Describing Local and Organic Food Consumers

0
0
2557 days ago, 768 views
PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Contact Information. Jeff Sharp, Associate Professor Rural Sociology311 Ag. Admin.2120 Fyffe Road,Columbus, OH 43202E-mail: sharp.123@osu.eduTelephone: 614-292-9410Website: Ohiosurvey.osu.edu. Blueprint of Presentation. Presentation: Local and Organic FoodsProfiles of Ohio nearby and natural nourishment consumersFuture Research.

Presentation Transcript

Slide 1

Portraying Local and Organic Food Consumers Ohio River Valley Farm Marketing Conference February 23, 2005 Mason, OH

Slide 2

Contact Information Jeff Sharp, Associate Professor Rural Sociology 311 Ag. Administrator. 2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus, OH 43202 E-mail: sharp.123@osu.edu Telephone: 614-292-9410 Website: Ohiosurvey.osu.edu

Slide 3

Outline of Presentation Introduction: Local and Organic Foods Profiles of Ohio nearby and natural sustenance customers Future Research

Slide 4

Consumer request Changes in shopper request have been affecting different sorts of items Health, eating routine, and security are essential contemplations Some items advantage, some don't from changing interest Organic trait has been one recipient - USDA reports that the natural and strength crops market is developing by 20 percent every year

Slide 5

Growing enthusiasm for neighborhood USDA recognized 1,755 Farmer's Markets in its 1994 catalog by 2004 there were 3,706 Farmer's Markets Growth of Community upheld horticulture, more than 1,000 working in the U.S. from 0 in the 1980s Growing enthusiasm among gourmet experts to use privately delivered foodstuffs

Slide 6

Organic Industrialization & Local Growth in natural market has prompted to some "industrialization" of natural generation "Industrialization" challenges the customary connection amongst natural and neighborhood creation Emerging inquiry: How do nearby, natural makers adjust to market that incorporates bring down cost, modernly delivered natural items?

Slide 7

Goal of Research Our exploration attempt is composed to recognize the variables related with neighborhood versus natural sustenance utilization Sociological enthusiasm for the part of class and get to Practical enthusiasm for giving data to nourishment framework partners about customer enthusiasm for these nourishment things This examination is Part I of a three stage grouping of investigation

Slide 8

About the OH Survey of FAE Issues Biennial Mail Survey of Rural & Urban Ohioans Funded from assortment of sources College of FAES, OSU Extension, OARDC, assortment of personnel and program teammates Household test list from private merchant Response rate ~56+ percent

Slide 9

About the 2004 Sample is stratified to guarantee portrayal from provincial and urban territories of Ohio Characteristics of 2004 parallel qualities of Ohio populace as announced in 2000 Census Key contrasts—test somewhat more taught, detailed marginally higher home estimations, and incorporated an unassumingly littler extent of African American respondents

Slide 10

Support for nearby and natural nourishments

Slide 11

Ohioans' self-revealed recurrence of obtaining neighborhood and natural sustenances

Slide 12

Frequency of buying nearby and natural nourishments by area (% showing as often as possible) *No noteworthy distinction by district

Slide 13

Willingness to pay for nearby and natural nourishments

Slide 14

Typology of Consumers

Slide 15

Typology of Local versus Natural Consumers Many of the components related with support for natural have been substantiated in the writing, for example, ecological concern and wellbeing concern Few reviews have taken a gander at elements related with neighborhood as a sustenance property particular from natural

Slide 16

Basis for Typology Four cell typology concentrating on eagerness to pay (WTP) more for nearby as well as natural

Slide 17

Labeling Consumer Types Disinclined = Those unwilling to pay more for either nearby or natural (36% of test) Organically Inclined = Those ready to pay more for natural just (6%) Locally Inclined = Those ready to pay more for nearby just (25%) "Super" Inclined = Those ready to pay more for both nearby and natural (33%)

Slide 18

Organically Inclined (6 percent) Strong conviction that natural nourishments are more advantageous than traditionally developed nourishments Often search for wellbeing data and destined to demonstrate the utilization of nourishment to keep up great wellbeing Express the best sympathy toward sustenance security Most liable to have quit buying an item because of a sustenance wellbeing concern Express more prominent worry about frantic dairy animals malady

Slide 19

Organically Inclined (cont.) 70 percent live in a city or suburb likewise most instructed, by and large 15 percent are or have been individuals from a nourishment community; moderately visit utilization of regular sustenance merchants Less liable to originate from a ranch foundation and know far couple of agriculturists, by and large, than different arrangements of buyers Least trusting of agriculturists to ensure the earth

Slide 20

Locally Inclined (25 percent) Large extent of Southeast Ohioans Frequent rancher's market and roadside stand buyers Know a generally vast number of agriculturists by and large, well on the way to have experienced childhood with a homestead or in the nation (30 percent) Strongest support for agribusiness and most noteworthy trust of Ohio agriculturists

Slide 21

Locally Inclined (cont.) Highly esteem nourishment buys that will keep a rancher in business Relatively high evaluating of "Developed in Ohio" quality Loss of farmland is a genuine concern Least positive perspective of organics Do not think organics are more beneficial Very low appraising of natural name as a figure basic leadership

Slide 22

Super Inclined (33 percent) Consistent with naturally slanted Strong conviction that naturally developed is more advantageous Many have quit purchasing items for sustenance wellbeing reasons Often search for wellbeing data More habitually shop at normal sustenance food merchant/center

Slide 23

Super Inclined (cont.) Consistent with privately slanted Know many ranchers, overall Trust Ohio agriculturists and have uplifting mentalities about horticulture's significance to the state Loss of farmland is a worry Highly rate developed in Ohio trait and buys that will keep an agriculturist in business

Slide 24

Super Inclined (cont.) Members of this gathering are more probable than others to have a place with some kind of natural association and reuse Most prone to keep up a vegetable garden More basic in NE, Central, and SW Ohio

Slide 25

Disinclined (36 percent) Second to taste (and related quality properties), cost is the most essential thought for these people in their sustenance buys Least liable to have a place/add to an ecological association

Slide 26

Disinclined (cont.) Least intrigued by knowing how nourishment is developed and low worry with sustenance wellbeing Least liable to search for wellbeing data when purchasing sustenance items

Slide 27

Concluding Observations Important to note, super-slanted don't require neighborhood and natural quality in same item While "industrialization" of natural creation is happening, there is still a sizable market out there that values the nearby trait and which might be slanted to pay for that trait There is likewise a sizable market out there that backings nearby, yet is not energized by the natural property

Slide 28

Additional Analysis Need to additionally look at the super disposed and the nearby subsets Determine whether there are extra recognizing attributes among those with an enthusiasm for neighborhood past basically whether it has the natural characteristic or not.

Slide 29

Next strides in the exploration Continued Refinement of the Local and Organic Consumer Typology 2005 – Survey of spurred sustenance buyers (individuals from a nourishment center and ecological association) 2005 – Series of center gatherings gaging enthusiasm for nearby/natural nourishments with various financial gatherings

SPONSORS