Transcript Sneak Peak at Results from 2004 Survey

The Case for Local Foods
Mid-Ohio Valley: Ag. Opportunities Conference
Jeff S. Sharp, Ohio State University
March 17, 2007
Ohio Survey
Core Project of the SRI
Outline of Presentation



This is a dense presentation, informed by a lot of data
Highlight 4 noteworthy themes from the 2006 Ohio
Survey of Food, Agriculture & Environmental Issues
Discuss characteristics of 5 consumer types,
characterized by their interest in organic or local


Also consider a motivated food consumer group as well
Concluding observations
2006 Survey


Mail survey returned from 1,729 Ohioans
Response rate of 55%

Respondents compare favorably to known
characteristics of Ohio population


A higher proportion of respondents were homeowners
than is true of Ohio’s general population
Just over 3 percent of respondents resided on a
farm
Four Insights from the
2006 Statewide Survey
#1: Must Prepare for
Generational Transitions:
Knowledge, participation &
support of ag. consistently
higher among older Ohioans
Self-reported level of knowledge about
how or where food is grown
65%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
15%
20%
10%
0%
Not at all
Knowledgeable
Somewhat
Knowledgeable
Very Knowledgeable
Percent “Very Knowledgeable”
by region
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
%
North
west
South
east
Central
South
west
North
east
27
18
15
13
12
Percent “Not at all knowledgeable”
by Age
40%
35%
35%
30%
25%
18%
20%
18%
13%
15%
10%
5%
0%
35 and
younger
36 to 50
51 to 64
65 and over
#2: Agriculture Generally
Enjoys Widespread Support
among Ohioans
Views of Farming

Overall, farming positively contributes to the
quality of life in Ohio



2006: 88 percent agree or strongly agree
2004: 90 percent
2002: 92 percent
Ag & Economy

Ohio’s Economy will suffer if the state continues
to lose farmers



2006: 84 percent agree or strongly agree
2004: 85 percent
2002: 80 percent
Views of Farmers

I trust Ohio farmers to protect the environment



2006: 63 percent agree or strongly agree
2004: 67 percent
2002: 60 percent
Animal Welfare

In general, increased regulation of the
treatment of animals in farming is needed



2006: 51 percent agree or strongly agree
2004: 47 percent
2002: 48 percent
#3: Farmer-Nonfarmer
Relationships Matter:
Visiting with a farmer
associated with increased
support & reduced concerns
(63% of Ohioans report having no conversations
with farm household members)
#4: Building Bridges to
Nonfarmers—Participation in
Farm & Rural “Recreation”
Strongly Associated with
Knowledge & Attitudes:
Must be prepared for the
consequence, though
Participation in Rural/Farm Related Activities
Activity
Recreational drive through the country
Purchase at farmer’s market or
roadside stand
Buy locally grown foods
Attend county fair/festival
Visit pick your own farm
Tour/visit working farm
Attend farm organization event
% Occasionally
or Frequently
82
77
76
58
37
16
11
Typology Analysis from the
2004 Statewide Survey &
2005 Motivated Consumer
Study
Research Context

Organic “industrialization” challenges some
basic tenets of sustainable agriculture's vision


Decoupling of the link between organic and local
Research question

Who are the consumers that value the local and/or
organic attributes?
Ohioans Interest in Local
and Organic Foods
Frequency of purchasing local and
organic foods
57
60
Local
Organic
50
42
40
33
32
30
18
20
10
10
7
1
0
Frequently
Occassionally
Seldom
Never
% frequently purchasing local and
organic foods by region
50
45
45
Local
39
40
35
31
Organic
31
27
30
25
20
15
10
9
9
5
5
8
8
0
Southeast
Northwest
Northeast
Central
Southwest
Why Consider Typologies



Understanding motivations behind
consumption
Assist growers and retailers in understanding
and developing their market
See Hartman Group for ongoing market
research & Consumer Profiles
Ohio Types, based on interest in
Local & Organic


Disinclined (19.2%)—rate both local and
organic as not important factors when making
food purchases
Moderately inclined (35.7%)—rate organic
and local as somewhat important
considerations
Ohio types (cont.)



Locally inclined (20.2%)—rate local as
important, but not organic
Organically inclined (5.6%)—rate organic as
important, but not local
Dual inclined (19.3%)—rate organic and local
both as very important factors
Frequency of purchasing local and
organic foods by type
(% indicating frequently)
Local
Frequently
buy Organic
1
Disinclined
1
Frequently
buy local
40
11
Organic
22
14
Mod.
Dual
Inclined Inclined
6
21
28
54
Willingness to Pay More
(% indicating WTP 10% or more)
Local
Local
68
Disinclined
46
Organic
19
19
Organic
56
48
Mod.
Dual
Inclined Inclined
61
70
50
54
Disinclined (19 percent)

Food safety:


Health


Lowest level of concern about food safety
Little agreement that organic foods are healthier
than conventional
Demographics


Slightly higher proportion in Central and Southeast
Ohio
Large proportion of suburbanites
Moderately Inclined (36 percent)

Food safety:


Health


Modest level of concern about food safety
Modest agreement that organic foods are healthier
than conventional
Attitudes about Farming/Farmers

Modest to low social linkages to farmers
Organically Inclined (6 percent)

Food safety:


Health


High concern about food safety
Strong belief that organic foods are healthier than
conventional
Demographics


Youngest, highest income, most educated
Largest proportion w/ children under 5 in the home
Organically Inclined (cont.)

Attitudes about Farming/Farmers



Low level of trust of farmers to protect the
environment
Relatively low rating of grown in Ohio attribute
and modest rating of keeping a farmer in business
Fewest social ties to farmers
Locally Inclined (20 percent)

Food safety:


Modest concern about food safety
Health

Little agreement that organic foods are healthier
than conventional
Locally Inclined (cont.)

Attitudes about Farming/Farmers



Strongest social linkages to farmers
High level of trust of farmers to protect the
environment
High rating of grown in Ohio attribute and keep a
farmer in business
Locally Inclined (cont.)

Shopping Behaviors



24% frequently shop at Farmer’s Market
Low frequency--member of food co-op or
purchasing from a natural food grocer
Demographics


Slightly younger than state average, slightly higher
income than state average
Slightly higher proportion of Northwest Ohioans
Dual Inclined (19 percent)

Food safety:


Highest level of concern about food safety
Health


Strong agreement that organic foods are healthier
than conventional
82 percent indicate being health conscious
Dual Inclined (cont.)

Attitudes about Farming/Farmers



Highest level of trust of farmers to protect the
environment
Highest concern about the treatment of animals in
farming
Very high rating of grown in Ohio attribute and of
keeping a farmer in business
Dual Inclined (cont.)

Shopping Behaviors



34% frequently shop at Farmer’s Market
Relatively high frequency--member of food co-op
or purchasing from a natural food grocer
Demographics



Much older on average, less educated, lower
income
More common city or small town resident; also
relatively higher frequency in southeast
Much more likely to be women
Data from a Known Group
of Alternative Food System
Consumers
Motivated Consumers

Mail survey of household of a relatively longlived neighborhood food co-op located in
Central Ohio



Sample was all household co-op members
allowing address to be used for mailing purposes
304 responses (74% response rate)
Conducted Winter/Spring 2005
Motivated Consumers

Food safety:


High level of concern about food safety (~Dual)
Health


Near unanimous agreement that organic foods are
healthier than conventional
Nearly all indicate being health conscious
Motivated Consumers (cont.)

Shopping Behaviors



33% frequently shop at Farmer’s Market (~Dual)
All members of food co-op
Demographics




Much younger, relative to average statewide
respondent
Very highly educated (81% BA or more), Average
income levels
Very liberal (all others types moderates)
70% women
Availability and Price Factors
(% indicating very important factor)
Dis
M.Inc.
Org.
Loc
M.C.
70
Dual.
Inc.
84
Available
where shop
63
64
63
Price
63
59
60
67
77
30
54
3 Concluding
Observations
#1: We find 2 broad classes
of local food system
supporters
Local only—strong interest in supporting
farmers & Ohio farming
Local (& organic)—Health, environment,
broader spectrum of food & farming
attributes
#2: Price & Convenience
remain important to both
local & dual inclined
Challenge of developing the local
foods distribution infrastructure
#3: Generational
Transitions—challenge to
both the local & dual sets
Local—growing social distance from
farming
Dual—will younger be interested in
cooking with whole foods?
Questions?
Contact Information:
Jeff S. Sharp
[email protected]
614-292-9410
http//.ohiosurvey.osu.edu