Transcript Ohioans Views of Agriculture & Local Foods 28th Annual OEFFA Conference Jeff S.

Ohioans Views of Agriculture &
Local Foods
28th Annual OEFFA Conference
Jeff S. Sharp, Ohio State University
March 3, 2007
Ohio Survey
Core Project of the SRI
Goals of Today’s Presentation


Communicate some general society-agriculture
issues that may merit consideration
Explore some “ideal” types of Ohio consumers
interested in local and/or organic foods


Also consider in comparison to a known group of
Alternative Food System (AFS) consumers
Identify some opportunities/needs for further
development of AFS
Outline of Presentation



This is a dense presentation, informed by a lot of data
Highlight 5 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
Just over 7 percent of respondents were from
households with a Farm Bureau member
Goals of Survey Project



Study topical and emergent FAE issues
Data for planning and evaluation
Track changes across time



Cohort effects: older versus younger generations
Intervening events, such as Mad cow; energy, etc.
Changes in knowledge or awareness due to an
educational campaign, or societal trend
Five 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 Continues to
Enjoy 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
In 2002, 23 percent disagreed or strongly
disagreed in 2006 12 percent disagreed or
strongly disagreed
#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
#5: Opportunity or Threat?
Finding Common Ground with the
Environmental Community:
Many Ohio “environmentalists”
are actively interested in the food
& farming sector
Typology Analysis from the
2004 Statewide Survey &
2005 Motivated Consumer
Study
Why Consider Typologies




Better understanding of what drives certain
consumption patterns
Assist growers and retailers in understanding
and developing their market
May help to increase the consumption or
purchasing of particular foods
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 younger than state average, slightly higher income
than state average
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
Modest concern about the treatment of animals in
farming
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.)

Attitudes about Farming/Farmers


Very, very low level of trust of farmers to protect
the environment
Modest rating of grown in Ohio attribute and of
keeping a farmer in business
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
Observations about the
typology findings?
Some Takeaway Observations

A local oriented group is discernable



Strong ties to farming/skeptical of organics
An interesting group, possibly not well integrated
into the alternative food system movement
Moderately inclined

Potential target audience to introduce to alternative
food systems
Observations (cont.)

Dual Inclined versus Motivated


Interesting differences between the two sets
Data suggest there is a motivated, but unorganized
constituency for local and/or organic that may not
be in the AFS network



Price conscious (although “high” price may be relative)
Interested in availability where they normally shop
How do local alternative farmers/retails tap this market
segment, especially in face of mass market competition?
Future Steps




2006 Focus group analysis, NCSARE funded
Animal Welfare focus in 2007
Develop themes for 2008 statewide survey
Consider a new project that digs even deeper:
need to better partner/collaborate with endusers
Opportunities

Fellowship opportunity



Training in Sustainable Sciences Through an
Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Rural
Sociology
4 Fellowships for Master’s level students starting
in either 2007 or 2008 will be awarded
Spring Local Food Series

Phil Howard, March 27th: Be Careful What you
Wish For: The Mainstreaming of Organic Food
Questions?
Contact Information:
Jeff S. Sharp
[email protected]
614-292-9410
http//.ohiosurvey.osu.edu