Characterizing Local and Organic Food Consumers

1
Characterizing Local and Organic Food Consumers

• Presentation at Ohio Direct Ag. Marketing
  Conference
• January 20, 2005
• Toledo, OH

2
Contact Information

• Jeff Sharp,
• Associate Professor Rural Sociology
• 311 Ag. Admin.
• 2120 Fyffe Road,
• Columbus, OH 43202
• E-mail sharp.123_at_osu.edu
• Telephone [phone]
• Website Ohiosurvey.osu.edu

3
Outline of Presentation

• Introduction Local and Organic Foods
• Profiles of Ohio local and organic food consumers
• Data from 2004 OH Survey of Food, Agricultural,
  and Environmental Issues
• Existing profiles of alternative food consumers
• Typology of Ohio Consumers
• Future Food System Research Activites

4
Consumer demand

• Changes in consumer demand have been impacting
  various types of commodities
• Health, diet, and safety are important
  considerations
• Some products benefit, some dont from changing
  demand
• Organic attribute has been one beneficiary--USDA
  reports that the organic and specialty crops
  market is growing by 20 percent each year

5
Growing interest in local

• USDA identified 1,755 Farmers Markets in its
  1994 directory by 2004 there were 3,706 Farmers
  Markets
• Growth of Community supported agriculture, over
  1,000 operating in the U.S. from 0 in the 1980s
• Growing interest among chefs to utilize locally
  produced foodstuffs

6
The Central Ohio Chef-Grower Network

• Mission To promote the use of local foods in
  Central Ohio restaurants increase awareness of
  local food production grow partnerships between
  farmers and chefs and promote regional
  sustainable agriculture.

To Join or to Request More Information Please
Contact PO Box 261062, Columbus, OH
43226 Voice 614- 439-3132 E-mail
farm2chef2003_at_yahoo.com
7
Organic Industrialization Local

• Growth in organic market has led to some
  industrialization of organic production
• Large scale production, large-scale processing
• Cascadian Farms, store brand organic, etc.
• Industrialization challenges the traditional
  link between organic and local production
• Emerging question How do local producers,
  particularly organic producers, adapt to market
  with lower cost industrial organic products?

8
Goal of Research

• Our research endeavor is organized to distinguish
  the factors associated with local versus organic
  food consumption
• Sociological interest in the role of class and
  access
• Practical interest in providing information to
  food system stakeholders about consumer interest
  in these food items
• This research is Part I of a three step sequence
  of analysis

9
About the OH Survey of FAE Issues

• Biennial Mail Survey of Rural Urban Ohioans
• Funded from variety of sources
• College of FAES, OSU Extension, OARDC, variety of
  faculty and program collaborators
• Household sample purchased from private vendor
• Response rate 56 percent

10
About the 2004 Sample

• Sample is stratified to ensure representation
  from rural and urban areas of Ohio
• Characteristics of 2004 parallel characteristics
  of Ohio population as reported in 2000 Census
• Key differencessample slightly more educated,
  reported slightly higher home values, and
  included a modestly smaller proportion of African
  American respondents

11
Some General, Food related findings from 2004
Survey
12
Ohioans Concern about Food, Agriculture
Environmental Issues (1Not concerned 7Very
Concerned)
13
Food Safety Attitudes
14
Q. Food is not as safe as it was 10 years ago

• 29 Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed
• 24 Undecided
• 47 Strongly Agreed or Agreed

15
Q. Concerns about food safety are exaggerated

• 47 Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed
• 25 Undecided
• 28 Strongly Agreed or Agreed

16
Food Purchasing Considerations
17
Importance of factors considered when purchasing
food ( indicating very important)
18
Support for local and organic foods
19
Frequency of purchasing local and organic foods
20
Frequency of purchasing local and organic foods
by region ( indicating frequently)
No significant difference by region
21
Willingness to pay for local and organic foods
22
Typology of Consumers
23
Typology Background

• Potential benefits of 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
• Assist in development of the local foodscape

24
Typology Example (Hartman Group)

• True Naturals (7 percent)express deeply held
  environmental concerns and follow through on
  concerns regularly consume organic products
• New Green Mainstream (23 percent)care about
  environment, but generally only change when
  convenient
• Affluent Healers (12 percent)motivated by
  personal health more than environment
• Young Recyclers (10 percent)into more solid
  waste type issues, not focused on food matters

25
Typology Example (cont.)

• Overwhelmed (22 percent)primarily motivated by
  economics
• Unconcerned (25 percent)generally not concerned
  with environment do not recognize problems with
  food

26
Typology of Local vs. Organic Consumers

• Many of the factors associated with support for
  organic have been substantiated in the
  literature, such as environmental concern and
  health concern
• Few studies have looked at factors associated
  with local as a food attribute distinct from
  organic

27
Basis for Typology

• Four cell typology focusing on willingness to pay
  (WTP) more for local and/or organic

28
Labeling Consumer Types

• Disinclined Those unwilling to pay more for
  either local or organic (36 of sample)
• Organically Inclined Those willing to pay more
  for organic only (6)
• Locally Inclined Those willing to pay more for
  local only (25)
• Super Inclined Those willing to pay more for
  both local and organic (33)

29
Organically Inclined (6 percent)

• Strong belief that organic foods are healthier
  than conventionally grown foods
• Often look for health information and most likely
  to indicate the use of food to maintain good
  health
• Express the greatest concern for food safety
• Most likely to have stopped purchasing a product
  due to a food safety concern
• Express greater concern about mad cow disease

30
Organically Inclined (cont.)

• 70 percent reside in a city or suburb also most
  educated, on average
• 15 percent are or have been members of a food
  co-op relatively frequent use of natural food
  grocers
• Less likely to come from a farm background and
  know far few farmers, on average, than other sets
  of consumers
• Least trusting of farmers to protect the
  environment

31
Locally Inclined (25 percent)

• Large proportion of Southeast Ohioans
• Frequent farmers market and roadside stand
  consumers
• Know a relatively large number of farmers on
  average, most likely to have grown up on a farm
  or in the country (30 percent)
• Strongest support for agriculture and greatest
  trust of Ohio farmers

32
Locally Inclined (cont.)

• Highly value food purchases that will keep a
  farmer in business
• Relatively high rating of Grown in Ohio label
• Loss of farmland is a serious concern
• Least positive view of organics
• Do not think organics are healthier
• Very low rating of organic label as a factor in
  decision making

33
Super Inclined (33 percent)

• Consistent with organically inclined
• Strong belief that organically grown is healthier
• Many have stopped buying products for food safety
  reasons
• Often look for health information
• More frequently shop at natural food grocer/co-op

34
Super Inclined (cont.)

• Consistent with locally inclined
• Know quite a few farmers, on average
• Trust Ohio farmers and have positive attitudes
  about agricultures importance to the state
• Loss of farmland is a concern
• Highly rate grown in Ohio attribute and purchases
  that will keep a farmer in business

35
Super Inclined (cont.)

• Members of this group are more likely than others
  to belong to some type of environmental
  organization and recycle
• Most likely to maintain a vegetable garden
• More common in NE, Central, and SW Ohio

36
Disinclined (36 percent)

• Second to taste (and related quality attributes),
  price is the most important consideration for
  these folks in their food purchases
• Least likely to belong/contribute to an
  environmental organization

37
Disinclined (cont.)

• Least interested in knowing how food is grown and
  low concern with food safety
• Least likely to look for health information when
  buying food products
• Even though interest is relatively low, generally
  are less interested in local attributes than
  organic

38
Implications

• Important to note, super-inclined do not require
  local and organic attribute in same product
• While industrialization of organic production
  is occurring, there is still a sizable market out
  there that values the local attribute and which
  may be inclined to pay for that attribute
• There is also a sizable market out there that
  supports local, but is not excited by the organic
  attribute

39
Implications

• Need to further examine the super inclined and
  the local subsets
• Determine whether there are additional
  distinguishing characteristics among those with
  an interest in local beyond simply whether it has
  the organic attribute or not.

40
Next steps in the research

• Continued Refinement of the Local and Organic
  Consumer Typology
• 2005 Survey of motivated food consumers
  (members of a food co-op and environmental
  organization)
• 2005 Series of Focus Groups gauging interest in
  local/organic foods with different socio-economic
  groups