CHOICES
A publication of AAEA
“The garden suggests there might be a place where we can meet nature halfway,” says the environmental journalist Michael Pollan (1991, p. 62), and a wide swath of Americans would agree. Gardening remains a popular hobby in the United States, with eight in ten households participating. In 2023 alone, Americans spent nearly $76 billion on gardening activities, averaging $671 per household (Whitinger, 2024).
Gardening activities fall under the industry umbrella of ornamental horticulture, which consists of bedding plants, cultivated greens, cut flowers, foliage plants, potted flowering plants, and propagative materials. In 2018, the ornamental horticulture industry contributed almost $350 billion to the US economy (Hall et al., 2020). As this substantial sector continues to grow, there is increasing interest in aligning its operations with sustainable practices to address evolving consumer values and environmental concerns (Behe et al., 2013).
Potential consumers of cut flowers and other ornamentals are signaling purchasing preferences and increased willingness to pay for sustainability attributes, including local sourcing, plastic packaging reduction or replacement, energy efficiency, and water conservation (Behe et al., 2018; Etheredge, Delprince, and Waliczek, 2023). Environmentally conscious consumers are showing greater interest in native plant purchases, one emerging new category within the green industry (Rihn et al., 2023).
It is important to define horticulturally what sustainability means for shaping policies and practices that balance economic viability with environmental responsibility. Sustainability definitions are typically broad, which reflects the range of practices and strategies that could be considered under the umbrella of sustainability. The US Department of Agriculture’s sustainability definition describes “plant production systems that enhance environmental quality, use resources efficiently, and integrate natural biological cycles and controls” (7 US Code § 3103 [19]). Based on the USDA’s definition,several horticultural practices meet the regulatory criteria and have historical data available on industry participation: IPM, water conservation, native plant sales, plant diversity, and sustainability certification.
The national ornamental horticulture industry has undergone notable shifts over the past decade, particularly in how sustainability practices are implemented across businesses. Data from prior national industry surveys from 2009–2019 reveal that at least one key sustainability practice—IPM—appears to be shifting in composition (Rihn et al., 2022). IPM strategies such as hand-weeding, use of pest-resistant varieties, and pest record-keeping decreased in more recent survey years, but certain IPM practices increased, including use of sanitizing water foot baths, greenhouse ventilation, and beneficial insects (Rihn et al., 2022). This demonstrates that plant growers who are managing pest pressures in line with an IPM plan may be changing individual practices to meet their pest suppression goals.
Sustainable water management is critical to the long-term viability of horticultural systems, particularly as climate change accelerates water scarcity or overabundance (Ferreira et al., 2024). Water-saving messages can positively influence plant purchases, especially in drought-prone areas, highlighting the importance of including water conservation information at garden centers and nurseries to better connect with environmentally conscious shoppers (Knuth et al., 2020).
In cultivated landscapes such as gardens, native plants are shown to better support pollinators compared to their nonnative counterparts and provide ecosystem services such as biodiversity support and air quality improvement (Tartaglia and Aronson, 2024). Native plant sales are not just a novelty. In a survey of 14 nurseries in the mid-Atlantic region, around one-quarter of the 6,885 taxa sold by these nurseries were native plants. Native plant availability was closely tied to consumer demand, as nurseries indicated they were more likely to stock natives if customers requested them (Coombs, Gilchrist, and Watson, 2020). Knowing where to buy native plants can also boost consumer purchases and spending (Torres et al., 2024). Based on the 2014 and 2019 national ornamental horticulture industry survey results, horticultural businesses that sell native plants participated in more IPM strategies, sold a more diverse array of plants, and used more sales avenues than businesses with a greater focus on non-native plants (Rihn et al., 2022). Increasing plant diversity in agricultural systems can offer benefits—such as enhanced yields, improved pollination services, greater weed and pest suppression—and potentially reduce reliance on inputs like fertilizers and pesticides (Isbell et al., 2017).
One signal of sustainable practices—certifications—provides a clear indicator to consumers as they make purchasing decisions, and the certifications can also convey trade advantages. Merritt et al. (2012) surveyed Florida greenhouses participating in the US-Canada certification program, which reduces inspection costs for businesses that meet the program standards. Surveyed growers indicated a high satisfaction rate with the economic benefits of this particular program. Despite the potential benefits, certification rates are low among US growers. Another study found that growers had little interest in pursuing certifications and even viewed sustainability certifications as financially risky: The cost of certification would not be offset by increased profitability, especially without clear market demand for certified products (Hall et al., 2010).
We examined these sustainability trends in North Carolina, where the ornamental horticulture industry generates around $216 million in annual sales of bedding plants, cultivated greens, cut flowers, foliage plants, potted flowering plants, and propagativematerials (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2023). Examining ornamental horticulture in North Carolina offers a valuable snapshot of the industry’s overall sustainability. The state accounts for 3% of the$8.2 billion in national sales (2022) and features a diverse climate that spans the mountains, Piedmont, and coastal plain. Social dynamics, such as rising urbanization, also reflect broader national trends (US Census, 2022; Feierabend, 2024).
In 2023, we mailed surveys to businesses on the North Carolina plant licensor and the NC Green Industry Council’s membership lists using the Dillman survey method, with a 10% survey response rate (Dillman, 1978). Questions in the survey were designed to be compatible with earlier rounds of the national ornamental horticulture industry survey. A total of 975 responses were received from the survey. Of these, 227 responses included one or more answers to our sustainability questions. The responding businesses focus on Christmas tree production (N = 45), floriculture production (N = 74), nursery production (N = 114), propagule production (N = 47), wood product and compost production (N = 15), turfgrass production (N = 15), and pine needle production (N = 33).
To understand how sustainability practices align in grower operations, we examined the correlations among four variables: the number of IPM practices used, reliance on sustainable water sources, the share of native plants sold, and overall plant diversity. Unfortunately, only 21 of the total 227 respondents indicated whether they had a sustainability certification. Due to this small sample, we exclude certification from the correlation analysis. Table 1 shows the participation of the sample in each of the four sustainability practices. Not all respondents answered all four questions, so the sample size for each variable is less than the total number of observations.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of responses for the four sustainability measures across North Carolina's ornamental horticulture industry. The left panel shows right-skewed distributions for both plant diversity and IPM practices. Many businesses operate with relatively few plant types and implement a limited number of IPM strategies, while fewer operations maintain high diversity or extensive IPM programs. The right-hand panel indicates more pronounced specialization, with just over two-thirds of respondents using no sustainable water sources. Native plant sales show a bimodal pattern: just over one-fifth of respondents sell no natives and another fifth sell only natives.
Our survey of North Carolina ornamental growers reveals four patterns in respondents’ businesses’ sustainability practices (Table 2). First, businesses that carry a broader mix of plant species also tend to report using more IPM practices. This relationship is statistically strong and makes intuitive sense: As the diversity of plants increases, so does the complexity of managing pests. Each species can bring its own vulnerabilities, and growers appear to respond by layering on more pest-monitoring and prevention tactics.
Second, companies that use more water sustainability practices are also engaging in more IPM practices. Third, plant diversity and water conservation strategies are correlated, indicating that the more plant types the producer implements, the more water conservation strategies they tend to implement. Finally, we see no clear pattern between native plants and the other three practices. These appear to be adopted independently rather than as part of a coordinated sustainability bundle.
Of course, caution is warranted in interpreting these findings. The data come from a single snapshot in time and cannot tell us the direction of causation. It ispossible that expanding plant offerings leads growers to adopt more pest-management tools, but it is also possible that the capacity to manage pests enables diversification. A third possibility is that both practices reflect broader operational strengths, like staffing, experience, or market strategy. The survey was not designed to sort among these explanations, but the patterns are consistent with each.
Still, the practical takeaway is clear: Selective sustainability affects how Extension services and industry groups support growers. For those diversifying, IPM should be part of the strategy. As product lines expand, so do monitoring and pest-management needs. Different crops—like roses, Christmas trees, geraniums, and poinsettias—face unique pest and disease pressures. Adding more diversity increases the number of pressures that need to be accounted for in the IPM programming. Wide-scope Extension education that connects IPM monitoring and management strategies with plant diversification goals is likely to meet growers where they are, especially those seeking to expand without sacrificing plant health or customer satisfaction.
There may be a few explanations for why the water sustainability practices and IPM practices relationship exists. For example, it is a generally accepted best practice to not use overhead water later in the afternoon or overnight. This is because wet leaves attract fungi, increasing the risk of disease. Thus, it is recommended to use more sustainable methods like drip irrigation or bottom watering, as the water is targeted at the roots and less water is lost off-target when irrigating. Another possibility is that waterborne plant diseases can be a problem for horticultural businesses and need to be combated in production. Growers can recycle their water in holding ponds or rainwater collection to decrease disease pressure, which reduces the amount of water drawn from reservoirs or surface water streams and also decreases off-target pesticides and insecticides from spreading into water systems.
Producers in certain areas, such as the Appalachian areas of North Carolina, may be constrained to well water and recollection access due to the terrain and rurality of their location. Thus, they do not have access to municipal water or recirculatory holding ponds. These constraints shape which water-conserving practices are feasible. Therefore, growers may need to be more conservative toward watering in the different microclimates throughout the state. Water requirements change depending on the plant’s type and origin. This has to do with root system structure (deep tap, fibrous, shallow taproot) and sensitivity to staying damp after watering, as well as the soil or substrate used, plant size, and container volume. Growers may be implementing watering strategies that incorporate precision technology or drip irrigation, which are both more conservative and more exact with water application; thus, these strategies are water sustainable.
More broadly, the weak or absent correlations among many sustainability practices suggest that growers build their own combinations by adopting certain tools based on their particular crops, customers, and constraints. Past research shows that sustainable actions depend onhow relevant and useful individuals perceive the information (D'Amato, Giaccherini, and Zoli, 2019). This highlights the need for flexible outreach. For example, advisers should offer modular guidance, which can be tailored into educational and resource database modules on categorical sustainable practices such as water conservation, energy usage (a key pillar in certification programs), soil regeneration, IPM strategies, and advancing technology to conserve general growing resources.
As the ornamental horticulture industry continues to grow and evolve, sustainability remains both a challenge and an opportunity. National trends among ornamental horticulture producers—including shifting IPM practices, the influence of water-saving messages, and demand for native plants—reveal a fragmented yet promising landscape where growers selectively adopt practices such as integrated pest management, water conservation, native plant cultivation, and plant diversity. Our North Carolina case study affirms these patterns and underscores the importance of context. Grower choices are shaped by crop variety, geographic constraints, market signals, and operational capacity.
The patterns in this study reveal how sustainability plays out for North Carolina ornamental plant growers. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution. By understanding how sustainability practices relate, researchers, trade organizations, and Extension agents can better support growers in their current operations and future goals as they face environmental challenges and respond to evolving consumer demand for sustainably grown plants.
Behe, B.K., M. Knuth, C.R. Hall, P.T. Huddleston, and R.T. Fernandez. 2018. “Consumer Involvement with and Expertise in Water Conservation and Plants Affect Landscape Plant Purchases, Importance, and Enjoyment.” HortScience 53(8):1164–1171. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI13119-18
Behe, B.K., B.L. Campbell, C.R. Hall, H. Khachatryan, J.H. Dennis, and C. Yue. 2013. “Consumer Preferences for Local and Sustainable Plant Production Characteristics.” HortScience 48(2):200–208. https://doi.org/10.21273/hortsci.48.2.200
Coombs, G., D. Gilchrist, and P. Watson. 2020. “An Assessment of the Native and Invasive Horticultural Plants Sold in the Mid-Atlantic Region.” Native Plants Journal 21(1):74–82. https://doi.org/10.3368/npj.21.1.74
D’Amato, A., M. Giaccherini, and M. Zoli. 2019. “The Role of Information Sources and Providers in Shaping Green Behaviors: Evidence from Europe.” Ecological Economics 164:106292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.04.004
Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. Wiley-Interscience.
Etheredge, C.L., J. Delprince, and T.M. Waliczek. 2023. U.S. Consumer Perceptions & Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Environmental Practices in the Floral Industry. Floral Marketing Fund, Final Report. Available online: https://floralmarketingfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/FMF_Sustainable-Environmental-Practices_Final-ReducedPDF.pdf
Feierabend, K. 2024. “Urbanization & Changing Demographics.” North Carolina State Extension. Available online: https://communitydevelopment.ces.ncsu.edu/community-resilience/urbanization-changing-demographics/
Ferreira, C.S.S., P.R. Soares, R. Guilherme, G. Vitali, A. Boulet, M.T. Harrison, H. Malamiri, A.C. Duarte, Z. Kalantari, and A.J.D. Ferreira. 2024. “Sustainable Water Management in Horticulture: Problems, Premises, and Promises.” Horticulturae 10(9):951. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10090951
Hall, T.J., R.G. Lopez, M.I. Marshall, J.H. Dennis. 2010. “Barriers to Adopting Sustainable Floriculture Certification.” HortScience 45(5):778–783. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.45.5.778
Hall, C.R., A.W. Hodges, H. Khachatryan, and M.A. Palma. 2020. “Economic Contributions of the Green Industry in the United States in 2018.” Journal of Environmental Horticulture 38(3):73–79. https://doi.org/10.24266/0738-2898-38.3.73.
Isbell, F., P.R. Adler, N. Eisenhauer, D. Fornara, K. Kimmel, C. Kremen, D.K. Letourneau, M. Liebman, H.W. Polley, S. Quijas, and M. Scherer-Lorenzen. 2017. “Benefits of Increasing Plant Diversity in Sustainable Agroecosystems.” Journal of Ecology 105(4):871–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12789
Knuth, M.J., B.K. Behe, P.T. Huddleston, C.R. Hall, R.T. Fernandez, and H. Khachatryan. 2020. “Water Conserving Message Influences Purchasing Decision of Consumers.” MDPI Water 12(12):3487. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123487
Merritt, J.L., E. Dickstein, R.S. Johnson, M. Ward, R.J. Balaam, C.L. Harmon, P.F. Harmon, G.S. Ali, A.J. Palmateer, T. Schubert, and A.H.C. van Bruggen. 2012. “Survey of Ornamental Nurseries in Florida Participating in the U.S.-Canadian Greenhouse Certification Program.” HortTechnology 22(2):169–176. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.22.2.169
Pollan, M. 1991. Second Nature: A Gardener’s Education. Grove Press.
Rihn, A., B.K. Behe, S. Barton, and A. Torres. 2023. “Greater Appeal of Native Plants for Environmentally Conscious Consumers.” Journal of Environmental Horticulture 41(1):7–13 https://doi.org/10.24266/2573-5586-41.1.7
Rihn, A.L., M.J. Knuth, B.J. Peterson, A.P. Torres, J.H. Campbell, C.R. Boyer, M.A. Palma, and H. Khachatryan. 2022. “Investigating Drivers of Native Plant Production in the United States Green Industry.” MDPI Sustainability 14(11):6774. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116774
Tartaglia, E.S., and M.F.J. Aronson. 2024. “Plant Native: Comparing Biodiversity Benefits, Ecosystem Services Provisioning, and Plant Performance of Native and Non-Native Plants in Urban Horticulture.” Urban Ecosystems 27:2587–2611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-024-01610-5
Torres, A.P., A.L. Rihn, S.S. Barton, and B.K. Behe. 2024. “Perceptions and Socioeconomic Status Influence Purchases of Native Plants.” HortTechnology 34(2):153–160. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH05345-23
US Census Bureau. 2022. “Nation’s Urban and Rural Populations Shift Following 2020 Census” [press release]. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/urban-rural-populations.html
US Code. 7 U.S.C. § 3103 - Definitions. Available online: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2024-title7/USCODE-2024-title7-chap64-subchapI-sec3103
US Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS). 2023. Census of Agriculture. Available online: https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/
Whitinger, D. 2024. National Gardening Survey. National Gardening Association. Available online: https://gardenresearch.com/view/national-gardening-survey-2024-edition/
