Eating at home - Complete study

Transcription

Eating at home
Canadian households and the motivations and obstacles related
to buying locally grown food – a pan-Canadian study Equiterre
June 28, 2011
1 | P a g e [MOTIVATIONS AND BARRIERS TO BUYING LOCAL FRUITS AND
VEGETABLES: A CANADA-WIDE SURVEY]
What are the food buying behaviours of Canadian consumers? What are the motivations to buy
local fruits and vegetables? How can a promotional strategy for locally grown fruits take
consumer preoccupations into greater account? The present study includes a review of the
research from other countries as well as an analysis of a web survey conducted between
August 5 and 14, 2010 on a sample of 1121 Canadian French- and English-speaking men and
women age 18 and over.
2 | P a g e Equiterre received funding from Industry Canada's Contributions Program for Non-profit
Consumer and Voluntary Organisations. The views expressed in the report are not necessarily
those of Industry Canada or the Government of Canada.
Research and writing: Jean-Frédéric Lemay, JFL Consultants
Survey: Leger Marketing
Research methodology: Gilles Valiquette
Editing: Anne-Marie Legault, Geneviève Puskas, Mélanie Bisson and Amélie Ferland, Equiterre
Translation: Anne Chudobiak, Equiterre
3 | P a g e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The concept of local food remains very vague in the minds of consumers. It’s a subjective
concept that can refer to a physical distance, a political boundary or to a physical environment.
With such variation in definitions, and so much of the research coming from elsewhere, the
need for a Canadian study on local food buying habits became apparent.
To remedy the lack of Canadian data and to follow up on a 2007 survey, Equiterre, in
partnership with Leger Marketing, conducted a nationwide survey between August 5 and 14,
2010 on a sample of 1121 Canadian French- and English-speaking men and women age 18
and over. Participants answered questions on food habits, perceptions of local food, and
motivations and barriers to buying local food in Canada.
The results lead us to draw some positive conclusions on local food buying in Canada:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Canadians seem to have positive attitudes and perceptions towards buying local.
The definition of what is local varies considerably. It can mean food that is grown nearby
or food that is grown in the same province or in the same country.
In situations of choice, consumers prefer to buy a domestic product, even from a
faraway province, rather than an American product that was grown nearer by.
The main image consumers associate with local products is that of the family farm or
small producers. Other attributes (e.g., organic certification, farm inputs) seem less
central to their understanding.
Consumers clearly seem to understand the economic leverage they exert when they
buy local – an attribute that should therefore be emphasized in marketing campaigns.
There is a very positive perception of buying local. A majority of the respondents (78%)
said that they favoured local purchases.
It is also important to consider the main consumer constraints to buying local. The survey
identifies certain buying habits that pose a problem for development in this sector:
•
•
•
•
•
Consumers only frequent one or two establishments to buy fruits or vegetables.
Supermarkets are the most frequented place of purchase.
Less than 30 minutes is spent at the place of purchase.
Consumers use their cars to get to the place of purchase.
Consumers are not willing to spend much more time searching for local products.
4 | P a g e Our study shows that consumers are willing to eat more locally grown fruits and vegetables,
but that all the necessary conditions for this to happen have yet to be fully realized. Some
possible solutions to explore:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Local food would benefit more from being associated with a political or economic
territory rather than with environmental benefits, which are associated instead with
organic products.
An awareness campaign on the impact of buying off-season produce could help
consumers reduce their environmental impact.
The strategies used to promote local fruits and vegetables may differ by retailer
(supermarkets versus greengrocers, for example) as well as by province (identification
based on distance, province or country).
Develop a basket of strategies for easier identification of local products, beyond just a
logo or a brand.
Provide better training for employees in direct contact with consumers looking for local
products.
Local merchants, public markets and drop-off points are avenues that could be
developed further.
More support for increasingly important local food initiatives such as CSA networks or
ecomarkets that make it easier for consumers to physically access local food.
5 | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 7
1.THE STATE OF THE QUESTION: HOW AND WHY DO CONSUMERS BUY
LOCAL FOOD? .................................................................................................... 9
1.1.Typology of consumers of local foods ............................................... 9
1.2.Motivations to buy local products................................................... 11
1.3.Buying behaviour .............................................................................. 21
2.METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK ......................................... 23
3.ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................. 25
3.1. Description of buying behaviour .................................................... 26
3.2. Definitions and perceptions of local ............................................... 31
3.3. Willingness to purchase local products .......................................... 33
3.4. Factors influencing the definitions and purchase of local fruits and
vegetables ............................................................................................... 36
GENERAL FINDINGS OF THE STUDY ............................................................... 38
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 40
RESEARCH AVENUES ....................................................................................... 42
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 45
References cited in the study ................................................................. 45
Other sources to consult ........................................................................ 48
APPENDIX 1. MARTINEZ ET AL. (2010) TABLES ........................................... 54
6 | P a g e INTRODUCTION
Local food has gained popularity in recent years in Canada and worldwide. From the 100-Mile
Diet in British Columbia to the declaration of locavore as the word of the year in 2007, buying
local seems to resonate with North American consumers. Government support for local food
initiatives is also on the rise as evidenced by Quebec’s $14 million investment in diversifying
short supply chains (2009) and $50 million for the Mettez le Québec dans votre assiette
campaign (December 2007).
A wealth of research exists on short food supply chains and buying local food, but most of the
data comes from the United States or Europe. There are studies that show that consumers are
willing to pay a premium for local products (Brown 2003; Schneider and Francis 2005;
Novotorova and Mazzocco 2008; Darby, Batte, Ernst and Roe 2008). But this willingness to
pay a premium is apparently contingent on local products being readily available and easy to
identify. How to convey this information has to be a bigger consideration in the search for
solutions. Although traditional supermarkets remain the main place to buy food (Hamzaoui
Essoussi 2010; Weatherell, Tregear and Allinson 2003), there is evidence that consumers are
diversifying their places of purchase. Different forms of identification for local food (labels,
private brands, in-store identification or government regulated labels) should take buying
habits into account (Weatherell, Tregear and Allinson 2003; Conner et al. 2009; Giraud, Bond
and Bond 2005). The two main reasons to buy local are for the freshness of the product and to
support the local economy (Hunt 2006; Darby, Batte, Ernst and Roe 2008; Vermeir and
Verbeke 2006; Loureiro and Hine 2001). Identifying local by state is more beneficial than by
distance (Conner et al. 2009) and than organic and GM-free labels (Loureiro and Hine 2001,
13). The concept of local food remains very vague in the minds of consumers. It’s a subjective
concept that can refer to a physical distance, a political boundary or to a physical environment.
Local products can also be confused with short food supply chains (all of which are local, but
not necessarily vice versa) and which pose definition challenges of their own. Unlike organic
farming, where production practices are regulated and certified, the subjective definition of
local makes it more difficult to identify local products, and to create added value concerning
the place of production, especially if we don’t include the concept of terroir. With so many
different ways to define local food, and so little homegrown research on the topic, the need for
a Canadian study on local food buying habits became apparent.
To remedy the lack of Canadian data and to follow up on a 2007 survey, Equiterre, in
partnership with Leger Marketing, conducted a nationwide survey between August 5 and 14,
2010 on a sample of 1121 Canadian French- and English-speaking men and women age 18
7 | P a g e and over. Participants answered questions on food habits, perceptions of local food, and
motivations and barriers to buying local food in Canada.
The goal of this research:
1. Add valid empirical data to the discussion on buying local food and to deconstruct any
myths if necessary.
2. Use the results to inform the strategies of governments, businesses and other
organizations for the promotion of local food.
The report begins with a review of the literature. Then, after presenting our methodology and
our analysis plan, we will analyze the results of the survey using frequency tables, comparisons
between sub-populations and cross-tabulations. We will conclude with some recommendations
for the development of strategies to promote the purchase of local produce and some research
avenues that emerged from this study.
8 | P a g e 1. THE STATE OF THE QUESTION: HOW AND WHY DO CONSUMERS
BUY LOCAL FOOD?
The past decade has seen a steady increase in studies on buying local food. Authors have
explored the question from various angles, including the following:
1. Typology of consumers of local foods: What is their profile? What do they have
in common?
2. Motivations to buy: What factors or attributes lead the consumers to choose them?
How big and what kind of a role does price play? What is the added value of local
products and how much of a premium are consumers willing to pay for local products?
3. Food buying behaviour: How do motivations translate into behaviour? Can
consumers find and buy local products at their usual places of purchase or must they
frequent speciality shops and establishments?
We will consider these three dimensions in our review of the literature, with an emphasis on the
limited number of Canadian studies on local food buying habits.
1.1.
Typology of consumers of local foods
Several authors interested in the broader topic of responsible consumption have tried to
develop a typology of consumers, including the following two proposals by Kallel (2007, 1).
Table 1. Comparison of market segments based on two typologies
Categories
Category 1
High receptivity to
the ethicalness of a
product
Category 2
Average
receptivity to the
ethicalness of a
product
Category 3
9 | P a g e Bird and Hughes (1997)
Ethical consumers
• Value social commitment
• Seek symbolic benefits
• Are motivated by their ethical
stance
Semi-ethical consumers
• Motivated by perceived quality and
brand ‘status’
• Seek symbolic and personal benefits
• Some suspicion of ‘charity’ brands
• Open to persuasion
Selfish consumers
Bouquet and Hénault (1998)
Polycentric consumers
• Very sensitive to social causes
• Seek benefits for themselves as well as for
others
• Are well-educated, of a high social standing
Ethnocentric consumers
• Some awareness of social responsibility
• Seek personal benefits
• Are educated, have a fairly high social
standing
Egocentric consumers
Very little
receptivity to the
ethicalness of a
product
• Very sensitive to product price and
quality
• Are not motivated by social
responsibility
• Have no sense of social responsibility
• Aren’t very well educated, of lower social
standing
What these two typologies show is that there is a segment of consumers who believe in the
benefits of so-called responsible consumption and another segment that is difficult to
persuade. The main challenge lies with the segment in between, which is receptive to ethical
issues, but whose choices don’t always reflect these values.
More specific consumer profiles have also been developed for organic products. Hamzaoui
Essoussi (2010, 13) describes the typical organic consumer:1
Combining all the findings allows us to profile the typical organic food consumer.
This consumer is a married female who does her organic groceries preferably from
trusted sources such as organic food stores and health food stores. She eats mainly
organic fruits and/or organic vegetables and spends on average $100 in organic
groceries.
For local products, however, that are less specialized than organic or fair trade products, there
seem to be a greater variety of consumers who give different weight to such attributes as
nutrient content or production practices (Thilmany, Keeling-Bond and Bond 2007, 7). This is
partly due to the fact that local is a complex concept that is only indirectly linked to broader
issues of sustainability and health.
CRIOC (2010) developed six profiles for consumers of local food based on variables related to
perceptions and habits regarding food and nutrition:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Type 1: the enthusiast, 28% of respondents
Type 2: the committed, 12% of respondents
Type 3: the activist, 28% of respondents
Type 4: the pragmatist, 16% of respondents
Type 5: the grazer, 7% of respondents
Type 6: the realistic, 9% of respondents.
1
This is a general profile. It should be noted that one can distinguish between buyer behaviour and attitudes
depending on the frequency with which they consume organic products: regular consumers don’t act like nonregular consumers (Essoussi 2010, 13).
10 | P a g e According to the authors, only the first three groups have any real interest in short food supply
chains or local food:
Enthusiasts are motivated by a love of preparing and eating food to seek out
quality products. Short supply chains need to communicate with them by appealing
to their senses. Committeds are on the lookout for healthy products. They view
short food supply chains as a potential source of healthy food. Activists are
interested both in obtaining quality products and in buying local in-season produce.
Short supply chains can communicate with consumers on these important lines.
(CRIOC, 2010, translation ours)
What emerges from these consumer typologies is that there is a large segment interested in
local products (more so than for organic or fair trade products). The challenge would therefore
be to increase the availability and visibility of these products for the more hesitant,
intermediate level of consumer, as the already convinced will continue to buy local and the notat-all convinced are unlikely to be swayed. Also, the attributes that make up the types vary
from one author to the next, making the typologies difficult to compare and somewhat
arbitrary. The following typology – which uses a variety of variables – illustrates this point well:
Food buyers who were members of an environmental group had higher education
and income and were more likely to purchase organic food and more willing to pay
a higher price for local produce. Households in which someone was raised on a farm,
or had parents who were raised on a farm, had a preference for locally grown food
and were willing to pay a price premium for it. (Brown 2003)
What we can conclude from this literature on consumer profiles is that socioeconomic variables
seem to be of lesser interest than other variables, those related to eating habits, for example.
These profiles are useful, but need to be better adapted to local food buying habits in Canada.
1.2.
Motivations to buy local products
To understand local food buying, several studies analyze motivations, which are a component
of some of the aforementioned typologies. These motivations are linked to attitudes towards
products in the sense that positive attitudes can eventually transform into concrete behaviour.
Most studies on motivations for buying local products analyze a variety of dimensions: product
attributes, socioeconomic data, etc. If the goal is to define which of these attributes has the
most influence on buying local food, we are still a long way away from a consensus.
11 | P a g e The question of motivations is extremely complex as Bonti-Ankomah and Yiridoe (2006, 39)
explain:
Some of the studies reviewed differ in several respects, making drawing definite
conclusions difficult. For example, some studies examined product quality in terms
of both sensory and nutritive characteristics, while others differentiate sensory
characteristics from nutritive attributes. Different studies may therefore convey
different notions of quality to various survey respondents.
As part of this project, we analyzed 26 articles relevant to the issue, published for the most
part between 2005 and 2011 (the few that were published earlier are regularly referred to
throughout in the more recent literature). This is not an exhaustive review of the literature.
However, we were able to choose a variety of recent studies from the more than 70 found in
the databases.
The following table summarizes the results by highlighting which variables are identified in the
studies and the type of effect on purchasing behaviour. We gave a value of +1 each time a
study noted a positive association between the variable and the effect on buying locally grown
foods and a value of –1 when the effect is mitigated or nonexistent. The last column shows
the total score for each of the variables, which are divided into five categories: socioeconomic,
personal, lifestyle, product attributes and transaction costs. The variables that are mentioned
the most often (and the effect of which is constant) are in bold.
12 | P a g e Table 2. Factors influencing the purchase of local foods
Factor
SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Sociodemographic variables (in general)
Affluent class (income and education)
Rural/urban
Gender (woman)
Length of residence in the province or state
LIFESTYLE
Consumer’s level of environmental commitment
Food knowledge or interest/involvement
Shopping at health food stores
Cooking habits
Appreciation of food
Exercise routine
Lifestyle
Special diet at home
PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES
Freshness
Information on the producer
Perceived impact of the purchase on local development, communities or
the producers themselves
Indication of date harvested
Direct relationship with the producer
Distance or time of transport
Origin (province or country)
GM-free label
Taste
Appearance/quality
Health-related/nutritive attributes
Safety
Brand
Sustainability/organic certification
TRANSACTION COSTS
Confidence in the retailer/restaurant/producer (reduced uncertainty)
Price
Past experiences
Availability/convenience/access
Socioeconomic variables
13 | P a g e Number of
documents that
mention this
factor
-6
3
3
1
1
1
3
1
-1
1
-1
0 (contradictory)
-1
6
5
9
1
-1
-3
5
-1
3
5
3
3
-1
3
5
2
1
3
The question of the influence of sociodemographic variables (gender, age, place of
residence, etc.) on buying local leads to contradictory conclusions. Some studies suggest that
these variables have no effect (Diamantopoulos et al. 2003, 477) or a very limited explanatory
power:
The results suggest that socio-demographic variables have relative weak
explanatory power relative to the attitudes of consumers towards local farming and
broad food choice factors, in accordance with the existing literature (see for
example Patterson et al., 1999; Tregear & Ness, 2005) suggesting that involvement
with food more broadly is also a key determining factor. (Cranfield et al. 2008, 22)
However, some specific variables, such as economic class, appear to exert an influence: “The
variable Upper-Class is positive and statistically significant, implying that if consumers are
wealthy and well educated, they are willing to pay on average 3.65 cents more per pound to
obtain organic potatoes” (Loureiro and Hine 2001, 14-15).
As a whole, therefore, the socioeconomic profile has a complex influence on the decision to buy
locally grown products, but also on the consumer’s general attitude towards environmental
issues:
According to the study’s findings, associations between socio-demographic
characteristics and environmental consciousness measures are
relatively complex. While, on the face of it, one might anticipate that the
relationships hold regardless of the component of the environmental domain at
issue, this is by no means the case [….] Thus, an accurate profile of the green
consumer cannot be constructed without attention to all aspects of the
environmental consciousness construct. (Diamantopoulos et al. 2003, 477)
Socioeconomic variables – so often used to categorize consumers – should therefore be
treated with caution. The focus should instead be on a handful of very specific variables,
including economic class and the rural/urban distinction.
Lifestyle
Some studies have attempted to analyze the relationship between lifestyle/behaviour and
the purchase of locally grown products. If the majority of the lifestyle dimensions seem
inconclusive, the one factor that seems to draw a consensus is the question of knowledge
14 | P a g e about and commitment to food. This attribute, however, needs to be better defined: “Results
on food choice priorities reveal a strong association between high local food interest and
prioritization of extrinsic food features such as the environment, welfare and origin” (Tregear
and Ness 2005, 29-30). But, overall, the assumption that lifestyle affects the purchase of local
food does not seem to hold. The results are too contradictory:
Among behaviours, those related to cooking and to health and exercise had no
significant impact on the probability of buying local; having someone in the
household on a special diet, the frequency of cooking, and fitness-club membership
were all insignificant. However, behaviours related to food knowledge (gardening)
and food venue (shopping at a health food store) significantly increase the
probability of buying local food. (Zepeda and Li 2006, 9)
Product attributes
The most numerous and conclusive studies examine product attributes as a factor in the
decision to buy: “Although the differences in socio-demographic characteristics of respondents
among the market segments were found to be not statistically significant, segmenting
consumers into four well-defined market segments on the basis of product attribute
importance is a valuable contribution of this research.” (Novotorova and Mazzocco 2008, 49)
The four most important factors are:
•
•
•
•
The perceived impact of the purchase
Access to information on the producer or on the site of production
The freshness of the food
The mention of distance
First, there seems to be a consensus regarding the perceived impact of the purchase on
local development, communities or the producers themselves2. The importance of this
attribute is illustrated by Thilmany, Keeling-Bond and Bond (2006, 233): “Results are
“consistent with a 2004 finding by Pirog that found ‘locally grown by family farmers’ was a
2
This aspect leads one team to mention a concern for the kinds of businesses involved in the supply chain: “First,
as the results show that consumers with high levels of interest in local food also tend to be concerned about small
firms in the food chain” (Tregear and Ness 2005, 30). Chambers et al. (2007, 213) warn: “However, as some
participants felt a degree of animosity towards farmers, future initiatives would be advised to emphasize the
benefits of buying local produce for the local community as a whole rather than just the local farmer.”
15 | P a g e more compelling claim than the bundled ‘locally grown and organic’ claim.” Behind this product
attribute is an important component of the act of purchasing in the sector of responsible
consumption, that is the perceived effectiveness of the purchase:
Individual characteristics like involvement with sustainability, certainty with respect
to sustainability claims, and perceived consumer effectiveness have a significant
positive impact on attitude towards buying the products, which also correlates
strongly with intention to buy. (Vermeir and Verbeke 2006, 188)
Several studies show that this element is central to consumer purchasing decisions. Indeed,
consumers prefer that their actions have an impact first on the local economy, rather than on a
level that may be more conceptual and vague, such as the environment. It is also easier to
illustrate the impact purchasing decisions have on the community or producer rather than on
the environment as a whole. The same phenomenon has been observed in Brazil where
consumers seem to give less weight to food miles than to the impact on local producers and
communities (Sirieix et al. 2006, 4).
In the same vein, access to information on the producer or the place of production
seems to have a positive effect on buying local. At the same time, as counterintuitive as it may
be, direct contact with the producer seems to have very little impact on the decision to buy
(Conner et al. 2009, 257).
Another factor is product freshness: local products are often perceived as being fresher
than their imported counterparts. Some even say that freshness is more of a determining
factor than localness itself:
Freshness communicated through a guarantee garners a higher premium,
suggesting that it is more effective than local. The implication is that labels that
communicate the time of harvest are more relevant to a consumer’s decision than
the distance traveled from production location. Both types of information favor
local producers, since time is a function of distance in most cases. (Darby, Batte,
Ernst and Roe 2008, 26)
The aforementioned factors – freshness and the perceived impact on local development) are
attributed different importance in the studies reviewed. It remains unclear which one is the
most important.
16 | P a g e What we’ve variously called home-bias, social functions and ideological
components are legitimate utility-producing consumption services that come close
to rivaling that of freshness.… in general we can assert that people are willing to
use consumption as a means to realize their social ideology. (Darby, Batte, Ernst
and Roe 2008, 26)
Other authors have a different view, according to which freshness, appearance, nutritiousness
and availability are less important than sociological, geographic or civic factors (Weatherell,
Tregear and Allinson 2003, 241).
Distance is an undeniable factor in the decisions made by consumers. For example, it has been
shown that an indication of distance adds more value than an organic or GM-free label
(Loureiro and Hine 2001, 13). However, one study shows that the type of reference to
distance will greatly influence the consumers’ willingness to buy, and proposes referring to
political regions rather than to geographical distance:3
Finally, the most important ‘local’ promotion message may be ‘Grown in Michigan’
rather than distance (food miles). Knowing the farmer was overall the least
important attribute as rated by the farmers’ market shoppers, despite the
importance of trust-based relationships expressed by some focus group
participants. (Conner et al. 2009, 257)
Does that mean that there is a consensus about the role of distance? A recent survey suggests
perhaps not:
The results of this survey show that even if people are aware of the spatial,
temporal and psychological distance (Lieblein et al., 2001) between food products
and themselves, they do not really take distance into account when choosing food,
and do not reject products coming from far away. This is in contradiction with most
previous results, which had revealed a strong preference for local products (e.g.
Aurier et al., 2005) or local or national products (e.g. Chambers et al., 2007).
(Sirieix et al. 2008, 512)
It is therefore of particular interest to analyze our survey results for the role that distance plays
in consumer purchasing decisions in Canada. From a more general perspective, based on the
3
The same study also notes that consumers “found particular value in foods produced in Michigan (the ‘place’
dimension) but greater geographic proximity did not increase value, unlike results from Missouri” (Conner et al.,
2009, 257).
17 | P a g e existing literature, it is very difficult to say with confidence which attributes most influence
purchasing decisions.4
Transaction costs
Transaction costs are another central aspect of the consumer purchasing decision. This concept
can be broken down into several elements, including price, access to information and travel
time. Surprisingly, only two of the studies mention price, whereas three mention availability
of local products.
The conclusions on the effect of price are contradictory. Some authors describe it as having a
limited impact: “Interestingly, the inexpensive/convenience variable was insignificant
throughout, suggesting that cost and convenience is not a factor in shaping the consumer’s
purchase intention with respect to local foods” (Cranfield, Henson and Blandon 2008, 23).
The element that is mentioned by the greatest number of studies is the question of consumer
confidence in the retailer, which is one way of bridging the information gap. This is based
on types of retailers and on past experiences, which is more of a determining factor than brand
or type of store. Hamzaoui Essoussi (2010, 13) mentions that this dynamic is of even greater
importance for the consumers who are the most motivated to buy organic products: “More
specifically, we proved that highly motivated consumers base their decision on their prior
experiences, perceive fewer uncertainties related to the quality of the OF products, their taste,
their sustainability and their environmental aspect.”
The various studies make clear how complicated the relationship is between access to
information and the decision to buy. If there is almost consensus on the need for consumer
information, there are also counterintuitive examples, as in Sirieix et al. (2008, 512):
The demonstration is intuitively obvious. Concretely, an increase in knowledge
leads to a decrease in utility. In summary, a change from a situation from a state of
4
We must take note that the weakness of a survey as a tool is the social desirability bias and the difficulty of
measuring behaviour. Very few studies – and only four of those reviewed here – used a quasi-experimental design.
Conner, Montri, Montri and Ham (2009) used a mock auction to show that people put a premium of 31% on local
products. Batte et al. (2010) used an experimental design based on product attributes and showed contrary to
other studies that price is the most important factor (which may confirm the social desirability bias of surveys).
Burchardi, et al. (2005) simulated the payment of premium for local products and confirmed that all were in
favour of it so long as no real money was being spent. Mabiso et al. (2005) used a mock auction to show that
quality and confidence are the most important factors in consumer choice.
18 | P a g e ignorance to a state of knowledge about a process attribute leads to a decrease in
the overall utility of the consumer. Consequently, consumers may prefer a situation
characterized by a wilful ignorance to avoid becoming informed about something
so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might
prompt. Applied to our example, a consumer may rationally choose to remain
uninformed about food miles in regard to his/her consumption basket and to some
extent implicitly support producers that do not make public such information (see
Ehrich and Irwin, 2005).
Willingness to pay and the cost of local food
One problem is the question of how much local food costs. There is no comprehensive costbenefit analysis for buying local food in Canada, and there are a lot of myths. For example, it
has been shown that, contrary to popular belief, local products at farmer’s markets are 66%
cheaper than their counterparts at supermarkets in the United States (Sanderson et al. 2005),
and 39% cheaper in the Atlantic Canadian provinces (Sabih and Baker, 2000). Despite this
empirical data, it appears that consumers have the perception that local products are more
expensive.
Some studies also analyze how much of a price premium consumers are willing to pay for
localness. For organic products, the data varies in terms of the exact amount, but the
majority of studies show that a large proportion of consumers are willing to a pay a premium
that ranges from 5% to 100% (Bonti and Yiridoe 2006, 25-27). Since there is such a variation
in the responses, a meta-analysis should be conducted, to compare the methodologies used,
the types of products and the contextual analysis. The overall conclusion, though, is that there
is a willingness to pay a premium for the organic aspect.
The literature also provides an analysis of the added value of local products, and the
results again here indicate a willingness to pay a premium. The difficulty with the local attribute
is its many possible meanings and unclear characteristics (distance, region, province, country,
etc.). The organic attribute is easier to identify (e.g., certification). The existing studies show
that definitions vary a lot, notably in terms of geographical distance, the number of
intermediaries or travel time. For example, whereas British organizers of short supply chains
proposed a maximum radius of 30 miles between the farm and the place of purchase,
consumers thought that local would be better defined by a radius of 100 miles to allow for a
greater variety of products (Chinnakonda & Telford 2007, 4). Recent research shows that
respondents living in areas with a low population density have broader definitions of local
19 | P a g e (Smithers, Lamarche and Joseph 2008, 348). The research shows a general desire to consume
these products: the challenge is to develop more accurate methods of identification.
Willingness to pay a premium is based on a questionable assumption about local products: that
the transaction costs are not a factor. In fact, the literature shows that problems of
accessibility and identification (or other examples of the costs of seeking out local products)
are a major obstacle. Martinez et al. (2010, 30) confirm this:
These barriers may be considered as transaction costs, which include costs of
finding local food markets, obtaining information on their product
offerings, obtaining access to markets, and searching for the best
prices. Surveys suggest that reasons for not shopping at a farmers’ market
include: absence of availability in the patron’s vicinity; lack of knowledge about
market existence; inconvenience (too far to drive); food of comparable quality at
more convenient locations; and prices being too high (possibly due to timing of
survey—beginning of the season) (Govindasamy et al., 1998; Eastwood, 1996;
Eastwood et al., 1999).
Notwithstanding the obstacle of obtaining information and the fact that survey respondents
tend to overestimate the price premium (Howard 2006, 19), the research shows that
consumers are willing to pay a premium for the local attribute. Martinez et al. (2010)
summarize the studies on the topic. Their summary tables (included in the appendix)5 show a
consumer willingness to pay more for local products.
This willingness to pay more seems to have been confirmed, but some studies do introduce
interesting nuances. First, Darby, Batte, Ernst and Roe (2008, 25) mention that a locally grown
label doesn’t add as much value as a state label (“Grown in Ohio”). This seems to suggest a
political rather than distance connotation to the local attribute, something highlighted in the
other studies reviewed here. Martinez et al. (2010) show that the state in which one measures
the willingness to pay affects the amount of the premium (by percentage) that consumers are
willing to pay, suggesting the importance of context when considering modes of identification
for local products.
5
Another study, not covered by the authors, draws a similar conclusion: “The median price that people were
willing to pay was $1.06, or a 71% increase over the regular price. Eighty-four percent of respondents were
willing to pay 5 cents more (a 3% increase), while 67% would pay 25 cents more (a 17% increase), 56% would
pay an extra 50 cents (a 33% increase), and 42% would pay $1.50 more (a 100% increase)” (Howard 2006, 19).
20 | P a g e Source: Martinez et al. 2010
This table shows that people are willing to pay a 50% premium for Florida fresh produce versus
9% for New England specialty products.
Another interesting study evaluated the willingness to pay a premium based on a variety of
variables. Giraud, Bond and Bond (2005, 215) note that consumers in Maine, New Hampshire
and Vermont are willing to pay more for specialty products and that the premium increases for
products of a higher price, suggesting that there is a rapport between the type/price of food
and the premium. Loureiro and Hine (2001, 14-15) observe that the variable Upper Class has
a positive, statistically significant effect on the premium.
As in the case of organic foods, studies show that consumers are willing to pay more for a local
attribute, which is generally defined by political boundaries (e.g., state or province). This
willingness to pay, which varies amongst consumers, regions and products, manifests itself in a
theoretical context where transaction costs are zero. The difficult question for promoters of
local food is how to move from the intentions expressed in the surveys to real buying
behaviour.
1.3.
Buying behaviour
One of the difficulties identified in the literature is that attitudes towards local products are
generally favourable, but don’t necessarily translate into consumer buying behaviour. Zepeda
and Li (2006, 9) observe that campaigns can promote the attributes of local products that
21 | P a g e matter most to consumers, but that there is no guarantee that it will have any real impact on
consumer behaviour.
First, the main place of purchase for food remains the supermarket (Weatherell, Tregear and
Allinson 2003; 241) as well as supercenters, which are a greater focus of the American studies.
Thilmany, Bond and Bond (2006, 230) show that 76% of consumers prefer supermarkets and
19%, supercenters. At the same time, many consumers are unaware of the local products on
offer in their supermarket (Chambers et al. 2007, 213), a finding that points to the importance
of identifying and promoting local products in the usual places of purchase.6
Another point raised in the literature is the difference in behaviour depending on season, which
is of particular importance in Northern countries. For example, Thilmany, Bond and Bond (2006,
231) point out that farmer’s markets in season are used by nearly 30% of consumers. It may
seem obvious that attitudes differ when local products are more readily available in various
places of purchase, but it is an important point to keep in mind, especially when considering the
Canadian context. Another important point to mention is that people frequent more than one
place of purchase, even those who do most of their shopping at a supermarket (Hamzaoui
Essoussi 2010, 12).
The research on consumer behaviour shows how tenuous of a link there is between buying
behaviour and attitudes towards local food. It suggests that there is a need for information to
encourage consumers to buy local food, and shows that consumers remain attached to their
main place of purchase, the supermarket. An Atlantic Canada Food Consumer study (2005)
found that only 7% of consumers really look for locally grown produce (in Chinnakonda &
Telford 2007, 1). Another study in Farmers’ markets in Ontario notes that consumers who
frequent farmer’s markets spend an average of 30% of their weekly food budget there
(Smithers et al. 2008, 343). However, consumers spend a large portion of their budgets on
food. In 2006 in Ontario, for example, consumers reported spending 7.3% of disposable
income on food (Christianson and Morgan, 2007, 13).
6
One of the important aspects of this identification is the trust orientation towards the retailer. Consumers act
differently when they are buying from a place that they trust (Hamzaoui Essoussi 2010, 12-13). Identification
strategies, which are not a central concern of this project, should therefore vary depending on the intended type
of establishment and the type of relationship the establishment has with consumers.
22 | P a g e 2. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
The Canada-wide survey revisits most of the aforementioned themes by asking one
overarching question:
“What are the motivations and barriers to buying local food (fruits and
vegetables) for Canadian consumers?”
This question can subdivided as follows:
1. Socioeconomic status of the respondents
2. Food habits and food buying habits
3. Knowledge and attitudes about local food (definition of local, attributes of local
products, willingness to purchase, barriers to purchase and methods of recognition for
local products).
Equiterre commissioned polling firm Leger Marketing to carry out this study of the Canadian
public. A web survey was conducted between August 5 and 14, 2010 on a sample of 1121
Canadian French- and English-speaking men and women age 18 and over. Using data from
Statistics Canada, the results were weighted by gender, age, region, language spoken at home,
schooling and the presence of children in the household to make the sample representative of
the population being studied.7
The analysis of the data collected by the survey (see Section 3) is divided into two parts:
•
•
Frequency of certain key variables
Bivariate cross-tabulations to test for associations and correlations
First, in addition to presenting tables describing the documented variables, we will examine
some of the assumptions drawn from our literature review:
•
•
•
The definition of local varies.
The political aspect (borders) is the most important element of the definition of local.
Local food is perceived as being more expensive.
7
The sample was sorted by the POND variable created by the Leger Marketing statistician and the missing
information was removed from the SPSS file.
23 | P a g e •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
People are willing to pay more for local products.8
Fruits and vegetables make up an important proportion of the Canadian diet.
The automobile is the main mode of transport for the purchase of fruits and vegetables.
Consumer eating habits do not reflect the seasons.
The supermarket is the main place of purchase for fruits and vegetables.
The supermarket is the main place of purchase for local produce.
People don’t spend much time shopping for fruits and vegetables.
The majority of people say they have been buying local fruits and vegetables for a long
time, but their behaviours are sometimes contradictory.
Local is not necessarily associated with organic, but it is perceived as being more
sustainable.
In general, the desired attributes vary from consumer to consumer.
Supporting the local economy is the main motivation to buy local.
Information and availability are the main barriers to buying local.
The firm Leger Marketing has produced contingency tables that associate the various
dependent variables with the independent sociodemographic variables. The firm then applied a
T-Student test to test for significant variations between the various population segments
analyzed. Some of these tests will be revisited where relevant, that is, where they validate or
invalidate the literature.
In addition, our literature review suggested some possible associations to explore more in
depth from either a global or a Canadian perspective. These associations don’t necessarily
concern sociodemographic aspects.
To begin, it seems that the concept of local (definition and attributes) is strongly influenced
by the place of residence. With the diversity of provinces in Canada, it seems appropriate to
check if the understanding of local varies depending on the province of residence.
We will also test another series of associations, between the purchase of local foods and some
specific variables identified in the literature.
•
•
Buying local foods is positively affected by the existence of food self-production
practices.
Buying local foods is influenced by the places of purchase for food. Someone who
frequents different places of purchase is more likely to buy local products.
8
The definition of “cost” includes time as well as money.
24 | P a g e Finally, the literature informs us that socioeconomic factors have at best a minor influence on
the purchase of local foods. However, two variables in particular seem to have some influence.
First, the variable social class, which can be measured by income. Second, the distinction
between rural and urban, as explained in Weatherell, Treagear and Allinson (2003, 242): “It
may be beneficial for studies to incorporate urban/rural residency as a demographic criterion,
to assess whether significant differences may signal more fundamental distinctions in behavior,
or whether the effect is peculiar to the circumstances of the current study.” These two
elements will be tested:
•
•
Living environment (rural or urban) has a to-be-determined influence on buying local
food.
Social class (based on income) affects buying behaviour for local food.
We conducted a preliminary analysis of the metric data (normality tests). The results of these
tests showed that the majority of the metric data were not normally distributed (except the
age variable) and that they would need to be reworked if other statistical testing had to be
done. Our analysis of the data, which was primarily nominal and ordinal, was done using three
tools. First, T-Student tests were carried out by the pollster to determine if there were
significant differences between sub-populations in some of their survey responses. This test
establishes, for example, whether women define local differently than men. This test is useful
when targeting messages to various audiences. But it doesn’t draw any conclusions on the
weight that the sex variable has, for example, in the definition of local. That is why we then
conducted the chi-square test for association and bivariate correlation tests (Lambda,
uncertainty coefficient, etc.). These tests allowed us to determine whether the independent
variables tested had a strong or weak influence on the dependent variables.
The results obtained are very interesting to better understand the perceptions and consumer
behaviour in relation to local fruits and vegetables and to better target the development of
awareness-raising and identification tools for these products. However, the tests conducted
don’t allow us to draw any conclusions on the explanatory weight of each variable: a stratified
or multivariate analysis seems called for.
3. ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESULTS
The survey seems to confirm several previous studies on the Canadian context. It shows the
importance of transaction costs and of evolving and diversifying buying habits that are still
25 | P a g e primarily oriented towards more conventional places of purchase (i.e., supermarkets). The
survey analysis will focus on buying behaviour, definitions of local, and the willingness to
purchase local fruits and vegetables. We will also test the association and correlation between
certain variables identified in the previous section.
3.1. Description of buying behaviour
Although the literature indicates that lifestyle does not seem to strongly influence the decision
to buy local, we decided, for various reasons, to include questions related to food and buying
habits. First, there are not many studies on these subjects. Also, we wanted to know more
about these behaviours for Canadians, to help us put the results for buying local into
perspective.
Food expenditure
First, respondents spent an average of $117 (± 2.93, 19 times out of 209) on food and 51%
of them spent less than $100 a week. The survey shows that on average 30% of this amount is
allocated to fruits and vegetables. While the majority of respondents spend between 21% and
50% of their food budget on these products, close to a third of them allocate less than 20%,
which seems to confirm a disturbing trend of consuming very little fresh produce.10 When
cross tabulated with sociodemographic variables,11 it seems that active people between 35
and 54 years of age, with a higher level of education and children at home, who spend the
most on food. One surprise, however: anglophones spend significantly less than francophones
on food. ($112 on average versus $132).
Places of purchase
The literature makes clear that supermarkets are the main place to buy food for Western
consumers, and our survey confirms this. The data also illustrates that behaviours change with
the seasons. The main difference is the increased prominence in season of public markets,
online markets (ecomarkets) and self-production activities in places of purchase/production of
9
When we are treating the same question and we are not analyzing a sub-population, the margin of error will not
be specified again.
10
The survey shows that 8% of respondents allocate more than 50% of their food expenditures to fresh produce,
but this seems unlikely and probably reflects a social desirability bias.
11
A T-Student test was carried out to evaluate if there was a significant difference between sub-populations
where p = 0.05.
26 | P a g e food, which is logical. Trips to supermarkets decrease in season, but still remain dominant, with
79% of respondents saying they go.
Where do you usually purchase your fruits and vegetables in season (from June to
October), and off-season (from November to May) ?
(Several possible answers)
79%
87%
Supermarket
Neighbourhood grocery store
26%
29%
Fruit and vegetable store
30%
27%
Public market / urban kiosk
Directly from the producer
Community supported agriculture (CSA)
An eco-market or farmers’ market network
Self-produced (personal or community
garden)
Another location
24%
7%
11%
2%
1%
1%
3%
0%
9%
8%
4%
2%
In season
Off-season
Source : Leger Marketing 2010
For the purchase of local fruits and vegetables, it’s also supermarkets that dominate as the
main place of purchase, but less significantly (40% of respondents). We see that this type of
food is purchased in local shops such as neighbourhood grocery stores (15%), greengrocers
(15%) and public market / urban kiosks (12%). It seems that buying local foods is highly
compatible with an urban lifestyle or local shopping.
A corollary to the importance of supermarkets is the high proportion of respondents (82%)
who use their car to buy food, while 76% of them live within 15 minutes of the place where
they usually buy their food. Again, the purchasing behaviour varies with the season. While in
season, 44% of respondents will do their food shopping a few times a week, with 71% visiting
27 | P a g e multiple establishments, off-season these percentages fall to 28% and 60% respectively. There
are multiple motivations for buying food several times a week, but freshness remains central.
28 | P a g e In season, (from June to October), and off-season, (from November to May), why
do you purchase your fruits and vegetables several times a week?
12
Source: Leger Marketing 2010
An interesting feature that emerges from this survey has to do with the motivation to frequent
specific establishments. Indeed, retailers usually rely on brand or business loyalty and on
savings to influence consumers. But it appears that the main reason consumers only frequent a
single place of purchase is lower transaction costs in terms of time and accessibility as opposed
to money, whereas the frequentation of several places of purchase is motivated by the desire
to save money as well as the diversity and quality of products.
12
At 95% confidence, where n = 552, the margin of error is 4.29 versus 5.26 where n = 347.
29 | P a g e In season (from June to October), and off-season, (from November to
May) why do you visit only one establishment?
In season (from June to October), and off-season, (from November to May),
why do you visit several establishments?
(Several answers possible)
13
Finally, an interesting question concerns the time spent at the place of purchase. Seventy
percent of respondents say they spend less than 30 minutes at the place of purchase, which
raises questions about the means used to inform and educate consumers. Indeed, a consumer
buying dozens of products in less than 30 minutes probably won’t take the time read the labels
13
The margins of error are as follows: where n=316, 5.513; where n=428, 4.737; where n=795, 3.476; where
n=679, 3.761.
30 | P a g e or logos. We should perhaps be looking more closely at the 30% who do spend more than 30
minutes at the place of purchase – generally professionals, residents of Alberta and Canadianor American-born residents (to a significant level). They have the potential to be an audience
for buying local campaigns and for methods of indicating local products, but we should first
determine the reasons for this behaviour (desire for information, distance from the
supermarket, family size, basket size, etc.).
3.2. Definitions and perceptions of local
The literature clearly shows that definitions of local vary greatly, sometimes referring to a
geographical area, a social distance or a positively connotated purpose. For our survey, we
asked respondents to provide their own definition of local fruits and vegetables before asking
them to choose the best definition from a list. It is interesting to note that the definition of
short food supply chains used by Quebec’s Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
(MAPAQ) – one or no middleman, i.e. a “social” definition – is absent from the spontaneous
definitions and represents only one percent of the responses where respondents were asked to
choose the best definition of what a local fruit or vegetable is from a list.
What emerges from the majority of these responses is that the definition of local is more
dependent on political or administrative boundaries than on physical or social distance. The
spontaneous definitions define local food as coming from the province (28%) or a radius of less
than 200 km (11%). For the definitions chosen from a list, 39% of respondents mentioned the
immediate region and 31%, the province. When respondents were questioned on ideas
associated with local foods, 94% (the highest rate) of them emphasized that they encouraged
the local economy. It is interesting to note some other elements related to this question,
including the high rate of “I don’t know” responses (12% to 27 % for seven questions out of
eight). First, it seems that respondents do not confuse local with organic as only 10% said that
local was organic and 10%, that it was pesticide free. Also, it seems that the message from
producer organizations saying that local products are produced by small producers (54% true)
or family farmers (51% true) is not convincing for a clear majority of respondents. They seem
to see that local products are produced by a variety of types of operations. Finally, only 45% of
respondents noted that local products are better for health, which may seem surprising for an
argument so commonly advanced in public.
When we break down the responses into socioeconomic categories, it’s interesting to note that
the three types of definitions are associated with different living environments according to
the T-Student tests:
31 | P a g e •
•
•
Immediate region: especially those who do not reside in a major Canadian city (49%)
Province: francophones (38%), residents of Quebec (40%) and residents of a major
Canadian city (34%)
Distance of less than 200 km: anglophones (19%), residents of Ontario (23%) and
residents of a major Canadian city (20%).
These results suggest that (1) the concept of space differs in rural and urban areas, (2)
Quebec nationalism leads to local being defined by province, and (3) the concept of the 100Mile Diet is more prevalent in English-speaking urban areas.
One of the survey results confirms the political understanding of local:
For the same price, do you prefer purchasing fruits or vegetables from…
54%
32%
7%
6%
The United
States, some
kilometres
away
A distant
province in
Canada
I have no
preference
1%
I don't know
I prefer not
answering
We clearly see from this response that respondents prefer domestic products to products
grown nearby (based on geographical distance). This data may feed into some of the criticism
that local is a discourse that is based on retreating into oneself, what Born and Purcell (2006)
call “the local trap.” At the same time, it tells us that the promotion of local agriculture can be a
lever for community development with a message that matches the economic concerns of
consumers. Another interesting question is the one that asks respondents whether they would
prefer an organic product from California or Florida or a non-organic local product: 70% of the
32 | P a g e respondents preferred the latter. This indicates that the local attribute matters more than
organic when the two are compared side by side.
Consumers often attribute a higher price to local products, but that was not the case for our
survey. While 39% of respondents were of the opinion that local products are more expensive
than other products, 51% were of the opinion that they were the same price or less expensive.
This data showing a bias in favour of local products is interesting, but must be qualified: the
comparison is not included in the question, the products are not specified, and the question
explicitly addresses the most productive season in Canada. Of those who consider local
products to be more expensive, it seems that there is a significant difference between genders,
educational level and income. Those who buy local foods tend to regard them as less expensive
(32%) and those who don’t, as more expensive (46%).
3.3. Willingness to pay for local products
It is not surprising that 78% of respondents say that they favour buying local, including 43% of
whom for more than 6 years.14 It is interesting to note that seniors, retirees, people without
children at home and people living in rural areas are significantly more likely to buy local food.
Also, people who are active in social causes and who think we should increase the tax on high
fuel consumption vehicles to fight against climate change are also significantly more likely to
buy local.
However, to test the strength of their convictions, we asked consumers if they usually bought
strawberries in the winter, and nearly 42% of the 78% of respondents who said that they
favour buying local said that they buy strawberries in the winter. It seems therefore that the
convictions are strong enough, but that a portion of consumers have a pragmatic rather than
ideological approach that supports a diversity of products regardless of the season or
provenance.
When we examine consumer intentions, we learn that, for a basket worth $50, nearly 39% are
willing to pay 2% to 20% more ($1 to $10 more) for local products, but that close to half
(47%) do not want to pay a premium. The profile of people willing to pay more for local
products shows us that women and people who advocate buying locally are significantly more
willing to pay more, while those earning less than $20,000 are not.
14
A quarter (25%) of respondents said that they had only been concerned with food being locally grown for the
past five years, which reflects the recent increase in the popularity of buying local.
33 | P a g e For a basket of fresh fruits and vegetables valued at $50, how much more
would you be willing to pay for the same fruits and vegetables, but
produced locally?
47%
18%
I would not be
willing to pay
more
$1 to $5
20%
$6 to $10
11%
3%
More than $10
I don't know /
I prefer not
answering
This question was intended to explore the results of previous studies on the willingness to pay
a premium for local foods. The results obtained in our survey seem consistent with what has
been presented elsewhere. This desire to assume additional costs can also be seen in the act of
seeking out information on the origin of a product since this act in itself constitutes a
transaction cost (in time). The question should be reviewed with lower intervals of time (or an
absolute answer), but it seems that nearly 79% of respondents are willing to take extra time to
buy foods that were produced locally. However, 40% want to spend only 15 minutes and less
on this research per visit at a place of purchase. This information confirms in part the problem
of identifying local products and the probable benefits of a developing a policy for the clear
indication of provenance. The profile of people willing to take the extra time is similar to that of
those who are willing to pay more for local products (women and people who advocate buying
local). People with an annual family income between $60,000 and $79,000 are also willing to
spend more time.
The final section of the survey focused on incentives to buy local fruit and vegetables. The
following table summarizes the incentives for the respondents polled:
34 | P a g e To what extent does each of the following factors motivate you to buy more local
products?
This table is very informative about the incentives to buy local. In general, the incentives with
the greatest impact have to do with transaction costs, that is availability, price, information and
accessibility.
Some findings are of particular interest. First, there seems to be a bias concerning the quality of
local products (85% see better quality as an incentive). Second, although our survey shows
that season has a significant impact on consumer behaviour, it seems that access to products
off-season is not a central incentive, which is relatively counterintuitive. Also, food preparation
skills have little influence, although we often hear of lack of knowledge and comfort with
cooking local foods as a factor limiting local consumption. This question should probably be
explored in greater depth because the result is contrary to what one would expect.
35 | P a g e 3.4. Factors influencing the definitions and purchase of local fruits and
vegetables
In this final section, we present some tests of association and correlation for three variables
that we consider central to the issue at hand: the definition of local, the willingness to buy local
and the willingness to pay more for local products. We will see that although the chi-square
tests show frequent associations, the correlation is weak overall between the different
variables. These tests were conducted to verify the explanatory weight of some of the
variables for the two elements of particular interest to us.
For the question asking the respondent to choose the best definition of local, we
hypothesized that different definitions are associated to different socioeconomic variables: age,
income, education and place of residence (rural/urban). The tests conducted all showed a
relatively high association between the sociodemographic variable and the definition of local
(except for rural/urban, which we will return to). However, if the correlation rates are generally
significant, they remain weak (below 0.1).15 The variable “income” is interesting in this case.
Certain studies show that social class affects buying local. The tests we conducted produced
ambivalent results. If these variables are not independent (chi-square, p = 0.002), then the
correlation tests are contradictory.16 It seems to indicate a relationship between “income” and
“different definition of local,” but this relationship should be explored in more detail since the
tests are inconclusive.
In general, it seems that the definition of local is influenced by age, education and income, but
that further tests should be conducted to assess the explanatory power of each variable. The
bivariate analysis didn’t reveal a strong correlation between any of these variables. This may
mean that their explanatory power should be explored via other tests or it may confirm the
results of other studies that find that demographic variables have little impact on the concept
of local food.
Central to our research is an analysis of the prioritization of local foods. We therefore
sought to analyze which variables could best explain purchasing behaviour. If we study the
15
For age, the chi-square (p = 0.014) is significant, but the correlation is low (uncertainty coefficient is less than
0.025 (p = 0.0001)). When we cross-tabulate with level of education, the chi-square is significant (p = 0.001),
but the correlation is low: insignificant for Lambda (p = 0.234); significant (p = 0.0001), but low for the
uncertainty coefficient (0.022).
16
The Lambda is less than 0.05 and insignificant while being near 0.05 (p = 0.071), while the uncertainty
coefficient is less than 0.025, but significant (p = 0.01).
36 | P a g e relationship with the consumption of fruits and vegetables, it seems that there is a relationship
between these variables, but the explanatory power of the consumption of fruits and
vegetables is not clear.17 By cross-tabulating with the frequency of purchase and basing
ourselves on the idea that consumers who make more frequent purchases have more potential
to frequent specialty establishments offering local products, we see that the two variables are
dependent, but only weakly correlated.18
The studies show that income influences buying locally, but the chi-square points rather to
independent variables,19 which is relatively surprising. Income would therefore be associated
with the definition of local, but not with purchasing behaviours. There seems however to be a
relationship between age and the purchase of local fruits and vegetables, and this variable
seems to have more of an explanatory power than income.20 Finally, our analysis of the
relationship between buying local and the perception of price gives some surprising results
since one might expect to see a strong correlation between the two. The tests do show a
relationship between these two variables, but the correlation is rather low.21
Finally, we tested the relationship between the willingness to pay a premium and certain
variables. The T-Student tests showed us that the people who are willing to pay more for local
products are women and people who advocate buying local, as opposed to people who earn
less than $20,000 a year. Cross-tabulated with sociodemographic variables (province, age
and income), the chi-squares are all significant, indicating that the variables are dependent. The
correlation tests have uncertainty coefficients below 0.02, but significant with p lower than
0.05. As with the definition of buying local, the willingness to pay a premium is therefore
affected by sociodemographic variables, but the explanatory power of each remains unclear.
Based on these analyses, it appears that the definition of local products and the purchase of
local fruits and vegetables are phenomena influenced by multiple variables at the same time as
we saw in our review of the literature. For the moment, we can only draw conclusions on the
17
The chi-square shows that the variables are dependent (p = 0.001), but the correlation is low: Lambda is 0
while the uncertainty coefficient is 0.016, but significant (p = 0.0001).
18
The chi-square is p = 0.003. The correlation tests show a low (0.01), but significant (p = 0.001) uncertainty
coefficient.
19
Because of the sensitivity of the chi-square to sample size, although p = 0.474, we can reasonably rule out the
idea of dependence between variables with our large sample size.
20
Analysis of the cross-tabulation with age shows us dependent variables according to the chi-square
(p = 0.001). The correlation tests show an ambivalent relationship. The Lambda is not signficant (p = 0.066),
whereas the uncertainty coefficient is low (less than 0.05), but significant (p = 0.0001).
21
Indeed, if the chi-square shows dependent variables (p = 0.0001), the correlation tests are more nuanced.
The Lambda is zero, but the uncertainty coefficient, although low (0.015) is significant (p = 0.0001).
37 | P a g e existence of relationships between the variables analyzed without specifying the explanatory
power of each. To test this, we would need to build multivariate models for each variable. Also,
we suggest developing other qualitative research to better understand how people make their
buying decisions. We believe that the lack of clarity on the explanatory power of the various
variables comes from a lack of understanding of the complexity of the decision-making process.
It also appears that the social desirability bias of surveying is an important limitation to the
analysis of buying local food.
An important conclusion seems however to emerge from these tests of association and
correlation, the lack of explanatory power of the rural/urban variable on buying
local, on the definition of buying local, and the willingness to pay a premium,
which comes as a surprise and contradicts one of our hypotheses.22
GENERAL FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
The survey on motivations and barriers to buying local fruit and vegetables allowed us to better
understand the various aspects of this question and to advance some conclusions. First,
Canadians seem to have positive attitudes and perceptions towards buying local.
However, the definition of what is local varies considerably. It can mean food that is
grown nearby or food that is grown in the same province or in the same country. According to
the literature and the survey, the most effective strategy to target customers is to refer to the
province of origin. Another benefit of this strategy is that it avoids some concepts that are hard
to define (nearby) or hard to measure (distance or travel time). In situations of choice,
consumers prefer to buy a domestic product, even from a faraway province, rather
than an American product that was grown nearer by. Consumers do not seem to care about
the distance travelled by the product and the impact thereof on the environment. In fact,
buying local seems first and foremost to refer to a desire to support the local economy.
Unlike the organic designation, which comes with clear specifications, the concept of local has a
diversity of meanings. The main image consumers associate with local products is that of the
family farm or small producers. Other attributes (e.g., organic certification, farm inputs)
22
The association of the definition of local with the rural/urban variable doesn’t give a significant chi-square (p =
0,058) and even if p is near 0.05, given the sensitivity of the test to sample size, it seems that variables are
independent. This variable has a rather low explanatory power for buying local with Lambda at zero and a low
(0.006), barely significant (p = 0.048) uncertainty coefficient. As for the willingness to pay a premium for local
products, the tests also showed negative results.
38 | P a g e seem less central to their understanding. Consumers seem to understand the economic
leverage they exert when they buy local – an attribute that should therefore be emphasized
in marketing campaigns.
Also, it seems that there is a very positive perception of buying local, with a majority
(78%) of respondents saying that they favour local purchases. The results show that more
consumers are willing to buy local products, although without systematically passing to action.
Thus, when consumers have difficulty identifying whether a product is local, the majority of
them buy it anyway (50%), while only 7% don’t buy it and 22% find out information on the
origin. In addition, although 78% of consumers claim to favour buying local products, 42%
report buying strawberries in winter. Consumer involvement in buying local is
therefore quite low, but the potential is there.
It is also important to consider the main consumer constraints to buying local. As several
studies have demonstrated, the transaction costs are relatively high for the purchase of local
fruits and vegetables. This is due to the fact that the definition of local is unclear, that there is
very little indication of place of origin and that fresh products are generally more difficult to
identify than processed products. Our study identifies certain buying habits that pose a
problem for development in this sector:
• Consumers only frequent one or two establishments to buy fruits or vegetables.
• Supermarkets are the most frequented place of purchase.
• Less than 30 minutes is spent at the place of purchase.
• Consumers use their cars to get to the place of purchase.
• Consumers are not willing to spend much more time searching for local products.
This aspect of the issues surrounding buying local matches the conclusions of earlier studies
carried out by Equiterre. For example, a 2007 survey found that consumers were eager for
information and that a large proportion of the 1662 respondents (81%) were of the opinion
that place-of-origin labels for food should be mandatory. Another survey conducted by Leger
Marketing for Aliments du Québec (2001) indicated that the clear identification of Quebec
products in Quebec grocery stores was a big enough incentive for consumers to choose these
products over others (81%).
This issue of information regarding the origin of products is important, particularly in the
current context where there is both a lack of relevant information and a surplus of unnecessary
information that adds to the confusion rather than helping consumers make informed
purchases. Many examples demonstrate the current lack of clarity on this issue: “Canada No. 1”,
39 | P a g e “Product of Canada,” etc. (Equiterre 2007). Other labels, such as “packaged locally” or
“distributed locally” don’t necessarily signify that the product was produced locally.
The results of our study can be represented in diagram form to show the organization of the
different variables that affect the motivation and decision to buy local fruits and vegetables.
This diagram shows that there are two aspects that could encourage the act of purchasing by
reducing the transaction costs:
•
•
information – clear, immediate identification of local fruits and vegetables at places
of sale, with a focus on the attributes that are most important to consumers
physical accessibility and affordability – price support, addition of places of sale to
short supply chains and the improvement of public transit (or reduced cost).
Factors leading to buying local
RECOMMENDATIONS
Our study shows that consumers are willing to eat more locally grown fruits and vegetables,
but that all the necessary conditions for this to happen have yet to be fully realized. We
propose the following recommendations to help develop the Canadian local food market.
First, it is crucial to create an identity for locally produced fruits and vegetables. It should
embody an image of the region and be associated with images of family farms and small
producers who contribute to developing the local economy.
40 | P a g e •
R1. Local food would benefit more from being associated with a political or
economic territory rather than with environmental benefits, which are associated
instead with organic products.
However, there is also space to raise awareness about the environmental aspect of local foods.
For example, it would be worthwhile to explain to consumers the benefits of, in the winter,
buying frozen products grown nearby23 rather than buying fresh products from far away.
•
R2. An awareness campaign on the impact of buying off-season produce could help
consumers reduce their environmental impact.
Promotional strategies for local products may need to differ from those used for organic or fair
trade products and may need to use diversified strategies to adapt to a wider range of
customers.
•
R3. The strategies used to promote local fruits and vegetables may differ by retailer
(supermarkets versus greengrocers, for example) as well as by province
(identification based on distance, province or country).
A central aspect that will reduce the transaction costs and turn intention into action for the
78% of consumers who report favouring buying local is the clear identification of place of
origin. In the survey, when we asked respondents how they identified if fruits or vegetables
were local, 53% mentioned the logo/sticker; 51%, an indication at the place of purchase; and
24%, the place of purchase itself (sells local produce exclusively). For example, in addition to
the Aliments du Québec logo, food retailers could develop a strategy based on the
identification of products on display (as is common in Ontario, for example) with a brand image
or a procurement policy that makes clear that the organization prioritizes local products.
Regardless of which strategies are chosen, retailers should evaluate the costs of such practices,
along with the confidence consumers have in their operations. A neighbourhood greengrocer
that has the complete confidence of its customers could rely exclusively on identification at the
display or a procurement policy, whereas bigger chains may need to use a label. Literature
comparing confidence towards labels and places of purchase is just emerging (Hamzaoui
Essoussi, 2010). It seems that consumers are more confident about organic shops and other
small specialty retailers (Padel & Foster, 2005; Tregear et Ness, 2005; Hamzaoui Essoussi,
2010), even if they tend to shop primarily at supermarkets. Given this information, it would
make sense to:
23
It would be advisable to begin with a public discussion of the nutritional value of frozen products.
41 | P a g e •
R4: Develop a basket of strategies for easier identification of local products, beyond
just a logo or a brand.24
Organizations promoting local products should offer support to supermarkets in their strategy
for marketing fruits and vegetables since this kind of store remains the main place of purchase
for produce. One interesting idea would be to:
•
R5. Provide better training for employees in direct contact with consumers looking
for local products.
This study also makes clear the need for a strategy to develop more points of sale outside
of the traditional networks for locally grown products. Distance from place of purchase
remains to this day an obstacle to the purchase of these kinds of fruits and vegetables. Urban
and surburban areas would certainly benefit from a better supply and, therefore:
•
R6. Local merchants, public markets and drop-off points are avenues that could be
developed further.
Although our survey does not include the viewpoint of producers, to develop effective
strategies for the development of short supply chains, we must eventually take their
perspective into account. Indeed, to develop more points of sale, reduce transaction costs for
consumers, and develop effective marketing strategies that are consistent with the needs of
producers, producers must be supported and better informed about the needs and desires of
consumers.
•
R7. More support for increasingly important local food initiatives such as CSA
networks or ecomarkets that make it easier for consumers to physically access local
food.
RESEARCH AVENUES
24
In Quebec, in addition to the Aliments du Québec initiative, other projects are underway to better identify local
products. For example, the UPA would like to develop an accreditation system for shops selling local food. For its
part, Wal-Mart has set itself the goal of buying 30% of the fruits and vegetables sold in its stores from local
producers by December 21, 2013.
42 | P a g e To conclude the report, we have identified some lines of analysis for future analyses of the data
collected here or for other surveys on the same topic.
We believe that multivariate analyses should be conducted to clearly define the influence of
each of the socioeconomic variables affecting the decision to buy local food. Also, the studies
show that lifestyle doesn’t influence the decision to buy. However, because there aren’t very
many of these studies and because the results seem counterintuitive, the effect of lifestyle on
the willingness to buy local should be tested further. Finally, it would be informative to evaluate
whether socio-political and environmental views have an effect on the willingness to purchase
and, if so, which is the most important. A multifactor equation could then be developed to test
which variables – sociodemographic, lifestyle or socio-political views – appear to have the
most influence on the willingness to purchase local products. A second analysis could take
another look at these elements to examine the willingness to pay a premium for local products
by adding the variable “perceived attributes of local fruits and vegetables.”25 We could then
evaluate what most influences the decision to pay a premium for fruits and vegetables.
Second, specific questions have emerged from the survey results, beginning with the
motivation to spend more than 30 minutes at a place of purchase. A formula could be
developed to weigh the importance of distance from the place of purchase, the number of
children, frequency of purchase, the amount spent at the place of purchase, and the willingness
to take more time to identify local products. If this line of analysis led to the identification of a
sub-population that spends a lot of time in the place of purchase for reasons other than
contextual factors, we could conclude that they are searching for information on products and
they could become a good target audience to get to know better for campaigns and product
identification.
Another question that emerged relates to the fact that a large majority of respondents claimed
to favour local, but also reported buying strawberries in winter. There is therefore a pragmatic
aspect to buying local that is strongly influenced by seasonality. Indeed, consumers don’t seem
ready to replace their current off-season eating habits, with its wide range of fresh produce,
for other off-season habits (preserves, frozen food). It would be interesting to better
document the decision-making process during the off-season, including any external factors
(discourse on the importance of fresh products, a diversified diet, etc.).
It would also be worthwhile to test different symbols representing local to evaluate which of
them best correspond to the consumers’ idea of local. For example, one could compare
25
A similar equation could be produced for the desire to spend time looking for local products which is part of the
transactions costs for such purchases.
43 | P a g e abstract symbols (images or signs) with explicit designations (Aliments du Québec, for
example) and other indicators linked to modes of production (for example, the French small
producer brand, Le petit producteur). One important hypothesis that could be explored would
be that symbolic referents that speak to individuals vary depending on the territory and the
population characteristics.
More generally, it seems that the survey may not be the best tool for this kind of inquiry in the
future, both because of the social desirability bias and the need to analyze other aspects of this
kind of consumption. On the one hand, qualitative studies could describe in greater detail the
decision-making mechanisms in food buying and the role of local. On the other hand, quasiexperimental studies and simulations could be carried out to analyze actual behaviour around
buying local food.
Finally, it seems that the question raised by Sirieix et al. (2008, 512) deserves to be explored
in more detail: “ Consequently, consumers may prefer a situation characterised by a willful
ignorance to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make
undesirable decisions that such information might prompt.” Indeed, to what extent and in what
manner does the need for specific information manifest itself in the consumers’ act of
purchasing?
44 | P a g e BIBLIOGRAPHY
References cited in the study
Bird, K. and D. Hughes, 1997. “Ethical consumerism: The case of “fairly-traded” coffee.”
Business Ethics: A European Review, 6(3), 159–67.
Bonti, S. and E. Yiridoe, 2006. Organic and conventional food: A literature review of the
economics of consumer perceptions and preferences Final Report, Organic Agriculture Centre
of Canada, March.
Bouquet. C et G Hénault. 1998. « Commerce international dit équitable, logique marchande et
marketing des causes sociales : vers une symbiose », Revue française du marketing, 1(166): 7–
18.
Brown, C., 2003. “Consumers’ preferences for locally produced food: A study in southeast
Missouri.” American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 18: 213-224.
Chinnakonda, D. et L. Telford. 2007. Les économies alimentaires locales et régionales au
Canada : rapport sur la situation, Agriculture et agroalimentaire Canada, 31 mars.
Christianson, R. et M.L. Morgan. 2007. Cultiver biologique à l’échelle locale. Stratégie en
matière d’aliments biologiques pour l’Ontario : transformation à valeur ajoutée, World Wildlife
Fund-Canada.
Conner, D.S. et al., 2009. “Consumer demand for local produce at extended season farmers’
markets: guiding farmer marketing strategies”, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems:
24(4); 251–259.
Cranfield, J. et al., 2008. “The Effect of Attitudinal and Socio-demographic Factors on the
Likelihood of Buying Locally-produced Food”, InFERG Working Paper No. 8_FSD, July.
CRIOC. 2010. “Typologie- Circuits courts”, Étude CRIOC et Région Wallone, [en ligne]
http://www.oivo-crioc.org/files/fr/5044fr.pdf (consulté en février 2011).
Darby, K., Batte, M.T., Ernst, S., & Roe, B., 2008. “Decomposing local: A conjoint analysis of
locally produced foods”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(2), 476-486.
45 | P a g e Diamantopoulos, A. et al., 2003. “Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green
consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation”, Journal of Business
Research, Volume 56, Issue 6, June : 465-480.
Giraud, K.L. Bond, A. and J. Bond, 2005. “Consumer Preferences for Locally Made Specialty
Food Products Across Northern New England”, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review
34/2 (October 2005) 204–216.
Hamzaoui Essoussi, L. 2010. "Profiling organic food consumers: motivations, trust orientations
and purchasing behaviour". Journal of International Business and Economics. [online]
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6775/is_2_8/ai_n31127135/ (Accessed February
2011).
Howard, P.H., 2006. “Central coast consumers want more food related information, from
safety to ethics”, California Agriculture, 60 : 14–19.
Hunt, A.R., 2006. “Consumer interactions and influences on farmers’ market vendors »,
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems: 22(1); 54–66.
Kallel, D., 2007. Le comportement d’achat du consommateur quant aux produits équitables :
cas du café équitable. Les cahiers de la CRSDD • collection thèses et mémoires 2007.
Loureiro M.L. and S. Hine., 2001. Discovering Niche Markets: A Comparison of Consumer
Willingness to Pay for A Local (Colorado-Grown), Organic, and GMO-free product, Selected
Paper, American Agricultural Economics Association Meetings.
Martinez et al., 2010. “Local Food Systems Concepts, Impacts, and Issues", Economic Research
Report, N. 97, USDA.
Novotorova, N. and M. Mazzocco, 2008. “Consumer Preferences and Trade-Offs for Locally
Grown and Genetically Modified Apples: A Conjoint Analysis Approach”, International Food and
Agribusiness Management Review, Volume 11, Issue 4.
Padel, S., and Foster, C., 2005. "Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour:
Understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food", British Food Journal, 107, 8 :
606-625.
46 | P a g e Sabih, S. & Baker, L., 2000. Alternative financing in agriculture: A case for the CSA method.
Acta Horticulturae (ISHS), 524, 141-148.
Sanderson, K. et al., 2005. Farmers' Markets in North America: A Background Document,
Saskatoon: Community-University Institute for Social Research, University of Saskatchewan.
Available at: http://www.usask.ca/cuisr/docs/pub_doc/economic/FarmersMarket.pdf.
Schneider, M.L., & Francis, C.A., 2005. “Marketing locally produced foods: Consumer and
farmer opinions in Washington County, Nebraska”, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems,
20(4), 252-260
Sirieix, L. et al., 2006. “Consumers motivations for buying local and organic products in
developing vs developed countries”, 16th IFOAM Organic World Congress, Modena, Italy, June
16-20, Archived at http://orgprints.org/view/projects/conference.html
Sirieix, L. , G. et al., 2008. “Do Consumers Care About Food Miles? An Empirical Analysis in
France.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 32: 508-515.
Smithers, J., Lamarche, J. & Joseph, A.E., 2008. “Unpacking the terms of engagement with local
food at the Farmers' Market: Insights from Ontario”, Journal of Rural Studies, 24(3), 337-350.
Thilmany, D. D., Keeling-Bond, J. and Bond C., 2007. “Buy Local, Buy Fresh? Exploring Local
Fresh Produce Consumer Motivations and Interests”, Agribusiness Marketing Report, May,
Colorado State University Cooperative Extension.
Tregear, A. and Ness, M., 2005. “Discriminant Analysis of Consumer Interest in Buying Locally
Produced Foods”, Journal of Marketing Management, 21: 1, 19 — 35.
Vermeir, I. and Verbeke, W., 2006. “Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring The Consumer
‘Attitude – Behavioral Intention’ Gap”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2006)
19:169–194.
Weatherell C., Tregear A. and Allinson J., 2003. “In search of the concerned consumer: UK
public perceptions of food farming and buying local”, Journal of Rural Studies, 19: 233-244.
Zepeda, L. and Li, J., 2006. “Who buys local food?”, Journal of Food Distribution Research 37,
3 :1–11.
47 | P a g e Other sources to consult
Adelaja, A.O., Brumfield, R.G., & Lininger, K., 1990. “Product differentiation and state promotion
of farm produce: An analysis of the Jersey fresh tomato”, Journal of Food Distribution Research,
21(2), 73-85.
Born, B. and Purcell, M., 2006. “Avoiding the Local Trap: Scale and Food Systems in Planning
Research”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 2 : 195-207.
Brooker, J.R., and Eastwood, D.B., 1989. “Using State Logos to Increase Purchases of Selected
Food Products.” Journal of Food Distribution Research 20(1): 175–183.
Brooker, J.R., Stout, C.L., Eastwood, D.B. and Orr, R.H., 1987. “Analysis of In-Store Experiments
Regarding Sales of Locally Grown Tomatoes.” Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 654,
University of Tennessee.
Buchardi, H., Schröder C. and Thiele,. H.D., 2005. “Willingness-To-Pay for Food of the Own
Region: Empirical Estimates from Hypothetical and Incentive Compatible Settings”, Selected
Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual
Meeting, Providence, Rhode Island, July 24-27.
Chambers, S., Lobb, A., Butler, L., Harvey, K., & Traill, W.B., 2007. “Local, national and imported
foods: A qualitative study”. Appetite, 49, 208-213.
Cone, C. and Kakaliouras, A. 1995. “Community Supported Agriculture: Building moral
community or an alternative consumer choice." Culture and Agriculture, Spring/Summer,
(51/52): 28-31.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B., Sinkovics, R. and Bohlen, G., 2003. “Can Sociodemographics Still Play a Role in Profiling Green Consumers? A Review of the Evidence and an
Empirical Investigation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56, pp.465-480.
Dubuisson-Quellier S. and Lamine C., 2008. “Consumer involvement in fair trade and local food
systems: delegation and empowerment regimes”, GeoJournal, vol.73, pp. 55-65.
Eastwood, D.B., 1996. “Using consumer surveys to promote farmers’ markets: a case study”.
Journal of Food Distribution Research October: 23–30.
48 | P a g e Eastwood, D.B., Brooker, J.R. and Orr, R.H., 1987. “Consumer Preferences for Local Versus
Out-of-State Grown Selected Fresh Produce: The Case of Knoxville, Tennessee.” Southern
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 19, 1: 183–194.
Ellen, P. S., Weiner, J. L. and Cobb-Walgreen, C. (1991), ‘‘The Role of Perceived Consumer
Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors,’’ Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 10, 2: 102–117.
Enteleca, 2001. Eat the View Consumer Research Literature Review. Report prepared for the
Countryside Agency, Cheltenham, UK. Enteleca Research and Consultancy Ltd., London.
Fischer, C., 2005. “A Theoretical Model Explaining Modern Food Consumption and Implications
for International Food Product Marketers” Contributed paper, 97th EAAE Seminar “The
Economics and Policy of Diet and Health” April 21–22, 2005 www.eaae.rdg.ac.uk/Papers/4BFischer.pdf Accessed July 13, 2005.
Finger, M., 1994. “From Knowledge to Action? Exploring the Relationships Between
Environmental Experiences, Learning and Behaviour”. Journal of Social Issues, 50 (3).
Follows, S. and Jobber, D., 2000. “Environmentally Responsible Purchasing Behaviour: a Test of
a Consumer Model”, European Journal of Marketing, 34, 5/6 : 723-746.
Frenzen, J.K. and Davis, H.L., 1990. “Purchasing behavior in embedded markets”, Journal of
Consumer Research, 17, 1 :1–12
Gallons, J., Toensmeyer, U.C, Bacon, J.R. and German, C.L. “An Analysis of Consumer
Characteristics Concerning Direct Marketing of Fresh Produce in Delaware: A Case Study.”
Journal of Food Distribution Research, 28, 1997: 98-106.
Govindasamy, R., Italia, J., Zurbriggen, M., and Hoaain, F. 2002. “Predicting consumer
willingness-to-purchase value added products at direct agricultural markets”. Journal of Food
Products Marketing 8, 1 :1–15.
Govindasamy, R., Italia, J. and Thatch, D., 1998. “Consumer Awareness of State-Sponsored
Marketing Programs: The Case of Jersey Fresh.” Journal of Food Distribution Research 29, 3:
7–15.
49 | P a g e Grunert, K.G., Juhl, H.J., and Poulsen, C.S., 2001. "Perception de la qualité en alimentaire et rôle
des labels", Revue Francaise du Marketing, 183-184, 181-196
Guptill, A., & Wilkins, J.L., 2002. “Buying food in the food system: Trends in food retailing in the
US and implications for local foods2. Agriculture and Human Values, 19, 39-51.
Gurviez, P., 2001. "Le rôle de la confiance dans la perception des risques alimentaires par les
consommateurs ", Revue Francaise du Marketing, (183-184), 87-98
Hartman Group. 2008. “Consumer understanding of buying local”, www.hartman-group.com
Holt, D. and Watson, A., 2008. “Exploring the Dilemma of Local Sourcing versus International
Development – The Case of the Flower Industry.” Business Strategy and the Environment 17:
318-329.
IGD, 2002. “Consumer Attitudes to Food and Grocery Issues—Local and Regional Foods. IGD
Business Publications”, March, Letchmore Heath, Watford, Herts.
Keeling-Bond, J., Thilmany, D., & Bond, C.A., 2006. “Direct marketing of fresh produce:
Understanding consumer purchasing decisions”, Choices, 21, 4 : 229-235.
Kezis, A., Gwebu, T., Peavey, S., and Cheng, H. 1998. “A study of consumers at a small farmers’
market in Maine: results from a 1995 survey”. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 24, 1 :
91–99.
Kraus, S. J., 1995. ‘‘Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior – a Meta-Analysis of the Empirical
Literature,’’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1: 58–75.
Kuches, K., Toensmeyer, U.C., German, C.L., and Bacon, J.R., 1999. “An analysis of consumers’
views and preferences regarding farmer to consumer direct markets in Delaware”, Journal of
Food Distribution Research, 30, 1: 124–133.
Jekanowski, M., Williams II, D. and Schiek, W., 2000. “Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase
Locally Produced Agricultural Products: An Analysis of an Indiana Survey.” Agricultural and
Resource Economics Review 29(8): 43–53.
Loureiro, M. L. and Umberger, W. J., 2005. “Assessing Consumer Preferences for Country-ofOrigin Labeling.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 37(1):49–63.
50 | P a g e Loureiro, Maria Luz and McCluskey, J.J., 2000. “Assessing Consumer Response to Protected
Geographical Identification Labeling”, Agribusiness: 16, 309-20.
Loureiro, Maria L., McCluskey J.J. and Mittelhammer, R.C., 2002. “Will consumers pay a
premium for eco-labeled apples?”, Journal of Consumer Affairs: 36, 203-17.
Mabiso, A., Sterns, J., House, L. and Wysocki, A., 2005. “Consumers’ Willingness- To-Pay for
Country-Of-Origin Labels in Fresh Apples and Tomatoes: A Double-Hurdle Probit Analysis of
American Data Using Factor Scores”, Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the American
Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Providence, Rhode Island, July 24-27.
Observatoire CROC. 2008. « Les consommateurs de l’Hérault face aux circuits courts de
commercialisation et aux produits locaux », Cahier de l’Observatoire n°5, www.equal-croc.eu.
Patterson, P.M., Hans, O., Richards, T. and Sass, S., 1999. “An Empirical Analysis of State
Agricultural Product Promotions: A Case Study on Arizona Grown.” Agribusiness:An
International Journal, 15, 2 : 176-196.
Prigent-Simonin A.H. and Hérault, C., 2005. “The role of trust in the perception of the quality
of local food products: with particular reference to direct relationships between producer to
consumer”, Anthropology of food, vol. 4, May.
Pollan, M., 2008. Beyond the Bar Code: The Local Food Revolution. Available at Web site:
http://www.bioneers.org/pollan (verified 29 December 2008).
Roberts, J. A. 1995. ‘‘Profiling Levels of Socially Responsible Consumer Behavior: A cluster
Analytic Approach and its Implications for Marketing,’’ Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 3, 4: 97–118.
Roininen K., Arvola, A. and Lähteenmäki, L. 2006. “Exploring consumers’ perceptions of local
food with two different qualitative techniques: Laddering and word association”, Food Quality
and Preference,17: 20-30.
Sassatelli, R. and Scott, A., 2001. “Novel Food, New Markets and Trust Regimes - Responses to
the erosion of consumers' confidence in Austria”, Italy and the UK. European Societies 3, 2 :
213-244.
51 | P a g e Schupp, A.R., and Dellenbarger, L.E., 1993. “The Effectiveness of State Logos for Farm-Raised
Catfish,” Journal of Food Distribution Research 24, 2: 11–22.
Schwepker, C. and Cornwell, T., 1991. “An Examination of Ecologically Concerned Consumers
and their Intentions to Purchase Ecologically Packaged Products”, Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 10, 2 : 77-101.
Selfa, T. and Qazi, J. 2005. “Place, taste, or face-to-face? Understanding producer–consumer
networks in ‘local’ food systems in Washington” Agriculture and Human Values 22, 4: 451-464.
Shaw, D. and Shiu, E., 2003. “Ethics in Consumer Choice: a Multivariate Modelling Approach”,
European Journal of Marketing, 37, 10: 1485-1498.
Shepherd, R., 1989. “Factors influencing food preference”, In: Shepherd, R. (Ed.), Handbook of
the Psychophysiology of Human Eating. Wiley, London.
Sirieix, L., Grolleau, G. and Schaer, B., 2007. “Consumer and Food Miles”, AIEA2 and SOBER
International Conference, Londrina, Brazil
Sirieix, L., Pontier, S. and Schaer, B., 2004. "Orientations de la confiance et choix du circuit de
distribution: le cas des produits biologiques", Proceedings of the 10th FMA International
Congress, St. Malo, France.
Suryanata, K., 1999. “Products from Paradise: The Social Construction of Hawaii Crops,”
Agriculture and Human Values, 17: 181-189
Tucker, L.R., 1980. “Identifying the Environmentally Responsible Consumer: the Role of
Internal-external Control of Reinforcements”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 14, 2 : 326-340.
Umberger, W.J., Fuez, D.M., Calkins, C.R. and Killenger-Mann, K., 2002. “U.S. Consumer
Preference and Willingness-to-Pay for Domestic Corn-Fed Beef Versus International GrassFed Beef Measured Through an Experimental Auction.” Agribusiness 18: 491–504.
Vannoppen, J.W., Verbeke, and Van Huylenbroeck, G., 2002. ‘‘Consumer Value Structures
Towards Supermarket Versus Farm Shop Purchase of Apples from Integrated Production in
Belgium’’, British Food Journal, 104, 10–11 : 828–844.
Webster, F., 1975. “Determining the Characteristics of the Socially Conscious Consumer”,
Journal of Consumer Research, 2: 188-196.
52 | P a g e Wilkins, J. L., Bokaer-Smith, J. and Hilchey, D., 1996. “Local Foods and Local Agriculture: A
Survey of Attitudes Among Northeastern Consumers,” Northeast Regional Food Guide Local
Foods and Local Agriculture: A Survey of Attitudes Among Northeastern Consumers Project.
Cornell University, Division of Nutritional Sciences.
Wolf, M.M., 1997. “A target consumer profile and positioning for promotion of direct
marketing of fresh produce: a case study”, Journal of Food Distribution Research, 28, 3 : 11–
17.
Wolfe, K., and McKissick, J., 2001. “An Evaluation of the ‘Grown in Georgia’ Promotion”, Report
No. 01-39, Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development, University of Georgia, Athens,
GA. Available at http://www.agecon.uga.edu/~caed/Grown_GAwebver.pdf (accessed
September 20, 2003).
Zepeda, L. and Leviten-Reid, C., 2004. “Consumers’ views on local food”, Journal of Food
Distribution Research, 35, 3 : 1–6.
53 | P a g e APPENDIX 1. MARTINEZ ET AL. (2010) TABLES
55

Eating at home - Complete study

Transcription

Documents pareils

1 ATS 2011 Anglais – Part I Epreuve commune à tous les candidats

79 "fete du citron" - Office de Tourisme de Menton

Healthy Eating Active Living

Lesson 1 – Let`s Sort A Salad - Scientist in Residence Program

ORGANIC OILS LIST

Vegetable consumption patterns in Yaoundé, Cameroon

Appendices - The Commonwealth Fund

Optomega

12 months sales to March 2015 presentation

When second-hand peer-to