Leopold Center - Why do consumers choose local foods?

In March 2002, 400 residents of Black Hawk County, Iowa, were surveyed regarding attitudes about local foods. The FoodRoutes Network, Inc. (www.foodroutes.org) commissioned the telephone survey in an effort to provide baseline information on regional sentiments prior to the Buy Fresh Buy Local campaign.

These survey data were analyzed to identify decision-making factors for consumers in Black Hawk County, with a particular focus on the lag between attitudinal support and purchasing behavior. Previous studies show that, in general, consumers are aware and supportive of local foods, but these positive attitudes do not necessarily translate into active purchasing patterns.

Testable variables were identified from information gathered through the survey and grouped into two categories: sociological/civic and expediency factors. Sociological/civic factors include social demographic variables in addition to civic attitudes: gender, age, level of education, marital status, political ideology, having children 18 years or younger, knowing a family farmer, and the characteristics of following environmental issues and being concerned about food safety. Expediency factors include economic variables and measures of time constraints: income, monthly grocery expenditures, price-consciousness and frequency of eating out and buying pre-prepared foods.

These factors were evaluated within the context of a two-phase decision-making model, which distinguishes acceptance of an idea (symbolic adoption) from acting on an idea (use adoption). Few studies have explored use adoption decisions as separate from symbolic adoption. This may explain the conflicting results of previous studies that have identified consumer characteristics leading to demand for local or organic foods. The two-phase model also allows the lag between the phases to be described.

The results of the statistical analysis show that sociological/civic factors tested are relatively more important to symbolic adoption than expediency factors. Symbolic adoption is more likely if one is concerned about food safety, follows community environmental issues and knows a farmer (sociological/civic factors) and if one does not eat out frequently (expediency factor).

Symbolic adoption is more likely to translate into use adoption for these consumers if appropriate interactions with the expediency variables of price-consciousness and income take place. Lower price-consciousness and lower incomes seem to lead to an increased tendency to buy local foods.

The finding that those with lower incomes purchase more local foods might seem counterintuitive. It may be that symbolic adopters are predisposed to purchasing local foods, but as income increases, job demands create time constraints that hinder purchase and preparation. Another explanation may be that as income increases symbolic adopters move “beyond” local foods, purchasing more gourmet or imported food items.

For non-symbolic adopters (respondents who did not indicate symbolic adoption), opposite effects take place: increased price-consciousness and higher incomes lead to an increased tendency to buy local.

A possible explanation for this seemingly confounding behavior is that non-symbolic adopters may expect local foods to be of lower value and less expensive than food available through more conventional channels.

The type of grocery outlet also may be a factor. Roadside stands or farmers’ markets may have less expensive food than conventional groceries and may be where non-symbolic adopters purchase local foods. Natural food stores or conventional groceries may add price premiums to local foods, which may be where symbolic adopters are more likely to purchase these products. Therefore, as income increases, non-symbolic adopters purchase local foods more frequently. This may indicate a lag in adoption for those not predisposed to supporting local foods. With an increase in income, social pressures also may draw non-symbolic adopters to local foods.

For both symbolic and non-symbolic adopters (again, those who support the idea of local foods and those who do not indicate support), sociological factors also affect use adoption. A higher educational level and knowing a farmer are significant to the orientation of someone purchasing local foods.

This research promoted policy and program initiatives in Black Hawk County. Given that knowing a farmer plays a role in both symbolic and use adoption, efforts to boost the relational aspects of food products are warranted, i.e., labeling, store displays, farmer directories and field days. The use of local foods in restaurants also may increase the visibility of farmer-suppliers and address the negative effect of frequently eating out. Local foods in low to medium priced, quick-service establishments may be especially constructive in regards to time constraints. Food safety and environmental concerns are positively related to an interest in local foods. Promoting the benefits of local food systems may strengthen these connections.

Price-consciousness was found to have an opposing effect on the purchasing behavior of symbolic and non-symbolic adopters. Certainly, a locally produced food item should carry a price that indicates its worth and provides the farmer with adequate return. However, funding or programs to lessen price differentials initially may increase purchases, especially for symbolic adopters.

Promoting quality aspects of local foods (freshness, taste, nutrition) may attract more consumers who do not symbolically adopt local foods on civic grounds. These non-symbolic adopters may, with an increased sense of the quality of local foods, purchase more often and continue to purchase regardless of price-consciousness.