1. Ohioans Views of Agriculture & Local Foods 28 th Annual OEFFA Conference Jeff S. Sharp, Ohio State University March 3, 2007

2. Ohio Survey Core Project of the SRI

3. Goals of Today’s Presentation Communicate some general society-agriculture issues that may merit consideration Communicate some general society-agriculture issues that may merit consideration Explore some “ideal” types of Ohio consumers interested in local and/or organic foods 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 Also consider in comparison to a known group of Alternative Food System (AFS) consumers Identify some opportunities/needs for further development of AFS Identify some opportunities/needs for further development of AFS

4. Outline of Presentation This is a dense presentation, informed by a lot of data 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 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 Discuss characteristics of 5 consumer types, characterized by their interest in organic or local Also consider a motivated food consumer group as well Also consider a motivated food consumer group as well Concluding observations Concluding observations

5. 2006 Survey Mail survey returned from 1,729 Ohioans Mail survey returned from 1,729 Ohioans Response rate of 55% Response rate of 55% Respondents compare favorably to known characteristics of Ohio population Respondents compare favorably to known characteristics of Ohio population A higher proportion of respondents were homeowners than is true of Ohio’s general 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 3 percent of respondents resided on a farm Just over 7 percent of respondents were from households with a Farm Bureau member 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 Study topical and emergent FAE issues Data for planning and evaluation Data for planning and evaluation Track changes across time Track changes across time Cohort effects: older versus younger generations Cohort effects: older versus younger generations Intervening events, such as Mad cow; energy, etc. Intervening events, such as Mad cow; energy, etc. Changes in knowledge or awareness due to an educational campaign, or societal trend 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 Overall, farming positively contributes to the quality of life in Ohio 2006: 88 percent agree or strongly agree 2006: 88 percent agree or strongly agree 2004: 90 percent 2004: 90 percent 2002: 92 percent 2002: 92 percent

14. Ag & Economy Ohio’s Economy will suffer if the state continues to lose farmers Ohio’s Economy will suffer if the state continues to lose farmers 2006: 84 percent agree or strongly agree 2006: 84 percent agree or strongly agree 2004: 85 percent 2004: 85 percent 2002: 80 percent 2002: 80 percent

15. Views of Farmers I trust Ohio farmers to protect the environment I trust Ohio farmers to protect the environment 2006: 63 percent agree or strongly agree 2006: 63 percent agree or strongly agree 2004: 67 percent 2004: 67 percent 2002: 60 percent 2002: 60 percent

16. Animal Welfare In general, increased regulation of the treatment of animals in farming is needed In general, increased regulation of the treatment of animals in farming is needed 2006: 51 percent agree or strongly agree 2006: 51 percent agree or strongly agree 2004: 47 percent 2004: 47 percent 2002: 48 percent 2002: 48 percent In 2002, 23 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed in 2006 12 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed 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 Nonfarmers—Participation in Farm & Rural “Recreation” Strongly Associated with Knowledge & Attitudes: Must be prepared for the consequence, though

19. Participation in Rural/Farm Related Activities Activity % Occasionally or Frequently Recreational drive through the country 82 Purchase at farmer’s market or roadside stand 77 Buy locally grown foods 76 Attend county fair/festival 58 Visit pick your own farm 37 Tour/visit working farm 16 Attend farm organization event 11

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 Better understanding of what drives certain consumption patterns Assist growers and retailers in understanding and developing their market Assist growers and retailers in understanding and developing their market May help to increase the consumption or purchasing of particular foods May help to increase the consumption or purchasing of particular foods See Hartman Group for ongoing market research & Consumer Profiles 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 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 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 Locally inclined (20.2%)—rate local as important, but not organic Organically inclined (5.6%)—rate organic as important, but not local Organically inclined (5.6%)—rate organic as important, but not local Dual inclined (19.3%)—rate organic and local both as very important factors 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) Local Dis- inclined Organic Mod. Inclined Dual Inclined Frequently buy Organic 1114621 Frequently buy local 4011222854

26. Willingness to Pay More (% indicating WTP 10% or more) Local Dis- inclined Organic Mod. Inclined Dual Inclined Local6846486170 Organic1919565054

27. Disinclined (19 percent) Food safety: Food safety: Lowest level of concern about food safety Lowest level of concern about food safety Health Health Little agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional Little agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional Demographics Demographics Slightly younger than state average, slightly higher income than state average Slightly younger than state average, slightly higher income than state average Slightly higher proportion in Central and Southeast Ohio Slightly higher proportion in Central and Southeast Ohio Large proportion of suburbanites Large proportion of suburbanites

28. Moderately Inclined (36 percent) Food safety: Food safety: Modest level of concern about food safety Modest level of concern about food safety Health Health Modest agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional Modest agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional Attitudes about Farming/Farmers Attitudes about Farming/Farmers Modest to low social linkages to farmers Modest to low social linkages to farmers

29. Organically Inclined (6 percent) Food safety: Food safety: High concern about food safety High concern about food safety Health Health Strong belief that organic foods are healthier than conventional Strong belief that organic foods are healthier than conventional Demographics Demographics Youngest, highest income, most educated Youngest, highest income, most educated Largest proportion w/ children under 5 in the home Largest proportion w/ children under 5 in the home

30. Organically Inclined (cont.) Attitudes about Farming/Farmers Attitudes about Farming/Farmers Low level of trust of farmers to protect the environment 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 Relatively low rating of grown in Ohio attribute and modest rating of keeping a farmer in business Fewest social ties to farmers Fewest social ties to farmers

31. Locally Inclined (20 percent) Food safety: Food safety: Modest concern about food safety Modest concern about food safety Health Health Little agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional Little agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional

32. Locally Inclined (cont.) Attitudes about Farming/Farmers Attitudes about Farming/Farmers Strongest social linkages to farmers Strongest social linkages to farmers High level of trust of farmers to protect the environment High level of trust of farmers to protect the environment Modest concern about the treatment of animals in farming Modest concern about the treatment of animals in farming High rating of grown in Ohio attribute and keep a farmer in business High rating of grown in Ohio attribute and keep a farmer in business

33. Locally Inclined (cont.) Shopping Behaviors Shopping Behaviors 24% frequently shop at Farmer’s Market 24% frequently shop at Farmer’s Market Low frequency--member of food co-op or purchasing from a natural food grocer Low frequency--member of food co-op or purchasing from a natural food grocer Demographics Demographics Slightly younger than state average, slightly higher income than state average Slightly younger than state average, slightly higher income than state average Slightly higher proportion of Northwest Ohioans Slightly higher proportion of Northwest Ohioans

34. Dual Inclined (19 percent) Food safety: Food safety: Highest level of concern about food safety Highest level of concern about food safety Health Health Strong agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional Strong agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional 82 percent indicate being health conscious 82 percent indicate being health conscious

35. Dual Inclined (cont.) Attitudes about Farming/Farmers Attitudes about Farming/Farmers Highest level of trust of farmers to protect the environment Highest level of trust of farmers to protect the environment Highest concern about the treatment of animals in farming Highest concern about the treatment of animals in farming Very high rating of grown in Ohio attribute and of keeping a farmer in business Very high rating of grown in Ohio attribute and of keeping a farmer in business

36. Dual Inclined (cont.) Shopping Behaviors Shopping Behaviors 34% frequently shop at Farmer’s Market 34% frequently shop at Farmer’s Market Relatively high frequency--member of food co-op or purchasing from a natural food grocer Relatively high frequency--member of food co-op or purchasing from a natural food grocer Demographics Demographics Much older on average, less educated, lower income Much older on average, less educated, lower income More common city or small town resident; also relatively higher frequency in southeast More common city or small town resident; also relatively higher frequency in southeast Much more likely to be women 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 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 Sample was all household co-op members allowing address to be used for mailing purposes 304 responses (74% response rate) 304 responses (74% response rate) Conducted Winter/Spring 2005 Conducted Winter/Spring 2005

39. Motivated Consumers Food safety: Food safety: High level of concern about food safety (~Dual) High level of concern about food safety (~Dual) Health Health Near unanimous agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional Near unanimous agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional Nearly all indicate being health conscious Nearly all indicate being health conscious

40. Motivated Consumers (cont.) Attitudes about Farming/Farmers Attitudes about Farming/Farmers Very, very low level of trust of farmers to protect the environment 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 Modest rating of grown in Ohio attribute and of keeping a farmer in business

41. Motivated Consumers (cont.) Shopping Behaviors Shopping Behaviors 33% frequently shop at Farmer’s Market (~Dual) 33% frequently shop at Farmer’s Market (~Dual) All members of food co-op All members of food co-op Demographics Demographics Much younger, relative to average statewide respondent Much younger, relative to average statewide respondent Very highly educated (81% BA or more), Average income levels Very highly educated (81% BA or more), Average income levels Very liberal (all others types moderates) Very liberal (all others types moderates) 70% women 70% women

42. Availability and Price Factors (% indicating very important factor) DisM.Inc.Org.Loc Dual. Inc. M.C. Available where shop 636463708454 Price635960677730

43. Observations about the typology findings?

44. Some Takeaway Observations A local oriented group is discernable A local oriented group is discernable Strong ties to farming/skeptical of organics Strong ties to farming/skeptical of organics An interesting group, possibly not well integrated into the alternative food system movement An interesting group, possibly not well integrated into the alternative food system movement Moderately inclined Moderately inclined Potential target audience to introduce to alternative food systems Potential target audience to introduce to alternative food systems

45. Observations (cont.) Dual Inclined versus Motivated Dual Inclined versus Motivated Interesting differences between the two sets 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 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) Price conscious (although “high” price may be relative) Interested in availability where they normally shop Interested in availability where they normally shop How do local alternative farmers/retails tap this market segment, especially in face of mass market competition? 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 2006 Focus group analysis, NCSARE funded Animal Welfare focus in 2007 Animal Welfare focus in 2007 Develop themes for 2008 statewide survey Develop themes for 2008 statewide survey Consider a new project that digs even deeper: need to better partner/collaborate with end- users Consider a new project that digs even deeper: need to better partner/collaborate with end- users

47. Opportunities Fellowship opportunity Fellowship opportunity Training in Sustainable Sciences Through an Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Rural Sociology 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 4 Fellowships for Master’s level students starting in either 2007 or 2008 will be awarded Spring Local Food Series Spring Local Food Series Phil Howard, March 27 th : Be Careful What you Wish For: The Mainstreaming of Organic Food Phil Howard, March 27 th : Be Careful What you Wish For: The Mainstreaming of Organic Food

48. Questions? Contact Information: Jeff S. Sharp sharp.123@osu.edu614-292-9410http//.ohiosurvey.osu.edu