a mix of those with and without children living at home, with and without dogs and who lived various distances to Puget Sound waterways.

Overall, we found that most participants love the beauty of their yard, take great pride in it, use their yard for their children and pets to play in and for entertainment and enjoyment. They believe it is an important part of having a beautiful home.

When asked about concerns with pesticides many acknowledged the health and environmental risks that came with using synthetic pesticides. Nonetheless, most were unwilling to ignore weeds – as long as they have a lawn, most want to keep it green and weed-free.

Synthetic yard care products were, for many, their first line of defense. A few participants felt so strongly about this that they admitted sneaking onto their neighbor’s property to spray at night or when they were not around. Even among those who would first use an organic approach, if that method did not work many would then use a synthetic product.

In general, time, convenience, efficacy, knowledge or availability of organic alternatives and the perception that alternatives would be more expensive were all popular reasons among all the focus groups for using synthetic products.

Based on these findings a number of recommendations were made to Puget Sound Partnership, including:

  • increase knowledge about the existence, efficacy, ease of use and affordability of organic or less-toxic yard care products;
  • increase knowledge about the immediate and long-term health and environmental impacts of synthetic yard care products, especially their impact on children and pet health, as well as drinking water;
  • clarify that synthetic yard care products pose health and environmental risks, even when safety precautions are followed;
  • emphasize the cumulative effects of many people using synthetic yard care products; and
  • use incentives such as free samples and product discounts to motivate consumers to try organic products and test them for themselves.

Phase 3: In-depth interviews

The next phase of the project added Seattle Tilth, whose mission is to inspire and educate people to safeguard natural resources while building an equitable and sustainable local food system, to the collaboration between PRR and Puget Sound Partnership.

The purpose of this phase was to identify retailers and effective marketing interventions to nudge customers toward safer pesticide products. We conducted nine in-person, in-depth interviews with pesticide retailers. The selected retailers represented a mix of local hardware stores, nurseries and warehouse stores.

Key findings from the in-depth interviews included:

All retailers preferred organic pesticides and most of their employees felt the same way. However, most also had concerns with how well organic pesticides work and how easy they are to use. This is critical to retailers since their overriding focus is on customer service. If they do not provide products that meet their customers’ needs, they lose business – something they are not willing to gamble on.

When it came to customer service, nurseries and the one larger hardware store put more emphasis on training their staff about pesticide options. Smaller hardware stores provided less help to pesticide customers and the warehouse store did not provide any assistance to customers shopping for pesticides. Consequently, a pilot project could need to be tailored to the unique circumstances of each type of location.

Regardless of location, the target customer market was fairly evenly split between males and females in their 30s though 60s. The Baby Boomer generation, many of whom are now entering their 60s and who are less concerned about pesticide safety, will soon be a much smaller portion of the target market, a finding in line with the results of our previously-mentioned market segmentation. Consequently, the concern about environmental impacts will be increasingly embraced by customers shopping for pesticides. However, such customers will still demand pesticides that are effective and easy to use.

Convincing retailers that organic pesticides are effective and easy to use can best be accomplished by information sources that they trust. This means just about any source other than manufacturers or sales representatives (who are least trusted), with Master Gardeners at the top of their list of most trusted sources.

Of eight potential interventions presented to the interviewees, four received the greatest support: shelf stickers; rack cards providing information on safer pesticides; information on product use from trusted sources; and before-and-after photos.

Phase 4: In-store interventions

Based on the interview results, it was determined that the pilot project would be conducted with McLendon Hardware, a large, locally-owned and -operated hardware store with seven locations in the Puget Sound region. It is a strong supporter of alternative and organic pesticide products and has created an environment that we assumed would be a good fit for implementing a pilot program focused on changing customer behavior to choose safer pesticide products. Implementing the pilot program in all seven McLendon’s locations would result in a sample size that would encompass a wide geographic range across an environment that provides a relatively consistent customer experience. These factors would allow us to more effectively evaluate the impact of the specific interventions.

The following three intervention methods were ultimately selected for testing: shelf stickers; rack cards providing information on safer pesticides; and Seattle Tilth endorsements.

Intervention-testing involved a quasiexperimental design in which each intervention was separately installed in six of the seven locations for a period of one month. At the end of each month the intervention was replaced with the next intervention for a month, and so on, until all three interventions had been installed for a one-month period. This process was repeated for a total of six months of interventions. One location served as a control group and received no interventions.

Evaluation of the interventions was assessed using four methods:

An online questionnaire completed by 83 customers. Shoppers were prompted with a small flyer (initially in the yard-care aisle but eventually moved to the checkout counters for greater visibility) inviting them to complete the online survey and were incentivized to do so by an offer to enter a contest to win one of 10 $25 McLendon Hardware gift certificates each month. Survey questions focused on their experience with the interventions (such as, did they notice it, did it influence them, what would have made it more influential), as well as questions regarding what pesticide products they purchased and why they did so.

In-depth, follow-up phone interviews with six customers who had purchased targeted pesticide products and who had agreed to be interviewed several months after their purchases. Interview questions focused on the factors that influenced them to purchase those pesticide products (including any influence from the interventions), how well the pesticides worked and if and why they would purchase those products again.

Pesticide sales records, including: a comparison of sales records for pesticide products sold during the research period and for the same time in the previous year; a comparison of sales records for pesticide products during each of the three intervention testing periods; and a comparison of sales records for pesticide products for the intervention locations compared to the control location.

In-depth, in-person interviews with 11 sales associates to understand the impact of the interventions from the perspective of McLendon Hardware staff.

Did not remember noticing it

When it came to signage, most respondents to the online survey did not remember noticing it unaided (although 16 percent of the 83 respondents reported remembering it when aided by showing it to them as part of the survey). The low recall of target signage was probably in part because it competed with lots of other signage and because the pesticide purchasing process is, at least based on the six post-purchase interviews, a relatively routine process. By this we mean that some customers already knew what product they wanted and simply went and purchased it without consciously looking for signage that would help them with their product choice. For customers doing more “product exploring,” the customer service ethic of McLendon sales associates may have actually gotten in the way of the signage doing its job directly with customers. The sales associates were so present and helpful that customers relied more on sales associate advice and may not have seen or been directly influenced by the signage itself, although the sales associates may have been.

When it came to unaided recall of signage about alternative, safer pesticides, there were no significant differences based on the respondent’s gender, age or presence of children in the home. However, there was a significant difference by presence of pets in the household (41 percent of those with pets reporting noticing signage about alternative, safer pesticides compared with only 11 percent of those without pets). We speculate that this may be due to the perceived lesser ability to keep pets out of treated areas compared to children.

Although not statistically significant, once all 83 respondents were shown the signage in the survey, more remembered the stickers (23 percent) and Seattle Tilth endorsements (19 percent) than the rack cards (11 percent). And, more than half of the 13 who remembered without aid the Seattle Tilth signage reported they were influenced by it. Regardless of the type of signage, respondents found most persuasive the information about organic products being safer, either to children/pets, to the environment or just safer in general. Almost two-thirds indicated they would look for such signage in the future. Females were especially very likely to do so (34 percent) compared to males (11 percent).

Three key questions investigated

More telling than the results of the online survey or post-purchase interviews were the results from the pesticide sales data. Three key questions were investigated using the pesticide sales data.

1. How did the percent sales of organic pesticides change during the 2014 pilot test compared to the same period of time in 2013 and how did it compare to the change in all pesticides (organic plus synthetic) over the same period?

2. What percentage of total pesticides sold during the study period were organic and how did this compare to 2013?

3. How did the organic pesticides in specific product categories change during the testing period?

While no statistical differences were found regarding the effect of location or intervention on organic pesticide purchases, the findings of this study suggest that these factors did have some influence on pesticide consumer purchasing behavior during the study. Increases in the sale of organic insect sprays and granules at treatment stores were consistently highest during the sticker-testing period and varied during the other two intervention testing periods. This suggests that stickers had the most consistent effect on persuading consumers to choose safer products.

It is difficult to determine whether one intervention was more successful than the others in persuading customers to choose safer alternative pesticides. Although it appears that stickers led to the most consistent increases in the percent organic products sold, it’s possible that factors unrelated to the study led to more sales of organic products during the sticker-testing months. Interventions may also have had a collective impact, in that customers who shop regularly at McLendon responded to multiple interventions as they shopped throughout the season.

A moderate correlation was found between changes in organic and synthetic pesticide sales during the sticker- and rack card-testing periods, which suggests that the interventions may have – to some extent – shifted sales away from synthetic pesticides toward organic pesticides. Both the stickers and rack cards targeted synthetic products and their substitute organic products while the Seattle Tilth endorsements did not, which may partially explain why a similar correlation was not found during the endorsement-testing period.

Companywide, the Seattle, Tacoma and Renton, Wash., locations consistently sold the highest percent of organic pesticides in both 2013 and 2014. Increases in the percent organic sales at these locations during the pilot study were not found to be statistically significant; however, the largest increases in the percent of organic products sold during the intervention testing periods usually occurred at these stores. This suggests that in addition to the interventions, factors unique to these locations (e.g., product placement, staff advocacy or community demographics and psychographics) may also have influenced consumer pesticide choices at the point of sale.

Provided clear direction

Overall, the quantitative and qualitative market research provided clear direction for the pilot study in regard to the type of interventions to test and the type of retail locations for the testing. Results of the pilot-testing provided solid insights for improved interventions to bring about increased knowledge about and attitudes toward organic pesticides, as well as increased use of these safer yard and garden care products.