Ohioans Views of Agriculture

1
Ohioans Views of Agriculture Local Foods

• 28th Annual OEFFA Conference
• Jeff S. Sharp, Ohio State University
• March 3, 2007

2
Ohio SurveyCore Project of the SRI
3
Goals of Todays 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

4
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

5
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 Ohios 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

6
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

7
Five Insights from the 2006 Statewide Survey
8
1 Must Prepare for Generational Transitions
Knowledge, participation support of ag.
consistently higher among older Ohioans
9
Self-reported level of knowledge about how or
where food is grown
10
Percent Very Knowledgeable by region
11
Percent Not at all knowledgeable by Age
12
2 Agriculture Continues to Enjoy Widespread
Support among Ohioans
13
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

14
Ag Economy

• Ohios Economy will suffer if the state continues
  to lose farmers
• 2006 84 percent agree or strongly agree
• 2004 85 percent
• 2002 80 percent

15
Views of Farmers

• I trust Ohio farmers to protect the environment
• 2006 63 percent agree or strongly agree
• 2004 67 percent
• 2002 60 percent

16
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

17
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)
18
4 Building Bridges to NonfarmersParticipation
in Farm Rural Recreation Strongly Associated
with Knowledge AttitudesMust be prepared for
the consequence, though
19
Participation in Rural/Farm Related Activities
20
5 Opportunity or Threat? Finding Common
Ground with the Environmental Community Many
Ohio environmentalists are actively interested
in the food farming sector
21
Typology Analysis from the 2004 Statewide Survey
2005 Motivated Consumer Study
22
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

23
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

24
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

25
Frequency of purchasing local and organic foods
by type( indicating frequently)
26
Willingness to Pay More( indicating WTP 10 or
more)
27
Disinclined (19 percent)

• Food safety
• Lowest level of concern about food safety
• Health
• 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

28
Moderately Inclined (36 percent)

• Food safety
• Modest level of concern about food safety
• Health
• Modest agreement that organic foods are healthier
  than conventional
• Attitudes about Farming/Farmers
• Modest to low social linkages to farmers

29
Organically Inclined (6 percent)

• Food safety
• High concern about food safety
• Health
• Strong belief that organic foods are healthier
  than conventional
• Demographics
• Youngest, highest income, most educated
• Largest proportion w/ children under 5 in the home

30
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

31
Locally Inclined (20 percent)

• Food safety
• Modest concern about food safety
• Health
• Little agreement that organic foods are healthier
  than conventional

32
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

33
Locally Inclined (cont.)

• Shopping Behaviors
• 24 frequently shop at Farmers 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

34
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

35
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

36
Dual Inclined (cont.)

• Shopping Behaviors
• 34 frequently shop at Farmers 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

37
Data from a Known Group of Alternative Food
System Consumers
38
Motivated Consumers

• Mail survey of household of a relatively
  long-lived 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

39
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

40
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

41
Motivated Consumers (cont.)

• Shopping Behaviors
• 33 frequently shop at Farmers 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

42
Availability and Price Factors( indicating very
important factor)
43
Observations about the typology findings?
44
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

45
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?

46
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 end-users

47
Opportunities

• Fellowship opportunity
• Training in Sustainable Sciences Through an
  Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Rural
  Sociology
• 4 Fellowships for Masters 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

48
Questions?

• Contact Information
• Jeff S. Sharp
• sharp.123_at_osu.edu
• 614-292-9410
• http//.ohiosurvey.osu.edu