1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction Purpose …………………………………………………… 2 Overview of the Montavilla Farmers Market .………….... 2 Survey Construction and Methodology ……………..……. 3

II. Results

Shopping Habits of Market Customers ……….…………… 5 Wireless Debit/ EBT Terminal …………………………….. 12 Incentives for MFM shoppers & Extending Season .…….... 15 Demographic Information ……...………………………….. 25

III. Discussion and Conclusion ...……………………………..….….. 26

2

Abstract: The 2009 season was the third season for the Montavilla Farmers Market in southeast Portland. During its first three seasons, the Market established itself as a source that provides farm-fresh and healthy food from local producers to the Montavilla neighborhood. During its third season, the Market introduced a wireless debit/ electronic benefits transfer (EBT) terminal that allowed Market shoppers to run cards in exchange for wooden tokens to purchase goods from vendors. The Market also extended the season into the winter, with two market dates in November. At the conclusion of the season, the Market’s executive board expressed an interest in how these new features to the Market impacted shoppers’ behavior. A survey was conducted online to collect data, and this report presents an analysis of that data. The results find that in its first season of use, the wireless terminal had negligible impact on shopping behavior, and that a sizable amount of the Market’s core shoppers would support an extension of the season deeper into the winter.

I. PURPOSE

The Montavilla Farmers Market (MFM) opened in the summer of 2007, when a group of involved neighborhood residents brought the idea of a community farmers market to reality in just four months after the originally proposed by the Montavilla/East Tabor Business Association (METBA). The 2009 season was the Market’s third, and most successful, season. In three years, the Market had nearly doubled in size, from an 11-week long season with a high of 17 vendors in its initial year, to a 21-week long season and a high of 32 vendors. Over three years, the Market saw its weekly customer counts increase from an average of 1260 per week in its first season to an average of 1350 during the Market’s peak weeks in the middle of the summer in the 2009 season. The Market’s third season also saw the implementation of a number of innovative projects including new wireless terminal in which Market customers could use debit or Oregon Trail electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards to purchase market tokens, a Durable Dish program that replaced the use of plastic eating utensils with durable flatware, and an extended Market season that ran into November. These programs helped ease access to healthy local food and also established the Market’s reputation regarding sustainability issues.

II. OVERVIEW OF THE MONTAVILLA FARMERS MARKET

The 2009 season was the third season of operation for the MFM. At the conclusion of the 2009 season, the MFM’s executive board was pleased with the accomplishments the Market had made in its three years of existence. The increased weekly attendance counts indicated that the MFM was becoming a desirable place to shop, resulting in enthusiastic weekly vendors who, in turn, provided the Market with record-setting revenues via vendor fees. At the same time, however, the Market’s board was also reflective on the fact that the success of the market was undeniable, if only measured in particular ways. However, the Market’s board felt inconclusive regarding the success of certain decisions the Market had made during the 2009 season. The board was concerned that the Market growing too big too fast while pursuing disparate projects that failed to conform with the Market’s mission statement. The board also wanted to ensure that the Market was responding appropriately to the Montavilla neighborhood that it served.

The board desired feedback regarding the implementation of the new wireless terminal, especially for Food Stamp users. The board assumed that those who wanted to purchase Market tokens with their debit cards would identify the convenience of the wireless terminal as

3

opposed to stopping by a cash machine before going to the Market. What was of particular concern for the board was the ability to quantify how the acceptance of EBT cards improved access to healthy foods to low-income and underserved Montavilla residents. Prior to the 2009 season, the MFM secured a $1000 grant from the New Seasons grocery store chain to provide “matching funds” of up to five dollars to shoppers who used their Oregon Trail EBT card at the market. The board was curious as to whether this incentive program affected the shopping habits of Oregon Trail users. The board was provided anecdotal testimony from an Oregon Trail user during the season that prior to the acceptance of food stamps, the user would come to the Market to look at food they were unable to purchase before returning home.

Another concern of the board’s after the 2009 season was the Market’s seasonal schedule. With its opening day in late June, the MFM is one of the latest markets to begin its season of all the farmers markets throughout Portland. Due to that late start to its season, the MFM is one of a handful of farmers markets whose season runs through October, with two additional market dates in November. The board was concerned that the 2009 schedule did not meet approval from residents in Montavilla, with neighbors of the board members consistently asking why the Montavilla Farmers Market opened so late in the season. The board wanted to know whether if the Market extended the season either later in the fall and winter- or, even, opened earlier in a possible wet spring- customers would come to make it worth the vendors’ time and efforts.

Besides these particular questions, the board had further questions of a more general nature. Who were the Markets’ customers? From what parts of Montavilla did they come? Information was desired of their shopping habits- such as what did they come to the market to purchase, and how much did they typically spend during each Market visit. Did some customers even come to the Market for purposes other than shopping, to perhaps listen to the music or to connect with their neighbors in a community-oriented atmosphere? If this information could be collected, it would help the Market continue to provide the services essential to maintain its customer base, while at the same time the information could assist the Market with its marketing and outreach efforts.

III. SURVEY CONSTRUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

A survey was identified as the most effective tool to collect this varied information. During the off-season after the 2009 market season, a survey was added to the Market’s website, and the Market used its web presence including its email newsletter, Facebook, and Twitter accounts to direct traffic to the website for the survey. The reliance on the Internet would create a certain bias of self-selection, which the Market recognized. At the same time, certain logistics posed concerns. The idea of having printed copies of the survey available with a submission box in nearby businesses such as the Bipartisan Café or Union Rose boutique was considered, but it was likely that redundancies would occur as the same survey respondents who would fill out the Market’s survey online would also more than likely frequent those establishments. The idea of conducting the survey in person at the Market had its merits, except that such a survey process would be lengthy in time and would interfere with Market customers from shopping at the Market. The survey was also being conducted during the Market’s off-season as well.

4

Ultimately, it was decided that the online survey would provide an excellent opportunity for the Market to take the “pulse” of its committed customer base. Once the findings of that survey were analyzed, which could identify overlooked or underrepresented groups, and then further steps could be taken to collect information from these groups via community forums or focus groups. The online survey would be considered a starting point versus an ending point, and the Board could use the results to ensure that the Market is on the right path, while further outreach efforts are taken to be more inclusive in the Montavilla neighborhood. This report summarizes the findings of the online survey.

The survey consisted of twenty-eight questions, all which were required to be completed by the survey taker except for a handful of skip-pattern questions that were in response to questions pertaining to use of food stamps. There were also two options at the end of the survey in which survey respondents could leave any additional comments for the MFM, or leave their email address to be subscribed to the Market’s electronic newsletter. The questions were split into three sub-sections that focused on the following three areas: the shopping habits of the MFM’s customers; customer feedback regarding the wireless debit and EBT card terminal; and the Market’s seasonal schedule. The survey ended with five demographic questions, which had respondents provide their gender, age, ethnicity, income level, and zip code.

The survey was provided its own stand-along link on the Market’s website, and had traffic driven to it through the Market’s e-newsletter, Facebook, and Twitter presence. As mentioned above, the Market recognized a self-imposed bias by collecting surveys only through the Internet, but also recognized the logistical problems of collecting surveys through a hard copy. A total of 116 surveys were completed from the middle of January through the end of March, before the link was deactivated. SPSS 17 was used to code and analyze the data.

5

IV. RESULTS

Subsection 1- The Shopping Habits of Montavilla Farmers Market Customers

The first subsection of questions concerned the shopping habits of the MFM’s customers. This section begins with asking how regularly the respondents shopped at the Market, with answers ranging from “I’ve never been to the market” to “Weekly.” As can be seen in Table 1.1, the most frequent answer selected was “three times a month” which received nearly one-quarter of the results. The choices of “twice a month” and “weekly” also received twenty percent or higher, meaning that nearly two-thirds of the completed surveys were filled out by regular shoppers of the Montavilla Farmers Market, or those customers who shopped at the market at least two weeks of each month.

The second question asked how survey respondents heard about the Market. The results of this question would help the board identify the most cost-effective ways to spend the MFM’s marketing budget. Survey respondents were provided a list of options, and encouraged to choose as many as applied. Table 1.2 shows that the aggregated responses totaled 284, with the choice of “saw the market passing by” receiving the most selections, with respondents selecting that option 60 times, or a little more than one-fifth of the total selected. “Word of mouth” was an option that was also selected nearly one-fifth of the time, with 55 respondents selecting this option. “Posters in the neighborhood” was the only other option to be chosen more than 15 percent, which means that the two options that cost the Market absolutely nothing in regards to marketing dollars were chosen the most by its respondents. These results could be interpreted that the Market is either not getting a proportionate return on its marketing budget, or regardless of what the MFM spends on marketing, people will mostly come to the Market either because they heard about it or saw it while passing by.

Table 1.1 Amount of Times Shopping at the Montavilla Farmers Market

Times Shopping Frequency Percentage Three times a month 29 24.6 Twice a month 26 22.4 Weekly 24 20.3 Two to three times a season 14 11.9 Once a month 13 11.0 I’ve never been to the Market 8 6.8

6

Table 1.2 How People Heard About the Montavilla Farmers Market

Option Selected Frequency Percentage Saw the Market passing by 60 21 Word of mouth 55 19 Posters 46 16 E-Newsletter 33 12 Sandwich boards 30 11 Southeast Examiner 21 7 Other (not specified) 15 5 Twitter 10 4 Other newspaper ads 7 3 Edible Portland 7 3

7

Fig 1.1 How People Heard about the Market

8

The predominant inclusion of these two options suggests that respondents either selected one or both of them along with the other options they selected about how they heard about the Market. The survey did not ask respondents to prioritize the options they selected, only to choose as many that applied, so it is difficult to determine how influential seeing the Market in passing or hearing about it through word of mouth is to how shoppers hear about the MFM. Besides these main two cited options, Table 1.3 shows the top three most-selected ways in which MFM shoppers heard about the market were “posters hung around the neighborhood”, “the Market’s electronic newsletter” and “the Market’s sandwich boards.” All of these had expenses that were covered by the MFM’s marketing budget. The Market’s posters are designed and printed each season, the electronic newsletter is managed by Constant Contact which the Market pays an annual fee, and the sandwich boards were one of the Market’s initial purchases when it initially opened in the 2007 season. Three seasons later, the sandwich boards were still providing a return for the market on that initial investment.

Table 1.3 How People Heard About the Montavilla Farmers Market (Excluding “Saw Market Passing By” and “Word of Mouth”)

Option Selected Frequency Percentage Posters 46 27 E-Newsletter 33 20 Sandwich boards 30 18 Southeast Examiner 21 12 Other (not specified) 15 9 Twitter 10 6 Other newspaper ads 7 4 Edible Portland 7 4

Figure 1.2 How People Heard About the Market (Minus Word of Mouth or Saw it While Passing By)

9

After collecting information about how often shoppers came to the Market and how they heard about it, the survey then asked what the average weekly amount shoppers spent. Over one-third of the survey respondents said that they spent between $20 and $30 at the Market on a typical Sunday. What is of interest was that roughly the same amount of respondents (24) spent less than $10 as the number of shoppers that spent between $10 and $20 each week (29). Table 1.4 also shows that the numbers drop off dramatically with the dollar amounts higher than $30. These results indicate that $30 is the high-water mark of the weekly Market grocery budget for the majority of the MFM’s shoppers.

To get an idea of how much shopping at farmers markets meant to the MFM’s customers, they were asked if they shopped at farmers markets on other days of the week. (Sunday was included as an option, as there are other farmers markets besides the MFM open on Sunday.) Interestingly, the most selected day chosen by survey respondents was Saturday, the day before the MFM operates. Even though a conclusion could be reached that one-third of the MFM’s customers could potentially spend their entire weekend shopping at farmers markets, that hypothesis is unable to be tested with the data collected in this survey. (The survey did not ask a similar question as to how often they shopped at other markets, as it did in question 1.1 about how often customers shopped at the MFM.) Table 1.5 shows that after Saturday, the most popular selections were “Don’t shop at other farmers markets”, “Wednesday” and “Thursday” indicating that a large number of MFM shoppers either have loyalty to their neighborhood market or are unable to frequent other markets during the week. Table 1.6 lists the other farmers markets in the area that MFM shoppers frequent. There should be no surprise given the high number of respondents who selected “Saturday” as the other day they do most of their market-shopping over half of the 91 total selections listed the PSU Park Blocks and Hollywood Farmers Markets, both of which operate on Saturday. The PSU Park Blocks market was listed 32 times, while Hollywood was listed 20, and the market at Peoples’ Co-op was listed 14 times. A total of 19 other farmers markets were listed, which indicates that MFM shoppers do some shopping at

Table 1.4 How much is typically spent on a visit to the Market?

Amount Frequency Percentage $20 to $30 42 37.2 $10 to $20 29 25.7 Less than $10 24 21.2 $30 to $40 11 9.7 More than $40 7 6.2

10

farmers markets all over the Portland metro area- but no others were mentioned in the double digits.

Table 1.5 Other days shopping at other farmers markets

Day of the week Frequency Percentage Saturday 53 32 Don’t shop at other markets 40 24 Wednesday 34 21 Thursday 14 9 Sunday 12 7 Tuesday 7 4 Friday 4 2 Monday 1 1

Fig. 1.3 What Other Days Do You Shop at Other Farmers Markets

11

Table 1.6 Other farmers markets frequented by MFM shoppers

Farmers Market Frequency Percentage PSU/ Downtown 32 35 Hollywood 20 22 Peoples 13 14 Eastbank 5 5 Interstate 3 3 Milwaukie 3 3 Hillsdale 2 2 Parkrose 2 2 Vancouver 2 2 Beaverton 1 1 Gresham 1 1 Hawthorne 1 1 Hillsboro 1 1 Lents 1 1 Lloyd 1 1 OHSU 1 1 Sellwood 1 1 Westmoreland 1 1

Fig 1.4 Other farmers markets frequented by shoppers of the Montavilla Farmers Market

12

An analysis was run on these different variables regarding the shopping behavior in attempt to discern whether a pattern of identifiable behavior would emerge about the typical MFM customer. As Table 1.7 makes clear, when correlations were run for shopping frequency at the Market, the number of ways they heard about the Market, the average weekly amount spent at the Market, and the number of other farmers markets shopped at, no significant correlations were determined. The only thing of interest is that the number of ways a shopper heard about the MFM did have a positive correlation on the other determinants of shopping behavior, even though this positive correlation was insignificant. Given these results, no concrete determinations can be provided to describe the shopping behavior of MFM shoppers. It can easily be suggested that the shopping habits of MFM customers are “all over the map.”

Subsection 2: Wireless Debit/ EBT terminal

The next set of questions was regarding the use of the MFM’s wireless debit/ EBT terminal. This terminal allowed Market shoppers to use either their debit cards or Oregon Trail food stamp cards to purchase wooden market tokens which could then be redeemed at Market vendors. The 2009 season was the first time the Market used this terminal, purchased with funds secured from the USDA, which has been undertaking efforts to increase the availability of wireless terminals at farmers markets throughout the country. The MFM’s board was curious as to whether the terminal had any effect on shopper’s behaviors at all, and the attitude of Oregon Trail card users regarding the ability to use their EBT benefits to purchase food at the MFM. The Market had also secured $1000 from New Seasons grocery to be distributed to Oregon Trail users as “incentive” funds matching up to five dollars a week per Oregon Trail card user. The bonus matching funds were depleted in September, with a month still left in the season. The board wanted to know whether information about this matching program was known by Oregon Trail card users in the community, and whether it helped bring them to the Market to make purchases.

The first question asked whether the new wireless terminal influenced customers’ shopping behaviors at all. Respondents were provided five options, two of which fell under “No” while three fell under “Yes.” Ultimately, a wide margin of the survey respondents stated that the

Table 1.7 Correlations among the four factors to measure shopper behavior (N = 116)

Times shopping Number of ways they Average amount Number of other days

at MFM heard of the MFM spent shopping at other markets Times shopping at MFM .04 .04 .17 Number of ways they heard of the MFM .04 .11 .00 Average amount spent .04 .11 .01 Number of other days shopping at other markets .17 .00 .01

13

Market’s introduction of the wireless terminal did not influence their shopping behaviors, with nearly two-third selecting one of the “No” options (Table 2.1). Of those who elected “Yes” the most chosen option reflected that they liked having the option of using the machine when they forgot to stop by the cash machine on their way to the Market. It was also revealed that a small percentage (8.5%) of Market users now come to the market each week expecting to run their card.

The survey then asked if respondents used an Oregon Trail EBT (electronic benefits transfer) card at the Market. Out of the sample size of 118 respondents, only eight were Oregon Trail card users. As such, the information collected regarding Oregon Trail card usage is from an extremely small sample size. Any insightful information from Oregon Trail card users regarding the Market’s acceptance of food stamps would need to come from a larger sample size. For example, all eight Oregon Trail users responded that acceptance of Food Stamps made them more likely to shop at the Market as opposed to less. While this response may seem to be obvious, it would still be preferable to have a larger sample size to ensure that a universal response of accepting food stamps at the Market leads to increased willingness of Oregon Trail users to shop at the market. What would be of particular interest in the future would be whether Oregon Trail card users’ would be willing to select a “neither more or less” option about whether the Market’s ability to accept EBT affects their willingness to shop at the Market, and how many respondents in a larger sample size would select that option. Although this would be an indication that Oregon Trail users already shop at the Market, it is via the introduction of the wireless EBT terminal that Oregon Trail users are even possible to shop at the Market. However, in future years, the Market may desire to track this response within an expanded sample size, in an effort to see if weekly trips to the market by Oregon Trail users become more commonplace.

Table 2.1 Did EBT/ wireless machine influence your shopping habits?

Option Frequency Percentage No, I brought cash to purchase items 37 33.0 No, I didn’t even know you had an EBT/ wireless machine 36 32.1 Yes, I forgot to swing by the bank A few times before the Market And needed to run my card 16 14.3 Yes, I ran out of money some weeks and used the machine to make additional purchases 13 11.6 Yes, I use the debit machine every week. No more ATM! 10 8.9

14

The survey did include two further questions in an attempt to measure the influence of the “matching incentive” fund upon Oregon Trail users at the MFM. Funded by a private donation of $1000 from New Seasons Markets, this program provided matching amounts up to five dollars to Oregon Trail users on a weekly basis. Of the eight Oregon Trail users who responded to the survey, five said they were aware of this “matching incentive” fund before it started at the Market, while three did not (table 2.2). The Market did not begin to distribute matching funds until the third week of operation, due to the parameters agreed upon in the grant with New Seasons. When asked if awareness of the incentive program influenced Oregon Trail users’ behavior- did they wait until the fund began, for example, so they could maximize their purchasing power of the Oregon Trail card- half of the respondents said that the matching incentive fund had no influence on their shopping behavior (table 2.3). There is no significant connection between awareness of the incentive program and influence on the shopping behavior of Oregon Trail users. Simply put- with the caveat of the small sample size being considered in this survey- there was no effect of the matching incentive fund on the shopping behavior of Oregon Trail card users.

Finally, optional comments were collected from respondents regarding the Market’s implementation of the wireless debit/ EBT terminal. Of the 34 who chose to leave a comment, 15- or just a little less than half- left general positive comments along the lines of “worked well/ liked it/ good option/ good service.” Other comments that multiple respondents left included “might use machine in future”- which was listed by three respondents who were unaware of the terminal- “increase access to healthy food within the community,” “helpful/ convenient when you

Table 2.2 Were you aware of the food stamp matching incentive program?

Option Frequency Percentage Yes 5 62.5 No 3 37.5 Table 2.3 Did the incentive program influence your shopping behavior at the MFM?

Option Frequency Percentage No, I used my Oregon Trail Card before the incentive program began 4 50 Yes, I waited until the incentive program began before using my Oregon Trail Card 2 25 Bought more when it started 1 12.5 It would have if I had known about it 1 12.5

15

don’t have cash” and “not sure about it/ never used it.” (Table 2.4) The data collected in this survey indicates that the MFM’s implementation of the wireless debit/ EBT terminal was received positively by Market shoppers.

Subsection 3: Incentives for MFM shoppers & extending Market season into fall and winter

After the set of questions regarding the MFM’s implementation of a wireless debit/ EBT terminal, the survey then asked a series of questions regarding the incentives of Market customers. The intent of these series of questions was to find what features of the Market were most attractive to its regular shoppers, and whether there were any desired features that were lacking at the Market. After the questions regarding the incentives as to what brought shoppers to the Market were questions about the Market’s schedule. The MFM has one of the latest Opening Days of all farmers markets in the Portland metro area, opening in late June and running through the fall. The 2009 season saw the season extended for two dates in November, an experiment towards the possibility of having the MFM provide a “winter market” for the Montavilla neighborhood. The Market’s board was interested in whether these November dates were warmly accepted and whether- if provided with the right incentives- the Market’s customer base could support a further extension of the Market’s season into winter.

Table 2.4 Any further comments about the use of the EBT/ wireless machine?

Comment Frequency Percentage Worked well/ liked it/ good option/ good service 15 44.1 Might use machine in the future 4 11.8 It will increase access to healthy food in the community 3 8.8 Helpful/ convenient when you don’t have cash 2 5.9 Not sure about it/ never used it 2 5.9 The machine let me spend more money/ impulse purchases 2 5.9 It would be nice to use debit machine at any booth 1 2.9 I like that the service fee subsidizes Oregon Trail card users 1 2.9 I hope the incentive program continues 1 2.9 It’s a step in the right direction 1 2.9 It promotes health 1 2.9 I’m opposed to anything wireless 1 2.9 It will bring more business to the Market 1 2.9

16

The first question asked what Market products customers regularly purchased at the Market. All products that could be purchased were listed, and respondents were encouraged to select as many products that applied, again without any preference or weighing of the answers. The total aggregation of these responses are listed in Table 3.1, and if this breakdown were to represent the average shopper’s typical market basket, than the largest amount of space would be devoted to produce, which would take over one-quarter of the basket. Bakery and confection (15%) would be the next most regularly purchased market prospect, followed by prepared food for lunch (13%), cheese (11%), and coffee (10%). No other product mentioned had a percentage listed in the double-digits.

Table 3.1 What do you regularly purchase at the Market?

Item Frequency Percentage Fresh fruits & produce 111 27 Bakery & confection 61 15 Prepared food for lunch 53 13 Cheese 47 11 Coffee 39 10 Meat 34 8 Fresh Cut Flowers 28 7 Beverage 19 5 Handmade Artisan Booth 7 2 CSA Box 4 1 Other 3 1

Fig 3.1 What do you regularly purchase at the Market?

17

The next question asked was how Market shoppers made decisions regarding the products they purchased. Did they come to the market with a prepared list, or did their decisions depend more on the price and availability of the products once they arrived at the Market? The results listed in Table 3.2 indicate that an overwhelming number of market shoppers- nearly 80%- made their purchasing decisions based on what looked good or what was in season. Less than nine percent of Market shoppers came to the Market with a prepared list and an idea of what they were looking for to purchase at the Market. The knowledge that a large majority of the Market’s customers were impulse shoppers would be beneficial for the Market to develop educational or similar special marketing strategies around.

The next question asked whether organic food was important, and it should be of little surprise that an overwhelming number of respondents replied in the affirmative. Out of the 116 respondents, 104 stated that organic food was important- just slightly less than 90 percent- with seven respondents saying no, and five saying they didn’t know or weren’t sure (Table 3.3). However, this overwhelming indication that organic food mattered to Market shoppers did not transfer over into support for organic vendors. A smaller percentage said that they would be more likely to purchase from an organic vendor- slightly less than 61 percent- although it was still much more than the 30 percent of respondents who said they wouldn’t (Table 3.4). An even more important quality of food than organically-produced, however, was the source of the food, with all but one out of 116 respondents indicating that locally produced food as being “important” to them (Table 3.5). In an attempt to define just what “local food” meant to MFM shoppers, respondents were provided with a list of various mileages to find out what the maximum mileage would be defined as “locally produced” food. While each of the five options received a number of votes, the option of 0-to-100 miles was selected by 47 respondents- nearly 44 percent of all answers- which was twice as many as the second-most selected option of 0-to-300 miles, which was selected 21 times (Table 3.6). If there was any concern that vendors would only be approved by Market customers if their goods are produced micro-locally within the

Table 3.2 How do you decide what to purchase at the Market?

Option Frequency Percentage I make purchases based on what looks good or what’s in season 89 79.5 I plan my meals in advance and purchase accordingly 10 8.9 Other 8 7.1 I look for the vendor with the cheapest price 4 3.6 Both in advance and what looks good/ in season 1 0.9

18

tri-county area of Multnomah, Washington, or Clackamas counties, these results indicate that the average MFM shopper has an expanded perspective of how “local food” is defined.

Table 3.3 Is organic food important to you?

Option Frequency Percentage Yes 104 89.7 No 7 6.0 Don’t know/ Not sure 5 4.3

Table 3.4 Are you likely to buy from an organic vendor?

Option Frequency Percentage Yes 70 60.9 No 34 29.6 Don’t know/ Not sure 11 9.6

Table 3.5 Is it important to you that your food is produced locally?

Option Frequency Percentage Yes 113 97.4 No 1 .9 Don’t know/ Not sure 2 1.7

Table 3.6 What is your preferred distance that food travels from field to plate?

Option Frequency Percentage 0 to 100 miles 47 43.9 0 to 300 miles 21 19.6 0 to 50 miles 17 15.9 0 to 75 miles 12 11.2 0 to 30 miles 10 9.3

19

The next question asked what brought shoppers to the Market, and respondents were once again able to select as many options from a list of ten options, with no weight or preference factored in for the answers. Table 3.7 shows that slightly more than one-third of the total respondents chose “selection of products” as a reason why they came to the market, with “a chance to see neighbors” (13%), “a community feeling” (13%), and “the best thing in the neighborhood to do on a Sunday” (11%) as the only other options that were selected by respondents more than ten percent.

Table 3.7 What brings you to the Market?

Option Frequency Percentage Selection of products 92 34 Chance to see neighbors 36 13 Community feeling 35 13 Best thing to do in neighborhood on a Sunday 30 11 Music performers 22 8 The fact that it is outdoors 19 7 Chef demos 16 6 Exposing children to market Is good 10 4 Other (unspecified) 8 3 Support local vendors and the community 4 1

20

Fig 3.2 What brings you to the market?

21

Respondents were then asked what they would like to see more of at the Market, and were provided a list from which multiple options could be selected, again without weight of preference factored in. Table 3.8 shows that the combined total of these selections has two selections, “more variety of vendors” and “longer market season/ more market date” both accounting for a little less than one-quarter of the total amount selected. Respondents were unable to provide an explanation of what they would like to see with an increased diversity of vendors at the Market, so this may be something that the market would like to follow up in the future. As for the selection of a longer market season, the question of whether respondents would prefer an earlier opening to the season or a market season extended through the winter will be addressed further in the survey. The only other desired option that respondents would like to see at the Market that was selected at least 10 percent of the total was booth space for non-profits and community organizations.

Table 3.8 What would like to see more of at the Market?

Option Frequency Percentage Longer season/ more Market dates 81 23 More variety of vendors 79 23 Booth space for community Non-profits 35 10 Food education classes 24 7 More hot prepared food items 20 6 More space 19 5 More food demos 17 5 More arts & crafts 16 5 Other (unspecified) 14 4 More bike parking 12 3 Nutrition info 9 3 More variety of music performers 8 2 Paved lot 7 2 New market gear (shirts, etc.) 6 2

22

Fittingly, as the option selected most by survey respondents regarding what they desired to see at the Market was an extended season and more market dates, the next question asked whether the respondents shopped at either of the two November dates that market had (Table 3.9). Of the respondents, nearly 63 percent selected one of the two “yes” options, of either attending just one of the two dates (16%) or both dates (44%). The number of respondents who said that they did not go to either of the November dates (42) is virtually similar to those who chose one of the negative answers to the following question of whether they would shop at a longer market, with 39 saying “Maybe, it depends on the weather” and one truthful respondent selecting “Are you crazy? No way would I shop at a winter market” (Table 3.10). The responses to these two back-to-back questions indicate that if the Market were to extend its season further into the winter, it should expect to see crowd sizes decrease by forty percent.

Table 3.9 Did you shop at either of the two November markets?

Option Frequency Percentage Yes, but just one 52 46.4 Neither of the two 42 37.5 Yes, I went to both 18 16.1

Fig 3.3 What would you like to see more of at the Market?

23

Respondents were then asked what would keep them from coming to winter market dates and were provided with four possible options, and could select as many that applied. Most respondents expressed a concern about the unavailability of fresh produce during the winter months, with that option garnering 38 percent of the total selection (Table 3.11). A concern about unsuitable weather conditions also collected a plurality of the respondents, with 32 percent selecting that as an option as to why they wouldn’t shop at a winter market. Considering that the option regarding produce was selected more than the concern about the weather, it appears that there is a percentage of respondents who would be willing to brave unfavorable weather conditions and come to the Market to shop if they were assured quality produce would be available.

Table 3.10 Would you shop at the MFM if it was extended longer through the season?

Option Frequency Percentage Of course. I will shop whenever the market is open 72 64.3 Maybe. It depends on the weather 39 34.8 Are you crazy? There is no way I would shop at a winter market 1 0.9

Table 3.11 What would keep you from shopping at a winter market?

Option Frequency Percentage Lack of produce 56 38 Weather conditions 48 32 Can’t hang out & be social 18 12 Limited offerings besides produce 17 11 Other 11 7

24

The final question in this subsection asked respondents what the ideal seasonal schedule for the Market would be, with three options listed along with “don’t know” and “not sure.” The overwhelmingly favorite option was a Market season that ran from late May all the way through November, with over two-thirds of respondents selecting that option. The option of keeping the schedule of the Market’s 2009 season- starting in late May and running through October, with two winter market dates- got very few votes, with only five selecting this option. In fact, more people were either unsure about the Market or preferred an unlisted option for the schedule (Table 3.12).

Table 3.12 What is the ideal seasonal schedule for the MFM?

Option Frequency Percentage Start at the end of May and extend through November 80 69.0 Start at the end of May and extend through October 13 11.2 Don’t know/ Not sure 11 9.5 Other 7 6.0 Keep the Market schedule exactly as the 2009’s season 5 4.3

Fig 3.4 What would keep you from shopping at a winter market?

25

Subsection 4: Demographic Information

Finally, the survey ended with a handful of demographic questions to help the Market get an idea of an overall profile of its customer base. These questions included gender (Table 4.1), which indicated that the customers- or at least the respondents to the surveys- skewed heavily female, with over 75 percent of the total. The racial or ethnic make-up of respondents was even more heavily skewed, with 98 of the 111 respondents identifying as “Caucasian” (Table 4.2). The age group most selected was the group within the ages of 35-55, which was also the most wide-ranging of the age groups offered (table 4.3). The question asking about annual household income resulted in nearly 44 percent of respondents selecting the two options from between the $40,000 to $80,000 range (Table 4.4). In response to the question asking where respondents’ zip codes were, over two-thirds selected either 97213 or 97215, which is the area just east of Mt. Tabor, ranging from south to Division up north of Burnside. One-fifth of the zip code locations were from 97216 and 97220, the other two zip codes in the Montavilla neighborhood that straddle 82nd Avenue and I-205. A handful of respondents hailed from south of Division, while virtually none listed themselves as hailing from west of Mt. Tabor, or east of I-205 that covers the Hazelwood and Mill Park areas.

Table 4.1 What is your gender?

Option Frequency Percentage Female 89 78.8 Male 24 21.2 Table 4.2 What best describes your race or ethnicity?

Option Frequency Percentage Caucasian 98 88.3 Latino/a 4 3.6 Asian 3 2.7 Multiracial 3 2.7 African-American 1 0.8 Native American 1 0.8 Pacific Islander 1 0.8

Table 4.3 What age group do you belong?

Option Frequency Percentage 25-34 38 32.8 35-55 65 56.0 56-70 12 10.3 70+ 1 0.9

26

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In an attempt to determine shopping trends and behaviors of MF shoppers, an analysis was done of the following four categories: how often they shopped at the Market; the various ways they heard about the Market; how much they regularly spent at the Market; and whether they regularly shopped at other farmers markets. The result of this analysis is shared in Table 1.7 and revealed that there is no discernable pattern of behavior for Montavilla Farmers Market shoppers. Analysis of shoppers’ attitude towards the Market’s use of the wireless debit/ EBT machine indicates that survey respondents have favorable reactions towards this adopted feature of the Market, although the implementation of the wireless terminal did not have a discernable influence on the shopping behavior of Market shoppers.

The survey had eight respondents stating that they used Oregon Trail cards, out of a sample size of 118 respondents. During the 2009 season, the Market averaged 14 Oregon Trail transactions

Table 4.4 What is your household income?

Option Frequency Percentage Less than $20,000 6 5.3 $20,000 to $40,000 15 13.2 $40,000 to $60,000 26 22.8 $60,000 to $80,000 24 21.1 $80,000 to $100,000 14 12.3 Over $100,000 19 16.7 Preferred not to say 10 8.8

Table 4.5 What zip code do you live in?

Option Frequency Percentage 97215 45 39.5 97213 32 28.1 97216 15 13.2 97220 9 7.9 97206 6 5.3 97230 2 1.8 97080 1 0.9 97211 1 0.9 97204 1 0.9 97212 1 0.9 97214 1 0.9

27

per week, which means that the survey failed to accurately represent the views of Market shoppers who relied on Oregon Trail cards to make their purchases. This low number of Oregon Trail users who completed the survey reflects the limitations of the survey’s methodology- low-income residents of Montavilla are more likely spending their days trying to figure out how to survive as opposed to filling out online surveys. If the Market would like to collect information from this demographic group, it needs to target this population and concentrate its efforts on collecting the information in person, perhaps either through door-to-door efforts to speak to individuals, or hold community forums or town hall meetings in which this population could be collectively invited to attend.

Produce makes up the largest portion of MFM shoppers’ basket, which should be no surprise considering that one of the Market’s stated values is a “focus on produce” and that the Market’s 2009 season saw 16 out of 22 vendors (minus the vendors serving ready-to-eat or value-added food products) primarily selling produce, with two meat vendors- PD Farms and Draper Girls- also providing produce. A close examination of the number of items listed as regular purchases by Market customers shows a significant correlation between the numbers of ways that shoppers hear of the Market as well as the average weekly amount spent by shoppers (Table 5.1). The examination finds a correlation between the average weekly amount and number of items purchased. This finding should perhaps not be surprising, as it stands to reason that the more money one spends at the market would result in a diverse market basket. The finding of a significant correlation between the number of ways a shopper heard of the market and the number of items purchased is something for the Market’s executive board to consider as they develop marketing and outreach strategies.

The survey results show that a huge majority of Market shoppers are impulse purchasers, coming to the Market to find the best deal on the items they like. While organic food is overwhelmingly important to Market customers, a plurality of the survey respondents said they would be willing to purchase non-organic food from a local producer, as locally sourced food was viewed as higher importance than organically-grown food. Of course, food produced both organically and locally has the highest appeal to Market shoppers. The selection of products is the single-biggest draw for Market shoppers, who also ironically desire to see a more diverse selection of products offered at the Market. Those shoppers who spent higher weekly amounts- and purchased more products- selected more options as to what brought them to the MFM (Table 5.2), while those shoppers who frequented other markets and who also purchased a variety of products at the Market had a significant correlation on those who selected the most options of what they would like to see more of at the MFM (Table 5.2). (Interestingly, while “total number of products purchased” was a significant variable on what shoppers would like to see of more at the Market, the “average weekly amount spent at the Market” was not.)

Table 5.1 Correlation of factors that create a diverse market basket (N = 116)

Times shopping at Number of ways Average amount Number of other MFM heard about Market spent at Market days shop at farmers markets Total number of items bought .10 .20* .23* .09 *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

28

One area that the Market’s executive board may be interested is the appeal of the Market’s artisan booth and musicians to draw and retain crowds at the Market. It appears that the effects of these two aspects of the Market to draw and retain crowds at the Market are negligible at best. Just eight percent of respondents listed the Market’s musical acts as a draw to the market, while only one percent listed “supporting local vendors and the community” which would include the Market’s artisan booth. Only two percent said they would like to see different musical performers, while five percent said they would like to see an expanded arts and crafts presence at the Market. While the presence of musical acts are pretty standard at farmers markets, it appears that the artisan booth has little impact on the Market’s overall operations and if the board is looking to add more booth space for produce or other vendors, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to suggest that the artisan booth could be lost with little notice. The board would, of course, have to consider the effect that dropping the artisan booth would have on the neighborhood artisans who would have an option to sell their products taken away.

In regards to the chef demos presented at the Market, very few of the respondents- just six percent- listed the demos as a draw to come to the Market. However, when asked what they would like to see more of, respondents selected more chef demos (five percent), food education classes (seven percent), and nutrition info (three percent). Combined, 15% of respondents expressed an interest in using the MFM to increase their knowledge of food. This information could also influence the Market’s marketing and outreach strategies.

In regards to the possible extension of the Market into winter dates, survey data indicates that while the Market has a core group of committed shoppers who would frequent any cold-weather Market dates, it should be expected that the customer counts for any winter markets should see a drop-off of roughly forty percent. This reduction in crowd size could be reflected in a similar reduction in vendor fees for any winter market dates. Interestingly, there is no identifiable variable that had a significant correlation on respondents stating whether they would shop at any winter Market dates, while those who listed many options of what they’d like to see more of at the Market- including a longer schedule- had a significant correlation to the responses given to the Market’s ideal schedule.

Table 5.2 Correlation of factors of what brings shoppers to Market & what they’d like to see more of (N = 116)

Times shopping at Number of ways Average amount Number of other Number of items

MFM heard about Market spent at Market days shop at farmers bought markets Total what brings you to Market .11 .17 .32** .01 .41** Total what you would like to see more of .09 .10 .06 .19* .27** *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

29

Finally, the demographic make-up of the survey respondents- which should only be considered an approximation of the Market’s demographic make-up- skewed heavily towards white, middle-class females whose residents were clustered in two zip codes on the east side of Mount Tabor. While it would be expected that the heavily skewed make-up of the survey would have an effect on the findings of key categories in the survey that measure Market shoppers’ behavior, which was not the case. Gender had a significant correlation with how often the respondent shopped at the MFM as well as shopping at farmers markets on other days, indicating that women are making the decisions regarding food purchases for their households. Race and ethnicity has a very strong significant correlation on what customers would like to see more of at the Market, and further data mining needs to occur to identify what this correlation represents. Despite survey respondents’ skewing toward the ages of 35-54, this variable does not have a significant correlation on any of the other categories. Household income had a significant correlation with respondents regularly shopping at other farmers markets, which should be an obvious correlation, as those households with more money to spend would also be able to spend it at more farmers markets. And despite being clustered in a small part of the neighborhood, respondents’ zip codes did not have any significant correlation on the other categories, only indicating that a large number of the respondents- and, assuming these numbers aren’t dramatically different than those who frequent the market- comes from a concentrated part of Montavilla.

Table 5.3 Correlation of factors regarding Market’s schedule (N = 116)

Would you shop at What is ideal seasonal a winter market schedule for the MFM Times shopping at MFM .11 .08 Number of ways heard about the Market .04 .12 Average amount spent at the Market .05 .04 Number of other days shop at farmers markets .00 .04 Number of items bought .09 .15 What brings you to Market .02 .12 What do you want to see more of .06 .19* *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

30

In an attempt to determine the over-all satisfaction of survey respondents with the Montavilla Farmers Market, the qualitative responses provided by respondents in a box that asked for further comments were considered. Out of the sample set of 116 survey respondents, just barely over half- 61 respondents- provided further comments. These 61 comments were then searched for any responses that included the use of the words “love” or “like” by the respondent- whether it be the Market itself or of a particular feature of the Market. Out of the 61 responses measured, two-thirds indicated a measure of satisfaction with the Market. This measure of satisfaction was then used to measure correlations with the other survey questions and categories (Table 5.5)

Table 5.4 Correlation of Market demographics on shopping behavior (N = 116)

Race/ Household Gender Ethnicity Age group income Zip code Times shopping at MFM .25** .06 .06 .00 .09 Number of ways heard about the Market .07 .04 .07 .06 .11 Average amount spent at the Market .06 .07 .10 .05 .08 Number of other days shop at farmers markets .22* .11 .03 .20* .10 Number of items bought .00 .02 .04 .03 .08 What brings you to Market .01 .08 .14 .02 .18 What do you want to see more of .00 .33** .16 .12 .02 Would you shop at a winter Market .04 .05 .11 .02 .11 What is ideal seasonal schedule for the MFM .12 .07 .10 .02 .02

31

As the survey data was analyzed and this report finalized, the Montavilla Farmers Market began its fourth season in 2010. Off-season marketing and outreach efforts resulted in an opening week crowd of 2,200- which was the largest crowd the Market had seen since its inaugural opening day in 2007. While the crowd sizes didn’t maintain at that size through the season, the weekly averages of customer counts range in the 1300 to 1500 range, matching the highest attendance counts from the preceding 2009 season. The Montavilla Farmers Market has definitely matured, establishing itself as a desirable farmers market in Southeast Portland for both vendors to sell goods and customers to come and shop. As the Market continues to operate and possibly consider future expansion, the board could refer to the findings of this report as benchmarks to consider implementing new programs or the successful continuation of current programs. The Market has seen tremendous positive development as an organization throughout its three full years of operation, and there should be little difficulty to sustain this development for at least the next three years, if not beyond.

Table 5.5 Correlation of satisfaction with Market on other categories (N = 116)

Satisfaction Times shopping at MFM .09 Number of ways heard about the Market .08 Average amount spent at the Market .19 Number of other days shop at farmers markets .05 Number of items bought .26* What brings you to Market .28* What do you want to see more of .02 What is ideal seasonal schedule for the MFM .02 Gender .05 Race/ethnicity .08 Age Group .05 Household income .05 Zip code . .08 *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.