Characterizing Farmers' Market Shoppers: 
A Literature Review
Authors: Carmen Byker, Justin Shanks, Sarah 
Misyak, & Elena Serrano
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published in Journal of Hunger and Environmental 
Nutrition on January 2012, available online: 
http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/19320248.2012.650074.
Byker, C., Shanks, J., Misyak, S., & Serrano, E. "Characterizing Farmers Market Shoppers: A 
Literature Review. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition." 7, no. 1 (January 2012): 
38-52. 
Made available through Montana State University’s ScholarWorks 
scholarworks.montana.edu 
Characterizing Farmers’ Market Shoppers: 
A Literature Review
1Montana State University, Department of Health and Human Development, 
Bozeman, Montana, USA
2Virginia Tech, Department of Science Technology in Society,
Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
3Virginia Tech, Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, 
Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
The number of farmers’ markets in the United States continues
to grow, suggesting an increasing interest in community food
systems. Yet, little conclusive research has been conducted to
characterize farmers’ market customers. The purpose of this liter-
ature review is to more definitively examine the current farmers’
market consumer base established in published research studies.
We explore demographic factors as well as motivations and barri-
ers for farmers’ markets shoppers. Based on current research, it is
clear that an assortment of complex and interrelated factors influ-
ence an individual’s choice to shop at farmers’ markets and that a
more consistent data gathering method is needed.
A food system encompasses all people and processes related to food, includ-
ing agricultural production, processing, packaging, distribution, marketing,
consumption, and disposal.1 In an effort to rethink the modern configu-
ration (ie, conventional agriculture), a growing number of individuals are
engaging in more localized and community-based food systems (or what
is often referred to as a foodshed) in lieu of a larger, more industrialized
Carmen Byker1, Justin Shanks2, Sarah Misyak3, & Elena Serrano3
Abstract
and anonymous conventional structure.2 Whereas the modern conventional
food system broadens food cycle inputs and outputs to a global scale, a
community-based food system is conceptualized as one where all of the
components are localized to a particular place.3 Community food systems
ultimately aim to attain food security (for individuals as well as entire
communities), relational proximity, self-reliance, and sustainability.1
The explosive growth of farmers’ markets in recent years demon-
strates increasing interest in community food systems. In 1994, the US
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service tallied
1755 farmers’ markets nationally.4 By the end of 2004 that number grew
to 3706; and in 2010, 6132 farmers’ markets were reported.4 With such
rapid growth, farmers’ markets have become more pervasive features in
many food environments and an increasingly familiar food system concept.
Yet little conclusive research has been conducted to characterize farmers’
market customers, although the popular press has claimed that farmers’ mar-
kets attract more patrons of higher education and income levels and fewer
patrons from disparate audiences.5
As a result, it is important to understand how farmers’ markets play a
role in the local food environment and, if not reaching broader underserved
audiences, strategize ways to improve access and utilization. To further
diversify the farmers’ market base, it is critical to determine whether there
are socioecological factors that might encourage demographically diverse
consumers to shop at the farmers’ market. From a socioecological perspec-
tive, individual choices are mediated by a variety of contextual factors.6
Individual, relational, organizational, community, social, and cultural ele-
ments are all in play when consumers make choices within their food
environment and food system. The decision to shop (or not to shop) at
the farmers’ market is just one of the choices consumers make as a result of
their own socioecological matrix. The purpose of this literature review is to
examine the current farmers’ market consumer base established in published
research studies and then to further outline the research needs surrounding
farmers’ market use.
METHODOLOGY
Social and behavioral science peer-reviewed articles were identified using
ISI Web of Knowledge, PubMed, Informaworld, ScienceDirect, and Google
Scholar databases. To identify pertinent articles about consumers, the term
farmers’ market was combined with the following words: demograph-
ics, income, education, age, gender, race, ethnicity, employment, and
consumer.
For each pairing of search terms, titles and abstracts were used to
identify articles related to each categorical topic. Articles were included if
the following 3 criteria were met: published between January 2005 and
December 2010; found using identified search terms through the afore-
mentioned journal databases; and peer reviewed. Relevant articles were
retrieved and annotated within each category. A snowball technique was
used with reference sections of retrieved articles to identify other relevant
studies. In all, 22 relevant articles regarding consumer research and farm-
ers’ markets were included in the literature review. Research findings were
reviewed and validated by 2 other researchers. The studies included in this
review used a range of methodologies to obtain information about farmers’
market shoppers, including various survey formats and interviewing.
RESULTS
The following review attempts to highlight consistencies and inconsisten-
cies reported in farmers’ market consumer data and characteristics. Table 1
summarizes the results.
Gender
Research from reviewed literature suggests that farmers’ market patrons are
more likely to be female. Six studies conducted in various regions of the
United States used written surveys to collect demographic characteristics
on-site (ie, at farmers’ markets). At least 64% and up to 77% of written
survey respondents reported being female.9,13–15,19,20 Other studies used off-
site survey methods to gather state and nationwide representative samples of
farmers’ market shoppers. Consistent with other studies, Zepeda conducted
a nationwide telephone and mail survey to identify differences in market
shoppers and nonshoppers and reported that market shoppers were more
likely to be female.22 A Michigan telephone survey also found that females
were more motivated to attend farmers’ markets.12
To define characteristics of direct-market shoppers, Onianwa and col-
leagues collected telephone survey data in Alabama.16 In contrast to other
studies, they found that males were more likely to purchase from direct-
market outlets; however, direct-market outlets were broad and did not
separate shoppers of roadside stands, tailgate vehicles, and U-picks from
farmers’ markets.
It is possible to explain these findings about gender through a compar-
ison with the findings in other studies about consumer attitudes regarding
food purchases. Bellows et al explored the extent to which gender plays a
role in shaping consumer attitudes regarding organic, local, US-grown, and
genetically modified foods.10 According to their study, a majority of females
were responsible for cooking and food shopping and had strong attitudes
TA
B
LE
1
C
u
rr
en
t
R
es
ea
rc
h
C
h
ar
ac
te
ri
zi
n
g
Fa
rm
er
s’
M
ar
ke
t
Sh
o
p
p
er
s
R
es
ea
rc
h
to
o
l
R
es
ea
rc
h
an
al
ys
is
So
ci
o
ec
o
n
o
m
ic
fa
ct
o
r
P
ar
tic
ip
an
t
lo
ca
tio
n
Fa
ct
o
rs
th
at
af
fe
ct
m
ar
ke
t
p
at
ro
n
ag
e
A
u
th
o
rs
E
th
n
o
gr
ap
h
ic
re
se
ar
ch
In
te
rv
ie
w
s
G
ro
u
n
d
ed
th
eo
ry
m
et
h
o
d
o
lo
gy
In
co
m
e
E
th
n
ic
ity
W
es
t
O
ak
la
n
d
fa
rm
er
s’
m
ar
ke
t
an
d
N
o
rt
h
B
er
kl
ey
fa
rm
er
s’
m
ar
ke
t
in
C
al
if
o
rn
ia
N
o
rt
h
B
er
kl
ey
co
n
su
m
er
s
ar
e
78
%
w
h
ite
w
ith
38
%
ea
rn
in
g
m
o
re
th
an
$1
00
00
0
an
n
u
al
ly
Fa
rm
er
s
in
N
o
rt
h
B
er
kl
ey
ci
te
ec
o
n
o
m
ic
n
ec
es
si
ty
to
w
o
rk
in
w
ea
lth
ie
r
lo
ca
le
s,
w
ith
o
u
t
a
fo
cu
s
o
n
fo
o
d
se
cu
ri
ty
T
h
e
W
es
t
O
ak
la
n
d
m
ar
ke
t
is
in
a
p
o
o
r,
p
re
d
o
m
in
at
el
y
A
fr
ic
an
A
m
er
ic
an
n
ei
gh
b
o
rh
o
o
d
V
en
d
o
r
tu
rn
o
ve
r
in
W
es
t
O
ak
la
n
d
is
h
ig
h
d
u
e
to
la
ck
o
f
sa
le
s
A
lk
o
n
7
E
th
n
o
gr
ap
h
ic
re
se
ar
ch
G
ro
u
n
d
ed
th
eo
ry
m
et
h
o
d
o
lo
gy
E
xt
en
d
ed
ca
se
m
et
h
o
d
E
th
n
ic
ity
W
es
t
O
ak
la
n
d
fa
rm
er
s’
m
ar
ke
t
an
d
N
o
rt
h
B
er
kl
ey
fa
rm
er
s’
m
ar
ke
t
in
C
al
if
o
rn
ia
Lo
ca
lly
gr
o
w
n
o
rg
an
ic
fo
o
d
b
ec
am
e
a
sy
m
b
o
l
th
ro
u
gh
w
h
ic
h
a
la
rg
el
y
w
h
ite
an
d
af
fl
u
en
t
co
n
su
m
er
b
as
e
fe
lt
co
n
n
ec
te
d
to
n
at
u
re
in
th
e
N
o
rt
h
B
er
kl
ey
m
ar
ke
t
Fa
rm
er
s’
m
ar
ke
ts
w
er
e
co
n
n
ec
te
d
to
en
vi
ro
n
m
en
ta
l
ju
st
ic
e
ef
fo
rt
s
in
th
e
la
rg
el
y
p
o
o
r
an
d
A
fr
ic
an
A
m
er
ic
an
W
es
t
O
ak
la
n
d
m
ar
ke
t
A
lk
o
n
8
C
o
n
su
m
er
su
rv
ey
s
B
iv
ar
ia
te
st
at
is
tic
al
an
al
ys
is
C
ro
ss
-t
ab
u
la
tio
n
G
en
d
er
A
ge
In
co
m
e
M
o
tiv
at
o
rs
Lo
ca
tio
n
N
o
rt
h
w
es
te
rn
V
er
m
o
n
t
T
yp
ic
al
co
n
su
m
er
s
w
er
e
fe
m
al
e
in
th
ei
r
ea
rl
y
50
s,
w
ith
an
an
n
u
al
h
o
u
se
h
o
ld
in
co
m
e
o
f
o
ve
r
$6
0
00
0
B
ak
er
et
al
9
(C
on
ti
n
u
ed
)
TA
B
LE
1
(C
o
n
tin
u
ed
)
R
es
ea
rc
h
to
o
l
R
es
ea
rc
h
an
al
ys
is
So
ci
o
ec
o
n
o
m
ic
fa
ct
o
r
P
ar
tic
ip
an
t
lo
ca
tio
n
Fa
ct
o
rs
th
at
af
fe
ct
m
ar
ke
t
p
at
ro
n
ag
e
A
u
th
o
rs
Te
le
p
h
o
n
e
su
rv
ey
E
xp
lo
ra
to
ry
fa
ct
o
r
an
al
ys
is
G
en
d
er
In
co
m
e
E
d
u
ca
tio
n
M
o
tiv
at
o
rs
N
at
io
n
al
ra
n
d
o
m
sa
m
p
lin
g
C
o
n
su
m
er
s
w
h
o
w
er
e
o
ld
er
,
h
av
e
lo
w
er
in
co
m
es
,
an
d
w
h
o
ar
e
re
lig
io
u
sl
y
o
b
se
rv
an
t
as
si
gn
ed
im
p
o
rt
an
ce
to
U
S-
gr
o
w
n
,
fo
llo
w
ed
b
y
G
M
-f
re
e
(n
o
t
ge
n
et
ic
al
ly
m
o
d
ifi
ed
),
lo
ca
lly
gr
o
w
n
,
an
d
o
rg
an
ic
al
ly
p
ro
d
u
ce
d
fo
o
d
B
el
lo
w
s
et
al
10
C
o
n
su
m
er
su
rv
ey
s
St
at
is
tic
al
te
st
s
o
n
m
ea
n
D
es
cr
ip
tiv
e
st
at
is
tic
s
G
en
d
er
Lo
ca
tio
n
M
o
tiv
at
o
rs
N
at
io
n
al
sa
m
p
lin
g
R
es
p
o
n
d
en
ts
to
d
ir
ec
t-
to
-c
o
n
su
m
er
m
ar
ke
tin
g
su
rv
ey
s
ar
e
p
re
d
o
m
in
at
el
y
fe
m
al
e
B
o
n
d
et
al
11
Te
le
p
h
o
n
e
su
rv
ey
P
ro
b
it
m
o
d
el
G
en
d
er
E
th
n
ic
ity
E
d
u
ca
tio
n
In
co
m
e
M
o
tiv
at
o
rs
an
d
b
ar
ri
er
s
M
ic
h
ig
an
C
o
n
su
m
er
s
w
er
e
m
o
re
lik
el
y
to
b
e
fe
m
al
e,
w
h
ite
,
h
av
e
so
m
e
co
lle
ge
ed
u
ca
tio
n
,
an
d
h
av
e
a
m
ed
ia
n
h
o
u
se
h
o
ld
in
co
m
e
o
f
$5
6
00
0
C
o
n
n
er
et
al
12
C
o
n
su
m
er
in
te
rc
ep
t
su
rv
ey
C
lu
st
er
an
al
ys
is
to
id
en
tif
y
co
n
su
m
er
se
gm
en
ts
G
en
d
er
A
ge
E
d
u
ca
tio
n
E
th
n
ic
ity
In
co
m
e
T
h
e
C
h
ic
ag
o
an
d
M
et
ro
E
as
t
(S
t.
Lo
u
is
)
m
et
ro
p
o
lit
an
ar
ea
s
C
o
n
su
m
er
s
ca
n
b
e
d
iv
id
ed
in
to
5
gr
o
u
p
s:
(1
)
m
ar
ke
t
en
th
u
si
as
ts
,
(2
)
re
cr
ea
tio
n
al
sh
o
p
p
er
s,
(3
)
se
ri
o
u
s
sh
o
p
p
er
s,
(4
)
lo
w
-i
n
vo
lv
ed
sh
o
p
p
er
s,
an
d
(5
)
b
as
ic
sh
o
p
p
er
s
G
ro
u
p
s
d
if
fe
r
si
gn
ifi
ca
n
tly
in
d
em
o
gr
ap
h
ic
an
d
b
eh
av
io
ra
l
ch
ar
ac
te
ri
st
ic
s
E
le
p
u
an
d
M
az
zo
cc
o
13
C
o
n
su
m
er
su
rv
ey
s
V
en
d
o
r
su
rv
ey
s
M
u
lti
p
le
re
gr
es
si
o
n
B
in
ar
y
ch
o
ic
e
p
ro
b
it
m
o
d
el
G
en
d
er
M
o
tiv
at
o
rs
A
ge
In
co
m
e
M
ai
n
e
C
o
n
su
m
er
so
ci
al
in
te
ra
ct
io
n
s,
su
ch
as
en
jo
yi
n
g
th
e
m
ar
ke
t,
ta
lk
in
g
w
ith
fa
rm
er
s
ab
o
u
t
se
as
o
n
al
p
ro
d
u
ct
s,
an
d
m
ak
in
g
a
tr
ip
to
th
e
m
ar
ke
t
a
fa
m
ily
ev
en
t
si
gn
ifi
ca
n
tly
in
fl
u
en
ce
s
m
ar
ke
t
sh
ip
p
in
g
H
u
n
t1
4
C
o
n
su
m
er
su
rv
ey
s
D
es
cr
ip
tiv
e
st
at
is
tic
s
G
en
d
er
In
co
m
e
M
o
tiv
at
o
rs
Lo
ca
tio
n
A
ge
E
th
n
ic
ity
A
la
b
am
a
72
%
w
er
e
fe
m
al
e9
0%
o
f
co
n
su
m
er
s
ea
rn
ed
an
an
n
u
al
in
co
m
e
o
ve
r
$2
5
00
0
O
n
ia
n
w
a
et
al
15
Te
le
p
h
o
n
e
su
rv
ey
B
in
ar
y
lo
gi
t
m
o
d
el
G
en
d
er
E
d
u
ca
tio
n
R
ac
e
In
co
m
e
A
la
b
am
a
M
al
es
w
er
e
m
o
re
lik
el
y
to
sh
o
p
at
d
ir
ec
t-
to
-c
o
n
su
m
er
m
ar
ke
ts
E
d
u
ca
tio
n
w
as
th
e
m
o
st
si
gn
ifi
ca
n
t
va
ri
ab
le
to
sh
o
p
p
in
g
at
d
ir
ec
t-
to
-c
o
n
su
m
er
m
ar
ke
ts
Fa
m
ili
es
w
ith
ch
ild
re
n
w
er
e
m
o
re
lik
el
y
to
sh
o
p
at
d
ir
ec
t
to
co
n
su
m
er
m
ar
ke
ts
O
n
ia
n
w
a
et
al
16
Su
rv
ey
s
Fo
o
d
fr
eq
u
en
cy
q
u
es
tio
n
n
ai
re
A
n
th
ro
p
o
m
et
ri
c
m
ea
su
re
s
C
ro
ss
-s
ec
tio
n
al
an
al
ys
is
E
th
n
ic
ity
In
co
m
e
M
o
tiv
at
o
rs
M
in
n
es
o
ta
sc
h
o
o
ls
St
u
d
en
ts
w
h
o
va
lu
ed
lo
ca
lly
gr
o
w
n
,
o
rg
an
ic
,
n
o
n
-g
en
et
ic
al
ly
en
gi
n
ee
re
d
,
an
d
n
o
n
p
ro
ce
ss
ed
fo
o
d
w
er
e
m
o
re
lik
el
y
to
b
e
n
o
n
-w
h
ite
an
d
o
f
a
lo
w
so
ci
o
ec
o
n
o
m
ic
st
at
u
s
R
o
b
in
so
n
-
O
’B
ri
en
et
al
17
C
o
n
su
m
er
su
rv
ey
s
V
en
d
o
r
su
rv
ey
s
R
eg
re
ss
io
n
an
al
ys
is
In
co
m
e
A
ge
Io
w
a
U
rb
an
m
ar
ke
ts
ar
e
as
so
ci
at
ed
w
ith
h
ig
h
er
ve
n
d
o
r
in
co
m
es
A
ve
ra
ge
m
ar
ke
t
co
n
su
m
er
is
51
–6
5
ye
ar
s
o
f
ag
e
V
ar
n
er
an
d
O
tt
o
18
(C
on
ti
n
u
ed
)
TA
B
LE
1
(C
o
n
tin
u
ed
)
R
es
ea
rc
h
to
o
l
R
es
ea
rc
h
an
al
ys
is
So
ci
o
ec
o
n
o
m
ic
fa
ct
o
r
P
ar
tic
ip
an
t
lo
ca
tio
n
Fa
ct
o
rs
th
at
af
fe
ct
m
ar
ke
t
p
at
ro
n
ag
e
A
u
th
o
rs
C
o
n
su
m
er
su
rv
ey
s
Fi
sh
er
’s
ex
ac
t
te
st
G
en
d
er
M
o
tiv
at
o
rs
A
ge
U
rb
an
a
fa
rm
er
s’
m
ar
ke
t
an
d
a
fa
rm
st
an
d
in
C
o
lli
n
sv
ill
e,
Il
lin
o
is
T
h
e
m
aj
o
ri
ty
o
f
m
ar
ke
t
co
n
su
m
er
s
w
er
e
w
ill
in
g
to
p
ay
a
p
re
m
iu
m
fo
r
lo
ca
lly
gr
o
w
n
p
ro
d
u
ce
V
el
as
q
u
ez
et
al
19
Su
rv
ey
P
er
so
n
al
in
te
rv
ie
w
C
h
i-
sq
u
ar
ed
te
st
G
en
d
er
E
d
u
ca
tio
n
In
co
m
e
A
ge
M
o
tiv
at
o
rs
an
d
b
ar
ri
er
s
Sa
n
Lu
is
O
b
is
p
o
C
o
u
n
ty
,
C
al
if
o
rn
ia
C
o
n
su
m
er
s
ar
e
m
o
re
lik
el
y
to
b
e
fe
m
al
e,
m
ar
ri
ed
,
an
d
h
av
e
co
m
p
le
te
d
p
o
st
gr
ad
u
at
e
w
o
rk
W
o
lf
et
al
20
M
ai
lin
g
an
d
te
le
p
h
o
n
e
su
rv
ey
P
ro
b
it
m
o
d
el
G
en
d
er
In
co
m
e
M
o
tiv
at
o
rs
R
ac
e
A
ge
E
d
u
ca
tio
n
N
at
io
n
al
In
co
m
e
an
d
d
em
o
gr
ap
h
ic
s
ar
e
n
o
t
d
o
m
in
an
t
fa
ct
o
rs
in
d
et
er
m
in
in
g
w
h
et
h
er
co
n
su
m
er
s
b
u
y
lo
ca
l
fo
o
d
s
Z
ep
ed
a
an
d
Li
21
M
ai
lin
g
an
d
te
le
p
h
o
n
e
su
rv
ey
P
ro
b
it
m
o
d
el
Te
st
o
f
m
ea
n
s
G
en
d
er
In
co
m
e
M
o
tiv
at
o
rs
R
ac
e
A
ge
E
d
u
ca
tio
n
N
at
io
n
al
ra
n
d
o
m
sa
m
p
lin
g
Fa
ct
o
rs
in
fl
u
en
ci
n
g
m
ar
ke
t
at
te
n
d
an
ce
in
cl
u
d
e
(1
)
en
jo
ym
en
t
an
d
fr
eq
u
en
cy
o
f
co
o
ki
n
g,
(2
)
b
ei
n
g
fe
m
al
e,
an
d
(3
)
p
re
se
n
ce
o
f
an
o
th
er
ad
u
lt
in
th
e
h
o
u
se
h
o
ld
Z
ep
ed
a2
2
toward local foods. To gather information about primary household food
shoppers’ produce purchasing patterns, Bond and colleagues administered
a national online survey.11 Questionnaire respondents were predominantly
female, suggesting that they were responsible for produce shopping and/or
that they may be more apt to complete surveys. It is important to keep
in mind that though studies report that females are more likely to shop at
farmers’ markets, this does not necessarily mean that males are shopping
at other food outlets instead. In fact, research suggests that the majority of
males likely refer primary food shopping responsibilities to women.23,24
Age
A majority of studies included in this review concluded that the average
farmers’ market shopper was over 40 years of age.9,12,13,15,18,20 However,
Velasquez et al’s study of a farmers’ market and farm stand in Illinois did
diverge slightly. His research found an average customer age of 34 years.19
Because most studies suggest an average patron age over 40, Hunt’s review
of the social influences of customers on farmers’ market vendors may shed
some light on this specific demographic characteristic.14 According to Hunt,
increased age was significantly related to more frequent social interactions.
Following suit, it is possible that older community members patronize farm-
ers’ markets for social reasons in addition to food purchases. Bellows and
colleagues’ study adds information that both male and female consumers
over 42 years of age were more likely to support natural food attributes
such as those found at the farmers’ market.10 Despite some consistency
in average age characteristics, there is still not a critical mass of research
evidence reporting age characteristics of farmers’ market patrons. Future
studies should explore and comment on the age differential of farmers’
market shoppers, possibly relating age to income or other demographic
factors.
Personal Income
Several studies found that farmers’ market customers earned an average
household income of $50 000 per year.9,12–14 Another study reported that
90% of farmers’ market customers earn more than $25 000 per year but did
not differentiate between income levels above that number.15 Furthermore,
Varner and Otto’s study found positive association between per capita
income in geographic areas in Iowa and farmers’ market sales.18 Zepeda’s
study reported that, when compared to nonshoppers (ie, consumers who
shop at other food outlet locations such as the supermarket or grocery store),
farmers’ market shoppers were more likely to earn between $15 000 and
$30 000, lower than expected.22 The authors suggested that willingness to
pay for farmers’ market food may be a better predictor, regardless of income.
Adding a longer-term perspective, Wolf and colleagues found that
there was a wider distribution in middle and higher income levels in their
2005 study than in a similar study they conducted 10 years prior.20 This shift
in results suggests that the consumer base at farmers’ markets may be diver-
sifying, possibly accounting for some of the conflicting data with regard to
the incomes of farmers’ market patrons.
It is also important to point out the role of nonmonetary (or non-
income) variables. Another investigation by Zepeda and Li found that
income level did not affect local food purchases.21 The authors explained
that the lack of correlation may be due to the fact that local food pur-
chases were a minimal percentage of total income and total food purchases.
Clearly, there is no consistent conclusion about the income of farmers’
market shoppers.
Educational Attainment
Onianwa et al’s analysis indicated that education is the greatest predictor of
direct-market shoppers (ie, consumers who purchase food directly from the
producer).16 In a study of 2 San Francisco farmers’ markets, Alkon found
that both markets attracted highly educated individuals, regardless of race or
income.7 Several other on-site surveys confirmed these findings, with 60% to
94% of respondents attaining at least some level of college education.13–15,20
For example, Conner and colleagues’ Michigan telephone survey reported
that farmers’ market supporters had a mean education level of at least some
college education.12
Conversely, Varner and Otto’s study from Iowa claimed no significant
differences in sales at farmers’ markets where educational attainment was
lower than the surrounding US Census area.18 That said, there are some
inherent limitations to their research methodology. Rather than using primary
data collection methodologies, Varner and Otto relied upon a combination
of secondary data—census and location data—to make causal inferences
about farmers’ market shopper income. Similar to Varner and Otto’s18 study,
Zepeda and Li’s investigations of farmers’ market shoppers and local food
consumers via a nationwide telephone and mail survey found no difference
in education levels of farmers’ market shoppers and nonshoppers or sup-
porters of local food.21,22 Given the contradictory results in on-site versus
off-site research, further research is needed to better understand divergent
findings about the education of farmers’ market shoppers.
Race and Ethnicity
Data from 9 studies included in this portion of the review present vari-
ous findings with regard to race and ethnicity. Three studies found that a
majority of shoppers were white.12,13,15 Although Onianwa et al found that
white individuals were 1.8 times more likely to shop at a farmers’ mar-
ket, these results were not statistically significant.16 Other research showed
that race is not an indicator of an individual’s support (or lack thereof)
for local food or farmers’ markets.21,22 Additionally, research by Robinson-
O’Brien et al reported on adolescent attitudes toward locally grown,
organic, non-genetically engineered, and nonprocessed foods.17 Non-white
respondents valued alternative production methods more than white respon-
dents. Considering that 70% of respondents were Hmong American, the
authors suggest that these unexpected results were due to racial differences
regarding the valuation of alternative food production methods. Somewhat
similarly, Alkon’s studies of 2 demographically and geographically diverse
farmers’ markets from 2 different neighborhoods found that a majority of
patrons at one market were white, whereas the majority at the other market
were black.7,8 Conner and colleagues reported that the Latino population in
their Michigan telephone survey valued farmers’ markets but did not feel
welcome because of cultural barriers.12 These data suggest that patronage
of farmers’ markets is related to location of individual markets as well as
relative distance and cultural acceptability of farmers’ markets in different
racial or ethnic groups.
Location
Few studies reported the location of the farmers’ markets in relation to con-
sumers’ residences. Of the 4 studies that did, shoppers reported a range of
6 to 17 miles.14,15,18 Baker et al reported that customers traveled 17 to 18 min
to reach the market.9 More information about the location of farmers’ mar-
kets may help community and market planners to decide the best avenues
to increase food access, particularly among more remote individuals.
Motivations for Shopping at Farmers’ Market
Fourteen studies from the consumer section of this literature review listed
a variety of motivational factors. Some of the more common reasons cited
for shopping at the farmers’ market included fresh food,9,14,15,19,20,25 high-
quality food,11–13,18,20 supporting local agriculture,9,12,14,15,19,25,26 and social
appeal.9,13,19,26 Other motives reported include food safety,12 taste,20,26 and
organic chemical- and pesticide-free foods.19,26 Despite its assumed impor-
tance, convenience was important to some shoppers,9 whereas for others
it was not a determining factor.11,15 Similarly, price was a concern for some
consumers11,15,20 and not for others.12,19,21,22 Given these findings, it is plau-
sible that convenience and cost may be dependent on features relative to
each farmers’ market. That said, it is important to point out that these 2 moti-
vators are consistent with the larger body of research about food purchases
(ie, cost and convenience are important factors when deciding what foods
to buy).27
Particular lifestyle traits also motivated consumers to shop at farmers’
markets. In general, the enjoyment of cooking is associated with support
for local food and farmers’ markets.10,20,22 Other lifestyle factors associated
with market shopping include religious observance,10,22 gardening,21,22 and
an interest in health foods.10,21 Given the prominence of these diverse find-
ings, it is conceivable that motivational factors are in fact better predictors
of farmers’ market patronage than demographics.21,22 Therefore, the degree
to which lifestyle factors influence market shopping habits should be further
explored.
With a slightly different approach to motivational research, Alkon inves-
tigated the ethical difference in motivations attributed to 2 San Francisco
farmers’ markets.7 Rather than examining individual motivations, Alkon
looked at the ways in which markets sought to engage and attract patrons
from an ethical foundation. The high-income market largely focused on
environmental sustainability (eg, to connect with nature) but did not pro-
vide equal support to social justice issues, because affordability was not
a concern. The low-income market primarily supported social justice top-
ics (eg, race and inequality) and had only a slight focus on environmental
sustainability but did not have enough clientele to support the economic
livelihood of vendors.
It is clear that consumers are motivated by personal preferences for
promotion or prevention of an outcome (eg, health or environmental
concerns), food preferences, and socioecological constructs. Complex and
multifaceted, the particulars of choice are not clearly understood and involve
the interaction of many socioecological influences.
Barriers
Barriers to farmers’ market shopping are often mentioned when addressing
efforts to diversify the consumer base. Jilcott et al found that inconve-
nient location and hours were the biggest limitations to farmers’ market
shopping.28 In another investigation, location and price were reported as
barriers to farmers’ market attendance.29 As mentioned previously, Conner
and colleagues’ survey concluded that in order to attract the Latino con-
sumers to farmers’ markets in Michigan, cultural barriers (eg, language)
would need to be bridged.12 Another publication referring to the same
Michigan telephone survey study indicated that limited market hours, loca-
tion, payment method uncertainty, and an unwelcoming atmosphere were
all barriers to shopping at the market.25 Webber and colleagues partially
explained some of these findings through an examination of food and retail
qualities that are important to low-income households.30 Convenience with
regard to all aspects of attaining food was primarily emphasized, even if that
meant paying a higher price for items. Stressing the desire for convenience,
one respondent suggested that the ideal shopping experience would be to
place a farmers’ market or produce stand inside the grocery store.30
SUMMARY
Given the preceding information about consumer research, it is clear that
there is an assortment of complex and interrelated factors that influence
an individual’s choice to shop (or not to shop) at farmers’ markets. There
is convincing evidence that categorizes the typical farmers’ market shop-
per as a middle-aged female who lives within proximal distance of the
market. Furthermore, motivations and barriers span multiple levels of the
socioecological model, demonstrating the multivariate complexity of choice.
Still, many of the specifics regarding farmers’ market patronage remain
unclear. The degree to which individual traits and relational, organiza-
tional, community, social, and cultural factors influence choice remains
unknown. Understanding the significance of these variables to individual
decision-making processes will enable researchers to better answer a series
of socioecological inquiries. For example, though research indicates that the
majority of farmers’ market shoppers are female, we do not know whether
more females shop at the farmers’ market because of their gender (an indi-
vidual construct) or because of the social norm (a social construct) that
positions women as primary food shoppers. Similarly, there is inconclusive
evidence about the effects that personal income, educational attainment, and
race/ethnicity have on farmers’ market shopping patterns.
Although initially inconclusive, this information may actually indicate
that the farmers’ market consumer base is slowly diversifying. Demographics
of farmers’ market shoppers are perhaps beginning to better reflect the com-
munities in which farmers’ markets are situated. This is already evident in
the study by Alkon in which characteristics of shoppers vary between the
affluent area of North Berkley and the poorer community of West Oakland.7
Additionally, these findings may also suggest that individual constructs alone
are not good proxies for determining behavior, ultimately indicating that
a combination of socioecological characteristics influences farmers’ market
shoppers. It is not easy to pinpoint the precise makeup of the typical farmers’
market shopper due to contextual differences unique to each community.
Each food environment is situated within a particular socioecological context
where, at the center, the individual’s choice determines what he or she eats.
That said, there are several concentric factors (ie, individual, social, com-
munity, and political) that influence such decisions. Further research should
investigate the confluence of individual, social, community, and political
contexts in which food choices are made in order to better define the matrix
of socioecological constructs that impact choice.
In particular, it would be useful if researchers developed a gen-
eralizable survey for farmers’ markets to complete in order to ensure
consistent information is obtained across sites. Table 1 reviews the
lack of consistency in research tools and analytical methods utilized
in research to date. As the number of farmers’ markets continues
to grow in the United States it may be beneficial for this survey
to be available at a central location, such as the USDA Agriculture
Marketing Service Website (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMsv1.0) or Know
Your Farmer, Know Your Food Website (http://www.usda.gov/wps/
portal/usda/knowyourfarmer?navid=KNOWYOURFARMER). Market man-
agers could use survey results to tailor and diversify their market according
to the consumer base in their area. It is possible that farmers’ markets have
completed surveys of their customers for their own benefit and have not
shared them with the wider research community. This could be an untapped
resource for understanding farmers’ market shoppers. Compiling a database
of the information collected from a consistent survey would be of use
to researchers trying to understand the impacts that community food sys-
tems have on diet, community, economies, or the environment and their
relationship to demographics.
In its broadest sense, this article seeks to better understand the who,
what, where, when, why, and how much of the current farmers’ market con-
sumer base. Doing so provides a framework for practitioners, researchers,
and communities to better understand how farmers’ markets promote the
goals of community food systems. Identifying the sociodemographic char-
acteristics of the current farmers’ market consumer base enables researchers
to establish connections between the goals and outcomes of a community
food system and how the diet, surrounding community, economy, and envi-
ronment of patrons is impacted. Such collaboration will not only enrich the
research base but also facilitate the development of foodscapes that better
address the wants and needs of community-based consumers.
REFERENCES
1. Wilkins J, Eames-Sheavly M. A primer on community food systems: linking food,
nutrition and agriculture. Available at: http://www.hort.cornell.edu/foodsys/
pdfs/Primer.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2011.
2. Martinez S, Hand M, Da Pra M, et al. Local food systems: concepts, impacts,
and issues. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR97/ERR97.
pdf. Accessed October 4, 2011.
3. Bourlakis MA, Weightman PWH. Food Supply Chain Management. Wiley
Online Library; 2004. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/
9780470995556.fmatter/summary. Accessed November 1, 2011.
4. Agricultural Marketing Service. Farmers market growth: 1994–2010. Available at:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/. Accessed September 3, 2011.
5. McWilliams J. Is locavorism for rich people only? Available at: http://www.
freakonomics.com/2009/10/14/is-locavorism-for-rich-people-only/. Accessed
October 4, 2011.
6. Stokols D. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community
health promotion. Am J Health Promot. 1996;10:282–298.
7. Alkon A. From value to values: sustainable consumption at farmers markets.
Agric Human Values. 2008;25:487–498.
8. Alkon AH. Paradise or pavement: the social constructions of the environment in
two urban farmers’ markets and their implications for environmental justice and
sustainability. Local Environ. 2008;13:271–289.
9. Baker D, Hamshaw K, Kolodinsky J. Who shops at the market? Using con-
sumer surveys to grow farmers’ markets: findings from a regional market in
northwestern Vermont. J Extens. 2009;47(6):1–9.
10. Bellows AC, Alcaraz VG, Hallman WK. Gender and food, a study of attitudes
in the USA towards organic, local, US grown, and GM-free foods. Appetite.
2010;55:540–550.
11. Bond JK, Thilmany D, Bond CA, Govindasamy R, Thornsbury S. Direct market-
ing of fresh produce: understanding consumer purchasing decisions. Choices.
2006;21:229–236.
12. Conner D, Colasanti K, Ross R, Smalley S. Locally grown foods and farmers
markets: consumer attitudes and behaviors. Sustainability. 2010;2:742–756.
13. Elepua G, Mazzocco M, Goldsmith P. Consumer segments in urban and
suburban farmers markets. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev. 2010;13(2):3–14.
14. Hunt A. Consumer interactions and influences on farmers’ market vendors.
Renew Agric Food Syst. 2007;22:54–66.
15. Onianwa O, Mojica M, Wheelock G. Consumer characteristics and views
regarding farmers markets: an examination of on-site survey data of Alabama
consumers. J Food Distrib Res. 2006;37:121–124.
16. Onianwa O, Wheelock G, Mojica M. An analysis of the determinants of farmer-
to-consumer direct-market shoppers. J Food Distrib Res. 2005;36:132–134.
17. Robinson-O’Brien R, Larson N, Neumark-Sztainer D, Hannan P, Story M.
Characteristics and dietary patterns of adolescents who value eating locally
grown, organic, nongenetically engineered, and nonprocessed food. J Nutr Educ
Behav. 2009;41:11–18.
18. Varner T, Otto D. Factors affecting sales at farmers’ markets: an Iowa study. Appl
Econ Perspect Policy. 2008;30:178–187.
19. Velasquez C, Eastman C, Masiunas J. An assessment of Illinois farmers’ market
patrons’ perceptions of locally-grown vegetables. J Veget Sci. 2005;11:17–26.
20. Wolf M, Spittler A, Ahern J. A profile of farmers’ market consumers and the
perceived advantages of produce sold at farmers’ markets. J Food Distrib Res.
2005;36:192–201.
21. Zepeda L, Li J. Who buys local food? J Food Distrib Res. 2006;37(3):9–14.
22. Zepeda L. Which little piggy goes to market? Characteristics of US farmers’
market shoppers. Int J Consum Stud. 2009;33:250–257.
23. French SA, Wall M, Mitchell NR. Household income differences in food sources
and food items purchased. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:3–7.
24. French SA, Wall M, Mitchell NR, Shimotsu ST, Welsh E. Annotated receipts cap-
ture household food purchases from a broad range of sources. Int J Behav Nutr
Phys Act. 2009;6:6.
25. Colasanti K, Conner D, Smalley S. Understanding barriers to farmers’ market
patronage in Michigan: perspectives from marginalized populations. J Hunger
Environ Nutr. 2010;5:316–338.
26. Conner DS, Montri AD, Montri DN, Hamm MW. Consumer demand for local pro-
duce at extended season farmers’ markets: guiding farmer marketing strategies.
Renew Agric Food Syst. 2009;24:251–259.
27. Glanz K, Basil M, Maibach E, Goldberg J, Snyder D. Why Americans eat what
they do: taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control concerns as
influences on food consumption. J Am Diet Assoc. 1998;98:1118–1126.
28. Jilcott SB, Hurwitz J, Moore JB, Blake C. Qualitative perspectives on the use
of traditional and nontraditional food venues among middle-and low-income
women in Eastern North Carolina. Ecol Food Nutr. 2010;49:373–389.
29. Webber C, Dollahite J. Attitudes and behaviors of low-income food heads of
households toward sustainable food systems concepts. J Hunger Environ Nutr.
2008;3:186–205.
30. Webber C, Sobal J, Dollahite J. Shopping for fruits and vegetables. Food and
retail qualities of importance to low-income households at the grocery store.
Appetite. 2010;54:297–303.