2009 FSEP Conference

1. Michiganders’ Local Food
Perspectives
David S Conner, Kathryn Colasanti, Susan B.
Smalley, C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable
Food Systems
Brent Ross
Michigan State University

2. Acknowledgements
State funds for this project were matched
with Federal funds under the Federal-
State Marketing Improvement Program of
the Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

3. Overview: Increasing Farmers
Market Patronage in Michigan
• Goal to increase farmers market participation,
especially among under-served populations
• Outputs include recommendations to market
managers, vendors to increase market traffic,
broaden customer base, enhance sales

4. Increasing Farmers Market
Patronage in Michigan:
Qualitative Results

5. Farmers Market Background
• Shoppers tend to be highly educated,
professional, middle-aged to older,
middle-upper income, Caucasian and
female
• Produce freshness is a primary reason
consumers prefer farmers markets
• Lack of awareness, inconvenient times
or no market in the area are primary
reasons consumers do not shop at
farmers markets

6. Research Motivation
• Most research about FMs has been
collected from market shoppers
• Typical FM shopper is not
representative of diverse populations
• Under-represented groups
– Young singles
– Young parents
– Low-income households
– Racial and ethnic minorities

7. Research Questions
• What are consumers’ awareness
levels, motivations and behaviors
surrounding farmers markets?
• What are consumers’ perceived
barriers or disincentives to greater
participation in farmers markets?

8. Focus Groups
• Purposeful, maximum variation sampling
method
• 7 focus groups with a total of 63 people
1. Rural, Caucasian
2. Rural, Caucasian, Hispanic, African-American
3. Rural, Mexican-American women
4. Rural, Caucasian
5. Urban, Arab-American women
6. Urban, Young Singles, Caucasian, Hispanic,
African-American
7. Urban, Young Parents, Asian and Middle Eastern
Immigrants

9. Overview of Results

10. Overview of Results

11. Overview of Results

12. Overview of Results

13. Signs and Promotion
“You must let people know when, where, to open the farm
market. Maybe many people like to choose fresh
vegetables, fresh fruit from market. But if they always
miss the time, they always miss the farm market in just
maybe Saturday, one day in only one place, so I think
you let people know where, when, is very important.
Sometimes maybe you can from the newspaper in [name
of city] even… Many people didn't know. They don't know
where, when and what.”

14. Overview of Results

15. Time Constraints
“There is certain food that they run out of and that they
only bring a certain amount of, and when it is gone it is
gone. And this year I have noticed, because it is a lot
busier than it has ever been, if you are not there early
you do not have a lot of choices. Sometimes if I can’t
get there until the afternoon I might not go. It might not
be worth my time to go.”

16. Overview of Results

17. Location and Facilities
• Downtown location
– Walkable vs. out of the way
– Excursion vs. grocery shopping
– Visible location vs. traffic congestion
• Facilities
– Payment methods
– General appearance

18. Overview of Results

19. Atmosphere
• Vendors and customers openly
annoyed with their children
• Asked to purchase things that their kids
had touched
• Feeling of “being watched”
• Offended by how vendors presented
themselves

20. Key Themes for Follow-Up
• Fairness of prices
• Adequacy of selection and produce
quality
• Convenience of hours and location
• Welcoming atmosphere of the farmers
market
• Significant demographic differences

21. Quantitative Data Collection
• Questions on quarterly State of the State Poll
conducted by MSU, October 2008
• N=953, representative sample of state
• Questions included
• Behavior: shopper, market attendance, money spent
• Attitudes: importance of price, quality, convenience,
atmosphere, food safety, etc. on shopping decision
• Beliefs: are farmers’ markets good value, convenient,
welcoming?
• Demographics: sex, ethnicity, income, age,
education, HH size; plus religion, political views

22. Data Analysis
• Descriptive: means and frequencies
• Cross-tabulation and group means
• Regressions
–Ordinary Least Squares for expenditure
–Binary (Probit) for FM shopper

23. Results: Descriptive Stats
• 90% of respondents do some food shopping
(other 10% skipped subsequent questions)
• Of those:
– 61% had attended a farmers market in past year
– Reported shopping four times (mean) in previous month
(September 2008) and spending on average $25 per trip (median)
– $200 million statewide in September ($100/month, ~4 million
households, ~50% of population shopped at FM)
– Ag Census 2007: $50 million direct food sales statewide
– Over/undercounting?

24. Descriptives, cont’d
Most important factors in where to shop
• Food quality (3.80)
• Food safety (3.75)
• Supporting local farmers (3.71)
For FM shoppers
• Agreed markets are: easily accessible, adequate supplies
• Not able to use preferred payment method (e.g., EBT,
credit or debit cards)
Non-shoppers: agreed good value and welcoming
atmosphere

25. Cross-tabulation &Comparison
(race/ethnicity)
• Latinos
– Less likely (than rest of population) to shop at FMs
– More likely to cite variety, location and convenience
and welcoming atmosphere as important
• African Americans are
– More loyal to current stores
– Find FMs comfortable and conveniently located
– Importance on food safety and products grown without
pesticides

26. Cross-tabulation & Comparison
(income/age)
Low income: (<$20K) place more value on price,
convenience, one-stop shopping and products
grown without pesticides
Young parents (18-35)
• Less likely to shop at FMs
• Place more importance on convenient hours,
one-stop shopping and welcoming atmosphere.

27. Regression: FM shopper
Statistically significant variables
+ more likely to be a FM shopper
• Single (+)
• White (+)
• Employed part time (-)
• Latino (-)
Importance of…
• Quality (+)
• Support local (+)
• Convenience (-)
• One-stop shop (-)

28. Regression: Market Spending
# shopping trips in last month (Sept 08) x $
spent
Higher expenditure associated with
• Very important view of:
–Value
–Welcoming atmosphere
–Pesticide free produce
• Less importance on convenience

29. Regression: Market Spending
• Female
• # children at home
• Union status
All negative in sign
Themes: quality, local (+), convenience (-)

30. Recommendations: Managers
and Vendors
• Market the market: use multiple
communication channels to let people know
location and hours
• Recruit more farmers of color (especially
Latinos) to make markets more welcoming to
all
• Accept credit cards and EBT/Bridge Card
payment for increased convenience
• Highlight availability of Michigan Grown
products with labels and signs

31. Recommendations: Policy
For state and federal policy makers
• Enhance state promotion efforts like Select
Michigan
• Encourage state agencies to highlight food
stamp recipients’ ability to purchase healthy food
• Assist farmers to adopt organic/sustainable
practices
For local policy makers
• Integrate FMs within planning efforts: balance of
accessible, lively, family friendly

32. Conclusions
• High current reported participation, room for
improvement with marketing, policy efforts
• Limitations:
–FGs not representative,
–Social desirability bias (survey/census)
• Future directions: investigate tensions
–Convenience and atmosphere
–Downtown vs. ample parking
–Lively vs. family friendly

33. Defining Locally Grown Food
Locally Grown Definitions MUST BE GROWN BY
FARMER PERSON
KNOWS
3.5% MUST BE GROWN IN
18.3% THE COUNTY PERSON
11.2% LIVES
MUST BE GROWN
18.0% WITHIN A 100 MILES
OF HOME
MUST BE GROWN IN
MICHIGAN
49.1% Nearly half say MUST BE GROWN IN
Local = Michigan GREAT LAKES REGION

34. Locally Grown – September 2008
Did you purchase/receive locally grow n
food during Septem ber 2008?
25%
1YES
5 NO
About ¾ got
75%
SOME local
food

35. Locally-grown Food Perspectives
Locally Grown Food Costs Too Much
STRONGLY AGREE
3%
25% SOMEWHAT AGREE
25%
NEITHER
1% AGREE/DISAGREE
How do your
prices compare SOMEWHAT DISAGREE
with non-local
Items? 46%
STRONGLY DISAGREE

36. Locally-grown Food Perspectives
Locally Grow n Foods are Available
at the Places I Like to Shop
STRONGLY AGREE
10%
SOMEWHAT AGREE
25%
21% NEITHER AGREE/ DISAGREE
SOMEWHAT DISAGREE
1%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
43%

37. Locally-grown Food Perspectives
It doesn't m atter to m e STRONGLY AGREE
if m y food is locally grow n
SOMEWHAT AGREE
22% 10% NEITHER
AGREE/DISAGREE
28%
SOMEWHAT DISAGREE
39% 1%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
Local matters
to some extent
to over half

38. Locally-grown Food Perspectives
I would buy more locally grown foods
if they were easier to identify at the store STRONGLY AGREE
2%
SOMEWHAT AGREE
10%
1% NEITHER
AGREE/DISAGREE
28%
59% SOMEWHAT DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
How do you help
Customers ID local?

39. Locally-grown Food Perspectives
I don't have Tim e to Shop STRONGLY AGREE
for Locally Grow n Foods
SOMEWHAT AGREE
11%
NEITHER
36%
24% AGREE/DISAGREE
SOMEWHAT DISAGREE
1%
28% STRONGLY DISAGREE
How can you help customers
save time when they
purchase from you?

40. Locally-grown Food Perspectives
I cannot find the kinds of locally grown foods I
want, when I want them
STRONGLY AGREE
13%
23% SOMEWHAT AGREE
How do you
communicate NEITHER
what you have AGREE/DISAGREE
to sell? 33%
SOMEWHAT
30% DISAGREE
1% STRONGLY
DISAGREE

41. Locally-grown Food Perspectives
There are some kinds of locally grown
foods that I don't use because
I don't know how to prepare or cook them
STRONGLY AGREE
13%
SOMEWH AGREE
AT
35%
24% NEITH AGREE/DISAGREE
ER
What prep
information
do you SOMEWH DISAGREE
AT
1%
provide? 27%
STRONGLY DISAGREE

42. Value of Direct-to-Consumer Food
Marketing* by Region, 1997-2007

43. Growth of Direct-to-Consumer Food
Marketing by Region, 1997-2007

44. Direct-to-Consumer Food Marketing Sales
by Region as a Share of Total
Agricultural Sales

45. Top 10 States, Direct-to-Consumer Food
Marketing as Share of Total Agricultural Sales
Where is Michigan?

46. Top 10 States, Growth of Direct-to-
Consumer Food Marketing, 1997-2007
Where is Michigan?

47. Michigan Direct-to-Consumer Food Marketing as
Share of Total Agricultural Sales, 2007
1.2%
1.0% 1.0%
1.0%
0.8%
0.8% 0.7%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
1992 1997 2002 2007

48. 2007 Direct-to-Consumer Food
Marketing Sales

49. Farms Participating in Direct-to-
Consumer Food Marketing, 2007

50. Value of Direct-to-Consumer Food
Marketing Sales, 2007

51. C.S. Mott Professor of Sustainable Agriculture at Michigan State University
is pleased to be a sponsor
We engage communities in applied research and outreach
that promote sustainable food systems
to improve access to and availability of healthy, locally-produced food
For more information:
www.mottgroup.msu.edu
517-432-1612