|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 R CEPTION OF LOCAL FOOD: A STUDY OF STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN THE UNITED STATES By DIANE ISIS NYOB A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF TH E REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012
2 2012 Diane Isis Nyob
3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the European Union, which gave me the opportunity to study abroad through the Atlantis Erasmus Mundus prog ram; it has been a very constructive experience. I thank Agrocampus Ouest my Engineering School in Rennes, France, because it allowed me to participate in the program I am also grateful to my advisors who always gave me useful insights. The team was const ituted by Dr Rainer Haas (Professor at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna, Austria), Dr James Sterns (Professor at the University of Florida), Dr Jeffrey Burkhardt (Professor at the University of Flo rida) and Dr Gianluca Brunor i ( Professor at Pisa University, Italy). Their comments and criticisms were a great contribution to the shaping and perfecting of this thesis. I do not forget the administration staff in Europe and in the USA because I think they helped me a lot to underst and how to succeed in the Atlantis program. I thank my family and my friends who have been of a great support during my dissertation work. Their love, care, patien ce and understanding gave me the courage to go on even when it was tough.
4 TABLE OF CONTENT S page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ............................. 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 13 Study Objectives and Research Questions ................................ ............................. 14 Anticipated Benefits ................................ ................................ ................................ 15 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 16 Definition of Local Food ................................ ................................ .......................... 16 Geographical Vision ................................ ................................ ......................... 16 Supply Chain Vision ................................ ................................ ......................... 23 Social Vision ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 28 The Underlying D efinition ................................ ................................ ................. 32 Local Food Markets ................................ ................................ .............................. 32 3 Local Food Markets in Florida ................................ ................................ .......... 33 Local Food Markets in Eu rope ................................ ................................ .......... 40 ................................ ................................ ...... 46 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 47 Grocery S hopping ................................ ................................ ............................ 47 Perceptio ns ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 48 Food Marketing C hannels ................................ ................................ ................ 48 In Europe ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 49 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 50 3 R ESEARCH METHODS ................................ ................................ ......................... 56 Introductory Remarks ................................ ................................ .............................. 56 Word Association ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 56 M eans End Chain Theory ................................ ................................ ....................... 58 Laddering Interviews ................................ ................................ ............................... 6 0 Questionnaire D esign ................................ ................................ ............................. 63 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 65
5 Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 65 Context of Interview ................................ ................................ .......................... 66 4 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF CONSUM ABOUT FOOD ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 68 Background Information ................................ ................................ .......................... 68 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 68 5 MOTIVES, BARRIERS AND PERCEPTION OF LOCAL FOOD .... 95 Introductory Remarks ................................ ................................ .............................. 95 Motives and Barriers ................................ ................................ ............................... 95 Word Association ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 98 Differentiation of the Local Food from Other Foods. ................................ ............... 99 Means End C hain Analysis ................................ ................................ ..................... 99 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 0 Hierarchical Value Maps (HVM) ................................ ................................ ..... 101 6 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ 111 1 Keynote ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 112 Key F indi ngs and Discussion of the R esults ................................ ....................... 112 2 How Well I nform ed Are the Consumers Reg arding L ocal F ood? ................ 112 2 How Can We Define Local F ood? ................................ ............................... 112 3 What Are the Motives an d B arriers to Buy Local F ood? .............................. 112 4 Food Encompass the Same Values for Different Categories of C onsumers? 112 6 What are the A t tributes Associated with Local F ood? ................................ 112 7 Limits of the M ethod ................................ ................................ ............................ 118 8 APPENDIX : QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE STUDY ................................ ..................... 121 1 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ........................... 126 6 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ........................ 131 1
6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Correlation between population level health outcomes and measures of local food marketing and production. ................................ ................................ .......... 52 4 1 Summary of conducted interviews ................................ ................................ .... 84 4 4 2 Race and ethnicity repartition in Gainesville, within the general users and within the self selected users ................................ ................................ ............ 84 4 4 3 Most important crite ria when buying food by rank of importance for the self selected users ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 85 5 4 4 Most important criteria when buying food by rank of importance for the general users. ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 86 6 4 5 Table of contingency fo r the type of population versus the quality criterion. ..... 86 6 4 6 Table of contingency for the type of population versus the freshness criterion. 86 6 4 7 Table of contingency for the type of populati on versus the price criterion. ......... 87 4 8 Table of contingency for the type of population versus the health and nutritional value criterion. ................................ ................................ .................. 87 7 4 9 Table of contingency for the type of population ver sus the taste criterion. ....... 87 7 4 10 Table of contingency of the proportion of the weekly shopping that has been produced locally versus the type of population. ................................ ................ 87 7 4 11 Table of contingency of the a nswered geographical boundaries for local food and the types of population. ................................ ................................ .............. 87 7 4 12 Frequency of shopping at different local food venues for the self selected users (numbers rounded) ................................ ................................ ................... 88 4 13 Freq uency of shopping at different local food venues for the general users (numbers rounded) ................................ ................................ ........................... 88 8 5 1 Word association test results for the self selected users ................................ 105 5 5 2 Word association test results fo r the general users ................................ ........ 105 5 5 3 Participation with the laddering exercise. ................................ ....................... 106 6
7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Map display ing the direct sales to consumers by county in the USA in 2007. .... 53 2 2 Map displaying the percent of farms with sales less than $250,000 in the USA in 2007.. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 54 2 3 managers, in percentage of answers ................................ ................................ .. 55 3 1 uct related knowledge in Means E nd Chain theory. ................ 6 7 3 2 Ex ample of a set of questions in l addering interviews.. ................................ ...... 6 7 4 1 Pie chart of the most relevant themes that self selected users find important when buying foo d. ................................ ................................ .............................. 88 4 2 Pie chart of the most relevant themes that general users find important when buying food. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 89 4 3 Pie chart representing the use of the country of or igin indications by the self selected users. ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 8 9 4 4 Pie chart represe nting the use of the countr y of origin indications by general users. ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 90 4 5 Pie charts r al food A) Self selected users B) General users ................................ .................. 90 4 6 Pie chart displaying the proportion of weekly food shopping that is local f ood, as reported by the self selected users. ................................ ............................... 91 4 7 Pie chart displaying the proportion of weekly food shopping that is local food, as reported by the general users. ................................ ................................ ....... 91 4 8 selected users. ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 92 4 9 ries for the general users. 92 4 10 Categorization of the shopping frequencies at different local food venues for the self selected users. ................................ ................................ ....................... 9 3 4 11 Categorization of the shopping frequencie s at different local food venues for the general users. ................................ ................................ ............................... 9 3
8 4 12 Proportion of self selected users who buy local food sometimes, often or very often through the different channels. ................................ ................................ .. 94 4 13 Proportion of general users who buy local food sometimes, often or very often through the different channels. ................................ ................................ .. 94 5 1 HVM for the g eneral users (cut off level=4) ................................ ...................... 107 5 2 HVM for the s elf selected users (cut off level=4). ................................ ............. 108 5 3 Implication matrix for the g ................................ ................. 109 5 4 Implication matrix for the s elf ................................ ......... 110
9 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S AMS Agricultural Marketing Service CSA Community Supported Agriculture ERS Economic R esearch Service EU 25 The 25 countries of the European Union after the 2004 enlargement (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherland s, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) FAPC Florida Agricultural Promotional Campaign GHG Greenhouse gases HVM Hierarchical Value Map LF Local food SFSC Short food supply chain USA United States of America USDA Unite d States Department of Agriculture WTO World Trade Organi z ation
10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science CONSUMER R CEPTION OF LOCAL FOO D: A STUDY OF STUDEN TS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN THE UNITED STAT ES By Diane Isis Nyob December 2012 Chair: James Sterns Major: Food and Resource Economics Local food is a vague term that has not been precisely defined H owever, several trends show a growing interest in developing local consumption. This thesis investigates the different meanings that can be given to the concept of local food. It will look at the views and behavior of consumers towards this non conventiona l food marketing channel with a particular focus on assessing their individual representations and associated cognitive structures. Using qualitative interview techniques and unstructured is is an exploratory work aiming at describing a trend in a Floridian university city. Two populations have been separately described: 42 general users of local food and 37 self selected users, the latter sampled at different university locations. Using th e two different samples, demographics, knowledge, habits, motives, barriers an d finally the of local food can be compared. This study finds evidence of behavioral differences between both of the groups and surprisingly shed light on comm The pro jective technique called Means E nd Chains Analysis is employed in order to generate the two maps of the cognitive structures for each group of respondents about
11 local food. Self selected users pursue three values when consuming local food: longevity, good quality of life and patriotism. For general users it is good quality of life, the fact of being part of a community and human accomplishment. As a final outcome of th e analyses, a consensus definition of local food is obtained.
12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Nowadays, it is becoming more and more common to hear about this notion. For instance, in an effort to create new economic opportunities by better connecting consumers with local producers. But when we think about this concept, we m ust remember that not that long a go, all foo d was produced locally. When we think about the beginning of the 20th century, people were eating mainly products coming from their region just because it was more convenient. But technological improvements changed this practice. Infrastructures, modern st orage methods and new fruit and vegetable varieties have developed and food has become able to travel over longer distances. Food from overseas is available in any supermarket. Trade liberalization that vity, higher wages, and more choices new food flows around the world. As a result, a Florida consumer will find in his supermarket strawberries from Canadian greenhouses in October, because the demand variety, quality, and convenience in the foods they consume. As Americans have become wealthier and more ethnically diverse, the American food basket reflects a growing share of tropical products, spices, and imported gourmet products (ERS/USDA). Free trade now involves a global scale point of view. But we may also be concerned with a smaller scale, the regional scale. Agricultural industrializat ion has
13 shaped the modern agricultural landscape in the USA. It is a term used to reflect several varieties of changing conditions in agriculture and the food system. It includes the prominence of large scale agribusiness firms : the continued integration o f functions through ownership, acquisitions, and contracts; the decline of farm level cash markets; the increased importance of supply chain management; and the persistent technological advances (Knutson, Penn, Flinchbaugh, & Outlaw, 2007) Problem Statement For a few decades, more and more alternative markets have emerged. Consumers seek more organic food, food traded in fairer conditions, quality food and more recently they seek for local food. Niche markets are a way of marketing a produ ct for its specificity and allow the non conventional sellers to add value to their food. Indeed, the mainstream sector is very competitive and the products are standardized. Rural development strategies frequently emphasize the creation of new marketing c hannels aiming to reconnect the countryside with the evolving consumer demand. The convenient foods. However, nowadays, on top of being convenient and nutritious, food also se rves other needs. Some consumers are looking for ethical (fair trade) or makes it uni que is an intelligent answer that a marketer can give. In developed countries people are increasingly surrounded by new ideas and debates; a well known example is sustainability. Sustainable development means t without compromising the ability of
14 Nations, 1987). It comprises a triple bottom line of economic sustainability, environmental protection and social equity. Any area can be analyzed through the lens of sustainability. Agriculture is no exception. Producing and consuming food are now linked to a variety of values. New concerns have emerged in the public agora and even eating can reveal different kind s of values. The consumer is looking for more meaning from his food because he sees food as part of his self fulfillment. development since the USDA has launched initiatives promoting local food, since an increasing number of local food networks have been created, and in Europe this concept has also gained in the More precisely, this thesis aims at identifying the motives and values of consumers buying local food. Furthermore, the aim is to identify relevant product attributes of local food and how they are connected with specific motives and values. Study Objectives and Research Questions The objective of this paper is to gain insights into the image of local food for selected consumer groups and into buying motives for local f ood. Therefore this study aims to clarify the following research questions: How well informed are the consumers regarding local food? What are the motives and barriers to buy local food? What are the attributes associated wi th local food?
15 Does local food encompass the same values for different categories of consumers? Anticipated Benefits perceived nee ds. To explore further potentials for local food marketing, it is important to know the meaning of local products or local farming for consumers. Improving the ability a nd attitudes towards local products. Thereby, farmers who are involved in direct selling as well as food retailers will be able to better understand what the demand for local products really means. It will help them to make better business decisions such as local market promotion s product development and other marketing strategies. The expected answers from this thesis could be of different kinds since the method that will be used focuses on what the individual thinks when letting him express his ideas f reely and in depth. This research intends to be as open minded as possible in the hope that the intimate perception of local food would be revealed.
16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Definition of Local Food When trying to define local food, we have to deal wi th three main overlapping geographical, supply chain and social view s Geographical Vision The US Congress states in the 2008 Farm Bill that the total distance that a product (Martinez et al., 2010) However, according to the USDA there is no re al definition of defined distance between the production and the consumption sites. Different visions exist and some notions might help to determine it. For instance, the New Oxford American Dictiona ry defines a 100 (Martinez et al., 2010) In this view, local food just means a way to decrease the distance between the producer and the consumer. In the liter ature, the scientific community is puzzled. In the focus groups led by Zepeda and Leviten Reid (2004) in Wisconsin, local food was defined as being within 6 7 hours of driving distance, as produced in the State, in surrounding States or in the USA. In a s tudy conducted in Ohio about strawberries, Darby et al. showed that the (2003), the southeast Missouri consumers define d local as coming from the southeast of Missour i and not to a broader region as the whole state of Missouri for instance. This
17 citation from Ibery and Maye (2005) in United Kingdom illustrates the complexity of the definition: el, regional interchangeably. It i s, in short, an elastic concept. Indeed, Is an adminis trative or political border a good geographic boundary to define what local is? Or should we explore more the subjectivity of this term to find a consensual by the fee ling of sharing a same history (e.g. the Basque Country that extends over France and Spain, although these two countries are separated by a mountain). Local products and locality products. Thompson et al. ( 2008 ) draw an interesting link between the world o f fine art and the world of agriculture. The word attest s from, its origin, its sourc art object itself. According to this study, as applied to food, this concept of provenance captures the essence of what consumers are looking for when they decide to eat locally. This assertion is interesting when trying to define the local character of a product. It allows us to introduce the difference in meaning of two words that sound similar,
18 from the La tin root locus and are attempts to link foods with their place furth er afield, but with an identifiable geographical provenance (Ilbery & Maye, 2006) For instance, a bottle of champagne is a locality product. It is produced exclusively in the region of Champagne in France and it carries a label indicating this restricted geographical provenanc e. Yet, this bottle of champagne can be purchased in the USA, that is to say very far away from its production site, and in this case cannot be a local product. This example indicates the semantic limits of what we call local food in this research. The Eur opean Union has put in place quality schemes for certain locality food products. Those products are labeled as Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI). To obtain such a label, the producers must comply with strict rules defining their production location. However, more than only indicating a geographical region, this label attests a specific production process that gives the food a noticeable quality that differs from any other similar food. A PDO al products and foodstuffs which are produced, processed and prepared in a given geographical area using recognized know one of the stages of product (European Commission, 2012). PDO is thus more specific and the higher distinctiveness provides a higher level of protection to the product.
19 In the Marrakech Agreement (final act of the Uruguay Round in 1994) of the WTO, article 22 of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) states originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locali ty in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin of intellectual property associated with goo ds that originate in a specific place and possess qualities, a reputation, or other characteristics that are due to that place of Idaho" potatoes, "Florida" oranges, and "Vidalia" onions which are grown in the region around Vidalia in Southern Georgia. The American vision is based on the definition of a trademark. According to functions as trademarks, because like tr ademarks they are: 1) source identifiers, 2) Food deserts. The 2008 US United States with limited access to affordable and nutritious food, part icularly such an area composed of predominantly lower income neighborhoods and communities (AMS, 2012). Nutritious food means mainly fruits and vegetables. US First Lady Michelle Obama has started a movement to eradicate the food deserts in the aim of redu cing Move, 2012). The problem is thus the non availability of nutritious food ne arby. An interesting aspect of defining local food can be to explain what happens when there is
20 actually no food nearby. In this case, the problem does not seem to be related to the production location but to the availability of a healthy source of food cl ose to a community, wherever it comes from Food desert is a concept popular because it illustrates well the consequence of a change impacting the food market structure in rts are the collective result of several forces, including the growth in more populated areas of superstores (with a large variety of food products), an insufficient population base to support a wide array of local supermarkets (resulting in the loss or co nsolidation of these stores), and changes in food distribution channels, shifts that tend to favor larger food retailers at the expense of smaller food stores in rural areas less dependent on exterior sources of food because it used to privilege local small food stores. Usually local small stores source their products more locally than large grocery stores. million, or 2.2 percent, live more than a mile from a supermarket and do not have access to a vehicle. An additional 3.4 million households, or 3.2 percent of all households, live between one (Ploeg, Breneman, Farrigan, & H amrick, 2009) Food deserts affect mostly the lowest income populations who do not have a car and who cannot go easily to grocery stores. The described situation is thus a situation in which being poor means also not being able to shop for food easily due not only to direct budgetary restrictions but also to logistic reasons. And not being able to shop for food as often as what is needed is a fact
21 that logically limits fresh produce intake. Shortening the distances to get food would be a way of overcoming this and perhaps many effect s of poverty. National and local studies across the U.S. suggest that residents of low income, minority, and rural neighborhoods are most often affected by poor access to supermarkets and healthful food (Larson, Story, & Nelson, 2009) Moreover, higher access to convenience stores increases the risk of obesity while better access to supermarkets diminishes th is risk (Ploeg et al., 2009) (USD A, 2009). According to Thilmany Mc Fadden and Low (2012), local food positively influence s American health outcomes as shown in Table 2 1 COOL: country scale. In September 2008, the USDA implemented compulsory Country of Or igin Labeling (COOL) on certain foods that are not processed. According requires retailers, such as full line grocery stores, supermarkets, and club warehouse stores, to notif y their customers with information regarding the source of certain foods. Food products, (covered commodities) contained in the law include muscle cut and ground meats: beef, veal, pork, lamb, goat, and chicken; wild and farm raised fish and shellfish; fre sh and frozen fruits and vegetables; peanuts, pecans, and macadamia nuts; This action created a dispute within the World trade Organization (WTO). The WTO deals with the global rules of trade between nations. Its main function is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible. WTO is the main organ that aims to liberalize the trade amongst its 150 members worldwide. The dispute was led by Canada and Mexico who claim that the USA violates its WTO obligat ion s by
22 like domestic 2012). However, in April 2012, the USDA A gricultural M arketing S ervice (AMS) released a letter to industry representatives stating that COOL regul ations will remain in force and it reaffirmed its strong support for existing COOL regulations within the WTO discussions (AMS, 2012). This shows the difficulties that emerge when trying to differentiate a product in a market. Adding a new attribute such as a branding strategy generates n ew competition that is not based on price or quantity It is significant that the State of Florida was a forerunner in requiring country of origin labeling mandating it for fruits, vegetables and honey since 1979, and fo r aquaculture products since 1996 (Florida Department of Agricultu re and Consumer Services, 2012) One would thus expect that the Florida consumer would be better informed about the origin of his food. Foodsheds. This word is derived from the hydrologic te defines a functional unit of territory that is drained by a single natural drainage system. The watershed is the geographical unit on which is based the analysis of the hydrological cycle and its effects. More precisely, the watershed is a closed entity in a hydrological point of view: there is no incoming flow and all outgoing flows are either evaporated either leaving by a single exit. This definition brings to light the scope of the concept of foodshed. F oodshed is a way of defining a food system. According to Thompson et al. (2008), Arthur Getz popularized this expression in order to explain where our food is coming from and how it is getting to us. Given that a foodshed actually points to the food supply chain or network nowadays we can observe that our
23 foodshed is global. A person in the USA can get food from Europe since food flows are mainly driven by the international trade. However the word has been mainly used by activists who favor of a reduction of our foodshed size. In t heir research, Thompson et al. (2008) held that the San Francisco foodshed for local food was an area of a 100 mile radius around the Golden Gate Bridge. This area encompasses both the agricultural land and the retail systems. Supply Chain Vision A supply chain is the set of processes, trading partner relationships, and transactions that delivers a product from the producer to the consumer (K ing et al., 2010) The concept of Short Food Supply Chain (SFSC) implies a reduction in the number of intermediaries between the primary food producer and the final consumer. According to Ploeg et al. (2009) in the past century three major causes have l ed the rise of chain grocery stores over independently owned stores, the rise of supermarkets that offered an increased number and variety of products; and the rise of supercenters that co ntinued the trend to even larger stores offering more and more products The average supermarket product is handled thirty three times on its way to the shelf and many food products travel thousands of miles before reaching stores (Guptill & Wilkins, 2002) According to the Worldwatch Institute in 2008, fruits and vegetables in the USA travel ed between 2,500 and 4,000 kilometers from farm to market, (~1550 and ~2500 miles) on average. According to Ibery and Maye (2005), there are three kinds of SFSCs: Face to direct marketing
24 is on local foods, although it is possible for locality foods to also be sold in to local retailers in the region. This may include other farm shops, village shops, specialist food outlets, tourist sites, local hotels and restaurants, independent butchers or local supermarket stores. While local foods will nearly always be sold through outside the region. Products may be distinguished using labeling schemes, such as Protected Designation food products. The focus is therefore on selling local foods as locality The dominant sources of local food in the USA are via Community Supported local food co operatives (Nie & Zepeda, 2011) farm to school programs, food banks and community gardening. Community Gardens are p laces where people in a neighborhood have green spaces set aside for local residents to grow their own fresh vegetables, herbs, fruits, and flowers (Slow Food, 2012). This study largely confine s itself to the most important sources of local food previousl since they involve the delivery of food from producers to consumers. Transparency and clearer signals of origin. In a study conducted in 2008 aiming to assess the local food system in the San Francisco area, Thompson et al. explain that despite the elaborate food distribution system that is in place between behind the food distribution system is oriented towards delivering inexpensive, standardized food products However, consumer demand is
25 shifting towards a need for more transparency and clearer signals concerning origins of food In this sense, SFSCs are an answer to thi s growing demand. In comparison to mainstream supply chains, direct marketing of local food provides consumers with information about where and by whom the food was produced (King et al., 2010) In the literature from the UK, there is a popular reconnected food chain would allow a reconnection between the consumer and what he eats and how it has be en produced (Ilbery, Morris, Buller, Maye, & Kneafsey, 2005) Local food is often promoted as an alternative model to the conventional agro food local (alt ernative) are linked together in an overall agro (Ilbery & Maye, 2006) Indeed, producers can be part of both systems by selling some products locally and some others in more distant supermarkets. An example is a tomato producer who set s aside the best quality tom atoes for the supermarkets because they have strict requirements, and sells the rest in a local market. The local market is for him a way of A greener strategy? The burning of fossil fuels (as motor gasoline and diesel) releases carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases, which are called greenhouse gases. They contribute to the global warming of the planet and to the environment degradation. has been created, and it represents the distance food travels from where it is grown or raised to where it is ultimately purchased by the consumer or other end user (Pirog, Van Pelt, Enshayan, & Cook, 2001) The Worldwatch Institute indicate d in 2008 that fruits
26 and vegetables trav elling from farm to market generate five to seventeen times more CO2 emissions than the equivalent amount of local food. Worldwatch claimed that kg/year. In most of the literature, short food chains are a greener strategy than the current extended supply chains (Pirog et al., 2001; Thompson, Harper, & Kraus, 2008; Worldwatch Institute, 2008) According to this literature, growing food locally reduces the amount of fuel used to ship goods long distances. Pirog et al. (2001) push the argument further by appealing to the idea of internalization of the external environmental and social costs rela ted to the food chain (from production to distribution). Indeed, they argue that the so comparative advantage that some regions have in producing some goods as cheaply as possible hides some externalities that should be internalized. If the extern alities were internalized, this would jeopardize and even undermine their claimed comparative advantage. The USA is a major greenhouse gas emitter and a growing concern is to reduce this impact on the environment. It is undeniably true that more and more businesses (in all fields combined) are interested in reducing their environmental impact for many reasons. Gil Friend writes in his book The Truth about Green Business (2009) that green strategies have a broader impact than just reducing the harm caused t o the environment. Greener practices are also a communication strategy for businesses. The ue is
27 a function of intangibles, such as brand and reputation. It is reasonable to assume that even in the agricultural sector, there is such a thing as an improved reputation correlated to more sustainable practices. However, the entire literature does no t necessarily agree that the short food supply chains are more efficient in term of greenhouse gas emission. As Friend notices, less shipping often reduces the supply chain carbon impact, but only if the local producer is energy efficient in both productio n and transportation If i n some aspects short food chains can be more sustainable (increase in the only advantages in terms of environmental impacts. New studies comparing energ y consumption between short and conventional supply chains show that with an optimized logistic in the conventional sector (sea transport for instance), the energ y impact can be lower than in short food supply chain. But short food supply chains logistic al organization can be improved since they are just beginning (Aubry, Traversac, 2010, INRA). According to Schnart et al. (2009), the economies of scale in the mainstream food system allows more technological investment and better resource management than in a local food system. In the end, the gain in efficiency during the various stages of a food chain can offset the environmental pollution caused by the longer transport uti lization of loading capacity market by car on top of his regular shopping trips (Schonhart, Penker, & Schmid, 2009)
28 For Pirog et al. (2001), the problem is not the energy effici ency of the transport but rather of the agricultural production system. Indeed, based on life cycle assessments for tomatoes consumed in Sweden, the least fossil fuel demanding alternative is to import from Spain and not to consume tomatoes produced in Swe den More precisely, the Spanish tomatoes are not cultivated in heated greenhouses (as are the Swedish ones) and this energy saving outweighs the energy cost s of transportation from Spain To conclude this discussion of greenhouse gas emissions, suffice it to say that there is no agreed framework for calculating the se emissions ( Edwards Jones et al. 2008) Social Vision According to the Worldwatch Institute (2008), to build a more sustainable environment, national and global level initiatives are essentia l but community level programs are also important in order to provide new models for change. The word cum munus n relationships with each (Worldwatch, 2008) Further, according to the Worldwatch Institute (2008), individuals and expresses the level of networking, trust and reciproc ity between people. Social capital allows for empowerment in communities. Building community ties offers a and competition [s] a more stable source of jobs and income, a reduction in use of fuel of transportation, businesses more willing to adapt to stricter environmental regulations (as opposed to closing and rebuilding elsewhere), and a larger percentage of prof its circulating within
29 the community instead of being concentrated in the hands of far (Worldwatch Institute, 2008) According to Hendrickson and Heffernan (2002), global corporations dominate the agriculture system and this leads to a disconnection between time and space. I n its more authentic definition, food is subject to natural constraints such as perishability, seasonality, and availability of resources. However, the mainstream system is subject to d should be available easily, at any time and in any location, whatever the season or what the variety of food is. In the optimizing process, globalized firms have developed several ing concentration of power also more vulnerable because they are only exchange oriented and thus face difficulties in develop ing relationship s with consumers (hence the high investments in brands and advertising). According t o Winter (2003), there is a growing interest in alternative food systems because consumers are consequences of globalised and industrialized agriculture, farm animal welfare and fair tra de quality foods produced with low environmental impact are willing to pay more for locally produced food z ed firms also have difficulties to Social embeddedness. According to the rural sociology literature, social embeddedness is a concept that illustrates the fact that there is an inclusion of non economic networks in human economies (Hinrichs, 2000) S ocial embeddedness is the
30 social ties surrounding the economic institutions. It encompasses the personal conn ections, the reciprocity and trust that emanates from human transactions. What should be noted at the outset is that there can be different degrees of social embeddedness. As Hinrichs writes in 2000 in her analysis of direct agricultural markets in local f anonymous in more global food systems, in local, direct markets, they are immediate, (Hinrichs, 2000) For instance, there are activities for children, educational operations, on farm work and festivals organized by CSA s Farmers markets enable farmers to develop personal relationship s with their customers, and to create a loyalty relationship between each other (USDA website). According to Hinrichs (2000), the concept of marketness the fact that price enters in consideration in an ec onomic transaction. The concept of instrumentalism concerns the fact that the individual prioritizes economic goals, has an opportunistic behavior and favors himself. There is always a mix of those three concepts in any market; the concept of social embedd edness becomes more relevant when it is nuanced by the concepts of marketness and instrumentalism. However, marketness and instrumentalism embeddedness should not be seen simply as the 297). Ripening effect. According to the 2007 U.S. Census of Agriculture, most farms that sell directly to consumers are small farms with less than $50,000 in total farm sales, located in urban corrido rs of the Northeast and the West Coast. These small structures cannot take advantage of economies of scale, they cannot overcome unpleasant
31 constraints, and they are more sensitive to natural barriers in production. They are less optimized. Nevertheless, these structures can have a ripening effect on the society. A National Farmers Market Week was established in August 2011. In his official proclamation, US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack states Increase consumer access to fresh fruits and vegetables and thus promote child health and potentially reduce childhood obesity Support the sustainability of family farms, revitalize community and provide opportunities for farmers and consumers to interact Support local anti hunger initiat ives through donations of unsold food to feeding programs US President aims to show th at it is not only the agricultural sector that can benefit from shorter food chains. Indeed, farmers who tap into new markets and local food chains entails many more players in the regional agricultural economy. ve Grant Program funds projects tackling food insecurity in low income families that are initiated by local communities. Those projects can help eliminating the food deserts ; according to the Ploeg et al. (2009), r the entire food system, including local agriculture, and represents a proactive approach to fighting hunger, economic and social justice, and environmental stewardship community is less dependent on exterior aid. As a result the community is more appreciation among residents of the value of local foods and food heritages to
32 (Ploeg et al. 2009) and is one of the issues addressed in Community Food Projects. The Underlying Definition geographic area, either to an increased degree of trust and co operation or to a decentralized model of governance (in opposition to the global food system) (FAAN, 2010) An absolute distance is not a good indicator to defi since the same geographical distance can be perceived differently depending on the area. For instance, 20 miles in an American rural area is very small in comparison to 20 miles in an urban area. P opulation density is one important c riterion. More important is the feeling of belonging to a same geographical area, the feeling of being part of a same community by sharing some values, sharing a past or sharing a culture. It is logical to think that the people from the same community are interested in promoting their common local products. Thus defining the community is the first step before evaluating what local food actually is for those people. Local food should reflect a part of their identity. It allows revitalizing a local heritage o r/and to keep the dynamism in the area thanks to the ripening effects. This ethnocentrism reflects the incentive to be proud of not. Consuming local food is a way of d iminishing the size of the foodshed that is to say localizing the food flows. In this sense, one would try to consume as much as possible what is produced, processed and retailed close to home. The SFSCs should then be face to face or spatially proximate at least. However, a local consumer is not just a locavore but also an expenditure minimize, a person looking for a certain level of
33 commercial and nutritional quality and also a certain level of convenience. I f local food does not full fill those needs as well as the mainstream sector does, local food should have other supplementary attributes in order to compensate. The social function of local food is an answer. Indeed, local food can also allow building trusting relationship s between producers and con sumers. Actually, knowing where the food comes from is perceptions regarding such things as food safety, animal welfare and the environmental impacts of farming. Local Food Markets Local Food Markets in Florida General situation in the USA. Stimulate food and agriculturally based community economic development; Foster new opportunities for farmers and ranchers; Promote locally and regionally produced and proce ssed foods; Cultivate healthy eating habits and educated, empowered consumers; Expand access to affordable fresh and local food; and Demonstrate the connection between food, agriculture, community and the environment. campaign has no dedicated fund, no office and no staff. It is simply dedicated to synergize the existing resources in order to develop local food systems. In 2008, local food sales were worth $4.8 billion and they are increasing. The local food system is divided into two branches. First, there are the direct to consumer outlets and second, there are the intermediated marketing channels. The intermediated
34 channels include grocers, restaurants and regional distributors. The direct sales venues include farm food farms produce vegetables, fruits or nuts (Low & Vogel, 2011) Agriculture in Florida. The state of Florida is located in the South East of the USA. It comprises 58,560 square miles (~152000 km). It is boa rde re by the Atlantic billion each year). It is important to mention this fact as it could be a potential threat to agriculture because of the competition for resources. The second largest industry is agriculture. The average Florida farm size is 244 acres while the U.S. average is 446 acres. This size is rather small for a southern State (e.g. for Texas it is 564 acres) but this is a big size for an eastern State (e.g. f or North Carolina it is 183 acres) ivation of many specialty fruits vegetables, and ornamentals. Those products are very suitable for direct sale since they do not require any processing by the farmers. In Flor ida 8% of the land is used for growing crops, 30% for pasture and range, and 35% for forest ry. Citrus production is important for the economy of Florida and the orange blossom is the State Flower since 1909. According to the Florida Department of Agricult ure and Consumer Services: Florida has 47,500 commercial farms, using a total of 9.25 million acres; Florida ranks 2nd in the nation in the value of vegetable production; Florida ranks 1st in cash receipts for oranges, grapefruit, fresh snap beans, sweet c orn, watermelons, fresh cucumbers, squash and sugarcane; Florida ranks 2nd in the production of greenhouse and nursery products; Florida accounts for 65% of total U.S. citrus production; Nationally, Florida ranks 11th in beef cows; Florida ranks sevent h in agricultural exports with $3.1 billion
35 For Florida the 5 major agricultural commodities in 2008 were greenhouse and nursery products, oranges, tomatoes, dairy products and sugarcane; Florida is also in the top 12 states in fresh seafood production. Ac cording to Darby et al. (2008), 44 State Departments of Agriculture in the USA and it is organized by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS). F worldwide image of excellence other slogan s Direct Sales. There are about 2 million farms in total in the USA in 2009 (EPA website). The direct sale is the shortest food supply chain. Between 1992 and 2007, the number of farms selling directly to the consumer increased by 58% reaching 136,000 farms (6.8% of US farms). In 2007 direct sales represent ed $1.2 billion (Low & Vogel, 2011) In Figure 2 1 we see that direct sales are mo st important in the Northeast and on the West Coast of the USA more especially in urban areas. The majority (57%) of direct to consumer sales is from small farms. The National Commission on Small Farms selected $250,000 in gross yea rly sales as the cutoff point between small and large scale farms. Small farms account for 91% of all farms in the United States (USDA. Census 2007). In Figure 2 2 we see that all the counties in Florida are classified as c ounties with more than 71% of small farms. There is a north south division, however In the north,
36 most counties are classified as having 96% to 100% of small farms, as it the case for Alachua county, site of the University of Florida. A where several farmers gather on a recurrent basis to sell a variety of fresh fruits, vegetables, and other farm products directly to consumers. In 2010, there were 6,132 farmers markets in the USA, w hich represents 3.5 times as many as in 1994 (Nie & Zepeda, 2011) In 2011, there were 7,175 farmers markets throughout the U.S. and this represents a 17% increase from 2010 (USDA website). According t (Ragland & Tropp, 2009) the Southeast accounts for 12.5% of the t otal number of the region which accounts for 26.9%, the Far West region which accounts for 20.6% and the Northeast which accounts for 16.5%. The Mid Atlantic region accou nts for 11.9%, the Rocky Mountain region accounts for 6.6% and the Southwest accounts for 5.1%. The average annual sales per market in the Southeast are $220k, which ranks this region in third position after the Far West ($477k) and the Mid Atlantic ($306k ). In the the USA are fresh fruits and vegetables (91.8%), herbs and flowers ((81.4%), honey, nuts and preserves (77.7%) and baked goods (72.9%). In the Southeast, 35.5% o f the In general, those products are fresh fruits and vegetables (91.4%). About the other free/pesticide represent
37 In the ci Tioga Monday Market on Mondays Sunday Tailgate Market on Sundays By shopping at these venues, the inha bitants can enjoy seasonal produce and baked goods that are produced within a drivable distance from their homes. Moreover, a consumer can speak with a producer and this is an important advantage. In general, the part of the advertising strategy. However, when is one drawback of this marketing channel. Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). In a CSA enterprise, consumers pay a given amount to a farmer or group of farmers before the start of the growing season. Paying the farmer(s) up front allows sharing some of the risk of producing. At harvest, t he food is then delivered directly to the consumer or is picked up at a designate d location. It establishes a partnership between farmers and consumers (Pirog et al., 2001 ) usually consists of a box of vegetables but other farm products can
38 be included. The box will be available each week (or less frequently) during the harvest se Members are more aware that farming is a risky activity linked to the uncertainty of Na ture. For instance, if there is a negative climatic event, the quality of the produce will be different and the consumer will be directly impacted because he would have already paid for his basket and will be supplied with the seasonal produce. But in gene ral, the CSA farmers make sure that their members are fully rewarded for their joining, and in case produce would occasionally be of bad quality, the member would receive a better deal in the future or a refund. ms to link the consumer to US farmers who are involved in direct marketing and to alternative food retailers and restaurants that sell for small farmers, s an d retailers selling more natural products (free range poultry, grass a map to access the location. It is also possible to buy online a considerable variety of products from the fam ily farms. In this website, not only food is available, there are also fibers (e.g. cashmere, mohair), specialty products (e.g. tobacco, soap), and flowers. The consumer can find the seller the closest to him or can decide to buy online from a family farm. He can also be notified about the events occurring in the region. In 1986 there were two community supported agriculture operations; today there are over 4,000 throughout the USA (USDA, 2012). The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services li sts 21 CSAs in Florida but it is not a
39 comprehensive list. The website Local Harvest list s 106 CSAs in Florida. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services locates two CSAs in the city of Gainesville while Local Harvest reports three. In a ctuality, there are four CSAs in the Gainesville area : Nix Beef Cattle farm, Plowshares CSA (single organic farm), Siembra Farm (single organic farm), Sasabrill Farms (organic farm and nursery). Looking at ome of them propose that members volunteer during the harvest, on market days or any time to help at the farm. The consumer can then be actor in food production and learn about the farming activity onsumer is to develop a face to face relationship with the farmer, to be able to visit the farm once a year and to cook with seasonal products. According to Zepeda and Leviten Reid (2004), the drawbacks of being member of a CSA are the inconvenience of the pick up time or place, and fewer choice s in comparison to the mainstream sector and the quantity. Food Cooperatives In comparison to a CSA, a food cooperative is a shop where people can go and purchase foods with the same convenience as shopping at regul ar food market. A food cooperative is an entity owned and governed by its customers and workers. The membership or share entitles to a voting right. The membership can be for the workers, the producers or even the consumers. By supporting the shop and bein g involved in its management, the member will receive a portion of the dividends. In the city of Gainesville, Florida, there is a cooperative called Citizens Co Op, which defines itself as a community owned market. The Citizens Co policy g
40 extends i ts radius statewide. In addition, they focus on more natural farming practices: no GMOs, no harmful chemicals, no harmful labor practices and no concentrated animal feeding operations. Slow Food movement. The Slow Food movement is recognizable by its logo in the shape of a snail. As i ts name suggests, this grass roots organization position s itself against the fast food concept. It is a non profit organization. The Slow Food movement er the rise of interest in the food they eat, where it comes from, how it tastes and how our food several programs and campaigns in order to promote local consumption, to protect traditional and endangered food, to save regional biodiversity, to promo te gastronomic traditions, and to educate children and students about farming and cooking. Slow Food USA is divided in regional communities called chapters. There are 10 chapters in Florida that are equally distributed geographically There is one chapter in the city of Gainesville. Local Food Markets in Europe There is a vast literature dealing with European local food marketing and sociology. Europeans do not have the same perception of food as do US citizens, whereas from a global point of view, they hav e a similar way of living and a similar level of agriculture efficiency. In the following part we discuss local food markets in Europe.
41 (Facilitating Alternative Agro food Networks) case study about Local Food Systems in Europe which ran from 2008 to 2010. First of all, according to this study, the local food system in Europe is an alternative network that is emerging. This is a similar observation regarding the local food market in t he USA. The main focus of this system (FAAN, 2010) The concept of increased quality in local channels opera ting with local food in Europe are: open air markets, annual events, farm shops, co operatives, box schemes, specialty retailers, catering services, community gardens, CSAs, and public procurement for schools or institutions. The overall picture shows that the possible channels are the same in Europe and in the USA, except perhaps for the box scheme system that is a European particularity. The structure of this organization is that the consumer makes an arrangement with the farmer in order to receive a box of farm products. Often it is composed of vegetables, but it can also contain eggs for example. The box will be delivered at a convenient place or even at the the consumer d oes not purchase boxes for the whole season by paying up front. To better understand the local food systems in Europe, let us review those of several European countries. In Austria the development of local food systems is mainly a rural development tool Indeed, Austria includes large remote Alpine areas with small scale farms that
42 suffered from rural exodus and a weak economic base Thanks to federal and European supp orts, many regional initiatives for rural re development have been established be due to hygiene regulations that are often a burden for small farms. Also, there is a ten dency for supermarkets to offer more and more organic and local product brands. For example, Rewe, Spar and Hofer (Aldi), three large food retailers which represent 86% of market share in the retail sector, sell organic food as well as conventional product s The comparative advantage of short supply chain initiatives is that they have a positive impact on small and medium scale farmers, on sustainable production methods and emphasize that they sell products from the region. Fairness in price negotiations, local empowerment, and engagement of consumers are the drivers of the short food chains. Moreover, the regional initiatives highlight the quality of regional products (locality products). It allows reaching niche markets and at the same time it is a way of remobilizing the local market of consumers who live in the area and who can find pride in the new breath given to their traditions. For instance, the cooperative ALMO markets its beef from the Almenland region as a high quality product tightly anchored in the Alpine tradition. Another example is the direct selling farms of the association Almenland Bauernspezialitten which work closely with the tourism enterprises. Thus those initiatives promote the local culture (FAAN, 2010). In the United Kingdom ma d cow disease, the uncertainty about genetically modified organisms and the foot and mouth disease have made the consumer worried
43 actors. Alongside with the increase local food and box schemes. Because of this competition, small farmers have found a new strategy. An idea is to promote the intergenerational transmission of traditional knowledge. For this purpose schools can visit some farms. However, some farmers prefer avoiding marketing tasks and prefer to focus on production, thus it should not be forgotten that the direct sale s option is not for everybody. In Manchester, a project on sustainability called Manchester F ood Future pushes the local food movement. Local initiatives are more expensive because they are labor intensive. When this is the case, local food initiatives can only expand if the consumer is willing to pay more for his food (FAAN, 2010) France is the leading farming country in Europe with agricultural production at a baseline price of 61.6 billion in 2005 (or 20% for EU 25) (Guyomard, Le Moul, Jez, Forslund, & Fournel, 2008) France is also competitive in the global market. Describing the situation in France is consistent with the idea of giving an overview of the situation in the USA versus in Europe. In France, the Ministry of Agriculture defines short food chains since 2009 as a distribution chain implying 0 or 1 middleman between the producer and the consumer. The spatial distance, w hich is the distance from the fork to the farm, can be set up to 50, 100 or 150 km. There are about 326,000 farms in France, and 80,000 farms were involved in short food supply chain in 2010. Direct sales is engaged in by 67% of horticulture producers, 50% of quality wine producers, less than half of the vegetable producers, and 42% of fruit producers. Meat and crop producers are rarely involved in direct sales. Farms involved in short food chains are generally small in comparison to the regional average, and the workforce is more important. For
44 instance, in Ile de France (the extended region around Paris), diversified production farms average 76 Ha and 4.4 employees, whereas in the traditional sector they are approximately 136 Ha and 1.2 employees. In Fran ce, CSAs are literally called an The consumer is asking for fewer standardized products. Farmers begin cultivating forgotten species or varieties, fruits and vegetables whose visual aspect s and caliber were not appropriate for the mass distribution. As a consequence of new requirements, farmers use fewer inputs (especially pesticides and fertilizers). As a result, many farmers involved in short food chains say that their agricultural practices are close to organic farming (Aubry and Traversac, 2010, INRA). its suburbs (Rennes Mtropole ) located in Brittany (the most western part of France) is a territory strongly linked to its tradition and proud of its history. As a matter of fact, many initiatives to reconnect the city and the agricultural countryside have occurred. The number of CSAs, sharply increasing. The area has even created a formal planning document called the food chains. Rennes Mtropo le has funded the main cooperative shop and has provided for instance places to distribute the boxes and advertisement campaigns. As a result, jobs have been created and a more sustainable agriculture has been promoted. Also regarding convenience, one of evening to reach consumers on their way home from work (FAAN, 2010)
45 In Hungary the food system is mostly centralized, characterized by multinational food processors and retailers. The country was under the communist regime until 1989. The farmers suffer from fragmented land ownership, lack of capital, and lack of marketing skills. The local food ini tiatives are mainly festivals of traditional food, agro developed. Food processing and direct marketing by small farmers is hindered by high quantitative and hygienic restri market has suffered from problems of transparency related to an urban plan. To location, a local group of inhabitants launched several initiatives. F armers started an organized opposition because they were used to the former socialist decision system. In the end, local authorities have undertaken a consultation with the local community. In this situation local local food system in Hungary is only in its first steps. This story shows that an alternative initiative against the corporat e system, such as local food marketing channels, cannot be viable without the support of the local consumers. Usually, change in a micro scale occurs thanks to local cooperation. The European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funds such participatory initiatives under its Second Pillar dedicated to rural developme nt. The European Union is not only a common market but also a mosaic of local identities that European citizens are keen on conserving. To do so, the countryside plays an important role and agriculture is a means to highlight the value of the countryside a s an alternative to the corporate model. Practicing another type of agriculture reconnected to people and
46 linked to the specificity of a location is the solution that has been shared in all the examples introduced previously. This leads to the conclusion t hat in Europe, the notion of local product is mainly promoted through locality products. Fostering local networks aims at reinvigorating agriculture as an employment provider and economic engine. Let us consider some demographic figures in EU and in the USA. In the EU, 4.7% of the workforce is employed in agriculture (farming, fishing and forestry) versus 1.7% in the USA in 2010 (CIA website, 2012). There are 500 millions inhabitants in Europe, and 60% of them live in rural areas in 2011 (EU website). In comparison, there are 310 million inhabitants in the USA, while only 16.4% of them live in rural areas (Economic Research Service, 2012). Assuring the economic viability of rural areas in Europe is assuring the livelihood of almost 300 million citizens. Da cian Ciolos, the Agriculture Commissioner of the EU since 2010, stated in his A Dynamic Agriculture i s Made b y Dynamic Territories threatened in rural areas and that remote areas must be supported. New regulations of liberaliz ation of trade have weakened the smallest farms and one of the innovative tools to maintain the activity there is to develop local food systems. They are strongly promoted has being more sustainable because this new organizational vision encompasses societ y, culture, economy and the environment. The primary goal of consumer research is to produce knowledge about the acquisition, consumption and disposal of products, services and idea by decision making units, which define t he consumer behavior (Steinman, 2009) Con sumer behavior is function of the quantity of information reaching the consumer, the attitudes, perceptions and other physical factors because they shape preferences (Stewart,
47 Blisard, & Jolliffe, 2006) In this part we will review the different themes linked to consumer behavior towards local food. Demographics Thompson et al. (2008), in the San Francisco Foodshed assessment state that consciously local food outlets seem to appeal mainly to consumers with more disposable income. However, in a national study dedicated to fresh produce direct marketing, Keeling Bond et al. (2009 ) show that income variables are not significant factors for determining purchase location preferences. Moreover, age, gender, weekly grocery expenditures (in dollars), market size (in numbers of persons), ethnic i ty (e.g., Caucasian, Asian, etc.), househol d size and the life stage (couple/single and number of children) are also weak predictors of In general, d emographics seem to be weak predictors (Keeling Bond, Thilmany, & Bond, 2009; Martinez et al., 2010; Zepeda & Li, 2006) However, Brown (2003) states that having a farm background (raised or have parents in this area) has a positive impact on the purchasing behavior for locally grown products. Also being pro environmentalist increases the probability of buying organic local products. Grocery S hopping In a study from Missouri (US), Brown (2003) found that when shopping for produce, 82% of the consumers look for quality and freshness in the first place, and only 8% for price. Most of the consumers perceived that local fresh f ruits and vegetables were of higher quality (45%) and sold for a lower price (43%). Yet, two thirds local food although it was 15 years old at this time.
48 According to Thi consumed vegetables three or more times per day and 32.5% of adults consumed fruit Northeast and West of the c ontinental United States O ur study of Florida consumers will allow us to captur e more detailed information about Florida demand for fruits and vegetables, and perhaps answer why rates of consumption are higher than the US average. Perceptions According to Keeling Bond et al. (2009), people who occasionally buy fresh produce in direct marketing channels care the most about supporting the local economy. And for those who shop direct marketing channels more frequently, they also care about the superiority o f the produce. O rganic practices are not a driver for purchasing at direct markets ; this can be attributed to the fact that more and more conventional stores sell organic produc t Self selected users place a greater importance on the freshness, the locall y grown attribute, the unprocessed characteristic of the produce, and to a lesser extent vitamin content. According to a focus group study led by Zepeda and Leviten Reid (2004), organic food shoppers have the perception that buying local benefits the envir onment, the local community, farmers, and is also healthier. In comparison, consumers of organic food s from conventional markets only share one perception with the organic food shoppers, which is the support to the local economy. Food Marketing C hannels A ccording to Zepeda and Leviten Reid (2004), while using labels is a good way of promoting local food among organic food shoppers, conventional shoppers are more
49 very attac hed to the benefit the purchase could create for the community. Also, it has been claimed place for personal interactions. In contrast, c onventional shoppers identified the lack of choic e and the inconvenience in pick up place or time as a barrier to participate in a CSA (Ragland & Tropp, 2009) displays the F or the factors classified as either important, very important, or extremely important, in the Southeast US the results wer e by order of importance freshness, taste, access to local food, support for the local economy, variety, knowing how the food was produced and price ( Figure 2 3 ) In Europe In focus groups organized in an area around Lond on, England, Chambers et al. (2007) found that the participants defined local food as food produced and sold within a 20 50 mile radius. The frequency of purchasing was less than 1 product per month. Local food was perceived as more expensive than other fo ods. Socio economic backgrounds were not influential on price attribute. The participants found it inconvenient to buy local food ; however, the eldest participants emphasized the fact that in the past it wa s more convenient and even a pleasure to shop for local food. According to the respondents, local food is of higher quality because it is fresher and it is tastier because it is more seasonal. Also local food has in common with organic food the quality, sa fety and the price. However, the sample found that some barriers to the consumption are the lack of choice and the lack of availability when it is not the season. The individuals agreed that buying local
50 supports the farmer, but this was not always seen as doing a good deed because some of the respondents said that farmers are already rich. According to a study in United Kingdom led by Weatherell et al. (2003) on urban and rural groups, the most important criteria when buying food are: first, taste, freshne ss and appearance, then price and convenience, and then packaging and brand. Nutritional content was also important for the urban group. For the rural groups, the origin of food freshness, animal welfare and environmental protection were more important tha n for the urban groups. Local food is perceived as of better quality but marketing could help support local businesses recovering after the foot and mouth disease outbreak, b ut urban groups disagreed with such initiatives. Supermarkets appeared to be the most appropriate way of selling local foods. According to a study in Finland by Paloviita (2010), in rural areas, consumer perception of local food is that it has a superior t aste, a lower price and local food is fresher. For the urban population, local food is related to the values of animal welfare and respect of the nature. Also in general consumers express ed the non environmental sustainability of international and nation al long distance transportation of food, but at the same time they agree about the better efficiency of the mainstream sector. Summary definition in the literature. It is importa nt to know why one definition would be preferable to another, what are the different contexts where we may use it and what are the stakeholders involved in its use.
51 Then, the scope and situation of local food markets have been described. In other words, ma rketing channels of local food products, their disadvantages and advantages have been analyzed. Focusing on the State of Florida is interesting since agriculture is the second economic sector and that a large variety of agricultural products are generated by this State.
52 Table 2 1. Correlation between population level health outcomes and measures of local food marketing and production. Pearson correlation coefficient Obesity, % of adults Cardiovascular disease mortal i ty rate US Country Totals: Direct Sale s* 0.21 0.15 Number of CSA 0.19 0.16 Markets 0.27 0.14 Fruit and vegetables sales over total farm sales* 0.18 0.09 Source: Thilmany McFadden, D., & Low, S. A. (2012). Will local foods influence American diets? Choices, 27(1). Available at http://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices magazine/theme article s/potential impacts of 2010 dietary guidelines for americans /will local foods influence american diets Last accessed: August 2012. Caption: data from Census of Agriculture (2007) ERS Food Environment Atlas (2010) C ardiovascular mortality calculated using CDC Mortality Tape (98 00 and 03 05) ( Note : Correlations for 2990 U.S. counties for which data w ere available, all correlations are statistically significant (p<0.001) )
53 Figure 2 1. Map displaying the direct sal es to consumers by county in the USA in 2007. http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September10/Findings/Charts/findings 4_fig01.gif Last accessed June, 2012).
54 Figure 2 2. Map displaying the percent of farms with sales less than $250,000 in the USA in 2007. (Source: 2007 census of Agricul ture: Small Farms, USDA. Available at: http://www. agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Facts_Sh eets/Farm_Numbers/sma ll_farms.pdf Last accessed June, 2012).
55 Figure 2 markets survey, USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service. 2009 )
56 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS Introduct ory Remarks In order to better understand and predict the impact of different innovations in local and what values they associate to this concept. This allows consumer segmentation by understanding the attitudes and motivations of specific consumer groups rather than (Nie & Zep eda, 2011) To understand complex behaviors such as food choice, we encourage d participants to explain themselves through a qualitative approach. We use d two qu alitative methods in this research: the word association technique and the laddering intervie ws technique. Word Association The technique of word association is a projective technique. Consumer researchers have suggested that non conscious processes may operate on consumer behavior; the projective technique has been used to help reveal consumer at titudes and feelings that would not be necessarily discovered by more straightforward questioning (Steinman, 2009) Projective techniques are based on the use of vague, ambiguous, unstructured stimulus objects or situations in which the subject projects its personality, attitude, opinions and self concept to give the situation some structure (Donorgue, 2000 cited in Guerrero et al., 2010) In the word association technique, the respondent is given a word of interest (e g. pond to the first thing that comes to mind. The association can be a picture, a thought or a word. The word of interest can generate many
57 and beliefs. The frequency with which any word is given is important for the researcher. word association technique was primarily used in psychology and sociology, but it is also suitable for food science in order to elicit the affective element behind the concept involved. It does not require necessarily a big sample. Analyzing a small number of answers is possible as did Roininen et food in Finland with samples of only 25 and 30 persons. According to Guerrero et al., this technique is useful and simple for obtaining information, but a significant complexity comes from the interpretation of the results. It requires a lot of time becau se the answers present a high degree of subjectivity and the researcher has to perform a careful evaluation of the answers. However, according to Roininen et al., word association is less laborious than many other qualitative techniques such as personal in terviews. In this study, the word association technique w as used to clarify the definition of local food. The list of words will be divided in different groups of relevant themes. To do so, the researcher create d categories of words expressing the same ide a, trying to stay homogeneity, completeness, exclusiveness, objectivity and relevance (Berson, 1952 cited in Andreani & Conchon, 2005) Homogeneity means a group of words that have a similar meaning and one dimension of understanding. Completeness expresses that no ught must be completely coded.
58 Exclusiveness restrains each word to be classified in only one category so that the coding is clear and all themes are mutually exclusive. Objectivity ensure that the classification is not researcher dependent and there is n o personal feeling involved in the coding. Objectivity guarantees the replicability of the research. Relevance means that the coding makes sense and answers to the research goals. Th e se five definitions are provided by Andreani et al. for the data coding i n qualitative analysis. Means End Chain Theory Another method used in this thesis is the Laddering interview. It is based on the Means End Chains theory, which assumes that there is a relationship between specific product attributes, which offer specific b enefits that are seen as means to pursue important values such as health or peace of mind (i.e. ends). As the explanation of this theory is very abstract, we will first of all consider defining the marketing terms that will be used. Indeed each term as a p recise meaning that help s shed light on the relevance of the use of this methodology. We base ourselves on short definitions as proposed by Lendrevie et al. in their book Mercator (a French best seller amongst the marketing books ) First of all, this stud complex series of subject task requiring gathering affective answers from the consumer. Besides, one of the According to Lendrevie et al. to act in order to remove or alleviate this tension; needs and desires are an important
59 (Lendrevie, Lvy, & Lindon, 2009) Those definitions bring out once again a psychological facet of the marketing research. Furthermore, in the literature dealing with consumer behavior, it is a commonplace s are predispositions of the individual to evaluate in some way messages, objects or people and to respond to them. These are all more or less coherent beliefs, feelings, predispositions that individuals have ents of attitudes are: Knowledge and beliefs called 'cognitive elements' Feelings called 'emotional elements' To make it clearer, conation is an instinct, a drive, a wish or a craving that leads to act purpose fully ( Merriam Webster Dictionary 2008). The key components of the making. According to Reynolds and Olson (2001), the first assumption of the Means end chain theory is that consumers decide which products a nd services to buy based on the anticipated consequences associated with each possible choice. As a result, consequences (and not attributes) cteristics. It can be for instance its price or its composition. Marketing research, in order to understand the consumer, is usually targeted at understanding the most significant and powerful According to Reynolds and Olson (2001), the product attribute is one of the three levels of the product related knowledge, along with the outcomes of using the product (consequences) and the personal values that may be satisfied b y the use. The bottom
60 line in Means end chain theory is that the consumer sees the product attributes as a means to an end ( Figure 3 1 ) There is a network of consequences, which represent benefits or disadvantages. The aim of this research then, was values related the product. Values are subjective and vary according to the individual. Also, it is important to keep in mind that values are strongly correlated to the culture. For instance, values can b e moral, ethic al or ideological. Values reflect what the individual think s to be ideal s and this thought stays in his mind in a long run. This is the reason why trying to find which values are attributed to local food can lead to relevant marketing strateg ies. According to Grunert and Grunert (1995), a hierarchical relation c an be used to describe how consumers apply and connect important values and motives to specific product attributes. Identifying this model has a predictive validity for new product dev elopment or for communication strategies. They also explain that the cognitive categories have different levels of abstraction. For instance a low abstraction category is the concrete product attributes such as taste or price. A high er abstraction concept is of a product which is intimately linked to each individual. The cognitive categories of different levels of abstraction are linked to each other in ways comparable to chains and networks. Laddering Interviews The laddering technique is a w ay of gathering the information defining the cognitive categories. Laddering is a set of questions that aims to know the causes of each statement a respondent gives. For instance, in the research lead by Ares et al. of different yogurts, the respondents wer e asked to answer the statements displayed in Figure 3 2
61 Basically, open ended questions are used in order to let the individual imagination express itself. The outcomes are then cla ssified in different categories in order to generate clusters of ideas. The ideas are then classified in term of product attributes, in term of consequences of those attributes and in term of values that are important for the consumer. The succession of an swers lead s Hierarchical Value Map. A cognitive structure is the organization of experience and other types of information in human memory. A Hierarchical Value Map, derived from laddering data, is an aggre gate map of cognitive structures (Grunert and Grunert, 1995). For this study, t he first step was the data collection during the interviews. The second step was coding of those answers by performing a content analysis, grouping the answers that have the sam e meaning, coding attributes, consequences and values. consequence and value extracted from Ares et al. (2008) is: The third step was building an implication matrix that displays the number of times each elements (idea) leads to each other element. It is a square matrix of the size of the number of elements. The fourth ste p was to create the hierarchical value map that is a visual illustration of the implication matrix. The hierarchical value map estimates the cognitive structure of a group of respondents. It is actually for a group of respondents since building the implic ation matrix has aggregated the data from all the interviews
62 (Ares et al., 2008; Grunert & Grunert, 1995; Pieters, Baumgartner, & Allen, 1995) The cut off point used to build the hierarchical value map is the level from which a link will appear on the map. It is chosen as 10% of the size of each cluster, as suggested in a study by Ares et al. (2008). The hierarchical value map has a predictive value. However, the predictive value can be affected by several problems which arise during the research process. They are described by Gru nert and Grunert (1995) as being in one (or more) of three categories. First, the target situation (buying/consuming local food) is different from the data structures a re changed due to new information from the environment, and by which When an unfamiliar stimulus occurs, the person is trying to find new meanings and recombines the info rmation. And this conscious cognitive process leads to bias during a laddering interview. What is looked for is the unconscious (automatic) cognitive process. It gives access to the real cognitive structure of the respondent. To overcome the problem of cre ation of new meanings, it is important to ask questions that activates the Second, the researc predictive value of the method. To overcome this problem, we use d interview methods in which the respondent built his own argumentation by relating his own impressions in the order he f ound most natur al. Moreover, to overcome the bias due to the researcher, during the data reduction, the group of answers should be based on cognitive
63 categories widely shared amongst stakeholders (consumers, researchers, users of the results). The algorithm used for data reduction should be based on the literature in order to avoid arbitrary cut off levels, and preferences for direct rather than indirect links in the network of ideas. Questionnaire D esign In this part, we review the different topics evoked in the question naire and the way the questions are organized and were administered in order to meet the goals of the study. The first thing that needs to be said is that the questionnaire is anonymous. Besides, it is important to underline the fact that the major focus o f this research is the laddering interview in order to build a hierarchical value map. However, additional First, the resp ondent w as asked about food in general, then about his knowledge incremental method that allows gathering information more and more specific at each step. At this poi nt, the questionnaire is precisely dedicated to local food. The interviewee was then asked about his consumption frequency in order to determine his profile, asked to name any label of local food, and then asked mean t to him. It w as an open ended question first in order to capture all the dimensions that the respondents spontaneously had in mind; then a multiple choice question proposing different geographical distances was posed Next he explain ed his motives for purchasing local f ood. The next question w as a word association test where he ha d
64 Once the respondent had given his own conceptions without having any clue from the interviewer, the questionnaire w as more direct and focused on the local food institutions as determined in the literature. The individual w as asked to indicate his shopping habits regarding the marketing channels cited in the literature on a frequ ency scale. The interviewee w as then shown the asked to tell whether or not he knows it. This question is actually a complement of a previous question that was asking if the respondent knew any label for local food in general Once those tasks accomplished, the respondent participated in the laddering interview. With this method, only strong associations to local food will be activated. This is the reason why it is useful for analyzing purchasing behavior. Afterwards, the res pondent was asked to name barriers for buying local food. Then, a question that intervenes as a conclusion after a deep reflection is to give the characteristics that differentiate local food from other foods. The following s ocio demographic information w a s then gathered: Sex Age Race and ethnicity Presence or not of an agricultural background Perception of their local food expenditure For the latter, as asking for the income and the willingness to pay is a touchy topic, interviewee s were asked to answer a n spend more, less or about the same as other students on your weekly expenses for I n case he answered that he buys more or less than the average, he had have the opportunity to explain the rea sons why.
65 The Institutional Review Board of the University of Florida approved the q uestionnaire on April 4th 2012. It certified that the survey complie d with federal, state and university regulations concerning activities and protections of human subjects in research. Data Collection Sample Processing qualitative information is a difficult task that requires patience and precaution. The answers are analyzed and compared to each other to understand their deep meaning. In this research small size samples wer e used; and this is consistent with the literature. For instance, Ares et al. used a 50 individual sample in order to conduct their research on the perception of conventional and functional yogurts using word association and laddering. Two samples were ch osen in order to compare them. General users of local food compose d the first sample and self selected users the second. College students were the targets for the general users sample, and they were interviewed in three different locations: at the entran ce of a recreation center, at a library and at a recreatio nal lake. Self selected users were interviewed at the local downtown were not necessarily all students but they all purchase local food. In both groups the age was between 18 a nd 25 years old. We expect ed that th e se two populations w ould have a different local usage rate of local food, different personality traits or lifestyle. Splitting into general and self selected users aim ed to reveal two different maps of cognitive structu res. Indeed, it seem ed plausible that self selected and general users would have different motives to buy local food, and their comparison w ould be informative.
66 Context of Interview The research was carried out in Gainesville, Florida, a college city. It is home to the University of Florida and to Santa Fe College. The University of Florida is the 6th largest university campus by enrollment in the USA. The environment for conducting laddering interviews must be calm because the respondents have to talk abo ut their personal views as freely as possible. Before the interview s they were informed that there are no right or wrong answers and that they should answer as much as they can. Pre testing interviews were performed before the actual data collection. This was done in order to train the interviewer in the laddering process. The preliminary laddering interviews showed that the respondents ha d the feeling that they repeat ed the same things but this is actually due to the fact that the laddering questions are redundant. The respondents should not feel that their answers are not precise enough, or useless because already stated. Let us now consider the interviewer attitude during the laddering. When there are noticeable breaks or unfinished sentences, it is the sign that the respondent is creating new meanings instead of issuing his own unconscious processes. The interviewer should then stop this line of questioning and foster the natural flow of speaking. When story tell ing -jumping back and forth between different levels -the interviewer needs to intervene slightly (without influencing the answers) to help the interviewee continue his explanations (Grunert & Grunert, 1995)
67 Attributes Consequences Values Figure 3 uct related knowledge in Means E nd Chain theory. Source: Reynolds and Olson. 2001 If you were to choose to buy one of these yogurts, which one would you buy? W hy? And why is that important to you? And why is the latter important to you? Figure 3 2. Ex ample of a set of questions in l addering interviews. Source : Ares, Gimnez, & Gmbaro, 2008
68 CHAPTER 4 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT FOOD Background Information The interviews were conducted in April 2012 in the city of Gainesville, Florida. Two different groups were set up. A general users group was composed of undergraduate students interviewed on campus in front of a recreation center, at one of the university libraries, and at a university r ecreation area (Lake Wauburg). A second group of self selected users w as Table 4 1 summarizes the data collection efforts. D emographics Ag e and Gender : The mean age of the survey participants was 19.8 years among the self I gory were 41% male and 59% female whereas the ones categorized as self selected users were 36% male and 64% female. Due to the nature of the study it was not possible to get a 1:1 gender ratio. Indeed, many of the males initially contacted during the inter view process were not able to answer the questionnaire. This is consistent with the fact that females are usually more involved in the food purchasing procedure than males. According to the information and measurement company Nielsen, women have a share of retail channel shopping trip 62% while men have a share of 38% in 2010 (Nielsen http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/in u s men are shopping more than ever while women are watching more tv/ ). This difference in involveme nt explains why they could better answer the questionnaire. For this reason,
69 even with the increased number of respondents at attract a higher number of males, female respondents outnumbered males Ethnicity: For purpose s of simplicity, when people selected two or more races in data available for the population of Gainesville given by the US Census Bureau ( Table 4 2 ) In both categorizations, the majority of the participants identified themselves as persons were classified as general users. From the data described in Table 4 2 there is a higher percentage of Asian, Black or African American, and persons reporting either 2 or more races or as some other race among the self selected users than among the general users. T he category selected user sample whereas this category was absent from the general user group. The data from the Gainesville 2010 census are given for informational purposes; this research is not intended to be statisti cally representative of the Gainesville population. On the question whether or not the participants have an agricultural background, only 16% of the general users responded positively, compared to 31% of the self selected users. A test of independence between the type of population and the answer to this question (i.e., the Chi square Test) has shown that the repartition of the answers between both of the groups are similar (p value=0.13 >5%, indicating there is independence). These findings raise the possibility that people with some sort of agricultural field of education or families with strong agricultural ties
70 are more prone to use local food compared to the people who do not have such connections More research would be needed to confirm this insight however Most important criteria for buying food. The respondents were asked in an open he three most important criteria, and once the interviews were completed, all answers were coded with distinct labels or attributes, which are representative of the whole group of respondents (i.e., responses from both self selected and general users). Fo r the self selected users, 3 individuals could only give 2 criteria. From a total of 123 words, an analysis of the responses given by members of the self selected group identifies the themes displayed in Table 4 3 The most r elevant themes, combining all three ranks of importance, are from the most frequent to the least frequent: price, health and nutritional value, taste, quality, freshness, appearance, and origin. These findings are summarized in Figure 4 1 in listed. Of the 42 respondents in the self as the most important criteria when buying food, while only 5 additional respondents three criteria that they consider when purchasin g food. As noted in Table 4 3 these respondents listed other criteria as being the most important, as follows: Health and Nutritional value (it composes 26% of the 1st rank) Taste (12% of the 1st rank)
71 Price (12% of the 1s t rank) Quality (12% of the 1st rank) Freshness (10% of the 1st rank) on 63% three criteria half ranked it first. This outcome was also true for respondents listing freshness, listing ethics or listing convenience in their top three (i.e., if the theme was listed in the top three, half of the respondents listed it first). We f ound as well that 43% of those who talk ed about origin list ed origin first, while 38% of those who talk ed about appearance list ed it first. In 2nd position, 45% of the self selected users named price as the second most important criteria; 12% identified health and nutritio nal value; 10% named taste; 10% indicated freshness and 7% report ed that they look ed for healthy food. Also, 54% of the self selected users who talk ed about the price as an important criterion sa id it was in their 2nd rank of importance. In the 3rd rank, price was the most common response (28%) followed by taste (21%), appearance (10%), and health and nutritional value (10%). Freshness never appear ed in the 3rd rank even though others included it in the 1st and 2nd rankings. For the general users, only 2 individuals could not give an answer for the 3rd rank. Of a tot al of 109 words, the themes are displayed in the Table 4 4 From the most frequent to the least frequent, combining all three ranks of importance, the most releva nt themes are: price, health and nutritional value, taste, quality, aspect and convenience, as summarized in Figure 4 2
72 Overall insights about the general user respondents include the following implications drawn from the results presented in Table 4 4 Forty one percent of the general users who talk ed about the criterion health and nutritional value rank ed this criterion as of 1st importance and 37% of them rank ed this criterion as of 2nd im portance. Only 23% of the general users who talk ed about the price as an important criterion for buying food placed this criterion in the 1st rank. Indeed price appears in the 2nd and 3rd rank (respectively 45% and 32% of the general users who elicit ed th is criterion). As for the criterion taste, it was mainly cited as a criterion of 2nd importance since 50% of the general users who identified it placed it in the 2nd rank. alked explicitly about the importance of local origin, which he ranked 1st in importance. As noted in Table 4 4 in the 1st ranking, the general users mainly talk ed about: Health and nutritional value (30% of the 1st rank) Price (it composes 19% of the 1st rank) Taste (14% of the 1st rank) Those three themes are in common with the main themes that appear ed in first rankings reported by the self selected users. However, we d id not find for general users a ny substantial impor tance for quality or for freshness (less than 10% each in first rank for the general users). As summarized in Table 4 5 a test of independence (Chi squared test) was used to assess whether the quality criterion ha d been answ ered differently by the two populations ( N ote : responses were merged for the three ranks of importance in which the respondents could classify their attributes). The test results suggest that the null hypothesis should not be rejected (p value=0.78>5%), as the answer to this question was not different between the two population s Hence, based on this data,
73 whether or not a respondent cite d the quality attribute was independent of his being a self selected user or a general user. Regarding freshness, no test of independence was conducted since one of the categories (general users that cite freshness in 1 st 2 nd or 3 rd position) was indicated by fewer than 5 individuals ( Table 4 6 ) The three following tables ( Table 4 7 Table 4 8 and Table 4 9 ) display the repartition of population), and by whether or not the attribute has been cited during the interviews. The tests of independence (Chi square tests) show that: Regarding the price attribute, both of the populations have a similar repartition towards the fact of citing it or not citing it as one of the thre e important criteria when buying food (p value=0.96>5%). Regarding the health and nutritional value attribute, the self selected users relate this criterion differently than the general users (p value=0.02<5%); they actually cite less often this criterion as one of the three most important when buying food. Regarding the taste attribute, both of the groups have the same repartition for citing or not citing this attribute as one of the three most important criteria when shopping for food (p value=0.23>5%). When we merge all the ranks of importance, the frequency of the relevant criteria (frequency>=5%) shows that for both the self selected users and the general users, the main preoccupation when shopping for food is price, as noted in Figure 4 1 and Figure 4 2 Indeed, this can be explained, in part, by the fact that students constitute the entire e tend to have small budget s The second most important criterion was the health and nutritional value (16% for the self selected users and 25% for the general users). The third criterion was taste (14% for the self selected users and 18% for the general users). It is undeniably true that people want to enjoy the
74 way, the quality account ed for 7% in both groups. A ppearance is also a common criterion and it represent ed 6% of the answers for the general us ers and 7% for the self selected users. What is to be noticed is that the general users cite d product whereas the self selected users talk ed the price, health and nutritional value, t he taste, the appearance and quality are the common important characteristics for both groups. However, there are some differences. First, the general users mention ed more often the health and nutritional value (25%) in comparison to self selected users ( 16%). And actually, if we look at which words compose the nutritional aspect of this criterion, the words that were used by the general users were mostly essential nutrients (protein, n comparison, the self selected users were less specific and refer red itself. This criterion, which is the second answer for both groups, was more frequent for general users. So it seems that there is a strong need for healt hy and nutritional products for this group. That the general users mention ed health and nutritional value much more often than the self selected users probably lies in the sample differences. The general users were sampled from students and many of them we re strongly oriented towards sport s, and therefore keen to supplement their diets with proteins, minerals and multi vitamins. Second, the general users, when compared to the self selected users, were less likely to take into account the origin of their fo od when shopping for food (3% versus 6%). Also, while the freshness accounts for 7% for the self selected users, it accounts
75 only for 1% for the general users. And as a sort of exchange, while convenience accounts for 5% for the general users, it accounts for only 2% for the self selected users. Thus, the origin, freshness and the convenience of the food are the relevant characteristics that differ from both groups. What is to be added is that self selected users pa id attention to a number of quality attrib utes like organic (3%), unprocessed foods (2%), ethically produced (2%), or vegetarian food (3%); these are specific themes often associated with more organic, more ethical and less processed food. This Weekly expenses for local food When they were asked to compare their weekly expenses for local food compared to other students, a slight majority of 38% of the general users replied that they spent the same amount of money followed by 32% that spend less and 30% that spend more money on local food purchases. The three main reasons to spend less are: they have already purchased up front a meal plan with the university or a sorority house, they report that they are not aware of or that they lack exposure to local food marketing channels, local food is more expensive, therefore they do not buy it With the self selected users, 40% replied that they spent more money for local food compared to general shoppers, 36% about the same and 24% less. We can conclude from the above that self selected users were more willing to spend a higher amount of money towards local food purchases. The main reasons to spend less a re: they have a limited budget and/or manage it better (eg. find better deals)
76 From both of the groups, the reasons why they spend more on local food are: t and as a result go there (more often) the quality is better and it is worth to spend more on it they eat more fresh produce than others local food is healthier than cheap fast food Origin indications and labels The majority of the individuals who were c lassified as general users (54%) replied that they never pay attention to the country of origin indications or they only pay attention very few times ( Figure 4 4 ) On the other hand, 43% of the self selected users said they never pay attention or they pay attention very few times ( Figure 4 3 ) Thus it represents a difference of 11% between the two user groups. In addition only 3% of the general users pay attention to the labels very often wh ereas self selected users check the indications at this frequency 3 times more than general users. Thirteen percent of the general users replied that they look at the labels often and 30% stated sometimes. For the self selected users those categories are r espectively estimated at 17% for often, and 31% for sometimes ; these are about the same percentages as those in the general user category. Given the results of this question, we can say that the majority of both user groups use the country of origin indica tions. An absolute majority is obtained by merging two categories that are contiguous in terms of intensity. We can say that the majority (54%) of the general users In comparison, the majority of the self selected users (57%) pay attention to the labels at least a very few times or sometimes.
77 Finally, a test of independence (i.e., the Chi square test) between the type of population and the frequency of each answer wa s performed and the results show that with an error level of 5%, the repartition of the frequencies is similar (p value=0.16>5%) between both of the groups. In order to test another origin indication but from a smaller geographical scale, respondents were asked whether they knew any label for local food. The answers were 50% yes and 50% no for the self selected users and 54% no for the general users. A Chi square test shows that the results obtained in each population are similar (p value=0.40>5%). Further to test their knowledge. The Fresh from Florida label awareness was low both for general (41%) and for self selected (36%) users ( Figure 4 5 ) Taki ng in account that the survey was conducted in Florida, the a priori assumption was that there would be a better rate of knowledge of this logo proved to be wrong Analyzing the labels for local food that the interviewees cited, the general users cited th e following: citrus agricultural cooperative) a local shop that serves home made ice cream in Gainesville (Sweet Dreams ice creams) an association serving vegetarian lunch on cam pus (Krishna), a local brewery of Gainesville (Swamp Head brewery)
78 farms). What is interesting is that 5% of the general users cited the name of an importing company as a l abel for local food (Vigo). It sells basmati rice from Thailand and couscous from Morocco. It means that the perception of local food here is mixed with the perception of locality products from overseas. Thus, if corrections are made for this misperception the adjusted figures indicate that only 42% of the general users were able to cite a label for local food. The self selected users cite d mainly the name of farms involved in local food marketing, as well as the name of cooks making tempeh (a vegetarian d ish) in Publix supermarkets, which is a selection of organic and less processed products sold with this store owned brand. They also cite d Sweetwater Organic Coffee Roa sters, which is located in Gainesville and imports fair trade and organic coffee that is subsequently roasted in Gainesville. They cite d juice and the locally ted to purchasing local produce. Local food purchasing. purchase local food, all the self selected users and the majority of the general users (59%) replied positively. In the follow up question of w hether people that said that they positively.
79 the answers of the respondents seem to have been in fluenced by their implicit definition of what local food is. The categories that are most represented (except for the noteworthy 41% of general users who do not buy at all) are the category 10 19% for the general users (1/3rd of the total general users wh o actually buy) and the category 1 9% for the self selected users (1/3rd also). These results are summarized in Figure 4 6 and Figure 4 7 However, for the gen eral users who actually buy, an absolute majority (51%) spends less than 20% on local food (which also means around 92% of the total general users of the sample); while the majority of self selected users (53%) spend at least 20%. An interesting result for the self selected users is that the four categories going from the 10 19% to the 40 49% categories are nearly equally distributed. When looking at all possible categories of local food quantity, general users spend always less than 40% of their weekly sho pping on local food. In comparison, 1/5th of the self selected users spend more than 40% of their food purchasing on local food. Indeed, selected users and on top of that 1/20th of the self selected users spend more than 50%. It should be noted that in Figure 4 7 there are no categories 40 49% and >50% displayed in this chart since no general users indicated those proportions of local food in their weekly grocery shopping Table 4 10 displays the number of persons that declared having in their weekly shopping an amount of local food for either more or less than 10% of the total weekly shopping, by the type of population (i.e., general or self selected users). A test of independence (Chi squared test) show ed that the proportion of weekly shopping that
80 has been produced locally depends on the type of population interviewed (p value=0.011<5%). General users spend less than 10% and self selected u sers spend more than 10% on local food products each week. Results from the question regarding the geographical distance where something had to be produced in order for it to be considered local are summarized in Figure 4 8 and Figure 4 9 The majority of the self selected users (1/3rd) said it should be produced in the State of Florida while the general users stated a smaller area, for example Alachua County ( where the University of Florida is located) and bordering counties. For the second answer both groups indicated the scale just below the majority one. The second answer was that the product has to be produced within 100 miles of Gainesville for the self s elected users (26%) and produced in Alachua County for the general users (27%). Table 4 11 displays the repartition of the respondents by population and by definition of the geographical boundaries. The highest boundaries ( Produced in the USA, in the southeast USA or in Florida) have been merged. A test of independence (Chi square test) suggest ed that when merging the highest boundaries, self selected and general users have the same repartition within the different classes o f definition (p value=0.18). Local food venues. When asked how often they buy food through certain alternative sources, survey participants gave a range of responses, summarized in Table 4 12 Table 4 13 Figure 4 10 and Figure 4 11
81 The majority of the general users never buy foo d through the market alternatives that market is also the only marketing channel where some general users affirmed going often (5% of them). Also, all the general users replied that they do not go to any of the suggested venues at a very often frequency. Basically, 35% of the m sometimes go to 30% to a farm stand and 19% to a roadside stand Those three venues are the most popular among the general u sers. The less preferred marketing channels are: first the Slow Food network because 92% of the general users say they never go, and second never buy through this marketing channel. Amongst the s elf marketing channel for local food, as noted in Figure 4 10 However, this result may be biased due to the sampling method for self selected users. Actually, it appears that 14% of self at CSA and 2% at farm stands. Also, 24% of the self selected users sa id that they shop hasing local food through a CSA and 12 times the frequency of shopping via the Slow food network, farm As it is the case for the general users, the less popular venues for the self selected users are th and 79% of the self selected users sa id they never shop at one or both. However, the structure of the self selected users shopping frequency is not the same. Indeed, while the genera
82 roadside stands the self selected users shop sometimes at all venues except for local A clearer picture of buying local is possible by merging the highest freque ncies, i.e., Figure 4 12 and Figure 4 13 The main channels for the general users who shop at roadside stands (19%). The main channels for the self market (76%), which is the most popular one by far, the farm stand (40%), the CSA network (36%), the roadside stand (31%), and the cooperative (24%). The self selected users indeed shop more at alternative food marketing channels. The general users are not familiar with any of them except for f the least frequented venues for both of the groups (non existe nt for general users); and the Slow Food network, the CSA network, and the cooperative are negligible for general users. What cannot be determined from the survey results is whether these market alternatives are unknown by the population or rather just not preferred for food purchasing. The most notabl e difference between the Figure 4 12 and Figure 4 13 is the fact that there a re more than 7 times more self This can be partly explained by the fact that this is a rather new food marketing channel. In 1986 there were two community supported agricult ure operations in the US, but 25 years later, at the time of the survey, there are over 4,000 throughout the USA (USDA, 2012). And it can be also partly
83 explained by the fact that this system is pretty revolutionary for food consumption since it requires a financial commitment of the consumers, who pay a share of the future production up front. Again, further research is required for the CSA case in order to assess whether this small attendance frequency is due to a lack of knowledge or to a stronger prefer ence for the convenience of the mainstream distribution sector.
84 Table 4 1. Summary of conducted i nterviews Interview Location Date Number of respondents UF Library West From 04 18 2012 until 04 26 2012 11 UF Southwest Recreation Center From 04 04 12 u ntil 04 26 12 16 UF Lake Wauburg Recreational Facility 04 15 2012 10 Gainesville Union Street 04 18 2012 until 05 02 2012 42 Table 4 2. Race and ethnicity repartition in Gainesville, within the general us ers and within the self selected users Race and Ethnicity US Census data for Gainesville General users Self selected users Black or African American persons 23.0% 3% 10% American Indian and Alaska Native persons 0.3% 0% 2% Asian persons 6.9% 2% 7% Nati ve Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 0.1% 0% 2% Persons reporting 2 or more races or some other race 2.9% 3% 17% White persons Hispanic or Latino 7.1% 27% 21% White persons not Hispanic or not Latino 57.8% 65% 41% Source: US Census Bureau for Gainesv ille figures
85 Table 4 3. Most important criteria when buying food by rank of importance for the self selected users Criteria Number of occurrences Composition of the 1st rank Composition of the 2nd rank Composition of the 3rd rank Price 35 28% 5 1 9 11 Health and nutritional value 20 16% 11 5 4 Taste 17 14% 5 4 8 Appearance 8 7% 3 1 4 Quality 8 7% 5 1 2 Freshness 8 7% 4 4 0 Origin 7 6% 3 2 2 Vegetarian 4 3% 1 2 1 Organic 4 3% 1 1 2 Craving 3 2% 1 1 1 Ethics 2 2% 1 1 0 Processing 2 2% 0 0 2 Convenience 2 2% 1 0 1 Due date 1 1% 1 0 0 Quantity 1 1% 0 0 1 Brand 1 1% 0 1 0 TOTAL 123 100% 42 42 39
86 Table 4 4. Most important criteria when buying food by rank of importance for the general users. Criteria Number of occurrences Composition of the 1st rank Composition of the 2nd rank Composition of the 3rd rank Price 31 28% 7 14 10 Health and nutritional value 27 25% 11 10 6 Taste 20 18% 5 10 5 Quality 8 7% 3 1 4 Aspect 6 6% 3 1 2 Convenience 5 5% 3 0 2 Craving 3 3% 2 0 1 Origi n 3 3% 1 0 2 Brand 2 2% 0 1 1 Due date 1 1% 0 0 1 Quantity 1 1% 1 0 0 Freshness 1 1% 1 0 0 Information 1 1% 0 0 1 TOTAL 109 100% 37 37 35 Table 4 5. Table of contingency for the type of population versus the quality criterion. Quality listed in th e 1 st 2 nd or 3 rd ranking of most important buying criteria Did not put quality in the top three rankings Self selected population 8 34 General population 8 29 Table 4 6. Table of contingency for the type of population versus the freshness criterion. Freshness listed in the 1 st 2 nd or 3 rd rankings of most important buying criteria Did not put freshness in the top three rankings Self selected population 8 34 General population 1 36
87 Table 4 7. Table of contingency for the type of population versus the price criterion. Price listed in the 1 st 2 nd or 3 rd rankings of most important buying criteria Did not put price in the top three rankings Self selected population 31 6 General population 35 7 Table 4 8. Table of contingency for the type of popul ation versus the health and nutritional value criterion. Health & nutritional value in the 1 st 2 nd or 3 rd rankings of most important buying criteria Did not put health & nutritional value in the top three rankings Self selected population 20 22 General population 27 10 Table 4 9. Table of contingency for the type of population versus the taste criterion. Taste in the 1 st 2 nd or 3 rd rankings of most important buying criteria Did not put taste in the top three rankings Self selected population 17 25 General population 20 17 Table 4 10. Table of contingency of the proportion of the weekly shopping that has been produced locally versus the type of population. Self selected users General users 0 9% 13 22 10 100% 29 15 Table 4 11. Table of conting ency of the answered geographical boundaries for local food and the types of population. Self selected users General users Produced in the USA, in the southeast of the USA or in Florida 17 9 Produced within 100 miles of Gainesville 11 7 Produced in Ala chua or bordering counties 9 11 Produced in the Alachua County 5 10
88 Table 4 12. Frequency of shopping at different local food venues for the self selected users (numbers rounded) Never A very few times Sometimes Often Very often Cooperative 55% 21% 24 % 0% 0% Slow Food network 79% 10% 10% 2% 0% CSA 57% 7% 26% 5% 5% 0% 24% 38% 24% 14% Farm stand 40% 19% 36% 2% 2% Roadside stand 43% 26% 29% 2% 0% 88% 5% 5% 2% 0% Table 4 13. Frequency of shopping at different local food venues for the general users (numbers rounded) Never A very few times Sometimes Often Very often Cooperative 84% 11% 5% 0% 0% Slow Food network 92% 3% 5% 0% 0% CSA 86% 8% 5% 0% 0% 30% 30% 35% 5% 0% Farm stand 51% 19% 30% 0% 0% Roadside stand 51% 30% 19% 0% 0% 97% 3% 0% 0% 0% Figure 4 1. Pie chart of the most relevant themes that self selected users find important when buying food.
89 Figure 4 2. Pie chart of the most relevant themes that g eneral users find important when buying food. answered questions Figure 4 3. Pie chart representing the use of the country of origin indications by the self selected users.
90 Figure 4 4. Pie ch art represe nting the use of the countr y of origin indications by general users. A B Figure 4 5. Pie food, A) Self the Ge answers they actually gave in this category, that is, when they listed a product that they perceived to be local, even though the product was not from the region)
91 Figure 4 6. Pie chart displaying the proportion of weekly food shopping that is local food, as reported by the self selected users. Figure 4 7. Pie chart displaying the proportion of weekly food shopping that is local food, as reported by the general users.
92 Figure 4 8. Def selected users. Figure 4 users.
93 Figure 4 10. Categorization of the shopping frequencies at different local food venues for the self selected users. Figure 4 11. Categorization of the shopping frequencies at different local food venues for the general users.
94 Figure 4 12. Proportion of self selected users who buy local food so metimes, often or very often through the different channels. Figure 4 13. Proportion of general users who buy local food sometimes, often or very often through the different channels.
95 CHAPTER 5 ARRI ERS AND PERCEPTION O F LOCAL FOOD Introductory Remarks To understand complex behaviors such as food choice, we encourage d participants to explain themselves through a qualitative approach. We use d two qualitative methods in this research: the word associati on technique and the laddering interviews technique. In this chapter, we analyze what the barriers and motives for purchasing local food are. Then we discuss the answers obtained during the interview s when the respondents local food, what comes s and other foods before analyzing the cognitive structures associated with local food due to the laddering interview method. The laddering interviews allow shedding light on consumer motives to buy local food. This analysis allows to shed light on the Motives and Barriers To evaluate the motives and barriers of the respondents, the words that they used wh en discussing local food purchasing habits were grouped into consistent categories ioral choice s, the respondents For the self selected users group, the motives that led them to buy food were economic alternative to agribusiness
96 latter includes perceptions about the abuse to migrant workers, and other injustices, and accounts for 18.8%. Within this category, 7.5% is freshness and 7.5% is simply quality ans accounts for 3.8% of the answers, although sustainability is not only an environmental value Also, other self trace ability (3.8%), which is likely a L than 2% of the answers indicated that some product are not available in supermarkets, while another 1.9% express ed that local food allow ed e local culture Actually, triggers within the environment of Gainesville (e.g., a class at the university about social farming, a grocery store selling local products) account for 7.6%. Fewer than 2% explain ed w as a trigger for buying local food. also taste and the thus more than twice the answers than self selected users gave; more particularly, the affected the g
97 self basis, than for self selected users. An interesting result is the fact that 5.6% of the nates within local food venues. The role of information is also one of the drivers to start buying local food. 5.6% of the answers were related to reading a book about this topic and another 5.6% were due to the family habits to buy such products. The acce ssibility of local food venues in Gainesville accounts for 2.8% of the motives. The respondents were also asked about personal reasons they may think for not buying local food. 41.3% of the self to buying lo cal food, which is the answer for the majority of the respondents in this group. Other responses included price (28.3%), inconvenience in comparison to shop ping at grocery stores (19.6%), and availability of local foods (4.3%). For 2.2% each three possib le barriers are safety concerns, the negative personality of the seller and if the vegetables look unappealing. For general users, far fewer, compared to the self selected users, indicated that there are no barriers for buying local foods (22.2% compared t o 41.3%). The main barrier is the price (31.1%), which is a similar result to the self selected users group. The second most important barrier is the inconvenience (15.6%), and again it is the same result as for the self selected users. Moreover, many resp ondents sa id they prefer shopping at Publix (8.9% of the answers), and 8.9% of the barriers are the lack of availability (e.g., for food out of season). L ack of knowledge plays a role (6.7%) because
98 some respondents say that they do not know about the venu products are less advertised. Word Association On average, the self selected users expressed themselves more than the general spontaneously into your mind? selected user and 1.5 words per general user ( Table 5 1 and Table 5 2 ) In general, the meaning is positive, especially for the self selected u Fresh produce and flowers account for the majority of themes in both groups. However, it is more important for general users since they evoke this theme along with and groves I f we combine both of those categories this makes 31.5% of the answers related to fruit and vegetables in contrast to 16.3% for the self s oranges are a famous agricultura l product of Florida and hence is strongly associated with the was mentioned t wo times more often by the self selected users (15%) than for the general users. Also for the self se lected users, there are 8.6% of the landscape whereas there is nothing similar to this for general users. In the same way, the association with happiness is specific for self selected users (5%). stic for general users since it accounts for more than one fifth of the answers. However, freshness accounts for only 8.6% for self selected users. Another difference between groups is that the self selected users see the community in a social network pers
99 general users tend to see the need to support the local economy. Another important difference between both of the groups is that the general users link local food with healthiness and in a significant proportion (9 .3%) T his does not appear in the self about ethical values while 3.8% of the general users indicated these ideas important result is the fact that organic agriculture is associated with local food whereas it is not a requirement for a local farmer to be certified organic. It would be interesting to research in greater depth to learn practices and how consumers link local and organic in their perceptions. Differentiation of the Local Food from Other Foods When asked W hat are the main characteristics that differentiate local food f rom other foods ? 32% of the self selected users state d that it is the overall product quality, 31% indicated production methods, 13% mentioned the social aspect (local economy and community), and 4% stated the price. A mong the general users, 29% identifie d production method, 20% indicated overall product quality, 14% noted location, 12% stated price and 8% mentioned the social aspect (helping the local economy). Means End Chain Analysis The laddering interviews shed light on consumer motives to buy local food, or more precisely on the mental network of associations that the consumer does in his mind when thinking about buying local food. Once again, the theory underpinning this approach is the Means Ends Chain (MEC) T heory (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988; Gr unert and Grunert, 1995).
100 Methodology The first step of the methodology was to transfer the raw data into an Excel spreadsheet in order to associate each individual and his discourse on a same line, and to begin determining his reasoning. Actually, the fir st data reduction is to code the answers into key expressions. Within the self selected user group, 5 individuals could not answer the laddering follow up questions at all because they do not purchase local food. Those individuals were not removed from th e research samples because they are part of the general user group and bring information even if it is incomplete relative to the laddering approach Table 5 3 displays the participation at each question of the laddering inte rviews. The list of the key expressions of a group of respondents (general or self selected users) illustrates on the main ideas that the group had expressed At this point, the second data reduction is to group the pieces of answers in different semantic categories that make sense in the context of the literature, are inspired from the group itself, and logical reasoning with the categories previously determined. Each category has a hierarchical order and is an attribute, a consequence or a value. Indeed, this is what create s the hierarchical value map. Each ladder is supposed to be a set of three components -attribute, consequence and value. Several ladders can be obtained f or one respondent if he was inspired enough. T he tricky part is to code the categories in attribute, consequence and values because it requires a thorough analysis of the whole dataset in order to find similarities between respondents of the same group (se lf selected or general users) and to apply the same code to the whole group. The most
101 deviations from the reported reality. However, this task is very subjective and we may al s links and not alwa consequence some people a category is a cause and has different consequences. But for some others, the logic is reversed and what appeared as a consequence is actually a cause for them. So me previous research point s out the limits of the concept of linear hierarchical structures (Baggozi and Dolakhia, 1999; Van Rekom and Wieranda, 2002). The aim of the coding in terms of attribute consequence value is to build an implication matrix. The im plication matrix is an aggregate of the information, and thus choices have to be made during the coding phase in order to represent the average. Hierarchical Value Maps (HVM) The software LadderUX was lad ders and the 69 self allows one to eliminate doing algorithmic work by hand, but it does generate the implication matrix which is transformed in a hierarchical tree. It allows for optimally positioning the elements, and a repositioning by the researcher is still possible if necessary. The cut off level is 4, that is to say only the links (direct and indirect) between categories that are at least listed four times are taken into account. According to the results summarized in Figure 5 2 by consuming local foods, the main ends for the self
102 end ( Figure 5 1 ). First, self selected users chose to consume local food based on their need to alternative to mass consumption This is the main attribute that they give to local food and the base of the hierarchical tree. Linked to this attribute is their idea that food produced locally has two other The fact that the food is more natural is important to them because it means having a healthier diet. According to the responses to the questionnaire, self selected users are health conscious persons and thus this result is coherent. The link between this logical reasoning has been evoked many times during the interviews (8 times this attribute led to this consequence directly, and 2 times indirectly) ( Figure 5 4 ) self s end chain analy sis has proven that there are 5 direct links between both of those ideas and 2 indirect ones. A v ery important logical structure for the self selected users is to food to the that is nevertheless not exactly verified for the general users. Indeed, for ge neral users,
103 ( Figure 5 3 ). And indeed, during the interviews the perception of the body was essentially its physical state for the general users whereas for the self selected users, the body encompasses also the psychological equilibrium bet ween the mind and the physical corp u s. In the self life is a terminal value for self selected users. Self selected users think that by buying food that has been produced locally they support the local economy, which makes them members of the local community. By supporting the local economy, they also feel that it is a way of reaching the value of human accomplishment. R egarding the general users, when describing the reasons to purchase local food, they count as attributes the non conventional products. The latter is directly linked to their goal of saving money, and it is coherent with what was found when interpreting the questionnaires. It should not be omitted that the sample popu lation of general users are undergraduate students and thus their financial resources are limited. The non existence of chemicals in local food, which is in the minds of general users, has a direct connection with the freshness of the products. This hiera rchical link means that since the local foods are freer of chemicals it has a higher level of freshness because they cannot be sold a long time after their harvest or production. It illustrates
104 the fact that several general users have cited the absence of preservatives in local foods. above all tastier, as it has been previously described. By consuming food that benefits nger We interpret helped to build this category were for instance: self community ty interaction This is probably due to the fact that they are more involved in this alternative food shopping it is also market advertisement to highlight community engagement.
105 Table 5 1. Word association test results for the self selected users Themes Some constitutive words Proportion of the answers Fruits, vegetables, flowers Produce, tomato, strawberries 16.3% Farm, farmers, animals Farmers in hats, happy cows 15% Organic Organic 13.8% Landscape Rows of crop, pasture 8.6% Fresh Freshness, fresh 8.6% Local food venues 7.5% Community Community, friends 7.5% Happiness Smiles, happiness 5% Hard working Hard working, have to be cautious 3.8% Green, colors Green, colors 3.8% Animal productions Meat, fish, honey 2.5% Environmental awareness Environmental awareness, hippie 2.5% Good cause, integrity Good cause, integrity 2.5% 1.3% Crisp Crisp 1.3% Table 5 2. Word association test results for the general users Themes Some consti tutive words Proportion of the answers Fresh products Fresh produce, fresh bread 22.2% Fruits and vegetables Strawberries, salad of greens 20.4% Orange, orange juice or groves Orange, orange groves 11.1% Supporting local economy Help the local economy 9.3% Healthier Healthy, healthier 9.3% Farm, farmers Farm, farmers 7.4% Organic Organic, more natural 7.4% Animal production Meat, egg, raw dairy 5.6% 3.7% Happy animals Happier animals 3.7% Higher quality Very high q uality 3.7% Florida Florida 1.9% Smaller companies Smaller companies 1.9% Green Green 1.9% Mom & Pop restaurant Mom & Pop restaurant 1.9% Expensive Expensive 1.9% Energy efficient Energy efficient 1.9% Fairness Fairness 1.9% Sustainable agriculture Sustainable agriculture 1.9%
106 Table 5 3. Participation with the laddering exercise. General users Self selected users Sample size 37 42 # Respondents 1 st question 32 42 # Respondents 2 nd question 32 42 # Respondents 3 rd question 29 40 # Respondents 4 th question 27 34 Total generated ladders 60 69
107 Figure 5 1. HVM for the g eneral users (cut off level=4)
108 Figur e 5 2. HVM for the s elf selected users (cut off level=4).
109 Figure 5 3. Implication matrix for the g row and the element in column.
110 Figure 5 4. Implication matrix for the s elf Caption: row and the element in column.
111 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS Keynote This thesis sought esville. The City of Gainesville is situated in Alachua County in the state of Florida, in the Southeastern United States. The main goal was needs in order to explore further potential for local food marketing. The objectiv e was to gain insights into the image of local food for selected consumer groups and into buying motives for local food. Therefore this study aim ed to clarify the following research questions: How well informed are the consumers regarding local food? How c What are the motives and barriers to buy local food? What are the attributes associated with local food? Does local food encompass the same values for different categories of consumers? Two samples were used to answer those questions: general users who were chosen as being students of the University of Florida and self selected users who were and May 2012. While self selected users were only sampled at the Gainesville Union University of Florida (UF) Campus: the UF Library West, the UF Southwest Recreation center and the UF lake Wauburg Recreational Facility. In this research it is documented that females are more involved in the food purchasing procedure than males. The
112 served as p qualitative analyses (Chapter 5). The qualitative analyses used were the word association and the laddering interviews. Additionally, the motives and barriers for purchasing local food were explained. T he first part of the interview was to evaluate the consumers habits related to grocery shopping in general, local food purchasing and knowledge about food origin labels. Then, each respondent had to give his own definition of local fo od in terms of pondents were asked about their motives, barriers and perception of local food. For the latter, first an association test was employed, which is often applied in marketing to identify the image of a specific brand or product. T hen, the interviewees went th rough the laddering questionnaire. Key F indings and Discussion of the R esults How Well Informed Are the Consumers Regarding Local F ood? In this research people who have an agricultural background (education, family, cal food. This study was conducted in Florida, State. Surprisingly, the awareness of the label was low in both of the groups (41% for the general users and 36% for th e self selected users). However, it is comparable to the results obtained by Brown (2003) about the knowledge of the Missouri State promotion
113 program. The label is a marketing asset This research suggests it should be better promoted in order to increase consumers understanding of the differentiated product. This research shows that self selected users are more informed and really more committed to local food than general users. First, with the labels of origin, while 54% of the general users do not pay a ttention or do very few times, 57% of the self selected users pay attention at least sometimes. While no general user spends more than 40% of his grocery shopping o n local food, 1/5th of the self selected users do. Moreover, when provided a list of alterna tive market venues, the majority of the general users indicated that they never buy local food through any of the suggested venues except for s also the most popular venue amongst self selected users. A question for future research would be to determine if alternative marketing venues are unknown by the general users and need more advertisement, or if general users simply prefer not to buy loca l food through these other alternatives. How Can We Define Local F ood? 1/3rd of the self selected users stated the state of Florida and almost the same proportion of general users chose a smaller scale by citing Alachua County and its bordering counties. The second most common selected users (26.2%) while common answer selected users (21.4%), and the state of Florida for the general users (21.6%). Given that the US miles from its
114 the self selected users in this research are consistent with th also consistent with the study conducted in Ohio about stra wberries by Darby et al. (20 08) which found that state boundaries serve to define the term. The results we obtain for the general users are closer to the European vision that Chambers et al. (2007) developed using a focus group organized in the London area and where participants def ined local food as food produced and sold in a 20 50 mile radius. In our study, t he main characteristics that differentiate local food from other foods are the production methods and the overall product quality ; both groups agreed. These are the elements o f definition associated with local food. To summarize, self selected users or in a smaller distance In the definition of local food based upon the literature review (as detailed in Chapter 2), it was concluded that defining the community is the first step before trying to assess what local food means for the particular community. Indee d, there will be different definitions for different communities. The empirical results show that self selected and general users differ slightly in their choice of geographic boundaries, which means that even for two groups living in the same city and of a same age group, one can find different answers. What Are the Motives and Barriers to Buy Local F ood? An incremental method of interview ing w as employed in order to check whether t important criteria for buying food. Less than 5% of the self selected users cite d this attribute as being important and for those who consider ed it important, it was not of first importance.
115 Regarding the general users, 2.7% f ound that this is important and, when listed, it is actually ranked as of first importance when buying food. According to Brown (2003), the quality and the freshness are the most important criteria for grocery shopping (82%) while the price is much less (8%). However, in this study f or self selected users the health and nutritional value (26%), taste (12%), price (12%), quality (12%) or freshness (10%) are listed first as the most important criteria when buying whatever food. For the general users, it is the health and nutritional val ue (30%), price (19%) or taste (14%). In both sample populations, the price is an important criterion and is the most evoked one when we merge the ranks of first, second and third in importance. This is likely related to the fact that many of the sample po pulation are students. In this sense, the study also found that 32% of the general users declare spending less on local food, and one of the reasons is that it is too expensive. Another notable reason for spending less is the lack of exposure and informati on. This is consistent with the 2006 national (Ragland & Tropp, 2009) which found that one of the farm selected users who spend less, consistent with the results of Chambers et al. (2007). In the part of th is study that look ed for the barriers to buy local food, the results show that price and inconvenience are the main barriers for both of the groups. Regarding the spontaneous word associations that sel ected users mention socio
116 What A o cal Food and Does Local Food Encompass the Same Values for Different Categories of C onsumers? The self selected users have a deeper appreciation and specific perception of local food. These respondents were more expre ssive with their word associations than the general users, and the meanings were very positive ( much more than for the general users). They use d more romanticism when e xpressing what c a me spontaneously to their mind s when thinking about local food. And s elf selected users seemed to capture the notion of social embeddedness in their ideas about local shopping Still, b oth groups associate d fresh produce and flowers with local food. General users emphasize d orange production, which likely is due to the fact that oranges are a symbol of Florida (e.g., a picture of an orange is on the state issued automobile license plate and images of oranges are often used in promotional materials about the state). Both the self selected users and the general users cite d th e importance of supporting the local economy. However, the self selected users tend ed to create more social ties and tend ed to be part of a community through their shopping behavior, while general were more narrowly focused on economic support for local businesses. Framing the general users in the Means end chain analysis, we can see that consuming local food actualizes of life for oneself, and patriotism. The underlying values f or the self selected users are slightly different part of a community and human accomplishment. This shows that l ocal food does not encompass exactly the same values for the two d ifferent categories of consumers. The
117 terminal values for both groupls however, are mostly related to health and well being, which is a similar result as what is found in Zanoli and Naspetti (2002) about organic consumption, as well as in Ares et al. (200 8) and Krystallis et al. (2008) about functional food. The motivating value that is specific to local food versus functional and organic foods is the fact that buying local is a way of supporting the local economy and/or community. What Are the Attributes Associated with Local F ood? is also a barrier for 28.3% of the general users. The main attributes associated of local food for self aspect selected users differ regarding their level of informati on about local food. However, when looking at the attribute s they associate d with local food s both groups identified attributes similar to those associated with organic foods. There are therefore some similarities with the current MEC analysis and the MEC analysis conducted by Zanoli and Naspetti (2002) about the organic food consumption. The self selected users in this study noted the Zanoli and Naspetti study noted t selected users are not part of the reported attributes that organic consumers stated in the previous research. Also,
118 about organic consumption. Lastly, high price was a barrier for the occasional organic s an attribute expressed in the To conclude, the empirical research and analysis of this study suggest that in and marketers need to consider the following: Local f ood should be produced in the State or closer in order to provide both Local food should be produced using techniques that are perceived as being more respectful of the enviro nment than practices associated with the industrial/conventional production and mass consumption sector Local food should be produced with more ethical practices in order to answer the interest in alternative ways of sourcing food. Local food should be ma rketed as a means for supporting local social ties. Local food should be marketed as a way of reducing middlemen in order to develop more transparent and credible communication about the provenance and production practices used to produce and deliver produ cts to the consumer. Limits of the method The goal of this research was to evaluate consu of local food. By choosing a qualitative approach, obtained results have meanings that are directly alitative nature of the research method the results represents hypotheses, which could be tested in subsequent quantitative studies. Also, the sample population (a mix of university students and do not permit generalizations about all consumers.
119 The small samples permit conducting in depth interviews and analyzing responses qualitatively (e.g., word associations and evaluation of motives and values underlying perceptions). Yet, the data reduction was very time consuming since the goal was to summarize the answers without depicting a biased impression. And one of the important steps was to try to not use the same descriptive terms for self selected and general users, but rather to extract from the raw data the most suitable terms for each group. In this sense, the nuances and the difference of semantic use can be highlighted. For instance, the self selected users use more romantic explanations during the word association test. It seems that this exe rcise was very appreciated by the interviewees. In this unstructured task, they can express more ideas than if the answers are pre determined and provided by the researcher. The laddering interviews were conducted successfully in an atmosphere allowing for ample time for respondents to answer fully. The respondents were informed that there is no right or wrong answer so that they could feel free to answer what they found the most important for them. As a result, several ladders have been constructed. Nevert heless, when using the mean ends chain theory, the important assumption is that abstraction. But in reality, many respondents gave linked ideas rather than ideas hierarchically o rganized. The most tricky part of the means ends chain analysis was thus to find a consensus in the coding of the different elements into attributes, values and consequences. Also, there is not a lot of literature explaining how to design the HVM from the laddering interviews. Decoding the implication matrix to draw a logic tree is laborious
120 consequence sof tware LadderUX was of great help in order to simplify the optimization process. In sum even if the data was qualitative and analysis was challenging, the results are suitable and substantial. Moreover, the Hierarchical Value Map visually illustrates the c ognitive structures of the interviewed consumers in respect to buying local food, suggesting that the limitations of the methods are balanced with the benefits of the approach. he research presented in this thesis: What really matters within the several identified dimensions composing the definition of local food? What would be the results if we used a larger sample size in order to quantify our qualitative outcomes? We have s een known. Are the results we observe attesting real preferences or rather a general lack of information about local food labels and venues?
121 APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE STUDY Q1. What are the three most impo rtant criteria for you when you buy food, by rank of importance? 1. 2. 3. Q2. Do you pay attention to the country of origin indications about your food products? Never A very few times Sometimes Often Very often Q3. Do you purchase local food? Yes No Q4. If you do not purchase local food, will you do it in the future? Yes No Q5. Can you name any label for local food? Q6. How much of your weekly food shopping has been produced locally? 1 9% 10 19% 20 29% 30 39% 40 49% >50%
122 produced in Alachua County produced within Alachua County and counties bordering Alachua (Levy, Gilchrist, Columbia, Union, B radford, Putnam, Marion) produced within 100 miles of Gainesville produced in the state of Florida produced in the southeast United States (within 8 hour drive of Gainesville) produced in the USA Q9. Was there a reason that led you to start buy ing local food? Q10. When you think about local food what comes spontaneously into your mind? (words, pictures, situations)
123 Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services? (circle the right answer) Yes No Q12. How often do you buy food through : Never A very few times Sometimes Often Very often A Co op? The Slow Food network? A Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) network? A Farmers market? A farm stand? A roadside stand? A local website?
124 Laddering: Q13. When you buy local food what are the most important reasons or product characteristics for you? (refers to the previous answer) Q15. And why is that important to you? (refers to the previous answer) Q16. And why is the latter important to you? (refers to the pre vious answer) Q17. Are there also any personal reasons you may think of for not buying local food? Q18. In your opinion, what are the main characteristics that differentiate local food from other foods?
125 Q19. Socio demogra phic information Sex: Male Female Age: Race and Ethnicity: American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander White hispanic or latino White non hispanic or non latino Some Other Race Do you Yes No In your opinion, do you think you spend
126 LIST OF REFERENCES Agricultural Marketing Service of the USDA. (n.d.). Country of origin labeling. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/cool Agricultural Marketing Service of the USDA. (n.d.). Farmers Market and Local Food Marketing. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/FARMERSMARKETS Agricultural Marketing Service of the USDA. (n.d.). Food deserts. Retrieved from http://apps.ams.usda.gov /fooddeserts/FAQ.aspx Agricultural Marketing Service of the USDA. (2012). Letter to the industry representatives stating that COOL regulations remain in force. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5097737 Allen, P. (1999). Reweaving the food security safety net: Mediating entitlement and entrepreneurship. Agriculture and human values, 117 129. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/p03ug46667u82471.pdf Amani, P., & Schiefer, G. (2011). Data Availability for Carbon Calculators in Measuring GHG Emissions Produced by the Food Sector. International Journal on Food S ystem Dynamics, 2(4), 392 407. Andreani, J. Congrs des Tendances du Marketing. Retrieved from http://www.escp eap.net/conferences/marketing/2005_cp/Materiali/Paper/Fr/ANDREANI_CONCHO N.pdf Ares, G., Gimnez, A., & Gmbaro, A. (2008). Unders conventional and functional yogurts using word association and hard laddering. Food Quality and Preference 19 (7), 636 643. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.05.005 The Central Intelligence Agency. (2009). The World Factbook: lab or force by occupation. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the world factbook/fields/2048.html Economic Research Service of the USDA. (2012). State Fact Sheets: United States. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data products/state fact sheets/state data.aspx?StateFIPS=00
1 27 Europa (the officia l EU website). (n.d.). Assister les communauts rurales (Assisting the Rural Communities). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/capexplained/assistance/index_fr. htm agriculture dynamique, ce son dynamic agriculture means dynamic territories). Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/159&format =HTML&aged=0&language=FR&guiLanguage=en Europa (the official EU website). (2005 ). Th e features of European agriculture. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/capexplained/index_en.htm FAAN. (2010). Local Food Systems in Europe: Case studies from five count ries and what they imply for policy and practice (p. 52 p.). Retrieved from http://www.faanweb.eu Florida Center for Instructional Technology (FCIT). (n.d.). Exploring Florida: Florida then and now. Retrieved from http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/lessons/lessons.htm Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (n.d.). Florida crops and products: overview of Florida agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.florida agriculture.com/consumers/crops/agoverview/ Grunert, K. G., & Grunert, S. C. (1995). Measuring subjective meaning structures by the laddering method: Theoretical considerations and methodological problems. International Journal of Research in Marketing 12 (3), 209 225. doi:10.1016/0167 8116(95)00022 T Guerrero, L., Claret, A., Verbeke, W., Enderli, G., Zakowska Biemans, S., Vanhonacker, F., Issanchou, S., et al. (2 010). Perception of traditional food products in six European regions using free word association. Food Quality and Preference 21 (2), 225 233. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.06.003 Guptill, A., & Wilkins, J. L. (2002). Buying into the food system: Trends in food retailing in the US and implications for local foods. Agriculture and Human Values 39 51. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/6NDAHAG49H17FW1W.pdf Guyomard, H., Le M oul, C., Jez, C., Forslund, A., & Fournel, E. (2008). Results of the agriculture 2013 foresight study results and important lessons by theme (p. 88pp). direct agricultural market. Journal of rural studies 16 295 303. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016799000637
128 Ilbery, B., & Maye, D. (2006). Retailing lo cal food in the Scottish English borders: A supply chain perspective. Geoforum 37 (3), 352 367. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.09.003 Ilbery, B., Morris, C., Buller, H., Maye, D., & Kneafsey, M. (2005). Product, Process and Place: An Examination of Food Marke ting and Labelling Schemes in Europe and North America. European Urban and Regional Studies 12 (2), 116 132. doi:10.1177/0969776405048499 Keeling Bond, J., Thilmany, D., & Bond, C. (2009). What Influences Consumer Choice of Fresh Produce Purchase Location? Journal of Agricultural 1 (April), 61 74. Retrieved from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/48755/2/jaae162.pdf King, R. P., Hand, M. S., Digiacomo, G., Clancy, K., Gmez, M. I. Hardesty, S. D., Lev, L., et al. (2010). Comparing the Structure Size and Performance of Local and Mainstream Food Supply Chains Retrieved from http://www.e rs.usda.gov/publications/err economic research report/err99.aspx Knutson, R., Penn, J., Flinchbaugh, B., & Outlaw, J. (2007). Agricultural and Food Policy (Uppon Saddle River, Ed.) (6th ed.). Prentice Hall. Larson, N. I., Story, M. T., & Nelson, M. C. (2 009). Neighborhood environments: disparities in access to healthy foods in the U.S. American journal of preventive medicine 36 (1), 74 81. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.09.025 Lendrevie, J., Lvy, J., & Lindon, D. (2009). Mercator: Thories et nouvelles pratiq ues du marketing (Dunod, Ed.) (9th ed., p. 1200 pages). France: Hachette. Low, S. A. (USDA/ERS), & Vogel, S. (USDA/ERS). (2011). Direct and Intermediated Marketing of Local Foods in the United States. Economic Research Report (128), 38 p. Martinez, S., H and, M., Pra, M. D., Pollack, S., Ralston, K., Smith, T., Vogel, S., et al. (2010). Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts and Issues Economic Research Report Nie, C., & Zepeda, L. (2011). Lifestyle segmentation of US food shoppers to examine organic an d local food consumption. Appetite 57 (1), 28 37. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.03.012 Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H., & Allen, D. (1995). A means end chain approach to consumer goal structures. International Journal of Research in 12 227 244. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016781169500023U
129 Pirog, R. (Leopold C. for S. A., Van Pelt, T. (Iowa S. U., Enshayan, K. (University of N. I., & Cook, E. (Leo pold C. for S. A. (2001). Food, Fuel and Freeways: An Iowa perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, and greenhouse gas emissions (p. 37 p.). Ames, IA. Retrieved from http://www.nationalgoodfoodnetwork.com/resources/ngfn database/knowledge/food_mil.pdf Ploeg, M., Breneman, V., Farrigan, T., & Hamrick, K. (2009). Access to affordable and nutritious food: measuring and understanding food deserts and t heir consequences. Report to Congress. (p. 160 pp). Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ap administrative publication/ap 036.aspx Ragland, E. (USDA/AMS), & Tropp, D. (USDA/AMS). (2009). USDA national farmers market manager survey 2006. (p. 112 p.). Retrieved from http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/handle/10113/42000 Schonhar t, M., Penker, M., & Schmid, E. (2009). Sustainable local food production and consumption: challenges for implementation and research. Outlook on agriculture 38 (2), 175 182. Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ip/ooa/2009/00000038/00000002/art00009 Steinman, R. B. (2009). Projective techniques in consumer research. International Bulletin of Business Administration (5), 37 45. Stewart, H. (USDA/ER S), Blisard, N. (USDA/ERS), & Jolliffe, D. (USDA/ERS). (2006). Economic Information Bulletin (p. 16 p.). Retrieved from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/59411/2/eib19.pdf Thompson, E. J. (American F. T., Harper, A. M. (Sustainable A. E., & Kraus, S. (Sustainable A. E. (2008). Think Globally Eat Locally: San francisco Foodshed Assessment Pulse (p. 48 p.). Retrieve d from http://www.farmland.org/programs/states/ca/Feature Stories/San Francisco Foodshed Report.asp U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency (EPA). (2012). Agriculture: demographics. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/demographics.html The Worldwatch Institute. (2008). State of the world: Innovat ions for a sustainable economy (L. Starke, Ed.) (25th ed., p. 269). Washington DC: W. W. Norton & Company. Retrieved from http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/State of the Worl d 2008.pdf
130 Zepeda, L., & Li, J. (2006). Who Buys Local Food? Journal of Food Distribution Research 5 15. Retrieved from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/7064/2/37030001.pdf
131 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dian e Isis Nyob is a French engineering student participating in a dual degree disciplinary and mobile training in Europe and in the USA. This program is funded by the European Union and offe rs the opportunity to study the European and U S vision on rural development and its diversity of approaches and applications. She has studied for one year International Rural Development in Europe at Ghent University ( Belgium ) and at Agrocampus Ouest ( Re nnes, France ) She has spent one month in Tuscany in order to participate in a case study about rural transitions organized by the University of Pisa. Then she has studied Food and Resource Economics at the University of Florida and she has defended her th esis in Marketing at this institution. She is interested in Innovati on Management and the various opportunities linking business and science.