This study estimates consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for sustainability turfgrass attributes such as low-input and stress-tolerance attributes, while considering potential trade-off relationships between aesthetic attributes and sustainability attributes. To address our objectives, our study conducts a choice experiment and estimates two mixed logit models. The first model includes low-input, winter kill, and shade-tolerance attributes as predictor variables, and the second model extends the first model by adding interaction terms between aesthetic and sustainability attributes. Another choice experiment is conducted under water policies with various water rate increase and watering restriction scenarios. Results from the mixed logit models show that overall, higher low-input cost reduction, less winter-damaged, and more shade-tolerance grasses are preferred, the direct effect of aesthetic attributes on consumers’ preference is strong, but the indirect effect represented by the interaction terms are generally statistically insignificant. Our results indicate that consumers like to have a pretty lawn, but no strong consideration is given to the aesthetics of their lawn when selecting low-input and stress-tolerance turfgrasses. Our choice experiment under water policy scenarios suggests that water pricing is more effective than watering restriction in increasing consumer demand for water-conserving turfgrasses. Our findings provide useful implications for future research in turfgrass breeding and evaluation of consumer preference for turfgrass. Many researchers have discussed potential degradation of aesthetic characteristics when developing input-saving turfgrass varieties. However, to the best of our knowledge, no earlier studies have investigated the effect of aesthetic deterioration caused by enhanced low-input and stress-tolerance attributed on consumers’ valuation of turfgrasses. Our findings suggest that aesthetic attributes need to be considered when conducting choice experiments for the valuation of the enhanced grasses, but limiting trade-offs may not be as important as enhancing low-input/stress-tolerance attributes when developing future turfgrasses. Another contribution might be the water policy outcomes from our choice experiment. Our experiment finds that the water pricing is more effective than the watering restriction in increasing consumer demand for water-conserving grasses, which could help develop better water policies in the future.
