Ending the sale of peat: consultation analysis

2. About respondents and their use of peat

This chapter explains more about who responded to the consultation and how they use peat, particularly in the context of horticulture.

Respondent profile

The consultation and Respondent Information Form asked multiple questions to gather information about respondents. These included whether they were an individual or organisation, the name of their organisation, how they would categorise themselves or their organisation (Q1), and what their business sells, produces or grows (Q2).

As there was overlap across these questions, analysts created a single classification to ensure the sub-group analysis was conducted and presented consistently. The classification was based on the information provided by respondents to these questions and approved by the Scottish Government.

The table below details the number of respondents within each category and the percentage of the total sample each category represents. The ‘Professional gardener / commercial grower’ category includes individuals and organisations.

Some organisations were trade associations or bodies representing specific industries. These organisations have been included within the category they represent.

A range of sizes of organisations were represented in the 83 organisational responses. One third (35%) had fewer than 10 employees, while at the other end of the scale, 23% had over 250 employees. The full profile is provided in Appendix A

Use of peat

In Q4, respondents were presented with a list of possible uses of peat and asked to select all those which applied to them or their organisation. Analysts coded responses from those answering that they do not use peat to ensure those who do not use peat were accurately included in the analysis of Q4, shown in the table below.

Just over one quarter of all respondents – 27% - commented that they do not, or no longer, use peat, while a further 9% did not answer Q4.

Once these respondents are removed, the most common use of peat among those answering was amateur gardening (59%), followed by heating, with 17% extracting their own peat and 14% buying peat for fuel. These percentages were driven by individuals, with over two thirds of individual respondents being amateur gardeners and only small proportions indicating they use peat in any professional capacity.

Organisations that responded to the consultation use peat for a variety of purposes. Almost half use it to grow ornamentals (29%) or fruit and vegetables (19%), and a further 16% in professional gardening. Some who selected the ‘other specify’ option indicated they use peat for growing other species. One quarter (26%) of organisations sell peat or products containing peat in their retail outlets, and 17% use it in food and drink production, specifically whisky.

One third (33%) stated that peat alternatives are readily available and clearly labelled in their local retail outlets, and a further third (32%) stated that alternatives are there but that they need to scrutinise the packaging. Two thirds of individuals (67%), including 77% of hobby gardeners, selected one of these two categories in roughly equal proportions.

Organisations were most likely to provide another response (42%), which are presented below. A further 30% felt alternatives were available and clearly labelled, and 18% that packaging needs to be scrutinised. Other sub-group differences included:

• Retail plant sales organisations and growing media organisations were most likely to state that alternatives are available and clearly labelled – 70% and 57%, respectively.
• The groups most likely to feel it was very difficult to find alternatives were individual peat extractors/fuel users (30%), whisky organisations (20%) and professional gardeners/commercial growers (19%).

Q6 received 189 open comments. A mix of views were expressed, with respondents describing different experiences of sourcing peat-free alternatives. Several respondents highlighted labelling as a barrier to finding peat-free alternatives; further detail on respondents’ comments about labelling is included in Chapter 3.

Easy to find

Many stated that it is easy to find peat-free alternatives at local retail outlets; some elaborated that the availability of such products has increased in recent years. Sources of peat-free alternatives included garden centres, hardware stores and supermarkets. Some stated they prefer bulk buying online or directly from growing media producers. A few highlighted specific stores which have stopped selling peat-based products in lieu of peat-free alternatives.

“I find most of the major stores (Dobbies, B&Q, local garden centres etc.) stock compost which is clearly labelled as peat free. The industry is obviously well aware gardeners are looking for this now.” – Individual

“The situation is much improved this year compared to previous years, which may be due to a deliberate policy of my local retailer, which is Aldi.” – Individual

However, some noted that whilst the availability of, and information about, peat-free alternatives had improved in retail over the past couple of years, these were still not always readily available or were not high quality. A few mentioned staff were not always helpful in enabling respondents to source peat-free alternatives.

“Easy to find but very inconsistent in quality” - Strathkinness Community Trust

“My small local garden centre of choice stocks a range of clearly labelled peat-free alternatives; in my experience, many of the large retail chains do not.” - Individual

Difficult to find

Some described it as difficult to find peat-free alternatives, citing limited stock and choice available at local retail outlets, or inconsistent provision across different stores. A few added that peat-free alternatives are particularly difficult to find in rural areas. One respondent who described themselves as vegan explained it was hard to find peat-free products which are also free of animal products, as many alternatives contain sheep wool.

“There were no alternatives available in the store at all, even though I looked for one specifically without peat.” – Individual

“Larger retail outfits appear to stock and label peat-free alternatives quite well and have several alternatives, but in my experience the smaller garden centres frequently appear to have but a very limited amount and little selection.” – Individual

Other comments

Several respondents said they had not tried to find peat-free alternatives before because they only use homemade compost or peat-based products.

The table above presents the results of Q7, ranked from the most to least important consideration when buying growing media. Full results by type of respondent for each consideration can be found in Appendix A.

Among all respondents, environmental consequences were considered most important – 77% stated this is very important to their choice and a further 11% important. More detail about respondents’ environmental considerations is included in Chapter 8. Three other factors were considered important by most respondents, but to a lesser degree – 34% felt performance is very important, 27% consistent product quality and 17% cost. Most (85%) stated that brand loyalty is not important.

Several differences were evident by type of respondent across the five considerations:

• Environmental consequences were considered very important by 79% of individuals and 63% of organisations. Over half of all respondent types considered this very important, except for growing media organisations (29%) and individual peat extractors/fuel users (16%).
• Performance was far more likely to be very important for organisations (78%) than individuals (29%), particularly organisations in retail plant sales (91%) and growing media (86%).
• Consistent product quality was very important to 72% of organisations compared to 22% of individuals, with all growing media organisations and 82% of retail plant sales organisations considering this aspect very important.
• Fewer than one in five individuals (17%) or organisations (18%) rated cost as very important. Over half (52%) of individual peat extractors/fuel users rated cost as very important; this was the most important consideration for this group.
• 88% of individuals and 63% of organisations felt brand loyalty was not important. Most types of respondent felt the same, except for 71% of growing media organisations who considered brands to be quite important.

Respondents were asked to share any other considerations which affect their choices when buying growing media; 128 open comments were received. Many reiterated or elaborated on the five considerations listed in the closed question by describing how product quality and environmental factors, such as products being peat-free, consisting of sustainable ingredients or having biodegradable or plastic-free packaging, affect their buying choices.

The most common additional consideration mentioned by respondents was availability. This was described in terms of both available stock within stores and outlets and local availability, i.e. whether growing media could be purchased within a reasonable distance from their home or delivered to their location.

Some stated they prefer using organic or natural products and try to purchase growing media which is free from fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or artificial chemicals.

A few felt that brand reputation and behaviours are important. One expressed their preference for companies with sustainable business models, and another noted that they avoided a particular growing media brand due to past problematic business practices.

Some said they prefer to buy from small, independent stores rather than large retailers to stimulate the local economy and support local businesses. Two respondents said their buying choices are influenced by gardening media, like magazines, websites and television programmes.