[Doi 10.1080%2F19320248.2010.504097] K. J. a. Colasanti; D. S. Conner; S. B. Smalley -- Understanding Barriers to Farmers' Market Patronage in Michigan- Perspectives From Marginalized

8/18/2019 [Doi 10.1080%2F19320248.2010.504097] K. J. a. Colasanti; D. S. Conner; S. B. Smalley -- Understanding Barriers…

1/25

This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]On: 19 December 2014, At: 06:00Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hunger & Environmental

NutritionPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/when20

Understanding Barriers to Farmers'Market Patronage in Michigan:

Perspectives From Marginalized

PopulationsKathryn J. A. Colasanti

a , David S. Conner

a & Susan B. Smalley

a

a CS Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems, Department of

Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies , Michigan

State University , East Lansing, Michigan, USA

Published online: 17 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: Kathryn J. A. Colasanti , David S. Conner & Susan B. Smalley (2010)Understanding Barriers to Farmers' Market Patronage in Michigan: Perspectives From

Marginalized Populations, Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 5:3, 316-338, DOI:

10.1080/19320248.2010.504097

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2010.504097

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/when20http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2010.504097http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19320248.2010.504097http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/when20


2/25

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions


3/25


4/25

Understanding Barriers to Farmers’ Market Patronage 317

farmers, act as a business incubator for beginning farmers,2, 3 and serve as aneconomic anchor that brings additional dollars into a community.4 Farmers’markets are also thought to provide benefits to their patrons. Advocatesargue that direct sales of produce can provide access to healthy food

in neighborhoods where fresh fruits and vegetables are otherwise scarce.Farmers’ markets have also been described as centerpieces of locally inte-grated food systems, which connect producers and consumers, and of civicagriculture, which (re)embeds market transactions within community rela-tionships that build social capital.5-8 In short, farmers’ markets are thoughtto be a venue that fosters “social connection, reciprocity and trust (p. 296),”7

both between vendors and patrons and among patrons, in ways that arenot only personally fulfilling but foundational to equitable, sustainable, anddemocratic market exchange.

In reality, however, the relationship between farmers’ markets and these

lofty ideals is more complex. Several scholars have noted that farmers’ mar-kets are frequented by particular demographics (notably white and middleto upper class) and, furthermore, that the ways in which they are estab-lished, managed, and promoted privilege particular demographics. Hinrichset al.8 related the rising popularity of farmers’ markets to “the cachet of col-orful open-air markets as trendy arenas for consumption (p. 34).” Similarly,DeLind9 warned that niche marketing strategies most often target an elitecustomer base. Allen10 noted that the low participation in farmers’ marketsby food stamp recipients runs the risk of reinscribing class privilege. Alkonand McCullen11 discussed how white culture shapes farmers’ markets, firstthrough appealing to romantic imagery of small farmers, which generally ignores the historically oppressed role of African Americans in agricultureand the current role of Latinos as farm workers; secondly, through the reality that the “community” nurtured through a farmers’ market is too often definedin a way that excludes people of color; and thirdly, through the intersection

with gourmet food practices, which reinforces farmers’ markets as places forthe affluent. These observations remind us that the social space of farmers’markets is not inherently equitable and may not be equally attractive acrossracial and socioeconomic lines.

In a different line of critique, Hinrichs,7

drawing on Fred Block,12

argued that even if farmers’ market exchanges are embedded withinface-to-face interaction and personal relationships (a state of socially basedmarket exchange she refers to as “embeddedness”), self-interested behavior(instrumentalism), particularly in regards to market prices (“marketness”describes the degree to which price takes primacy over other factors),remains relevant for both vendors and patrons. For patrons this means thateven if a farmers’ market offers higher quality produce and a more socially satisfying shopping experience, price will play a factor in the decision

whether to shop there. To this end, market and non-market shoppers cannot

be differentiated simply on the basis of values. Low-resource customersmay not have the luxury of prioritizing “the aura of personal relations and


5/25

318 K. J. A. Colasanti et al.

social connection (p. 299)” sold at the farmers’ market.7 Taken together,these critiques point toward the importance of understanding perceptions of farmers’ markets, including reasons for deciding whether or not to patronizethese venues, among the demographics largely underrepresented at these

markets. Our research offered this opportunity through both focus groupsand a statewide phone survey.

FARMERS’ MARKET PATRONAGE

The current literature on farmers’ markets provides a context for understand-ing patron demographics and perceptions. By and large, research has foundthat market shoppers tend to be highly educated, professional, middle-agedto older, white, and female.13-15 As one example, a survey of over 300

patrons of New Jersey farmers’ markets found that 84% were white, 83% were female, 83% lived in the suburbs, and 68% had no children under 18in the household.16 On the other hand, Keeling-Bond et al.17 contended thatmore recent increases in the number of people shopping at farmers’ mar-kets has brought in a larger cross section of the population. Accordingly,

Wolf et al.18 found that their 2005 study of farmers’ market customer demo-graphics revealed a slightly broader demographic profile than a similar study they conducted in 1995, though market patrons were still more likely to befemale, married, and have completed postgraduate work.

Other studies, however, have indicated that demographics do not

always tell the full story. Thilmany et al.19 found that desires to supportlocal businesses and producers were much stronger predictors of frequentdirect market purchases than race or income. Stephenson and Lev20 foundthat though support for local food cut across income and education lines,

younger people (aged 21–29) showed considerably less interest in purchas-ing locally grown foods compared to middle-aged and older individuals.

Yet neither of these studies were able to look at the factors influencing thedecision to patronize direct markets.

Researchers have consistently shown that high-quality products and

produce freshness are among the most important factors that motivatepatrons to shop at farmers’ markets.14,18,21-24 Conversely, convenience, loca-tion, and a money-back guarantee are reasons to prefer a supermarket overa farmers’ market.22 Inconvenient locations (including too far away), incon-

venient times, and lack of awareness of the existence of a market havebeen shown to be the most significant deterrents to shopping at a farmers’market.13,14,18,21,24

Other research has attempted to understand with greater sophistica-tion how values influence farmers’ market behavior. Elepu14 differentiatedbetween the two largest consumer segments as “market enthusiasts,” who

value the shopping experience and seek out a wide variety of organic,high-quality produce, and “basic shoppers,” who mainly value high-quality


6/25


produce. According to this differentiation, only 28% of patrons fell into thecategory of those who value the shopping experience itself highly. Keeling-Bond et al.17 also differentiated between frequent farmers’ market patrons,

who value producer relationships, connections with other market patrons,

and locally grown produce, and infrequent patrons, who tend to placegreater emphasis on convenience, aesthetics, and price. Thilmany et al. 19

found that the willingness to pay for farmers’ market products increases if patrons are motivated by external benefits such as environmental protectionor sustaining local agriculture.

Taken as a whole, the literature shows some of the key farmers’ marketattributes that motivate patrons as well as apparent sociodemographic and

value-based patron groupings. Yet little research has explored the interac-tion of incentives and disincentives through in-depth qualitative study andeven fewer studies have considered the possibility of a unique perspective

from marginalized populations. Furthermore, because much of the researchon farmers’ markets has targeted farmers’ market patrons,13,14,22-25 ratherthan the general population,17,18,20,26 we targeted our research toward those

who had never before or only infrequently shopped at farmers’ markets. We also aimed to reach demographics less frequently observed at farmers’markets, including young singles, families with young children, low-incomehouseholds, and racial and ethnic minorities. In order to assess potential dif-ferences in perceptions of farmers’ markets and shopping behavior betweendemographic groups, we framed our research around two questions: (1)

What are consumers’ awareness levels, motivations and behaviors surround-

ing farmers’ markets? and (2) What are consumers’ perceived barriers ordisincentives to greater participation in farmers’ markets?

In the first stage of our research we utilized focus groups as a way togain insight into these questions and understand nuances of perspective.Exploring individuals’ perspectives on farmers’ markets and their perceivedbarriers or disincentives to shopping at these venues with a range of demo-graphics allowed us to increase our understanding of the reasons consumersare or are not motivated to shop at a farmers’ market. These focus groupsfulfilled the dual purposes of conducting exploratory research into the

multifaceted behavioral patterns of food shopping and informing the devel-opment of the larger scale quantitative survey we employed in the secondstage of our research.27

RESEARCH METHODS

Focus Groups

Our goal was to conduct 6 to 8 focus groups of 8 to 10 participants who would collectively represent urban and rural households and the aforemen-

tioned demographics of particular interest to this research. We partnered


7/25


with organizations located in communities with farmers’ markets and whoserved our target demographics to recruit participants and host the focusgroups. We conducted 7 focus groups with a total of 63 people in both urban(3) and rural (4) locations across Michigan. All of the research participants

were the primary shoppers for their households and collectively representedmany of the demographics that are frequently underrepresented at farmers’markets (FMs). Three of the focus groups were conducted with communities

who spoke a first language other than English: Latinos, Arab Americans, andinternational graduate student parents. Though we were unable to arrangea focus group exclusively with African Americans, two of the predominantly

white focus groups included African American individuals. Due to the mixof races present in these groups, however, it is possible that opinions fromindividuals of minority racial status may have been suppressed. Though wedid not collect data on income, based on participant affiliations with pro-

grams targeted toward low-income households (eg, Women, Infants, andChildren [WIC]) or status as graduate students, we presume that all or nearly all participants were of low to moderate income status. (See Table 1 forfurther details on demographics of each group.)

TABLE 1 Major Results by Focus Group

No. of people Demographics Major results

6 Rural, non-Hispanic

white women, range of ages

Two people attended FM regularly; more drawn by

produce than crafts or baked goods; liked the visibility and walkability of the downtownlocation. Limited time and limited selection weremajor deterrents; complaints that fruit sells outquickly; thought that hours that aligned withanother reason to be downtown would be mostconvenient.

8 Rural, women, majority non-Hispanic white butseveral Asian, Hispanicand African American;range of ages

No one attended FM regularly. Group felt that mosttown residents were unfamiliar with FM becauseof lack of visibility and inadequate signage.Produce most highly valued in selection. Theinability to use EBT, limited time, andinconvenient hours and locations were maindeterrents. Different opinions about downtownlocation expressed.

10 Rural, Latina women,majority youngmothers

No one attended FM regularly. Placed fairly highemphasis on customer service; believed FMprices to be higher than stores. Location wasinconvenient, especially for those dependent onpublic transportation, and were deterred by need for multiple trips. Felt they were distrustedby vendors and atmosphere was unfriendly forchildren; were offended by vendor’s appearance.Generally preferred a location near majorgrocery stores.

(Continued )


8/25


TABLE 1 (Continued)

No. of people Demographics Major results

6 Urban, Arab American

women, range of ages

No one attended FM regularly. Assumed FMs

would have fresher, higher quality, local, andmore natural produce and expressed frustrations

when this didn’t hold true. Preferred to shop forproduce more than 1 day / week. Location wasinconvenient because nearly 45-minute drive.

A few were willing to travel only if prices werebetter.

10 Urban, men and women,foreign graduatestudent parents (Asian,Middle Eastern, andEuropean) withelementary-agechildren

No one attended FM regularly. Perception of FMsas source of fresher, local, and more naturalproduce. Some were satisfied with selection;others wished for more ethnic foods. ThoughtFM should advertise, especially to ethniccommunities, and use better signage. Timeconstraints were major deterrent and many found location inconvenient and wished forlonger hours.

8 Rural, non-Hispanic white women, majority young mothers

Three people shopped at FM regularly. Groupplaced fairly high emphasis on supporting localfarmers. Wished for larger selection and morecompetitive prices. Complained that weekday market closes before people get out of work andbest selection is only found in morning. Someliked downtown location but others complainedof heavy traffic and congestion, particularly inregards to bringing children to the FM.

15 Urban, men and women,majority non-Hispanic

white but severalHispanic, Asian, and

African American; young singles in law school

No one attended FM regularly. Expected FM to belively, engaging and have wide selection of local, seasonal, and organic produce but felttheir FM didn’t offer this, so were not motivatedto shop there. Saw lack of advertising andinadequate signage, as well as run-downbuilding, as deterrents but felt the selectionoriented toward crafts and dry goods wasunappealing. Assumed that FM would not acceptEBT even though it did.

Focus groups were semistructured and consisted of open-ended ques-tions (see Table 2). A question guide was developed based on our researchobjectives, a review of farmers’ market literature, and direct experience withon-site farmers’ market research and activities in order to ensure consistency across focus groups. Question wording and order were based on estab-lished guidelines27-30 and reviewed and modified by colleagues experiencedin focus group techniques and working with lower income people. Follow-up questions and probes were used to seek greater depth and to exploreagreement or disagreement with opinions shared from other group mem-

bers. Participants were asked to describe their food shopping habits and


9/25


TABLE 2 Focus Group Questions

Category Main questions Probes

Warmup questions Who in your house usually gets food and where does

that person go? When you want fresh food,

where do you go to get it?

Why do you go there? When do you go?

How do you get there? Who goes with you?How is the selection?How do they treat you?How are the prices?Do the accept food

stamps/EBT?Do they accept Project FRESH

coupons?

Transition questions Do you know of any farmers’markets around here? WhenI say farmers’ market, I’m

thinking of a place where agroup of farmers cometogether, usually once a

week, to sell their farmproducts.

Can you say more about that?Does anyone have a different

experience?

Any other thoughts?

What have you heard aboutthe farmers’ market(s)?

How have you heard aboutthe market(s)?

What kinds of people do youthink shop at the farmers’market(s)?

What about any other farmers’

markets you’ve heard about?

Key questions Tell us about any times that you shopped or consideredshopping at the farmersmarket.

What was it like? What did you buy?How was the selection?How were the prices?How did they treat you?

Was it easy to get there? What was the best part about

shopping at the farmers’market?

What was the worst part aboutshopping at the farmers’

market?

Can you say more about that?Does anyone have a different

experience? Any other thoughts?

What keeps you fromshopping at farmers’markets more often?

Summary questions What changes could thefarmers’ market(s) makethat would encourage youto shop there more often?


10/25


motivations as a way of eliciting the values guiding food purchasing deci-sions and contextualizing their behaviors with respect to farmers’ markets.

We then explored participants’ experiences with, perceptions of, and themotivations or deterrents for shopping at farmers’ markets. At the conclusion

of each focus group, the moderator gave a summary of what she understoodto be the dominant themes of the conversation to bolster the interpretative validity of the analysis. Focus groups were moderated by the primary authorand an assistant was present to take notes.

Focus group transcripts were transcribed verbatim1 and the resultingtranscripts were coded for dominant themes using the software Atlas.ti5.5 (Atlas.ti Scientific Softwere Development GmbH Berlin, Germany).Transcripts were cross-referenced with focus group notes in order to ensureaccuracy of transcription and to differentiate by speaker. Codes were devel-oped inductively, with respect to our research questions, for the initial

transcripts and then adjusted as needed to reflect themes that emerged inlater transcripts. Coded passages of text were analyzed and summary state-ments for the research questions were developed for each data collection.Coding was done by the primary author and codes were discussed exten-sively with the coauthors in order to explore alternative interpretations of themes, first prior to the development of the survey and later in the contextof the survey results. After refining and revising the summary statements,they were aligned in a table that allowed comparison across data collectionsand provided the foundation for our analysis.31

Statewide Telephone Survey

In the second research phase, a telephone survey was used to test the fre-quency of and relationships between key variables identified in the focusgroups. We commissioned a series of questions on the Fall 2008 State of theState Survey conducted by Michigan State University’s Institute for PublicPolicy and Survey Research. The referent population was the noninstitution-alized, English-speaking adult population of Michigan, aged 18 and over.Because the survey was conducted by telephone, only persons who lived

in households with landline telephones had a chance of being interviewed.The sample was weighted to be representative of state residents. A total of 953 interviews was completed in October 2008.32

The questions we commissioned began by asking whether and how often the respondent shopped for food. Those answering “never” were notasked any of the remaining farmers’ market questions. Respondents werethen given a definition of a farmers’ market (“a place where a group of

1 This is true for all but one of the focus groups for which an audio equipment malfunction made verbatim transcription impossible. For this group, the moderator immediately wrote down everything she

could remember from the conversation and these notes were sent to the person who had recruited focusgroup participants and was present through the conversation for cross-checking.


11/25


farmers come together, usually once a week, to sell their farm products”)and asked whether they had shopped at a farmers’ market in the past year.Dummy variables were created: shopper (coded 0 for those who never shopfor food, 1 otherwise) and FM shopper (1 for those who had shopped at a

farmers’ market the previous month, 0 otherwise). We used a 4-point Likert-type scale to measure the importance of 12factors in deciding whether to shop at a farmers’ market, the majority of

which emerged from the focus groups: good value, top-quality products, variety of products available, convenient location, convenient hours, ability to do all shopping at one location, supporting local farms, ability to getinformation from the vendor about where or how the food was grown, a

welcoming atmosphere, a large variety of antibiotic- or hormone-free prod-ucts, a large variety of organic or pesticide-free products, and food is handledin a manner that minimizes the chances of food-borne disease. The factors

that did not appear in the focus groups (information from vendor, antibiotic-or hormone-free products, and food-borne disease) came from previousresearch on farmers’ markets.17,20

Demographic variables that were of particular interest, given focusgroup results, included sex, age, income, education, and race. Dummy vari-ables were created, including “female” (coded 1 for females, 0 for males);“Latino” (coded 1 for self-reported members of this ethnic group, 0 other-

wise), “young adult” (coded 1 if age is 18–35, 0 otherwise), “college grad”(coded 1 if college graduate [bachelor’s degree], 0 otherwise); and “low income” (coded 1 if income is less than $40 000, 0 otherwise).

Analysis of the data took two basic forms. First, the descriptive statis-tics were calculated. Next, a series of individual T -tests, which measure thestatistical probability that a member of a particular subgroup will responddifferently to a given question, was conducted on the key behavioral andattitudinal variables from the focus groups: shopper and FM shopper, as

well as the importance of value, market location, convenient hours, one-stop shopping, supporting local farms, getting information about the food,

welcoming atmosphere, and presence of pesticide-free produce. By runningseparate T -tests comparing binary demographic variables to our full sur-

vey sample, we were able to determine whether mean responses varied by demographics.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Focus Group Results: Awareness, Behavior, and Perception

In each of the focus groups the majority of participants were aware of theirlocal farmers’ market, although in 4 of the groups there were at least someparticipants who had not heard of the market at all. Many of those who

were aware of their local farmers’ market were unsure of the details: the


12/25


specific location, the hours and season of operation, the methods of paymentaccepted, etc. Driving by, word-of-mouth, and promotion from organizationssuch as Extension or WIC agencies were the most common ways in whichpeople learned of farmers’ markets. In the 3 focus groups with participants

living in the vicinity of multiple farmers’ markets, virtually no one was awareof the smaller, neighborhood-based farmers’ markets beyond the most visibleor largest market in their area.

Very few of the focus group participants shopped at farmers’ marketsregularly and in every group there were some participants who had neverbeen there. Two to 3 individuals in the 2 rural and exclusively non-Hispanic

white groups regularly shopped at their farmers’ market, whereas no one inthe groups with urban residents or people of other ethnicities did so.

Across all 7 focus groups the conversations revealed a fairly consistentperception of what participants felt a farmers’ market should be. Though

some people mentioned that they would like to see items such as meat,fish, eggs, cheese, bread, mushrooms, and nuts, by far the greatest numberof people expressed the greatest interest in farmers’ markets as a sourceof fresh fruits and vegetables. One individual described his disappointment

with a selection that did not focus on produce saying:

See, I think people go there thinking they are going to have fresh pro-duce, or stuff like you can buy fresh and just kind of take and go. When

you go it’s kind of like, yeah, your Aunt Sally’s knick knacks, and likejust little stuff. It’s not really what you expect or really what you need in

terms of stuff to take with you, which is actually to eat. . . . I think mostpeople find it a big disappointment.

Also consistent across the 7 focus groups was a perception that farmers’ mar-kets should offer produce with attributes distinct from the produce availableat mainline grocers. Freshness was the attribute mentioned most frequently as a reason for wanting to shop at a farmers’ market and the perception thatfarmers’ markets offer fresher produce was shared both by those who doshop and those who had never shopped at a farmers’ market (see Table 1).

The majority of focus group participants also expected the produceat farmers’ markets to be local and natural or organically grown. As oneperson put it, “The only reason that I go to the farmer’s market is with theexpectation that I will get fresh food, you know? Fresh fruits and vegetables

without them being through the system of food preservation, you know?That way we love it, you know.” Another woman seemed to indicate thatthe marketing of a farmers’ market was dishonest if the produce offered wasnot local:

Something I would change is I am sick of seeing people come from

six hours away or I find out that this is from Indiana. This is a farmers’


13/25


market. It is supposed to be local gathering where farmers sell directly to the public, it is not supposed to have a distributor—that is the wholepoint. And they are not as fresh, they have just as many chemicals and itis just a new way of sneaking into a market that does not want that.

These expectations were remarkably consistent across all 7 focus groupsand held in cases where participants had and had not been to the farmers’market and were and were not satisfied with the farmers’ market in theircommunities. The participants who felt that their market fell short of theseexpectations were generally less inclined to shop there.

For many of the focus group participants, price was a significant con-sideration in deciding whether to shop at farmers’ markets. Participants in2 of the urban focus groups felt that prices at farmers’ markets were gen-erally higher than the prices at stores and in the third urban group no one

had sufficient experience with the farmers’ market to be able to compareprices. In contrast, the 3 rural and predominantly white groups tended tothink the farmers’ market prices were competitive with, and in some casesbetter than, store prices. Interestingly, however, members of the Latino focusgroup, which took place in one of these same rural communities, all agreedthat prices at the farmers’ market were consistently higher than store prices.In all of the focus groups the level of willingness to spend extra money on farmers’ market produce varied considerably, but in each of the groupsthere was a general sentiment that prices should be in the general range of store prices in order for the farmers’ market to have a broad level of appeal

and accessibility in the community.

Focus Group Results: Barriers and Disincentives

Beyond the general discussion of product selection and prices, participantsdiscussed a number of specific barriers and disincentives to shopping atfarmers’ markets. The most prominent of these included the need for sig-nage and promotion, time constraints, inconvenient location or inadequatefacilities, and an unwelcoming atmosphere.

SIGNAGE AND PROMOTION

In 4 of the focus groups, 3 of which included participants who were unawareof their local market, group members brought up what they saw as a needfor the market to advertise to the community. People in these 4 groups feltthat the lack of awareness of the market among community residents waslargely due to inadequate signage or promotion. In one group where every-one was familiar with the market, one person acknowledged how essential

visible signs are in informing people about the presence of the farmers’ mar-

ket by saying “I would argue I wouldn’t know it was there without the signs.


14/25


To me those big yellow signs are very important. When I am going throughtown you can see the signs, so that is helpful.”

Beyond simply using signs to promote the presence of the farmers’market, many of the focus group participants wished for more readily avail-

able information about the hours and product offerings. In one city, severalparticipants were aware of the building that housed the farmers’ marketbut, because of the inadequate signage, either had no idea what the hours

were or simply thought the building was abandoned. The following com-ment shows how this participant feels the limited hours of a farmers’ marketnecessitate more prevalent advertising:

I think that time for farmer market is key. You must let people know when, where, to open the farm market. Maybe many people like tochoose fresh vegetables, fresh fruit from market. But if they always miss

the time, they always miss the farm market in just maybe Saturday, oneday in only one place, so I think you let people know where, when, is

very important.

Many of the foreign-born participants also spoke of a desire for farmers’market promotion within their communities through media channels that arefamiliar to them. The 2 focus groups in which the need for better signageor promotion of the farmers’ market was not mentioned were held in smalltowns where the market was located in a highly visible, central area.

When asked about the best means for advertising farmers’ markets,participants expressed a wide array of ideas. These ranged from tele-

vision commercials, to mailers, to working with the local Chamber of Commerce, but the local newspaper was the venue most consistently sug-gested. Participants in several groups recommended promoting the marketto specific communities such as the downtown employees or ethnic com-munities for whom farmers’ market shopping may be a culturally familiarpractice.

Finally, a number of people felt that the farmers’ market could draw more people in by offering promotions or even simply advertising a fea-

tured product. Several people liked the idea of knowing in advance whatsome of the product offerings would be and one person specifically statedthat signs advertising what was currently in season, especially which fruits,might make her more inclined to stop when she was driving by. And giventhe large number of focus group participants who first learned about andattended a farmers’ market because they were given a coupon through the

WIC program, a broader system of distributing coupons may attract many first-time market shoppers. But a word of caution from one group mem-ber serves as a good reminder that promotion will be most effective whenthe product selection at the farmers’ market itself is a draw: “I think you

could advertise that place like crazy and until there is something in there


15/25


that would continually draw people back, I don’t know if it’s a viable daily option.”

TIME CONSTRAINTS

Not surprisingly, across all focus groups time constraints were one of themost frequently cited barriers to shopping at farmers’ markets. Many people

wished that the farmers’ market was open more than one day a week. Butthough all but one of the farmers’ markets in the locations where we heldfocus groups had weekend hours and though most participants across thegroups felt that weekends were the most convenient time for shopping,

young adults and parents of young children in particular acknowledged thatattending a farmers’ market can be difficult to fit in. In the words of one

young adult participant, “I mean who wants to spend a Saturday afternoon

to go to downtown [city] to go dig out some green beans?” One youngmother explained: “It’s like sometimes we don’t go because we are tooexhausted. It’s only on that day, and even though we know it’s only on thatday but when we’re tired it’s like ‘Ok, we’ll miss it, we’ll just go to the store.”’

Of course, to a large degree time constraints reflect family and societalpatterns that are beyond the realm of farmers’ market managers. But partici-pants’ comments also revealed a number of possible avenues that managerscould utilize to better meet the needs of a broader spectrum of the com-munity. For one thing, many participants commented that the selection atthe farmers’ markets gets progressively more limited through the day. Thisin itself can be a disincentive for those unable to attend the market in theopening hours:

. . . there is certain food that they run out of and that they only bring acertain amount of and when it is gone it is gone. And this year I havenoticed because it is a lot busier than it has ever been if you are not thereearly you do not have a lot of choices. Sometimes if I can’t get there untilthe afternoon I might not go. It might not be worth my time to go.

When the need to get to the market early is paired with already limitedhours, it can make farmers’ market attendance even more difficult to fit intoone’s schedule.

Participants in all 7 groups expressed a desire for longer operatinghours. As one person commented, “See they shut down in the afternoonand people are out doing in the afternoon. I know it’s warm you know but a lot of times I’m just getting started at twelve, one o’clock and they’refinished.” These comments, then, demonstrate that longer hours or ensur-ing sufficient product supply through the duration of the market may helpdraw in more customers. Customer interests, however, should be considered

alongside the interests of farmers because for the latter, longer hours could


16/25


mean more time away from the farm and ensuring a more complete supply could translate into greater losses at the end of the market day.

Secondly, participants revealed that it is easiest to attend markets whenthe operating hours easily integrate with the rhythms of their daily lives and

most difficult to attend when a trip to the farmers’ market requires a uniquetrip or foregoing other activities. Several participants in one group had beengiven WIC coupons to a farmers’ market that was nearly a 30-minute drivefrom where they lived, and many had been unwilling or unable to makethe trip. In another focus group location, the farmers’ market was open on2 different weekdays, but because it was closed by 4 PM, those workingtypical business hours had to squeeze in a trip on their lunch break in orderto make it. Nearly all of the Latina focus group participants had no reasonto visit the downtown area where the farmers’ market was located otherthan the market itself. For this reason many were unable to prioritize the

extra time commitment of multiple shopping trips. These sentiments show that beyond the general time constraints potential farmers’ market shoppersmay face, the operating days and hours, as well as the location, can provideadditional barriers or disincentives to farmers’ market attendance.

As a potential way to mitigate these challenges, participants in severalfocus groups felt that farmers’ markets operating on a day and at a timein which people would already be in the area would likely draw the mostpeople in. Two of the rural groups discussed the idea of a market that

would be open on Sundays after church, a time when they would already be downtown. Another group discussed holding the market in conjunction

with another monthly downtown event.

LOCATION AND FACILITIES

The question of the convenience level of a farmers’ market location providedan interesting debate over the pros and cons of a downtown location in 4 of the focus groups. Those who supported the downtown location valued thefact that it brings people into what were in several cases underpopulateddowntowns, that a market is a walkable location for area residents, and

that it is frequently a visible event. On the other hand, many participantsexpressed the desire for a farmers’ market location that was “on the way” toother places they already frequent or do their shopping. In one focus groupthe debate seemed to more directly split along the lines of those who werelooking for an enjoyable excursion versus those who wanted convenientin-and-out shopping. One woman explained the reasons she enjoys thedowntown location, saying:

I am grateful that it is downtown because I am more apt to go “Oh I thinkI will walk to the farmers’ market today” and will hit the book store and

maybe treat myself to I don’t know what else—a little coffee. . . . I am


17/25


18/25


often meant that she had to make a trip to the ATM prior to going to themarket, making the excursion all the more difficult to fit into her schedule.In short, the acceptance of only cash at a farmers’ market presents a signif-icant disincentive for potential farmers’ market patrons who receive public

assistance and may also present an additional hurdle for those who are notin the habit of carrying cash. As one person put it, in regards to methods of payment, “More options are always better.”

ATMOSPHERE

Focus group conversations revealed that an overly crowded or overly empty setting and dilapidated facilities are elements that detract from a welcomingand pleasant atmosphere for some farmers’ market patrons. Another recur-ring theme in 3 of the groups was the perception that a farmers’ market is

often not conducive to young families. One woman described how difficultit was to navigate through the crowds at her local farmers’ market with herchildren:

I had three of my kids with me. . . . I had two hanging onto the strollerand one in the stroller. It was really hard. . . . It was just so hard with thekids. Especially when you have got like three or four of them. . . . They are little and they like to run everywhere, it is scary.

But beyond these inconveniences, participants in 6 of the groups eitherenjoyed or had no particular opinion about the nature of the social set-ting and the vendor interaction at the farmers’ market. The exception wasthe focus group with the Latina women, in which the women expressedgreat discomfort with the farmers’ market atmosphere. Of all the topics dis-cussed with the women in this group, this topic by far generated the greatestemotional intensity.

These women brought up a number of distinct concerns. Though women in other groups noted that shopping at the farmers’ market withchildren presents challenges, several in this group felt that vendors and

other customers were distrustful of or openly annoyed with their children.One woman told a story of a time when her kids had been running aroundand playing at the farmers’ market and another customer approached herand rudely asked “What is your problem?” which upset her greatly. Several

women said that they were asked to purchase items that their kids hadtouched and they specifically noted that they felt that white parents werenot asked to do the same thing. The women in this group also felt thatthey themselves were disrespected by the vendors. One woman describedhow she felt like she was being watched whenever she went to the farm-ers’ market and others agreed that they had had similar experiences. The

women vociferously agreed that the vendors were not very friendly. One


19/25


woman recounted a time when a vendor looked at her and said “[imitating asnarl] What do you want?” The language barrier between these women andthe vendors, none of whom spoke Spanish, likely added to the challengesof vendor interaction. It is also possible that because all of these women

were WIC program clients, the use of Project FRESH coupons at the farmers’market contributed to the poor reception they received from vendors.These focus group participants were also concerned with, and even

offended by, how the farmers or vendors presented themselves. They feltthat the farmers were often dressed sloppily, were overly casual, and let theirpet dogs run around too much. Some women were uncomfortable aroundthe pet dogs either because they were worried on behalf of their childrenor were worried about the impacts on sanitation. They felt that the farmers’sloppy appearance was a matter of both respect and sanitation. One womancommented that it was difficult to teach her kids to dress well and present

themselves nicely in public when they see farmers who are poorly dressed.

Survey Results

About 90% of respondents handled at least some household food shopping.Of those, more than half reported attending a farmers’ market in the previous

year. The factors with the highest mean importance for shopping at farm-ers’ markets were food quality (3.80), safety from food-borne illness (3.75),and ability to support local farms (3.71). The factors with the lowest meanresponse were availability of pesticide-free (2.98) and hormone-free (3.07)foods and ability to do one-stop shopping (3.08). Table 3 provides the mean

values for the behavioral and attitudinal variables that emerged as importantthemes within the focus groups. Along with sex, income, and education, wecompared Latino ethnicity and young adults to the general population basedon the apparent distinction in perspective from these demographics in thefocus groups.

The T -tests revealed a number of statistically significant differences inresponses among ethnic groups (Table 3). Latinos were particularly likely tohave statistically significant differences in response than non-Latinos. They

were, for example, more likely to shop for food but less likely to haveattended a farmers’ market. Furthermore, Latinos placed greater importanceon all attributes. Females also rated all attributes as more important than thesample mean, with many differences significant.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Summarizing the focus group results with an eye toward how they may indicate barriers or disincentives to farmers’ market attendance for under-

represented groups in particular, we note several key points. Participants


20/25

T A B L E 3

M e a n V a l u e s o f F a r m e r s ’ M a r k e t A t t i t u d i n a l a n d B e h a v i o r a l V a r i a b l e s b y A l l R e s p o n d e n t s ( S a m p l e ) a n d b y D e m o g r a p h i c G r o u p s

S h o p p i n g b e h a v i o r s

( y e s o r n

o )

I m p o r t a n c e o f f a c t o r s

i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t o s h o p

a t a f a r m e r s ’ m a r k e t ( 1 =

n o t i m

p o r t a n t a t a l l ; 2

= n o t v e r y i m p o r t a n t ; 3 =

s o m e w h a t i m p o r t a n t ; 4 =

v e r y i m p o r t a n t )

S u b g r o u p

H o u s e h o l d

f o o d

s h o p p e r ?

F

a r m e r s ’

m a r k e t

s h o p p e r ?

G o o d

v a l u e

L o c a t i o n

H o u r s

O n e - s t o p

s h o p p i n g

S u p p o r t i n g

l o c a

l f a r m

G e t t i n g

i n f o f r o m

v e n d o r

W e l c o m i n g

a t m o -

s p h e r e

P e s t i c i d e - f r e e

p r o d u c t

S a m p l e

0 . 9

0

0 . 6

1

3 . 5

0

3 . 4

4

3 . 4

0

3 . 0

8

3 . 7 1

3 . 1

9

3 . 2

5

2 . 9

8

F e m a l e

0 . 9

5 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 6

2

3 . 5

6 ∗ ∗

3 . 5

2 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 5

2 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 1

7 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 7 9 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 2

3

3 . 2

7

3 . 0

7 ∗ ∗ ∗

L a t i n o

1 . 0

0 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 2

7 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 7

6 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 6

6 ∗ ∗

3 . 7

6 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 5

1 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 9 0 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 8

4 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 6

8 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 2

5 ∗ ∗ ∗

L o w i n c o m e

0 . 8

8 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 5

7 ∗

3 . 6

5 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 4

8

3 . 5

5 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 3

4 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 7 8 ∗ ∗

3 . 2

4

3 . 2

7

3 . 0

1

C o l l e g e g r a d

0 . 9

6

0 . 6

2

3 . 4

3 ∗ ∗

3 . 5

0 ∗ ∗

3 . 4

3

2 . 9

4 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 6 4 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 0

6 ∗ ∗ ∗

3 . 1

1 ∗ ∗ ∗

2 . 9

0 ∗

Y o u n g a d u l t

0 . 7

6 ∗ ∗ ∗

0 . 5

4 ∗ ∗

3 . 4

4

3 . 3

3 ∗ ∗

3 . 2

8 ∗ ∗

3 . 1

6

3 . 7 8 ∗ ∗

3 . 3

2 ∗ ∗

3 . 3

3

2 . 9

3 ∗

S i g n i fi c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t t h e ∗ . 1

0 ,

∗ ∗ . 0

5 , a n d ∗ ∗ ∗ . 0

1 l e v e l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ,

b e t w e e n t h e s u b g r o u p a n d t h e s a m p l e a s a w h o l e a s m e a s u r e d b y a p a i r e d m e a n s T - t e s t .

333


21/25


consistently expected farmers’ markets to offer fresh, locally and naturally grown produce at competitive prices and in a welcoming atmosphere, nei-ther dull nor chaotic. The focus group conversations indicated that themore these attributes held true for their neighborhood market, the stronger

the desire among residents was to shop regularly at farmers’ markets.Conversely, when these general expectations of competitive prices and abroad selection of fresh produce were not met, many participants had littledesire to attend the farmers’ market. The interest in locally and naturally grown produce expressed across demographics and equally among those

who did and did not shop at farmers’ markets challenges the tendency to correlate particular values with farmers’ market behavior. Rather, ourresearch indicates that nonparticipation in farmers’ markets relates not toa lack of interest in high-quality farm-direct produce but to an array of bar-riers, disincentives, and competing priorities, some of which seem to fall

along socioeconomic and demographic lines.Limited promotion of farmers’ markets and use of mostly mainstream

channels may encourage proportionately greater farmers’ market attendancefrom mainstream cultures. The typically limited hours of a farmers’ marketmean that those with the luxury of greater flexibility in their schedules willhave an easier time patronizing farmers’ markets, whereas those, for exam-ple, the international graduate student parents, who are juggling school,

work, and parenthood will have a more difficult time. Similarly, the atmo-sphere and aesthetics of a downtown market will be easier to appreciate forthose with the ability to make a special trip. On the other hand, farmers’

markets in locations that people already frequent, such as the parking lotof a major food retailer, may be easier for those preferring convenience toattend. The inability of farmers’ markets to accept EBT, or simply the percep-tion of this inability, presents an even more concrete barrier for low-incomeindividuals. Lastly, the difficulty of bringing young kids to a market andthe strong social discomfort experienced by the Latina women reveal thatthe atmosphere of a farmers’ market can have an influence on attendancebeyond simply the product offerings.

Taking the qualitative and quantitative results together, we can begin to

draw several conclusions. First, the focus groups demonstrated that across alldemographics represented, participants valued and expected fresh, naturally grown, local produce at farmers’ markets. The survey results indicate thatLatinos place greater importance on attributes more commonly associated

with farmers’ market produce like pesticide free and grown on a local farmbut are also far less likely to shop there. The survey data further show that increased desire for the convenience of one-stop shopping does notnecessarily mean that people feel less strongly about other food attributes.These results indicate that people hold largely similar values with respect tofood purchasing but differ in their abilities to act on all their values because

of other constraints.


22/25


Secondly, both qualitative and quantitative results indicate that youngadults tend to be less likely to shop at farmers’ markets than the generalpopulation. From the focus groups, this seems to be related to a generaldisinterest by young singles in prioritizing weekend time to go to a market

and young parents’ difficulty bringing small children to a market.Thirdly, the discussion of the location of farmers’ markets and thetrade-offs between downtown and suburban locations does reveal somedichotomy in the values that people hold and act on. But what may bemissing from the research relying on closed-ended survey questions thatthis study reveals are the interactions between food purchasing values andthe way in which desires to purchase naturally grown, healthy foods fromtrusted sources are mediated by the need for convenience, affordability, andone-stop shopping.

Finally, the focus group conversations around the lack of farmers’ mar-

ket promotion seem to indicate that more culturally diverse means of marketadvertising may help to broaden the customer base. Yet, returning to thediscomfort that the Latina women felt with the social interactions at theirlocal market, and given the large discrepancy in the value placed on thetypes of produce typically available at a farmers’ market and the compara-tively low likelihood of shopping at a farmers’ market from the survey data,there may be reason to think that Latinos are experiencing some levels of racism in these venues. It is also worth recalling that our inability to arrangea focus group with solely African American individuals and the fact that

African Americans are only represented by 3 or fewer individuals in each

of 2 focus groups in this research means that we cannot rule out the pos-sibility of African Americans, or other racial minorities, maintaining distinctperspectives on the social interactions of a farmers’ market.

This research raises important questions about what farmers’ marketsare intended to be, to whom they appeal, and who has the financial capac-ity, the time, and the social cachet to privilege patronizing these venuesin their day-to-day decisions. The results give shape and dimension tothe interplay of embeddedness, marketness, and instrumentalism (in thiscase, the competing interests of supporting local farmers and an enjoyable

excursion versus price and convenience) within farmers’ market exchange.Furthermore, they indicate potential barriers to accessing the external socialbenefits associated with direct markets. As Hinrichs reminded us, “Social tiesand personal connections in no way preclude instrumental behaviors or therelevance of price. In practice, all jostle side by side. (p. 296)”7 This researchhelps shed light on what those “jostling” values are and how they might beprioritized by different groups.

The distinct concerns brought up by the Latinas point to a need for fur-ther research into the experiences of minority groups in regards to the socialsetting at farmers’ markets. But the indication that the market was perceived


23/25


as dirty and the vendors as disrespectful may also signal that farmers’ mar-kets are not equated with status or “trendiness” in all demographic groups. Inconclusion, we hope this research will offer some practical insight for mar-ket managers on barriers or disincentives that potential market patrons may

face as well as stimulate dialogue on the broader significance and meaningof direct market venues within our diverse society.

REFERENCES

1. US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service. National Farmers Market Manager Survey . Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5077203&acct= wdmgeninfo. Accessed June 9,2009.

2. Lyson TA, Gillespie GW, Hilchey D. Farmers markets and the local com-munity: bridging the formal and informal economy. Am J Alternative Agr .1995;10:108–113.

3. Feenstra GW, Lewis CC, Hinrichs CC, Gillespie GW, Hilchey D. Entrepreneurialoutcomes and enterprise size in US retail farmers’ markets. Am J Altern Agric.2003;18:46–55.

4. Hilchey D, Lyson TA, Gillespie GW. Farmers’ Markets and Rural Economic Development . Ithaca, NY: Farming Alternatives Program Department of RuralSociology Cornell University; 1995.

5. Lyson TA. Civic Agriculture. Reconnecting Farm, Food, and Community .

Medford, Mass: Tufts University Press; 2004.6. Wright W, Middendorf G. Introduction: fighting over food: change in the agri-

food system. In: Wright W, Middendorf G, eds. The Fight Over Food: Producers,Consumers, and Activists Challenge the Global Food System. University Park, Pa:The Pennsylvania State University Press; 2008:1–26.

7. Hinrichs CC. Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market. J Rural Stud . 2000;16:295–303.

8. Hinrichs CC, Gillespie GW, Feenstra GW. Social learning and innovation at retailfarmers’ markets. Rural Sociol . 2004;69:31–58.

9. DeLind LB. Market niches, “cul de sacs”, and social context: alternative systemsof food production. Cult Agric. 1993;13:7–12.

10. Allen P. Together at the Table, Sustainability and Sustenance in the American Agrifood System. University Park, Pa: The Pennsylvania State University Press;2004.

11. Alkon A, McCullen C. How farmers markets become white spaces, and what we can do about it. Available at: https://elist.tuffs.edu/ wws/arc/comfood/2008-05/msg00059.html. Accessed July 28, 2010.

12. Block F. Postindustrial Possibilities: A Critique of Economic Discourse . Berkeley,Calif: University of California Press; 1990.

13. Eastwood DB, Brooker JR, Gray MD. Location and other market attributesaffecting farmer’s market patronage: the case of Tennessee. J Food Distrib Res .

1999;30:63–72.


24/25


14. Elepu G. Urban and Suburban Farmers Markets in Illinois: A Comparative Analysis of Consumer Segmentation Using Demographics, Preferences, and

Behaviors [dissertation]. Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign;2005.

15. Wolf MM, Berrenson E. A comparison of purchasing behaviors and consumerprofiles at San Luis Obispo’s Thursday night farmer’s market. J Food Distrib Res .2003;34:107–122.

16. Govindasamy R, Zurbriggen M, Italia J, Adelaja A, Nitzsche P, VanVrankenR. Farmers Markets: Consumer Trends, Preferences, and Characteristics . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University; 1998.

17. Keeling-Bond J, Thilmany D, Bond CA. What influences consumer choice of fresh produce purchase location? J Agric Appl Econ. 2009;41:61–74.

18. Wolf MM, Spittler A, Ahern J. A profile of farmers’ market consumers and theperceived advantages of produce sold at farmers’ markets. J Food Distrib Res .2005;36:192–201.

19. Thilmany D, Bond CA, Keeling-Bond J. Going local: exploring consumerbehavior and motivations for direct food purchases. Am J Agric Econ.2008;90:1303–1309.

20. Stephenson G, Lev L. Common support for local agriculture in two contrastingOregon communities. Renew Agric Food Syst . 2004;19:210–217.

21. Manalo AB, Sciabarrasi MR, Haddad NA, Jellie GM. Buying products directly from farmers and valuing agriculture: behavior and attitudes of New Hampshire food shoppers. Available at: http://extension.unh.edu/pubs/AgPubs/FCSR703.pdf. Accessed May 6, 2009.

22. Onianwa O, Mojica M, Wheelock G. Consumer characteristics and viewsregarding farmers markets: an examination of on-site survey data of Alabama

consumers. J Food Distrib Res . 2006;37:119–125.23. Govindasamy R, Italia J, Adelaja A. Farmers’ markets: consumer trends, prefer-

ences, and characteristics. J Ext. 2002;40. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002february/rb6.php. Accessed May 11, 2009.

24. Andreatta S, William Wickliffe I. Managing farmer and consumer expectations:a study of a North Carolina farmers market. Hum Organ. 2002;61:167–176.

25. Connell DJ, Smithers J, Joseph A. Farmers’ markets and the “good food” valuechain: a preliminary study. Local Environ. 2008;13:169–185.

26. Keeling-Bond J, Thilmany D, Bond CA. Direct marketing of fresh produce:understanding consumer purchasing decisions. Choices. 2006;21:1–6.

27. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research.3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 2000.

28. Morgan D. The Focus Group Guidebook . Thousand Oaks, Calif: SagePublications; 1998.

29. Morgan D, ed. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif:Sage Publications; 1997.

30. Greenbaum TL. Moderating Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Group Facilitation. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 2000.


25/25


31. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook .Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 1994.

32. Hembroff L. Methodological Report, Michigan State University State of the State Survey . East Lansing, Mich: Institute for Public Policy and Social Research Officefor Survey Research, Michigan State University; 2009.

[Doi 10.1080%2F19320248.2010.504097] K. J. a. Colasanti; D. S. Conner; S. B. Smalley -- Understanding Barriers to Farmers' Market Patronage in Michigan- Perspectives From Marginalized

Documents