Prepared by
Dr. Tim Rhodus, Janet Schwartz, and James Hoskins
Department of Horticulture
The Ohio State University
Report to the Ohio Rural Rehabilitation Program
Ohio Department of Agriculture
May, 1994
Index
Executive SummaryBackground and Previous Studies
Attitudes and Behaviors of Consumers Who DO Shop at Roadside Markets and Farmers' Markets
Attitudes and Behaviors of Consumers Who DO NOT Shop at Roadside Markets and Farmers' Markets
Likelihood of Non-shoppers Becoming Shoppers of Direct Markets
Attitudes of the General Population
List of Tables
Table 1. Percentage of direct farm market shoppers
Table 2. Breakdown of households by shopping behavior
Table 3. Age distribution of shoppers and non-shoppers
Table 4. Frequency of community size by age and income
Table 5. Frequency of "Lite and Heavy" users
Table 6. Rate of shopping at direct farm markets
Table 7. Most often shopped markets which are open year round
Table 8. Household income and most often shopped markets which are open year round
Table 9. Number of markets which are open year round
Table 10. Three most often purchased items
Table 11. Frequency of roadside markets offering additional items
Table 12. Age of consumer and awareness of local farmers' markets
Table 13. Reasons why consumers have not shopped in the past year
Table 14. Likelihood of non-shoppers becoming shoppers of direct markets
Table 15. Non-shoppers preferences toward days of the week
Table 16. Factors influencing where consumers purchase fresh produce
Table 17. Demographics and factors influencing where consumers purchase fresh produce
Table 18. Comparing roadside markets and supermarkets
Table 19. Comparing farmers' markets and supermarkets
Table 20. Comparing roadside markets, farmers' markets and supermarkets
Table 21. Factors influencing non-shoppers on where they purchase fresh produce
List of Figures
Figure 1. Age distribution of shoppers and overall sample
Figure 2. Income distribution of shoppers and overall sample
Figure 3. Number of different markets shopped in the past year
Figure 4. Time spent driving to the most often shopped market
Figure 5. Size of community and time spent driving to the most often shopped roadside market
Figure 6. Household income and time spent driving to the most often shopped farmers' market
Figure 7. Shopping frequency and time spent driving to the most often shopped farmers' market
Figure 8. Shopping frequency and time spent driving to the most often shopped roadside market
Figure 9. Products purchased most often at roadside markets by customers from different communities
Figure 10. Awareness of local roadside markets by non-shoppers
Figure 11. Awareness of any advertising by local markets
Figure 12. Awareness of advertising by local roadside markets across age groups
Figure 13. Main reasons for not shopping at a roadside market across age groups
Figure 14. Differences in preferred day to shop between men and women
Figure 15. Differences in preferred day to shop across age groups
Figure 16. Preferences for buying produce directly from the farmer
Ohioans are unquestionably interested in buying high quality fresh produce. A survey of the general population in Ohio was designed to gather information regarding purchasing behavior and attitudes in regards to fresh fruits and vegetables. Over 88% of Ohio households believe they receive higher quality produce directly from the farmer and an even greater percentage (90%) of the households said they prefer to buy their fresh fruits and vegetables directly from the farmer, whenever possible.
Over a 12 month period (August, 1992 to August, 1993), 55% of Ohio's households shopped at a roadside market and of these, (64%) indicated they shopped four or more times. Alternatively, only 29% of all respondents had shopped at a farmers' market and of this only 40% had shopped four or more times.
When asked to compare roadside and farmers' markets against supermarkets, consumers felt that produce quality, produce freshness, and produce prices were better at roadside and farmers' markets than supermarkets. However, supermarkets were judged to be doing a better job of offering what the consumer wanted when it came to: convenient location to home, variety of produce, convenient hours, consistent supply, store promotions, and convenient location to work.
For those households which did not shop at a roadside market in the past 12 months, issues of convenience were most often given as the primary reason for not shopping. This included: not convenient/too far away (45%), takes too much time (12%), and not open the hours I want (4%). Other reasons for not shopping included: prefer buying at supermarkets (18%), raise my own vegetables (10%), and too expensive (4%).
Similar reasons were given by those who did not shop at a farmers' market but the issue of convenience was more obvious. Over 60% of the households surveyed (64%) claimed that farmers' markets were not conveniently located, too far away, or took too much time to get to.
Non-shoppers were asked if they would consider shopping at a roadside or farmers' market if one were conveniently located near their home. A majority of the households indicated that they probably would or definitely would (55% regarding roadside markets, and 58% regarding farmers' markets).
These same non-shoppers were then asked to identify the relative importance of various store attributes when deciding where to shop for fresh produce. At least three out of four households in Ohio indicated that produce freshness (98%), produce quality (94%), convenient location (79%), selection of produce (75%), and prices for fresh produce (75%) were VERY IMPORTANT factors when deciding where to shop.
Combining these results, consumers in Ohio desire freshness, quality, convenience, selection, and value when it comes to buying fresh produce. Roadside markets and farmers' markets are perceived as doing the best job of offering what the consumer wants in three of the five categories, freshness, quality, and value. The challenge is to be successful in all five.
In recent years, many of Ohio's farm market operators have questioned their future viability and direction. Unlike the growth these farmers experienced in past decades, current operating profits have been stagnant, in part due to increased costs of operations, uncertainty about consumer behavior, and highly competitive regional supermarkets and specialty markets. While many of the older farmers have retired, those remaining in business are looking for assistance in developing strategies in marketing, distribution, and delivery. Coincidentally, increasing interest in establishing farmers' markets to provide consumers fresh products and expand market opportunities for low income farmers has created a tremendous need for basic information on how to organize such markets.
The research presented in this study will benefit Ohio's low income farmers who market their product through a farm market or a farmers' market. Because many of Ohio's low-income farmers and/or farm market operators lack sufficient resources to invest in consumer behavior research, the availability of this information on a statewide basis will enable hundreds of producers and retailers to develop strategic planning options that successfully exploit various market opportunities. By improving the chances for success and the viability of farm markets though the accumulation of relevant consumer information, this study may provide a critical "jump start" to firms trying to better serve their current and potential customers. Multiplier effects will result in additional revenue to rural businesses and individuals who provide support products and services to farm/farmer markets. Increasing customer satisfaction at farm/farmer markets will also result in increased consumer awareness of the health benefits associated with consuming a greater variety of fresh fruit and vegetables.
Through the cooperation of our partners in this project, Ohio Farm Bureau Farm Markets Division and the Ohio Department of Agriculture Division of Markets, information presented in this report will be disseminated in various ways so as to be best utilized by the industry.
Survey Procedures
The data collection phase of this project involved the use of a random telephone survey to contact and interview Ohio consumers. Five hundred households across Ohio completed the 40 question survey which was administered in approximately 10 minutes. Questions specifically addressed consumer preferences and attitudes regarding the purchase of fresh produce, while capturing consumer opinions regarding the advantages or disadvantages of shopping farmers' markets, roadside farm markets, or supermarkets for fresh fruits and vegetables. Questions also measured the frequency with which consumers shop at Ohio farmers' markets and roadside farm markets, the three most often purchased produce items, and demographic characteristics of shoppers and non-shoppers. Additionally, non-shoppers provided reasons as to why they have not purchased fresh produce at direct farm markets.
The survey interviewers asked to speak with the person who was primarily responsible for purchasing household food items. The questionnaire format provided for branching questions, which allowed the interviewer the most flexibility in identifying subgroups and quickly going to follow-up questions.
The questionnaire was designed by Dr. Tim Rhodus, Associate Professor and Janet Schwartz, M.S., Department of Horticulture, The Ohio State University with the assistance of the Farm Markets of Ohio Advisory Committee. Funding support was provided through a grant by the Ohio Rural Rehabilitation Program. Cooperation among the Ohio Department of Agriculture, Division of Markets, the Ohio Farm Markets Division of Ohio Farm Bureau, and The Ohio State University, Department of Horticulture greatly facilitated the completion of this project.
The Spencer Research Group Columbus, Ohio used a computerized phone format to conduct the survey. Statistical analysis and editorial review was performed by James Hoskins, M.S., Research Assistant, Department of Horticulture.
Background and Previous Studies
Rapid growth of direct-to-consumer roadside farm markets and urban farmers' markets is a phenomenon occurring throughout the country. During the decade from 1980 to 1990 the number of farmers' markets in the United States nearly doubled from 1,200 to over 2,000; in Ohio, from 15 to over 30. Estimates of the number of roadside stands in the United States are less precise. About 15 years ago the number of roadside farm markets was calculated at 15,000 for the country, with 600 in Ohio alone. Taken with more recent statements characterizing roadside market growth as "rapid" and "booming," a conservative guess would establish the number of roadside stands nationwide at well over 25,000. California has over 2,000 roadside stands and the number in Massachusetts is estimated at 600. A 1989 directory for a six county area of northeastern Ohio listed 65 direct market sources of farm products, meaning if this proportion holds true for the rest of the state there would be roughly 950 sites.
Roadside farm markets and farmers' markets exist in no typical form or size. Among roadside markets a basic division is between what are termed "producers" and "marketers." Farm market businesses which define themselves as marketers tend to offer a broader product line, are closer to population centers, produce a smaller percentage of the crops they sell and provide more customer services. Conversely, the producers tend to sell a single identifiable major crop and "their marketing operations and image [are] closely identified with that major crop." Either business type is more likely to be open year-round if located near a major population center (Erwin, Chatfield, and Robertson, 1983). An obvious conclusion for a prospective direct farm marketer is that one cannot locate in a remote area of the state, grow a full range of vegetables, open a roadside stand and then sit-back expecting customers to arrive from distant urban areas to purchase products. However, success stories are out there. One Massachusetts family has a roadside marketing business which has grown to the point of having hundreds of acres of vegetable production area, over 100 employees, and up to 6,000 customers per weekend at just one of their two roadside markets (Boston Globe, 8/29/90). This business located their busiest stand nearer to a more populated city, another indication that strategies for success must be based on awareness of the immediate business environment as well as knowledge of customer behaviors.
Farmers' Markets
The rise in popularity of urban farmers' markets has proven to be a fortunate event for growers located in more sparsely populated areas who wish to direct market fruit and vegetable produce. Farmers' markets are as varied in their characteristics as roadside markets. They range from large year-round and occasionally indoor venues in states' largest cities to seasonal June through October locations in smaller towns and cities. In Ohio presently, participation in a farmers' market should be viewed primarily as an opportunity for income supplementation. Most of the markets are Saturday-only events with the exception of a couple of the larger urban markets. A study of farmers selling at farmers' markets in Wisconsin found only seven percent of the producers had direct marketing as their sole source of income. About 85% of the growers reported income of $5,000 or less (UPI, 10/22/89).
While it is true that growers interested in getting a start in direct marketing are advised to start up with the expectation of income supplementation, trends indicate growth--not reduction--in the number of markets and opportunities for direct market growers. Although direct marketing of agricultural products is a business that should be entered cautiously, a national overview highlights the significance of direct marketing to the economy. "Agricultural experts say the amount of money that Americans pay directly to farmers has doubled [in the past 15 years] and is now close to $2 billion a year, or 2 percent of the total that people spent on produce" (NY Times, 10/3/91).
Farmers' Markets in California: Lessons for Ohio
Farmers' markets have become very popular in California. Over the past 15 years, California has experienced rapid growth in the number of farmers' markets. As of mid-1992 there were 184 certified farmers' markets in the state, up from only 15 in 1978. The city of Los Angeles with its system of neighborhood markets accounts for 25 of these markets. Growth in the number of markets operating within the three year period preceding the study was about 10% to 15% each year. Additionally, the average number of stalls per market has increased from 33 in 1990 to 43 in 1992, indicating a growth in both the number and size of California's markets. Sales per market, an indicator of market size, averaged about $200,000, but varied widely. Several of the markets had gross sales in excess of $1 million, while about a third of the markets had sales of less than $30,000. The situation in California merits study by Ohioans interested in farmers' markets as both an example of growth potential and as a model for the regulatory responses and market structures which accompany growth. An article, "Popularity Has Spawned Diversity--And Rules--At Certified Farmers' Markets," which appeared in California Agriculture, Vol. 47, No. 2, attributes growing farmers' market popularity to "consumers [who] have become increasingly interested in nutrition, food and environmental safety, and the use of agricultural practices that support these concepts." This article provides a summary of a 1992 survey conducted by researchers at the University of California, Davis, in which the current status and operating procedures of farmers' markets was investigated.
One of the principle findings of the UC, Davis study was that market participation requirements such as vendor-fees and grower certification have expanded. Also expanding have been criteria for qualification to sell at a farmers' market. The average-sized to large California farmers' market is not an unstructured place where, as an idealized portrait might have it, small growers load pick-up trucks of produce for a Saturday morning's display in the hope of bringing in a few dollars of supplemental income. In fact, farmers' markets have become highly organized with the sellers increasingly represented by a larger class of grower:
One-half of the markets, based on this random sample statewide survey, consist of 10% or fewer or small, part-time, hobby growers; another 15% of the markets have 10 to 25% part-time, hobby growers. Only 10% of the markets consist of 90% or more of these growers. Thus, while part-time, hobby farmers are a significant component of many farmers' markets, the majority of participants are small-scale farmers with a greater diversification and volume of produce than the smaller, part-time, hobby farmer. The above finding echoes what one observer of farmers' markets in Florida has noted as occurring in that state and leads to an important implication for the desirability of having a strong system of farmers' markets in Ohio. An article in the September 21, 1992 St. Petersburg Times commented that "farmers' markets also act as incubators for agricultural businesses...The purpose of the state farmers' markets is to help the little guys, when they grow big, they move out...Some of the growers and packers that today are located off the market started on the market." Thus, experiences from both Florida and California suggest that farmers' markets present opportunity for smaller producers to gain a foothold and valuable experience which can lead to larger production. In the long run, by encouraging a vital farmers' market system, the state may be laying the groundwork for developing a larger and more significant agribusiness sector.
All of the farmers' markets in California charge a weekly fee for participation. Calculation of the weekly fee varies from market to market. In about a third of the California markets a flat fee (average $17) is charged, while the remainder of the markets charge a percentage of gross sales (average fee 6%). About half of the markets require sellers to pay an annual membership or participation fee, which averages $20 across the state. Many California counties also require an annual participation fee, averaging $30, which gives farmers' market sellers a certificate--transferable to other counties in the state. Growers are required in certification to specify the location of their farm, its acreage, and the produce crops they raise. Certification of produce sellers is important to provide a measure of accountability in terms of food safety questions.
California has market rules for participation which are described as "continually changing." One of the main reasons for having rules and regulations regarding market participation in California occurs because in many markets the number of available display stalls is exceeded by the number of growers who would like to participate. The overall average occupancy rate at California's farm markets is 77%. The article notes that "the most prevalent criteria are unusual products that will provide variety, short-season products, advance reservations and regular attendance." In general, larger growers are more diversified growers and thus able to offer a greater mix of products. It is this consistent supply of marketable produce that enhances the ability of larger growers to qualify for space in farmers' market on an ongoing basis throughout a vending season. This has led to a tendency toward exclusion of smaller hobby growers in larger urban markets where space tends to be the most restricted.
Many of the California markets, however, make concerted efforts to provide space to "backyard growers," and about a third of the California markets reduce fees for these growers. Nonetheless, as the survey authors write in their article, "An undercurrent of dissatisfaction is expressed by some small and/or seasonal growers who feel excluded from farmers' markets due to a combination of factors: fees, rules and regulations, reservations, and competition from larger more diversified growers." The article goes on to point out that, in extreme cases, this dissatisfaction has led to "excluded growers/vendors [who] have filed lawsuits against farmers' market governing boards, arguing that stall-space priority rules violate the constitutional rights of participants in public functions and constitute illegal restriction of trade."
California has certain natural advantages over Ohio which contribute to the popularity and growth of their farmers' markets. A more temperate climate means selection and variety of locally grown produce is greater than for Ohio while seasons of availability are longer. Also, regulatory actions taken by the state assist both growers and buyers by helping to instill consumer confidence in the produce purchased at markets. The strict certification of farmers' market growers assures customer confidence in farmers' market products. To assist farmers' market sellers, direct sales of fruits, vegetables, and nuts is exempted from standardized size and packaging regulations imposed by the California Department of Food and Agriculture's Bureau of Fruit and Vegetable Quality Control and Standardization. When governmental entities take the opportunity to address, sort-out, and smooth issues related to farmers' markets undoubtedly a contribution to the success of the markets, and in turn the overall state agricultural economy is made.
Farmers' markets in California have strict regulations regarding the sale of out-of-state produce: it's strictly prohibited. Most central to the organizational concept of California's farmers' markets, however, is what is referred to as the "cardinal rule," which requires farmers to sell only what is produced on his or her farm. Often, individual market managers conduct on-farm visits to assure compliance. A market manager in Oakland makes routine farm visits and enforces the rule by imposing a one-year suspension and a $250 fine for violation (SF Chronicle, 6/13/90).
The question arises as to whether Ohio's farmers' markets should adopt and enforce the "sell your own" regulation as rigorously as does California. Ohio consumers are more used to the idea of having extended seasons for fresh produce by shipments from southern states and, increasingly, through importation from southern hemisphere foreign countries during winter months. Also, all popular citrus fruits are shipped in from other regions. The result is that many roadside farm markets--even those who raise their own on-farm produce--may supplement their own produce with items brought in from southern states.
Consumer Preferences for Fresh Produce
As indicated above, successful entry into a business venture begins with an understanding of consumer perceptions and behavior. A large measure of the growth in direct marketing can be attributed to consumer interest in improved nutrition. "From 1970 to 1986, per capita consumption of canned fruits and juices declined by 14 pounds and canned vegetables decreased by 3 pounds, but fresh fruits went up by 15 pounds and fresh vegetables by 17 pounds per capita." (USDA, Food Review, Jan., 1991). This same source points out that FDA and National Institutes of Health surveys in the mid-1980's found that fully 62% of the US population had made "major changes in their diets to try to reduce the risks of heart disease and cancer." Recently, The Packer magazine published results from a nationwide phone survey of 1,000 households entitled "1993 Fresh Trends Consumer Profile Study" in which 37% of the respondents said they were eating more fruits and vegetables than twelve months earlier. The study revealed health and nutrition factors as the number one reason for increased fresh produce consumption by consumers. Results indicated produce quality influences a person's decision on selection, while the motivation for buying is improved health and better nutrition.
Not surprisingly, consumers indicated that convenience makes the initial sale, but it is the produce quality which brings the repeat purchaser back to the store. The article indicates consumers think of "produce quality" as its appearance, taste, freshness, and ripeness. Many vegetable consumers indicated they would buy more often, if they found new ways to prepare vegetables, indicating the need for recipes and cooking information. Information about fruits and vegetables health benefits was important to the respondents reflecting the desire to purchase, if only they were aware of the nutritional value of the produce.
Respondents were asked about five factors considered as motivational influences for buying fresh produce and 60% responded they bought produce for the vitamin and mineral intake, while 57% said calorie control, 52% indicated fiber, 48% felt it was for the cholesterol benefit, and 34% said cancer prevention motivated them to eat fresh fruits and vegetables. It was the over 50 age group who were more likely to buy fresh produce for the health/nutrition benefits than any other age group. According to household size, a two person household was more likely to buy fruits and vegetables for health/nutrition reasons followed by the one person household.
The Fresh Trends study asked respondents about complaints when buying fresh produce and found 37% had "no complaints." These people were most likely to be the youngest and the oldest consumers. Complaints about the "quality" of fresh produce were raised by 34% of the respondents while 23% expressed concern about the prices of produce. Complaints about fruits were greater than vegetables with the consumers saying fruits are sold underripe, not provided with good use or storage information and thus they are disappointed in the taste of fruit once they get it home. Middle-income consumers ($22,500-$34,999) were most likely to complain about prices. Of these consumers, 30% complained about prices, compared to only 23% of consumers earning less money.
According to Fresh Trends, attitudes about fresh produce tend to change a great deal as people age. Although health concerns were important to all ages, the younger age groups were primarily concerned with vitamins and minerals and the older age groups with calorie control, cholesterol, and fiber. Of the 1,002 consumers interviewed, 83% were women and 17% men. Women were more likely to be influenced by other family members in their buying decisions. In purchasing fruit, price was an important consideration for all income groups, however, regarding vegetables, price is a factor for lower-income groups but less important for those in higher income groups. It was reported that higher income groups, $22,500 or more, were more likely than others to prefer fresh produce rather than canned or frozen fruits and vegetables. Larger households (three or more), were more likely to purchase convenience produce and new products.
Geographically, consumers in western states were more aware of the 5 a Day program, in part because the producers industry began their 5 a Day for Better Health campaign in California in the early 1990's. The goal of this campaign is to increase fruit and vegetable consumption 50%, to five servings a day, by the year 2000. The study reported that media exposure was a factor influencing opinions about fresh produce for 20% of the respondents, although 80% said the respondents believed media had not influenced their opinions. Consumers in their 40's and 50's were the most likely group to be influenced by the media regarding opinions on fresh produce. About 30% of those influenced by the media said it makes them more conscious about health, 18% indicated awareness of media assertions that consumers should eat more produce, and 16% said the media provides information about why produce is good for you.
However prominent health concerns may be in explaining increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, many sources and articles make it clear that it is not solely concerns related to nutritional issues which have heightened consumer interest in buying direct from growers. A study by Robert Sommer, Director of the Center for Consumer Research at the University of California at Davis found that people shop at farmers' markets for "high-quality food, lower prices and atmosphere, in that order" (NY Times, 10/3/90). Larger urban farmers' markets in particular have become increasingly important providers of lower cost food to citizens. In many cities equitable access on the part of some residents to reasonably priced supermarkets has been questioned. A price comparison study conducted by researchers at UCLA found that "farmers' markets sell food in 25 neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles at prices often as much as 20% to 30% cheaper than local supermarkets" and found that a family of four shopping inner-city stores spends about $300 more annually for food than a comparable suburban family (LA Times, 10/4/93). Reasonable access to retail food stores has been in cases questioned, "for example, the United States Conference of Mayors A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities: 1991, issued in December 1991, reported, 'The number of supermarkets in low-income neighborhoods decreased in 32 percent of the survey cities, remained the same in 60 percent of the cities and increased in two cities'" (Grocery Marketing, 4/24/92).
The Federal Farmers' Market Coupon Program, instituted in 10 states, assists low income people with purchases at urban farmers' markets. Vermont has a Farm to Family program, partially funded with federal tax money, which since 1988 has given low-income families coupons that are redeemable for fresh produce at farmers' markets. "Although no direct cause-and-effect relationship can be drawn between the Farm to Family program and the successes of farmers' markets, the markets have proliferated since the coupon program began in 1988. In that year, there were eight farmers' markets in Vermont. That count jumped to 18 the following year, and 25 by 1992" (Vermont Business Magazine, May, 1993).
As indicated above, there is no typical farmers' market or farmers' market patron. While some sources emphasize the usefulness of farmers' markets as providers of nutritious low cost produce, other sources highlight the "snob appeal" of farmers' market shopping among more affluent shoppers. An article in the Chicago Tribune focused on the circumstances in that city where farmers' markets, having grown in number from two in 1980 to 16 in 1991, have spilled out into surrounding suburban communities. "Heading off to market, rummaging through piles of leafy objects, swapping gossip by the coffee urn and the tray of cinnamon twists, has taken on some form of urban-suburban chic in this age of plastic-wrapped produce at the supermarkets. Going to the farmers' market carries more than a little snobbery...a very yuppie sense of 'Aren't I hip?'" (Chicago Tribune, 7/31/91).
Between the extremes of factors which can be cited to account for the across-the-board popularity of farmers' markets probably lies the more universal truth. Farmers' markets appeal to shoppers' desires to obtain high quality food at reasonable prices in a social atmosphere where the food provider can be directly encountered and supported. When an Orlando, Florida consulting firm was hired by the city's Parks and Recreation Department to assess citizens' recreational preferences in connection with a long range plan for improving the city's parks and recreational system, the entirely unexpected finding was that attending the Farmers' Market was among the three most important recreational activities cited by residents, along with walking and swimming (Orlando Sentinel, 4/29/93). The conclusion to be drawn is that the appeal of farmers' markets is broad based, and varied. While not all farmers' markets will offer occasions where rich and poor rub elbows on Saturday mornings, each market will reflect and take on the characteristics of the community in which it is situated.
During the telephone surveys with consumers and the analysis of the survey results, the following definition of a roadside market and a farmers' market were used:
Roadside Market: Single farm producer with free standing building along a roadside, open year-round or 4-6 months out of the year, and selling fresh fruit or vegetables and possibly other items.
Farmers' Market: Many sellers/vendors renting space in one central location, open year-round or seasonally, selling fresh fruit or vegetables and possibly other items.
The opening questions of the telephone interview asked consumers if they had shopped at a roadside market or a farmers' market in the last twelve months (August, 1992 to August, 1993). Of the 500 households surveyed, 275 (55%) had shopped at a roadside market during the last twelve months. According to the 1990 US Census the population of Ohio totaled 10,847,115 and the number of households in the state was estimated at 4,890,312. Extrapolating from the survey results would indicate that approximately 2.7 million Ohio households had a family member who had shopped at a roadside market in the previous twelve months. Of these shoppers 84% were female, while 16% were male.
The number of survey respondents who indicated they had visited a farmers' market in the preceding twelve months was 147, or 29% of those contacted. This translates into an estimated 1.4 million Ohio households have a family member who has shopped at a farmers' market. Of these respondents, 86% were female and 14% were male, Table 1.
Have you shopped a roadside market or farmers market in the past twelve months?
Table 1. Percentage of direct farm market shoppers
Roadside Farm Market
Farmers' Market
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Yes
275
55%
147
29%
No
225
45%
353
71%
Total
500
100%
500
100%
The number of respondents who indicated they had shopped both types of markets in the last twelve months was 20% of the population. This is equivalent to approximately 980,000 households in Ohio, while non-shoppers (those who had not shopped either a roadside farm market or a farmers' market) accounted for 35% of the households interviewed, Table 2.
Table 2. Breakdown of households by shopping behavior
Share of Households Have shopped at a roadside market, but not a farmers' market
35% Have shopped at a farmers' market, but not a roadside market
9.6% Have shopped at both a roadside market and a farmers' market
20% Have not shopped at either a roadside market or a farmers' market
35%
Age of Consumers
Respondents were initially categorized into six main age groups: under 18 (1.2%); 18-29 (16.2%); 30-39 (19.6%); 40-49 (19.4%); 50-59 (20.6%); 60 and over (23.0%) but then recoded into three groups for demographic analysis: Under 40, 40-49, and 50 and over.
Consumers who are 50 and older represented the largest age group of consumers who shopped at a roadside market in the past year, Figure 1. Of those who shopped, 45% were in this category while only 32% were under age 40. This was 5% lower than the share of "Under 40" consumers in the overall survey population. Likewise, consumers who are 50 and older represented the largest age group of consumers who shopped at a farmers' market in the past year. Of those who shopped, 50% were in this category. While the share of consumers under 40 who shopped at a farmers' market was nearly the same as that for the roadside market, the share of consumers age 50-59 was very different. This age group accounted for 23% of the consumers who shopped at a roadside market in the past year but only 17% of those who shopped at a farmers' market. It would appear that this group of consumers are more interested, have greater access to, or have more time to shop at roadside markets than farmers' markets.
Figure 1. Age distribution of shoppers and overall sample **Difference from overall population was statistically significant
Tendency to shop at a roadside market increases with age, Table 3. A majority of consumers (53%) who are under 40 have not shopped at roadside markets, whereas a majority of consumers age 40-49 and over 50 have shopped at a roadside market, 66% and 57%, respectively. No significant differences in the tendency to shop at a farmers' market were observed across the different age groups. Roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of all age groups have not shopped at a farmers' market in the past year.
Table 3. Age distribution of shoppers and non-shoppers
Age Group Have Shopped at a Roadside Market
Have Shopped at a Farmers' Market
YES
NO
YES
NO
Less than 40 47%
53% 27%
73%
40 - 49
66% 34% 26%
74%
50 and Over
57% 43% 33%
67%
Overall
55% 45% 29%
71%
Household Income
The income levels of all respondents were initially categorized into five groups as follows: under $12,500 (13.4%); $12,500-$24,999 (20.2%); $25,000-$34,999 (18.2%); $35,000-49,999 (17.0%); $50,000 or more (16%); and "don't know" or "refused to answer" (15.2%). Adjusting the percentages for those who did not report their income resulted in 15.8% of the sample households with reported incomes under $12,500 and 18.9% with incomes over $50,000. Of the roadside market shoppers, 12% indicated income levels under $12,500, while a slightly higher percentage of farmers' market shoppers (16%) were under the $12,500 income level.
Respondents were categorized for data analysis into just three income groups: those earning less than $25,000 annually, those earning between $25,000-$35,000, and those earning more than $35,000. As presented in Figure 2, 40% of all consumers surveyed had annual household incomes less than $25,000 while 39% had incomes over $35,000. For those consumers who had shopped at a roadside market, the percentage of shoppers with incomes over $35,000 increased to 45% and the percentage with incomes less than $25,000 decreased to 31%. Similar results were not observed for consumers who shopped at farmers' markets.
Figure 2. Income distribution of shoppers and overall sample
Size of Community
Possible differences in consumer opinions and behavior based upon the size of community in which they live were examined. Five community sizes were defined as follows: large city (over 250,000); medium size city (100,000-250,000); small city (50,000-100,000); town (25,000-50,000); and, rural area (less than 2,500). Respondents were fairly evenly distributed throughout all size communities, although the largest combined percentage of respondents (45%) were found to be living in small cities and towns, Table 4. A statistically significant difference among age groups was identified after examining community size. Consumers under 40 tended to live in medium and large sized cities; consumers 40-49 years old tended to live in the small and medium sized cities, and consumers 50 and older were more likely to live in towns and small cities and towns. Additionally, 71% of all respondents age 50 or older were living in small cities, towns, or rural areas. No significant differences were identified between level of household income and size of community. Likewise, no significant differences were found between size of community and whether consumers shopped at a roadside market or farmers' market.
Table 4. Frequency of community size by age and income
Community Type
Age Groups**
Income Range
Overall
Under 40
40-49
Over 50
<$25k
$25-$35k
>$35k
Large City
18%
24%
15%
13%
17%
24%
17%
Medium
19%
22%
21%
16%
19%
20%
21%
Small City
20%
15%
25%
22%
20%
12%
23%
Town
25%
25%
19%
28%
28%
17%
24%
Rural Area
18%
14%
20%
21%
16%
27%
15%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100% **Difference from overall population was statistically significant.
Attitudes and Behaviors of Consumers Who DO NOT Shop at Roadside Markets or Farmers' Markets
Frequency of Shopping
The 275 roadside market shoppers and the 147 farmers' market shoppers were divided approximately in half and classified as either "lite" or "heavy" users (how frequently they shopped in the past year). The group defined as "lite users" were consumers who shopped at roadside markets 1-5 times in the past year or at farmers' markets 1-3 times. "Heavy users" were those who had shopped more than 5 times in the past year at roadside markets or more than 3 times at farmers' markets, Table 5. Neither group differed significantly from one another in terms of age, household income, sex, nor size of community in which they lived. Thus, differences in demographics alone do not explain reported differences in shopping behavior at roadside or farmers' markets.
Table 5. Frequency of "Lite" and "Heavy" users
Roadside Farm Market 1 - 5 times
Farmers' Market 1 - 3 times
"Lite Users"
157 57%
87 59%
"Heavy Users"
116 43%
60 41%
Frequency of Shopping at Roadside Markets and Farmers' Markets
A cumulative frequency of shopping intensity is presented in Table 6. It appears that Ohio households try out farmers' markets but don't return as often as they do with roadside markets. Of farmers' market shoppers, 27% are only going once a year and 60% are going only one to three times per year. This compares to 9% of the roadside market shoppers only going once and 35% going one to three times.
How many times did you shop at a roadside market or farmers' market in the past year? (n=500)
Table 6. Rate of shopping at direct farm markets
Roadside Farm Market
Farmers' Market
Number of Times Shopped in the past Year
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Percent
CummulativePercent
One
9%
9%
27%
27%
Two-Three
26%
35%
33%
60%
Four-Five
22%
57%
8%
68%
Six -Ten
21%
78%
15%
83%
Eleven-Twenty
11%
89%
7%
90%
Over Twenty One
10%
99%
10%
100%
Don't Know/Remember
1%
100%
-------
------- While approximately 40% of Ohio's households are classified as "heavy" users of direct markets (shaded cells in above table), less than 25% of all households had shopped more than 10 times in the past year at either a roadside or farmers' market. This equates to less than one shopping trip per month for markets that are open year-round. This weakness in "repeat shopping" is a problem that roadside markets and farmers' markets need to address. This study indicates that a majority of consumers are shopping at roadside markets but they are probably coming out once or twice a month during the season and then do the majority of their shopping somewhere else.
Number of Different Markets
An overwhelming majority of farmers' market shoppers (65%) indicated that they shopped at only one market in the past year. An equal number of roadside market shoppers (70%) reported they went to only one or two markets, Figure 3. A very small share of the shopping households indicated that they shopped at four or more roadside markets (12%) or farmers' markets (3%).
Figure 3. Number of different markets shopped in the past year
Year Round Markets
When asked whether the roadside market and farmers' market that they shop at the most often was open year-round, over 80% of all roadside market shoppers indicated "No." But a majority (54%) of farmers' markets customers reported "Yes," Table 7.
Is the roadside market or farmers' market you shop most often open year round?
Table 7. Most often shopped markets which are open year round
Roadside Farm Market
Farmers' Market
Yes
12
12%
59
54%
No
83
82%
43
39%
Don't Know
6
6%
7
7% An interesting correlation between household income and the tendency for their primary farmers' market to be open year was observed, Table 8. As can be seen, the share of consumers who reported that their primary farmers' market was open year-round increased with the level of household income. This would seem to indicate that households with more income seek out farmers' markets that are open more months of the year. A similar relationship was not observed for roadside market shoppers.
Table 8. Household income and most often shopped markets which are open year round
Consumers were asked how many of the markets they shopped at in the past year are open year-round. Approximately one quarter of the shoppers reported only one market being open year round, Table 9. Most households, 63% of those who shop roadside markets and 47% of those who shop farmers' markets said that "None" of the markets they shop at were open year-round. If these markets desire to increase the number of repeat customers they will have to address this important issue.
Household Income
Primary Roadside Market Is Open Year-Round
Primary Farmers' Market Is Open Year-Round
Less than $25,000
9%
37%
$25,000 to $35,000
22%
58%
More than $35,000
15%
60%
How many of the roadside markets or farmers' markets you shop are open year round?
Table 9. Number of markets open year round
Roadside Farm Market
Farmers' Market
# of Markets
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
One
44
25%
9
24%
Two
13
8%
11
29%
Three-Four
3
2%
--
--
None
110
63%
18
47%
Don't Know
4
2%
--
-- Average Driving Time
An overwhelming majority of roadside market shoppers spent 15 minutes or less driving to the roadside market they shop at most often, Figure 4. Alternatively, only 34% of the roadside market shoppers drove more than 15 minutes. This implies that roadside market shoppers are concerned about convenience and only a third of them are willing to drive over 15 minutes to get to their market.
Figure 4. Time spent driving to the most often shopped market
In comparison, two thirds (66%) of the customers who shop at farmers' markets typically drive more than 15 minutes and approximately one quarter (24%) drive over 30 minutes. This supports an earlier observation that Ohio consumers are likely to be more willing to try out farmers' markets (and end up driving further) but will shop at roadside markets more often (greater number of short trips).
Figure 5. Size of community and time spent driving to the most often shopped roadside market
While not statistically significant, there was a trend for consumers who live in rural areas and small towns to drive shorter distances to their primary roadside market than consumers who live in large cities, Figure 5.
As can be seen, over two thirds (69%) of roadside market shoppers living in rural and small town communities drove less than 15 minutes to their primary roadside market. A smaller share of roadside market shoppers (59%) living in medium/large cities spent the same time driving to their primary roadside market. Proximity of markets, degree of traffic congestion, and demand for convenient location are all factors contributing to this result.
Significant differences in the time spent driving to their primary farmers' market were observed across the different categories of household income, Figure 6.
Figure 6. Household income and time spent driving to the most often shopped farmers' market
A majority (60%) of those households reporting annual incomes less than $25,000 spent less than 15 minutes driving to their primary farmers' market. In contrast, 70% of the households earning $25,000 to $35,000 and 53% of the households earning over $35,000 were willing to spend 15 minutes or more driving to their primary farmers' market.
Significant differences in the time spent driving to their primary farmers' market were also observed between farmers' markets shoppers classified as "lite" and "heavy" users, Figure 7. A clear majority (60%) of the farmers' market shoppers considered heavy users, those who shopped more than 3 times in the past year, drove less than 15 minutes to their primary market, compared to only 32% of the lite users. This finding indicates that customers who shop more often are likely to be spending less time driving to the market, i.e., the market is very convenient.
Figure 7. Shopping frequency and time spent driving to the most often shopped farmers' market
Alternatively, 67% of the lite users, those shopping less than three times per year, spent more than 15 minutes driving to their primary market. While they didn't report many shopping trips to farmers' markets, they were willing to spend a little more time driving. This finding is consistent with the notion of a destination market that consumers are motivated to try out but thereafter probably don't frequent a lot.
Figure 8. Shopping frequency and time spent driving to the most often shopped roadside market
There was no significant difference found between lite and heavy categories of roadside market shoppers and the time spent driving to their primary roadside market, Figure 8. While 70% of the heavy users were making short trips (driving less than 15 minutes), an equally large segment (63%) of the lite users were also driving less than 15 minutes. The first result is consistent with the notion that market convenience is associated with increased shopping frequency. However, the second result also indicates that only those markets within a short driving distance will be used, even on an infrequent basis. The current study does not support the notion that consumers are willing to drive great distances to shop at a roadside market, even if they are only doing it occasionally. If anything, these results lend further support to the notion that convenience and a short-driving time for customers are crucial for roadside market operators.
Most Popular Items Being Purchased
Survey respondents were asked to identify the "three items" they buy most often when shopping at a roadside market or farmers' market. Sweet corn and tomatoes were the top two produce items most frequently mentioned by shoppers, followed by apples, melons, beans, peaches, bananas, and cucumbers, Table 10.
What three items do you buy most often from roadside or farmers' markets?
Table 10. Three Most Often Purchased Items
Roadside Market Shoppers (n=275)
Farmers' Market Shoppers (n=147)
Item
Percent
Item
Percent Sweet Corn
70% Sweet Corn
52% Tomatoes
66% Tomatoes
35% Melons
30% Apples
28% Apples
18% Melons
20% Beans
16% Beans
12% Peaches
13% Bananas
11% Cucumbers
12% Peaches
10% Bananas
9% Peppers
9% Strawberries
9% Potatoes
8% Potatoes
8% Onions
8% Peppers
7% Breads
7% Lettuce
4% Cabbage
6%
Cheeses
6%
Cucumbers
5%
Lettuce
5%
Strawberries
5%
Broccoli
4%
Eggs
4%
Flowers/Plants
4%