eating at home · combining all the findings allows us to profile the typical organic food...

1 | P a g e

Eating at home Canadian households and the motivations and obstacles related to buying local ly grown food – a pan-Canadian study Equiterre June 28, 2011

2 | 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.

3 | 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 writ ing: Jean-Frédéric Lemay, JFL Consultants Survey: Leger Marketing Research methodology: Gilles Valiquette Edit ing: Anne-Marie Legault, Geneviève Puskas, Mélanie Bisson and Amélie Ferland, Equiterre Translation: Anne Chudobiak, Equiterre

4 | 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.

5 | 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.

6 | 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

7 | 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

8 | 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.

9 | 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 Bird and Hughes (1997) Bouquet and Hénault (1998) Category 1 High receptivity to the ethicalness of a product

Ethical consumers • Value social commitment • Seek symbolic benefits • Are motivated by their ethical

stance

Polycentr ic consumers • Very sensitive to social causes • Seek benefits for themselves as well as for

others • Are well-educated, of a high social standing

Category 2 Average receptivity to the ethicalness of a product

Semi-ethical consumers • Motivated by perceived quality and

brand ‘status’ • Seek symbolic and personal benefits • Some suspicion of ‘charity’ brands • Open to persuasion

Ethnocentr ic consumers • Some awareness of social responsibility • Seek personal benefits • Are educated, have a fairly high social

standing

Category 3 Self ish consumers Egocentr ic consumers

10 | P a g e

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 non-regular consumers (Essoussi 2010, 13).

11 | 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 not-at-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.

12 | 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.

13 | P a g e

Table 2. Factors inf luencing the purchase of local foods

Factor

Number of documents that mention this factor

SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES Sociodemographic var iables ( in general) -6

Affluent class (income and education) 3 Rural/urban 3 Gender (woman) 1 Length of residence in the province or state 1

LIFESTYLE Consumer’s level of environmental commitment 1 Food knowledge or interest/involvement 3 Shopping at health food stores 1 Cooking habits -1 Appreciation of food 1 Exercise routine -1 Lifestyle 0 (contradictory) Special diet at home -1

PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES Freshness 6 Information on the producer 5 Perceived impact of the purchase on local development, communit ies or the producers themselves 9 Indication of date harvested 1 Direct relationship with the producer -1 Distance or time of transport -3 Origin (province or country) 5 GM-free label -1 Taste 3 Appearance/qual ity 5 Health-related/nutritive attributes 3 Safety 3 Brand -1 Sustainability/organic certification 3

TRANSACTION COSTS Confidence in the retai ler/restaurant/producer (reduced uncertainty) 5 Price 2 Past experiences 1 Availability/convenience/access 3

Socioeconomic variables

14 | P a g e

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 l ifestyle/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

15 | 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.”

16 | 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.

17 | 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).

18 | 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 avai labi l ity 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 retai ler, 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.

19 | 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 cost-benefit 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

20 | 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 f inding 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).

Source Martinez et coll. 2010

21 | 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

22 | 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.

23 | 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.

24 | 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.

25 | 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

26 | 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.

27 | 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.

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

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%

26%

30%

24%

11%

1%

9%

8%

4%

87%

29%

27%

7%

2%

1%

3%

0%

2%

Supermarket

Neighbourhood grocery store

Fruit and vegetable store

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

In season

Off-season

28 | 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.

29 | P a g e

Source: Leger Marketing 201012

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.

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?


30 | P a g e



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.

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)

31 | 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 Canadian- or 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. Definit ions 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:

32 | 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 100-Mile Diet is more prevalent in English-speaking urban areas. One of the survey results confirms the political understanding of local:


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

For the same price, do you prefer purchasing fruits or vegetables from…

6%

54%

32%

7% 1%

The United States, some

kilometres away

A distant province in

Canada

I have no preference

I don't know I prefer not answering

33 | 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. Wil l ingness 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.

34 | P a g e


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:

47%

18% 20% 11%

3%

I would not be willing to pay

more

$1 to $5 $6 to $10 More than $10 I don't know / I prefer not answering

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?

35 | P a g e


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.

To what extent does each of the following factors motivate you to buy more local products?

36 | P a g e

3.4. Factors influencing the definit ions 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 definit ion 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 priorit ization 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).

37 | 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 wil l ingness 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).

38 | 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 definit ion of buying local, and the wil l ingness 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 definit ion 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.

39 | 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 posit ive 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”,

40 | 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.

41 | 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.

42 | 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.

43 | 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.

44 | 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, quasi-experimental 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?

45 | 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.

46 | 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.

47 | 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.

48 | 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 Socio-demographics 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.

49 | 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/4B-Fischer.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.

50 | 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-of-Origin Labeling.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 37(1):49–63.

51 | 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.

52 | 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 Grass-Fed 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.

53 | 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.

APPENDIX 1. MARTINEZ ET AL. (2010) TABLES

eating at home · combining all the findings allows us to profile the typical organic food...

Documents