1. What Ohioans Think About Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues Presentation by Jeff S. Sharp 2003 OEFFA Conference Johnstown, OH March 8, 2003

2. Contact Information  Jeff S. Sharp  311 Ag. Admin. Bldg.  2120 Fyffe Road  Columbus, OH 43210  E-mail: sharp.123@osu.edu  Phone: 614-292-9410

3. Project Background  Funded by OSU Extension, OARDC and the College of FAES  Leadership from Rural Sociology Program, Department of Human and Community Resource Development

4. Project Team  Department of HCRD/Rural Sociology Program  Jeff Sharp, Molly Bean Smith, Bill Flinn, Mark Tucker, Sherrie Whaley  OSU Extension  Greg Davis, Jerry Thomas, Denny Hall

5. Methodology  A stratified sample of 7,976 Ohioans was selected  Stratified by 5 extension districts and metro core county status  Dillman’s TDM utilized with 5 contacts  Response rate = 56.4%

6. Sample vs. State Population (2000 Census)  Close match: gender, age (over 24), households w/ kids, employment status and household incomes  Limitations  sample had lower proportion of renters, lower # of 18-24 year olds, and lower proportion of African Americans than expected compared to state population statistics

7. Outline of Presentation  Overview of general rural related findings  Ohioans and Local Food  Views of biotechnology, food safety, etc.  Views of large scale livestock and poultry  Discussion

8. General Rural Related Findings

9. Current and Preferred Place of Residence

10. Parents ever owned or operated a farm

11. Grandparents ever owned or operated a farm

12. Farmers known by place of residence

13. Does anyone in household maintain a vegetable garden?

14. Does anyone in household maintain a flower garden?

15. Q.Overall, farming positively contributes to the quality of life in Ohio. Q.Overall, farming positively contributes to the quality of life in Ohio.  2% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  6% Undecided  92% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

16. Q.Ohio’s economy will suffer if it continues to lose farmers.  6% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  14% Undecided  80% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

17. Q. Ohio’s most productive farmland should be preserved for agriculture.  2% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  6% Undecided  92% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

18. Q. I trust Ohio farmers to protect the environment.  12% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  29% Undecided  59% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

19. Q. Ohio farmers are generally sensitive to the concerns of nonfarm neighbors.  11% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  45% Undecided  44% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

20. Q. Environmental protection laws regulating farming practices are too strict.  19% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  59% Undecided  22% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

21. The Idea of Social Capital  The extent to which Ohioans are connected to agriculture (through family history; social networks, etc.) and the extent to which they have positive attitudes toward it (trust, confidence, etc.) can be a resource  Support of farmers/farming and tolerance of agriculture in the community may be greater where social capital exists.

22. Ohioans and Local Food

23. Selected Contrasts  Region of the State: NW, SE, C, SW, and NE  Place of residence: City, Suburb, Village, Country (nonfarm), Farm  Age: LT 40, 40-60, GT 60  Gender  Income: 6 categories (LT $20,000 to GT $100,000)

24. Q. Food is not as safe as it was 10 years ago.  35% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed  26% Undecided  39% Agreed or Strongly Agreed  More agreement among women  More agreement in SE Ohio  Less agreement among suburbanites  More agreement among lowest income (LT 20,000); Less agreement among highest income (GT 100,000)

25. Q. I consider imported food to be as safe as foods produced in the U.S.  63% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed  25% Undecided  12% Agreed or Strongly Agreed  Less agreement in SW Ohio  More agreement among suburbanites  More agreement among LT 40s

26. Q.How often purchase produce or other food items at a farmer’s market or roadside stand?  8% Never  23% Seldom  49% Occasionally  20% Frequently  Lower frequency in SW and Central Ohio; Higher in SE Ohio  Higher frequency among villagers and country (nonfarm) folks  Lower frequency among those LT 40 years old  Higher Frequency for women than men

27. Q. When given a choice, prefer to buy foods produced locally.  7% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed  13% Undecided  80% Agreed or Strongly Agreed  Less agreement in SW and C Ohio, more agreement in SE Ohio  Less agreement among suburbanites, more agreement among country and farm residents  Less agreement among LT 40s, more agreement among 60+  More agreement among women than men  More agreement among lowest income (LT 20,000)

28. Q.Importance of Research Goals: Create opportunities to buy fresh, locally grown foods  2% Not at all important  21% Somewhat important  77% Very Important  Lower support in SW and Central, Greater support in SE Ohio  Greater support among city folks  Lower support among LT 40s, greater support among GT 60s  Greater support among women than men  Greater support among lower income respondents (LT 35,000) and lower support among higher income (GT 100,000)

29. Q. Organic foods are safer than conventionally produced foods?  22% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed  41% Undecided  37% Agreed or Strongly Agreed  Less agreement among farm respondents

30. Importance of Research Goals: Increase Availability of organically produced foods  9% Not at all important  45% Somewhat important  46% Very important  Greater support among lower income (LT 35,000), lower support among higher income (GT 75,000)  Lower support among farm residents  Greater support among women

31. Q. Biotechnology is having a negative impact on the safety of our food supply  20% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed  59% Undecided  21% Agreed or Strongly Agreed  Less agreement in central Ohio  More agreement among women  More agreement among low income (LT 35,000); less agreement among highest income (GT 100,000)

32. Large-scale livestock and poultry

33. Familiarity with Issues  Respondents were asked: Are you familiar with the issues associated with large-scale poultry and livestock facilities?  33 percent of respondents indicated “yes”  66 percent indicated “no”

34. Familiarity by gender

35. Familiarity by region of the state

36. Concern about livestock  How concerned are you about the development of large-scale poultry and livestock production facilities in Ohio? (very, somewhat, or not at all)  21 percent very concerned  51 percent somewhat concerned  28 percent not at all concerned

37. Concern among those familiar with the issues  Concern was higher among those indicating they were familiar with the issues  34 percent very concerned  51 percent somewhat concerned  15 percent not at all concerned

38. Level of Concern by age (among those familiar with the issues)

39. Level of Concern by region (among those familiar with the issues)

40. Attitudes about livestock among those familiar w/ the issue

41. Q. Large-scale poultry and livestock production facilities in rural areas are a threat to rural quality of life.  22% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  19% Undecided  59% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

42. Q. There needs to be increased regulation of livestock production in Ohio to protect the environment.  17% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  26% Undecided  57% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

43. Q. Large-scale poultry and livestock facilities pose a serious threat to water and stream quality in Ohio  11% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  18% Undecided  71% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

44. Q. Large-scale livestock facilities positively contribute to the economy of Ohio.  14% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  27% Undecided  59% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

45. Q. Animal agriculture raises serious ethical questions about the treatment of animals  24% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  41% Undecided  35% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

46. Modeling results related to livestock measures

47. Model: Familiarity w/ Issues surrounding livestock  Age, education, being male are positively related to familiarity  Living in central Ohio has a very strong positive relationship  Parents owning a farm, frequency of conversing with a farmer, and frequency of visiting rural area is positively related  Know of nearby facility has a very strong, positive relationship, living in a county with more livestock sales positively related to familiarity

48. Model: Concern for livestock welfare (scale)  Women indicate more concern  More educated indicate less concern  Southwest Ohioans indicate less concern  Less concern among those w/ parent owning a farm and those frequently meeting farm folks  Strong pro-agrarian attitudes, greater concern  Greater trust of farmers, less concern

49. Findings: Concern rural/environment impacts (scale)  Parents own a farm, less concern  Near a facility, less concern but in a county with higher sales, more concern  Pro-agrarian attitudes, greater concern  Greater trust in farmers, less concern

50. Findings: Overall concern  Older respondents indicate greater concern  Living near a facility, more overall concern  Concern about rural/environmental impacts, substantial impact on level of concern  Concern about animal welfare, more modest impact on level of concern

51. Wrap-up

52. Future plans  Additional analysis and associated Extension and research manuscripts to be generated through mid-2003  Willingness to do customized analysis for interested parties  Explore possibility of repeating study in 2004 examining these and other emerging FAE issues