The Case for Local Foods

1
The Case for Local Foods

• Mid-Ohio Valley Ag. Opportunities Conference
• Jeff S. Sharp, Ohio State University
• March 17, 2007

2
Ohio SurveyCore Project of the SRI
3
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

4
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

5
Four Insights from the 2006 Statewide Survey
6
1 Must Prepare for Generational Transitions
Knowledge, participation support of ag.
consistently higher among older Ohioans
7
Self-reported level of knowledge about how or
where food is grown
8
Percent Very Knowledgeable by region
9
Percent Not at all knowledgeable by Age
10
2 Agriculture Generally Enjoys Widespread
Support among Ohioans
11
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

12
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

13
Views of Farmers

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

14
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

15
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)
16
4 Building Bridges to NonfarmersParticipation
in Farm Rural Recreation Strongly Associated
with Knowledge AttitudesMust be prepared for
the consequence, though
17
Participation in Rural/Farm Related Activities
18
Typology Analysis from the 2004 Statewide Survey
2005 Motivated Consumer Study
19
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?

20
(No Transcript)
21
Ohioans Interest in Local and Organic Foods
22
Frequency of purchasing local and organic foods
23
frequently purchasing local and organic foods
by region
24
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

25
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

26
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

27
Frequency of purchasing local and organic foods
by type( indicating frequently)
28
Willingness to Pay More( indicating WTP 10 or
more)
29
Disinclined (19 percent)

• Food safety
• Lowest level of concern about food safety
• Health
• Little agreement that organic foods are healthier
  than conventional
• Demographics
• Slightly higher proportion in Central and
  Southeast Ohio
• Large proportion of suburbanites

30
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

31
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

32
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

33
Locally Inclined (20 percent)

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

34
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

35
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

36
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

37
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

38
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

39
Data from a Known Group of Alternative Food
System Consumers
40
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

41
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

42
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

43
Availability and Price Factors( indicating very
important factor)
44
3 Concluding Observations
45
1 We find 2 broad classes of local food system
supporters

• Local onlystrong interest in supporting farmers
  Ohio farming
• Local ( organic)Health, environment, broader
  spectrum of food farming attributes

46
2 Price Convenience remain important to both
local dual inclined

• Challenge of developing the local foods
  distribution infrastructure

47
3 Generational Transitionschallenge to both
the local dual sets

• Localgrowing social distance from farming
• Dualwill younger be interested in cooking with
  whole foods?

48
Questions?

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