1. The Case for Local Foods Mid-Ohio Valley: Ag. Opportunities Conference Jeff S. Sharp, Ohio State University March 17, 2007

2. Ohio Survey Core Project of the SRI

3. 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 4 noteworthy themes from the 2006 Ohio Survey of Food, Agriculture & Environmental Issues 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 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

4. 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

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 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

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 Nonfarmers—Participation in Farm & Rural “Recreation” Strongly Associated with Knowledge & Attitudes: Must be prepared for the consequence, though

17. 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

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 Organic “industrialization” challenges some basic tenets of sustainable agriculture's vision Decoupling of the link between organic and local Decoupling of the link between organic and local Research question Research question Who are the consumers that value the local and/or organic attributes? Who are the consumers that value the local and/or organic attributes?

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 Understanding motivations behind consumption Assist growers and retailers in understanding and developing their market Assist growers and retailers in understanding and developing their market See Hartman Group for ongoing market research & Consumer Profiles 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 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

26. 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

27. 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

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

29. 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 higher proportion in Central and Southeast Ohio Slightly higher proportion in Central and Southeast Ohio Large proportion of suburbanites Large proportion of suburbanites

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

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 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

41. 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

42. 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

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

44. 3 Concluding Observations

45. #1: We find 2 broad classes of local food system supporters Local only—strong 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 Transitions—challenge to both the local & dual sets Local—growing social distance from farming Dual—will younger be interested in cooking with whole foods?

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