final report understanding of consumer attitudes and ... of consumer attitudes... · final report...

Final Report

Understanding of Consumer Attitudes and Actual

Purchasing Behaviour, with Reference to Local and Regional Foods

May 2008

Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory in

Collaboration with the University of Plymouth Agrifood Centre, Rural Futures Unit and the

Small Business and Services Unit

Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory

A University of Plymouth Centre of Expertise

Commissioned by Defra SERIO, Research & Innovation University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA tel: 01752 232747 email: [email protected] fax: 01752 233813 website: www.serio.ac.uk

Understanding of Consumer Attitudes and Actual Purchasing Behaviour with Reference to Local and Regional Foods

Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory i.

Executive Summary

Introduction

� The increasing demand for local and regional foods (IGD, 2005) presents potential economic and sustainability benefits. However, a range of driving forces that may increase motivation to purchase particular food types or reduce perceived barriers to purchasing create constant change in consumer tastes and preferences towards the purchase of particular food types. Moreover, it is clear that supermarkets remain the preferred shopping option based on the general desire of shoppers for a range of factors including convenience, product range, quality and value for money, despite the alternative distribution channels and independent outlets available to local and regional food suppliers.

� In line with changing consumer attitudes and behaviours, trade intermediaries and providers of food service may identify that they need to respond to market changes or indeed be proactive in developing a position which is consistent with these trends. Policy initiatives also affect demand and supply dynamics that are, in this case, inextricably linked to both the sustainable consumption agenda (Jackson, 2005), and its enactment in the rural food production and farming environment (Defra, 2002).

� Thus the Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory

(SERIO), formerly the Social Research & Regeneration Unit (SRRU), in collaboration with the University of Plymouth’s Agrifood Centre (AfC), Rural Futures Unit and Small Business and Services Research Unit, was commissioned by Defra in April 2007 to undertake research to further understand consumer attitudes and actual purchasing behaviour, with reference to local and regional foods.

� Following an interim report which was submitted to Defra in November

2007, this final report - SFFSD 0609 ‘Understanding of Consumer Attitudes and Actual Purchasing Behaviour, with Reference to Local and Regional Foods’ highlights the key findings from the research programme.

Research Aims and Objectives

� The overall aim of this project is to contribute to the knowledge and understanding of the factors influencing consumers’ attitudes and behaviours in the market for local and regional foods in England.


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory ii.

� Within this the research has four main objectives:

� To characterise and evaluate the local and regional food industry in England, from the point of view of household and trade buyers, with a view to estimating its magnitude, the underlying driving forces, and the exact nature of the benefits sought from products of this type.

� To understand the various factors that influence purchasing decisions made by household consumers and trade buyers with regard to local and regional foods, with a view to assessing their relative importance in decision making.

� To identify and synthesise relevant sources of data relating to the

consumption and marketing of local and regional foods, with a view to providing a resource for the development of appropriate market offers by producers and processors.

� To inform future commercial and public policies in the local and

regional food sector, with a view to improving the viability and efficiency of suppliers, and ensuring that additional environmental and social benefits are achieved.

� For Defra the project will contribute significantly to its understanding of the local and regional food marketing in England, and provide an evidence base from which policy can be developed. It is anticipated that findings from the study will be employed as a platform for instigating strategies for the sector that will enable effective product development and marketing, and stimulate rural enterprise. At the same time the potential economic benefits will be complemented by the environmental advantages offered by a more sustainable farm production and food processing industry.

Method

� The study employed an integrative research framework, incorporating both primary and secondary research to achieve the project’s four objectives. Using a sequential approach, quantitative statistical survey research has been based upon secondary research and grounded qualitative understanding of respondents’ motivations, perceptions, attitudes and behaviours.


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory iii.

� Reflecting this, the research design comprised three distinct phases:

� Secondary research. � Primary qualitative research.

� Primary quantitative research.

� The first phase of research combined a desk based investigation of

secondary sources with discussions with industry experts in order to contextualise the study and enabled linkages with related work by government departments, industry agencies, trade representative bodies, and proprietary market research agencies to be identified. This incorporated an examination of previous related research, including a review of existing literature and relevant academic research that has investigated the demand for local and regional foods and the market more generally. Informal discussions with a range of industry experts from important stakeholder groups and agencies represent an additional key activity in phase one, insights from which helped to shape the later fieldwork element.

� Twenty consumer focus group discussions were held throughout England during August and September 2007. The composition of each group was determined by an interlocking quota sampling approach to gain coverage and develop understanding of a range of different consumer types. Two focus groups were held in each of the nine Defra regions, one urban and one rural, in addition to two groups in London. This ensured that regional differences in local and regional food buying could be identified.

� A total of 130 depth interviews were conducted with buying

representatives within trade organisations. Thirty buying representatives within private sector retail and food services organisations were approached directly in a face-to-face scenario, while a further 100 respondents were contacted through a tele-depth approach. A semi-structured discussion approach was utilised in both the face-to-face interviews and telephone depth interviews to ensure that all topics of interest were included, whilst allowing the interviewer to explore emerging issues further. Sampling was complex to take account of wide ranging factors across the retail and food service sectors. Annual turnover figures obtained from the National Statistics’ Annual Business Inquiry (ONS, 2007), informed the number of respondents to be recruited from each organisational type. Organisations were located within all nine English regions and represent a range of sizes, both in terms of annual turnover and number of employees.


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory iv.

� Reflecting the sequential approach, the findings from the preceding phases informed the design of quantitative research, which comprised two separate strands, one with consumers, and one with trade intermediary and food service buying organisations.

� The consumer survey collected data from a stratified sample of 1223 buyers using quota sampling criteria including regional location, age and gender to reflect the distribution of population and participation in food and drink buying behaviour. The survey was administered using an on-line consumer panel with over 145,000 potential respondents run by a well-established, international, commercial on-line research agency. This method was adopted in order to achieve the required number of responses within the quota bandings, and to attain coverage of all the question areas in a detailed questionnaire.

� The trade survey collected data using a rough quota sample based on

annual turnover figures obtained from the National Statistics’ Annual Business Inquiry (ONS, 2007). A postal survey was sent to a sample of 3,350 organisations sourced from the Equifax database, along with a covering letter explaining the purpose of the research. Organisations were sent a number of reminders to maximise the response rate and, as an incentive to take part, organisations were entered into a prize draw to win £500. In additional a number of telephone booster interviews were conducted to further increase the response rate. A total of 154 retail organisations and 193 catering organisations completed the survey.

� Findings from the consumer survey can be seen as generalisable to the

population as a whole. Although difficulties were encountered in recruiting participants for the trade survey, despite sending several reminders, conducting telephone booster interviews and offering organisations an incentive for participating, the number of responses are acceptable at an aggregated level.

� Overall the approach has provided a detailed understanding of the

factors influencing the purchasing behaviour of consumers in the local and regional foods market and enabled strategic insights into developing the local and regional food production and processing sector as a vehicle for growth and sustainable development of the rural economy.

Overview of the Policy Context and Previous Research

� A recent government discussion paper “Food: An analysis of the Issues” (Cabinet Office, 2008), suggests that consumers’ choice about what and how they eat are related to their wealth, aspirations, tastes and politics. This is no more apparent than in consumers’ decisions to purchase local


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory v.

and regional produce where purchasing behaviour can not only be regarded as a economic choice, but also have a political dimension, as well as being an expression of personal identity, and a reflection of what is done for leisure and pleasure.

� At the same time, the dominance of multiple supermarket groups in the supply chain of food and groceries has never been more apparent (Competition Commission, 2008), and any investigation of the future of food buying must inevitably involve an assessment of the motives and behaviour of these major players. Given this backdrop, the forces shaping the demand and supply of local and regional food and drink, are likely to be wide ranging, complex and inter-related. They will also be shaped to a greater or lesser extent by policy decisions that are driven by priorities emerging around issues of economics, sustainability, health, and the future of agriculture and rural areas.

� A summary of the extant research also suggests that definitional issues

are inherent in the understanding of local and regional food and can tend to obscure some of the critical issues surrounding the future development of the sector. In essence the understanding and perceptions of different consumers should lead the growth of the area based upon the benefits they seek and the difficulties that they encounter ‘in their mind’ when buying. To this end it is clear that a large number of shoppers are interested in, and have positive attitudes toward local and regional food and drink, and many translate this into actual buying behaviour. Yet is also apparent that many do not buy at all, or as frequently as they would like to, either because they do not recognize the latent benefits in so doing, or because they encounter insurmountable barriers to buying.

� Evidence appears to indicate that there are wide ranging motivations for

buying local and regional food and that there will be some differences between the two. However despite the acknowledgement of an interest in a number of different advantages of local and regional produce, for most shoppers the quality, freshness and taste attributes tend to dominate buying decisions. Similarly, barriers around price, accessibility, awareness, and availability exist that need to be addressed. The general implications of these findings suggest that marketing communications messages need to take account of the different ‘tiers’ of motives for buying, and that there is a role for more widespread information to support consumers’ decision making. Such messages need to recognize consumers’ priorities and also target the particular needs and perceived disadvantages of different customer types when doing so. Further to this there needs to be a better understanding of the way in which trade outlets, both retail and foodservice in particular, which lags behind the


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory vi.

retail trade (IGD, 2006), can facilitate the future development of the sector.

� The next section presents the findings of the primary research undertaken in this project. Following a detailed analysis of the results of this research, the conclusions and recommendation of the study will be outlined that will build upon the broad inferences discussed above, providing more detailed suggestions for marketing initiatives, and commercial and public policy.

Qualitative Consumer Element

� Findings from the 20 consumer focus groups indicate that ‘local’ produce is understood by consumers in the context of rural or close-to-rural areas. It is predominantly associated with particular vegetables and some fruits, as well as meat and game, and fish and seafood in coastal areas.

� ‘Regional food’ is predominantly defined as ‘from a region of Britain known for its production of particular foods/drinks’ (e.g. clotted cream from Cornwall); or as ‘the region I live in’ (e.g. East Anglia). Londoners and other city dwellers are more likely to consider that, when applied to food and drinks, the terms ‘local’ and ‘regional’ overlap, having the same defining characteristics of taste, quality and provenance. Cheeses are the best examples of how ‘regional’ can be substituted for ‘local’ in this context.

� The positive associations of local and regional produce are well accepted

amongst most of the buyers taking part in the focus groups; the notable exception to this, where acceptance is lower and some hostility encountered, is among the younger, poorer, urban groups.

� With the exception of these young urban lower social respondents,

product attributes of ‘local’ and ‘regional’ foods are seen as overwhelmingly positive; and provenance/heritage is a critical aspect of this.

� Imagery and associations reflect nostalgia for a pre-supermarket past. However, there are clear tensions between these desirable associations and the time-pressures of modern everyday shopping and cooking, particularly among urban respondents.

� Benefits to the local, regional or national economies were the most

frequently cited reasons for buying local produce. From a personal perspective, the ‘feel-good’ factor of serving meals with local and regional ingredients is a major factor.


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory vii.

� Expense and lack of everyday accessibility for most people, particularly in urban areas, means that local and regional foods tend to be bought for special occasions and treats, rather than incorporated into regular shopping habits.

� Catering outlets’ use of local and regionally sourced ingredients is not

relevant when the motive for eating out is convenience. It is, however, an important driver when deciding where to eat out on special occasions. In addition, the context of these special occasions, associated as they are with leisure, ‘treats’ and holidays, is consistent with similar contexts in which local and regional food and drinks are bought for home use.

� Local fruit and vegetables when in season, as well as game and some

meats, seem to be the most popular local grocery foods. Fish appears to be the most popular local food when eating out on special occasions, largely due to respondents’ unfamiliarity with how to cook it.

� Whilst the innovative methods used to attract families in particular, by a

number of independent local farms and retail outlets (e.g. public houses) was praised, there is an acceptance that large-scale changes in shopping behaviour can only feasibly occur with the active co-operation of the major supermarket multiples. A national advertising campaign, utilising the endorsement of at least one personality nationally recognised as having authority on the subject of food and drink/cooking/healthy eating, was recommended by most focus groups.

Quantitative Consumer Element

� The consumer quantitative survey results show that consumers’ distance definitions of local food and drink generally indicate that they believe it to come from within 30 miles of where they live. However when comparing rural with urban consumers, there is a clear difference in the distance from which produce is considered local with buyers in rural areas and rural regions seeing as coming from a shorter distance than those located in urban areas and regions.

� Conceptual definitions relating to where local produce comes from indicate that there is a wide ranging understanding of local food and drink generally, but again rural and urban differences exist both in terms of the areas and regions in which they are located. Rural consumers appear to display a greater connectivity with the concept of local produce than those in urban areas and with those in London in particular.


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory viii.

� Regional food and drink is generally considered by most buyers to be specialist, high quality, premium produce grown, produced and marketed in a specific geographic region that has a reputation for providing that product category, but there are however differences between consumers. Rural consumers again appear to be more in tune with the concept and have a more refined understanding in comparison to those in urban areas and London residents in particular. Age differences also exist with older customers being more aware of the regional provenance of food compared with younger buyers.

� About half of food and drink buyers stated that they bought local produce

in the last week for use at home and about a quarter when eating out. As the time period increases so does the incidence of buying in both these situations. Actual purchase frequency amongst those buying is variable but overall quite high when buying for home use, but not when eating out. Buying intentions to purchase local produce for use at home were also quite high, with intentions to buy when eating out again being lower.

� Regional food and drink followed a similar pattern of buying to local

produce with a smaller proportion buying, just under half, for eating out in the last week, but more, around thirty percent, buying when eating out in the same time period. There is variability in the frequency of buying regional produce, although overall a large proportion of consumers buy regional food regularly when using at home, but not as many when eating out. Intentions to buy regional produce were quite high and increased as the purchasing time period increased.

� When buying both local and regional food and drink produce the main

food types bought were fruit and vegetables, eggs and dairy products, and meat and meat products. Bread and cereals, fish and seafood, and drinks and beverages were bought by fewer consumers, both for local and regional produce. In general local produce was more widely bought than regional except in the case of the two least popular categories, fish and seafood, and drinks and beverages.

� Frequency of buying local and regional produce for all categories is

generally high with no real differences apparent between the two, except perhaps in the case of meat where regional produce appeared to be bought more frequently for use at home, and regionally supplied fish which was bought more frequently when eating out. In general frequency of buying when eating out was lower than when buying for use at home.


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory ix.

� Most consumers buy local and regional produce as part of their regular shop and buy predominantly from supermarkets and local specialist shops. Farm shops and farmers markets are also popular outlets particularly for local food and drink. Secondary purchasing occasions include special occasions, buying as a treat, and when eating out. The most popular venues for eating out are pub restaurants and bistros followed by quality restaurants in the case of both local and regional produce.

� Attitudes toward buying local food and drink are generally positive across

the buying population as a whole. However there is a degree of variability in this particularly with regard to the role of influential others in buying decisions, and the ability of consumers to have the control over their buying which enables them to translate their positive attitudes into actual buying behaviour.

� The main reasons given for buying local produce were support for local

producers, retailers and the community; freshness, taste and quality and of the produce; reducing food miles; and knowing where the produce comes from. Categorising these into broad sets of factors indicates that food and drink characteristics, local support and provenance, sustainability and ethics, and shopping factors positively affect buying.

� Important barriers to buying local produce include cost and availability.

Also important are a lack of information on availability and limited promotion. Restricted range of products is a further important barrier. Overall factors that can be regarded as negative influences on buying local produce are availability and awareness, inconvenience, and specific product characteristics.

� When looking at relationships between actual buying and reasons for

buying and not buying, the main positive determinants of consumers’ buying behaviour for use at home were buying the amount they want to, and the taste, freshness and seasonality of the produce, with the main negative influences being a lack of information and buying being time consuming. When eating out, buying the amount they want to, knowing where the produce comes from, taste and seasonality were important as well as the produce being ‘not branded’. Negative eating out effects were associated with a lack of information and expense.

� Similar relationships existed for behavioural intentions when using at

home, although for intentions a much wider range of reasons were important including support for the local economy and sustainability factors; being environmentally friendly had a negative effect on behavioural intentions in this situation. Intentions to buy when eating out were governed by similar factors as actual buying, although interestingly,


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory x.

being not well promoted and not branded were seen to induce positive effects, and being time consuming a negative effect.

� When considering larger buying factors and psychographics, local

support and provenance bring about positive effects and, availability and awareness and inconvenience, negative effects on buying local food for use at home. The rural location of the consumer and their ethical identity are also positively associated with buying in this situation. Generally similar effects exist when eating out although there were additional positive ‘shopping’ and ‘product’ effects in this situation, together with a negative sustainability and ethical effect. Rural location is no longer significant in this instance, but there is a strong negative relationship with consumers’ environmental concern.

� Some differences exist between the effects on actual buying and buying

intentions when eating out with rural location and ethical identity no longer being important, but the health consciousness of the consumer becoming so. For eating out, intentions far fewer effects are significant, with only the positive effects of local support and provenance, shopping, and ethical identity being present, and the main negative effect being associated with the environmental concern of the consumer.

� The main reasons for buying regional food and drink were support for the

regional and national economy, the high quality and reputation of the produce coming from that region, and providing good value for money. The general factors for buying regional produce categorised into high quality, branded positioning, and area association and support.

� Positive associations with the actual buying of regional food for use at

home are being the best available, being widely available, even though there are cheaper alternatives available, supporting the regional economy, and providing good value for money; being promoted nationally had a negative effect. Similar effects were present for eating out except for being promoted nationally, with being priced at a premium providing a further positive effect.

� A large number of positive effects are associated with the buying

behavioural intentions of consumers for regional food and drink including support for the local economy, high quality, best available, widely available, reputation, providing good value for money even though it is priced at a premium and there are cheaper alternatives available. Negative effects occur with the produce being promoted nationally, and being traditional.


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory xi.

� Positive buying factor and consumer psychographic effects on actual buying of regional food for use at home include high quality, area association and support, rural location, health consciousness, and local identity and attachment. For eating out there was a positive effect for high quality and a negative one for environmental concern of the consumer. Behavioural intentions for regional food are positively related to high quality, area association and support, and environmental concern, and negatively related to consumers’ ethical identity and identity and attachment to the nation.

� In considering the main factors that affect local produce buying and

buying intentions, the overwhelmingly most positive factor is local support and provenance, whilst the main negative effects come from lack of availability and awareness, and inconvenience. The perceived high quality of regional food and drink is by far the most important factor in positively influencing the behaviour of buyers, followed by area association and support.

� Major differences exist between the buying behaviour of rural and urban

consumers, with rural buyers intending to and actually buying more local and regional produce on all occasions compared with those located in urban areas. There are also differences in the importance of buying factors with rural consumers putting a higher emphasis on the positive reasons for buying local produce, and the urban consumers indicating a higher importance of negative factors.

� Regional differences in buying behaviour also exist with, in general,

rurally dominant regions having a greater propensity to buy local and regional produce for use at home compared with London in particular. The local support and provenance factor is also higher in rurally dominant regions especially the South West compared with regions that have a predominantly urban composition. All the negative buying factors are higher in all other regions compared with the South West, and especially in London.

� Older consumers generally buy more local and regional produce for use

at home. However, fewer older people buy local produce when eating out, due to the overall effect of younger people eating out more in comparison with older people. Older consumers recognize the positive effects of food and drink characteristics, and local support and provenance more than those in younger age groups, whilst younger buyers are generally influenced by all the identified barriers to buying.


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory xii.

� The buying intentions of women toward local produce are greater than those of men. Women are much more positive about buying local food for all the reasons identified compared with men, and also recognise the significance of area association and support when making regional produce buying decisions.

� Differences exist between single buyers compared with all other groups, particularly married consumers. Single buyers’ purchase intentions are lower for local produce and buying frequency lower for regional produce. Married customers have a more positive recognition of the importance of local support, provenance and sustainability, and ethics compared with single buyers. The latter place much more importance on all the barriers to buying local produce compared with all other groups.

� Some differences exist between socio-economic groups with consumers

classified in the highest group buying more local produce when eating out compared with the lowest groups, and also putting a greater emphasis on the importance of local food characteristics.

� The number of children in a household does not appear to be a

significant factor in influencing differences in buying behaviour for local and regional produce.

� A classification of local and regional food buyers was developed based

on the importance of buying influences. Figure one shows that four customer segments were identified: Persisters (25%), Devotees (23%), Abstainers (36%), and Cynics (16%).


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory xiii.

Figure One: Local and Regional Produce Consumer Segments

Devotees (23%)

� More women

� More 45+

� More rural

� Fewer London and NW

� More SW, EA and Y&H

� More married

� More degrees and A levels

Persisters (25%)

� More men

� More 55+

� More rural

� Fewer 35-44

� Fewer London

� More SW and EA

� More £15-25,000

� Fewer C1

� Fewer degrees

Abstainers (36%)

� More women

� More 18-44

� More urban

� More London, SE and NW

� Fewer SW and EA

� More single

� More inner city and town centre

� More £30-50,000 income

� More C1

Cynics (16%)

� More men

� More 55+ and 35-44

� More urban/inner city

� Fewer SW

� More GCSEs

� The Devotees are the most positive toward buying local and regional produce whilst the Cynics are wholly negative. Of the two intermediate groups, the Persisters have more positive attitudes, and try hard to overcome barriers and buy these products for use at home, through having greater control over their buying behaviour. On the other hand, the Abstainers find it difficult to go through with their buying intentions as they place greater emphasis on the barriers to buying, even though they view the positive aspects of these products in a similar way. The differences in the demographic characteristics of the segments generally


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory xiv.

reflect the variations in buying behaviour that have already been established.

Qualitative Trade Element

� The qualitative interviews with trade organisations revealed that a large proportion of organisations felt that ‘local’ equated to the immediate vicinity and the general consensus was that ‘regional’ equated to some kind of regional boundaries, however there was a degree of overlap between these two definitions.

� The majority of organisations felt the area of local and regional food and drink had become more important in the last five years, with the main reason for this being a general increase in publicity, awareness of the area and food safety issues, and a desire to support the local economy.

� The key commercial driver of promoting local and regional food and drink

purchasing was consumer demand, reinforced by local promotional activities such as farmers’ markets, TV coverage and advertising, freshness, and support for the local economy.

� The majority of organisations felt that consumer demand for local food

and drink was growing and is likely to do so in the immediate future. Some respondents equated this demand with that for organic foods, but felt that demand would rise faster as a result of publicity surrounding global warming and environmental sustainability.

� The three key areas that would encourage organisations to buy more

food and drink from local and regional sources were a lower price, increased availability of local and regional food and drink and the assurance of quality.

� Currently local and regional food and drink accounts for an estimated 1-

2% of all food and drink sales in the main retail sector, with an estimated equivalent amount being sold through farm shops and farmers’ markets, however, the face-to-face interviews indicated that this proportion differs within organisational categories. The consensus was that there had been a significant growth in these figures in recent years and that this was likely to continue over the next five years.

� Where local and regional food and drinks were promoted by

organisations this was generally done in-store, while a few were found to market nationally. Promotion and sales in national foodservice chains was more problematic due to the advanced menu planning systems employed and concerns over continuity of supply.


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory xv.

� Local and regional sales were found to be more dominant in fresh products such as meat, fruit, vegetables and dairy products. Constraints in terms of availability were, however, highlighted for these fresh products. In addition, there was a significant presence of locally brewed beers, ciders and some wine, with increasing volumes of bottled drinks into the retail sector rather than cask products directly into pub outlets.

� Respondents participating in the face-to-face interviews had, in some cases, increased the number of staff employed within their organisation in order to address the purchasing, technical and logistics issues associated with local food and drink procurement.

� In terms of the impacts of purchasing local and regional food and drink

on organisation’s distribution and logistics, the larger organisations participating in the face-to-face interviews generally agreed that this was the most difficult problem to solve. In contrast a number of organisations participating in the tele-depth interviews did not feel this had any impact, with a number highlighting that local suppliers were particularly flexible in terms of deliveries.

Quantitative Trade Element

� The quantitative survey found that the general understanding of trade buyers is that local or regional produce is grown within the boundaries of that locality or region, with significant proportion also believing that being produced or packaged in within the confines of those geographical areas is sufficient for such a definition. Most respondents regard local produce as being sourced from within 50 miles, although reasonable proportions identify it more narrowly with the immediate vicinity (up to 20 miles), or more widely (in the county). Regional food and drink was considered by most to be sourced from within that region although many also saw it as coming from within a county or neighbouring county. The vast majority of respondents regarded local and regional produce to be different.

� A large proportion of trade buyer identified a growing importance of local and regional produce over the past five years, and indicated that they saw this trend continuing into the future. The majority of organisations sourced local and regional food, and a large number of these considered both local and regional produce to be important to their organisation.

� The main reasons for organisations buying local and regional produce

were support for the local economy, quality, freshness and traceability of the produce, and increased consumer demand. When considering what would encourage them to buy more local and regional food and drink, the


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory xvi.

main drivers were increasing consumer demand, lower prices, better quality and range of produce, and greater support for the local economy.

� There are wide variations in the proportions of total spending on local

and regional produce across the trade sector, yet there was a general consensus amongst the majority of buyers that spending on this produce had gone up over the last five years. Most buyers also indicated that they expected this growth to continue of the coming five year period.

� The most widely sourced local and regional food and drink products were

vegetables, meat, dairy, and bakery produce. The main reasons for sourcing these locally were flexibility, particularly of delivery, and specific product quality factors such as freshness. Most buyers did not see any real problems in sourcing local and regional produce, although in some cases the restriction of seasonality of produce was identified.

� Promotion of local and regional produce was undertaken by most

organisations, in a wide variety of ways. The dominant methods were in-store point of sale and display activities, word of mouth, on pack/menu information, posters, and websites. Differences existed in the approaches adopted by retail and foodservice organisations, due to the nature of their businesses. The incidence of joint promotions with suppliers and regional food groups was disappointingly low.

� Trade buyers perceived that the main factors influencing consumer

demand for local and regional produce were product quality, particularly freshness, followed by price and availability. Environmental impacts and traceability and provenance were regarded as being of lower importance.

� Some interesting differences exist between types of businesses

particularly multiple and independent traders, with multiples generally perceiving that local and regional produce has become more important overall and to their own businesses. Similarly, more of them see it as increasing in importance to the future. Yet they do not envisage it as growing at such a high rate as independents both in terms of their own spending and in the market as a whole.

Conclusions

� Some general and specific points are now drawn from the research which are based upon a synthesis of all the areas of evidence utilised including consideration of pre-existing research, interviews with industry experts, and each of the two phases of consumer and trade field research.


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory xvii.

� Definitions of ‘local’ and ‘regional’ food and drink are broadly similar across consumers and the trade, although trade respondents seem more dependent on mileage classifications than consumers.

� Local generally relates to the immediate vicinity of where consumers live or where businesses trade, and is almost universally associated with rural or close-to-rural areas. There is some variation in this with, in particular, rural consumers being more connected with the concepts of locality and provenance in food and drink compared to urban dwellers.

� Overall, definitions of ‘local’ around provenance are more clearly

understood by consumers in rural contexts, and possibly by smaller independent retailers, and foodservice providers in these areas. On the other hand, urban consumers and traders have a wider understanding of the concept, and may link it to the county, a region, or even the nation.

� The existence of differences in understanding of the concept of local

produce should be regarded as an opportunity to pursue appropriate targeted marketing initiatives based upon how it is perceived and the benefits it offers to different groups.

� Regional produce is predominantly defined by consumers and traders as

coming from a specific geographical area and has quality and premium associations, based on tradition and reputation. Differences exist between the understanding of urban and rural consumers, with the former regarding it as a ‘wider’ definition of the ‘local’ concept. Older consumers also appear to have a better understanding of ‘regionality’ in food, which suggests potential for developing awareness of regional produce amongst younger age groups.

� ‘Regional’ therefore seems to have more readily brand-able

connotations, often coinciding with Defra regions (and presumably reflecting the efforts of regional food marketing bodies).

� There appears to be a growing demand for local and regional food and

drink which is essentially consumer-led. About half the respondents stated that they bought local produce for use at home, and a quarter when eating out, in the last week. Frequency of purchase of both local and regional produce is variable across consumer groups, and tends to be higher for use at home than when eating out.

� For most consumers this is based on the primarily positive attitudes

toward such produce, and the perceived benefits it provides. Yet a notable exception exists amongst younger, poorer, urban consumers who do not necessarily recognize such advantages. However even those with positive attitudes may not always translate those directly


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory xviii.

across into their buying behaviour and differences occur in actual buying, often related to the time-pressures of modern everyday shopping, cooking, especially amongst urban consumers who also work.

� Trade demand, and therefore supply into the market, has generally been

in response to this. The positive attitudes of the trade and recognition of the past, current, and future growth of the sector reflect increasing consumer demand, based on association with key attributes. This has been bolstered by greater awareness through the growth of farmers’ markets, and TV coverage and advertising promoting the advantages of local and regional produce.

� Fruit and vegetables, dairy products and meat (and fish in coastal areas)

are the categories where ‘local’ is best understood and valued. This is evidenced by the main categories of buying local and regional food both amongst consumers and within the trade, and the impact on demand has been greatest in terms of buying for consumption at home rather than when eating out.

� The main outlets used when buying for use at home are supermarkets

and local specialist food shops, which is done so as part of their regular shop. Farm shops and farmers’ markets are also popular outlets for buying local produce, but nowhere near as important to the vast majority of buyers. When buying local and regional produce when eating out the main venues are pub restaurants and bistros, and quality restaurants.

� The key reasons for buying local produce are freshness, taste and

quality of the produce; support for local producers, retailers and the community; perceived sustainability benefits, and known provenance of the produce. Barriers to buying local produce are cost, availability, a lack of information on what and where to buy, and limited promotion.

� The positive factors that determine the actual buying behaviour of local

food are buying the amounts required, taste, freshness and seasonality, with negative influences on buying being a lack of information, and purchasing being time consuming. The fact that local food was ‘not branded’ has a positive effect on buying when eating out. These factors reflect the practical benefits identified those that buy or do not buy.

� A wider set of factors influence behavioural intentions which include the

additional effects of support for the local economy, and sustainability benefits (e.g. reduced food miles and pollution). Being ‘environmentally’ friendly had a negative effect on buying, which is important when identifying what messages to convey in any promotional activity. These factors tend to reflect the motives of those who buy local as a preferred


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory xix.

choice, and buy more often, and include many older people in rural areas.

� For regional produce, the main reasons for buying and factors influencing

buying behaviour are overwhelmingly associated with its perceived quality, and regional and national support. Being a premium product, high price was generally regarded as positive; reaffirming that it was of the best quality and better than the cheaper alternatives available.

� ‘Local’ food (rather than regional) is, for consumers, important in

foodservices, but only for a fairly narrow category of outlet (independent restaurants, country pubs etc.); and even then it is purchased less frequently. Local food is linked with ‘special occasions’, and this is reflected in terms of outlets where it is expected/would be seen as a benefit, as well as in domestic consumption.

� Major differences exist between the buying behaviour of rural and urban

consumers, with more emphasis on the positive buying factors amongst the former, and a greater weight given to the negative barriers amongst the latter.

� Other significant differences amongst consumers are apparent between

age groups, gender, single compared with married food shoppers, and regions. In general older, married women in rurally dominant regions buy more local and regional produce. Interestingly, the presence of children in the household, and socio-economic grade do not have any real effect on buying behaviour, except in the case of the latter where higher grade groups buy local produce when eating out more often.

� For targeting purposes it is possible to identify four different consumer

segments of the local and regional food and drink market: Devotees (23%), who buy frequently and, at the other end of the scale, Cynics (16%), who do not buy at all. In the middle ground, a distinction can be drawn between the Persisters (25%), who make an effort to buy based on the perceived positive attributes, and the Abstainers (36%), who find it difficult to overcome the barriers to buying despite having some recognition of the potential advantages. A focus on the middle ground, attempting to encourage Abstainers to purchase more, overcoming the barriers to buying, and re-emphasising the advantages through marketing and other activities, provides a potentially attractive avenue for future development.

� For many consumers in this study, there are strong emotional drivers for

buying local and regional food, but also strong countervailing practical barriers to purchase, particularly when shopping for groceries for use at home. Conversely, the important moral drivers are economic (‘help the


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory xx.

local economy’), and other drivers which indicate self-interest and family health considerations rather than broader ‘save the planet’ or ‘build a fairer world’ motives. The evidence suggests, not that most consumers don’t buy, but that many buy relatively little, and of a fairly narrow range of products (fruit, vegetables, dairy produce, some meat and fish, etc.). This confirms that the ‘value-action’ gap between what is desirable and what is achievable is very much apparent in the buying behaviour of consumers in this sector.

� The barriers to consumer buying are further exacerbated by the logistical

and distribution implications for large multiples, on which the UK grocery sector largely depends, where it has been revealed that most shopping for local and regional food for use at home takes place. Similarly, national food service operators are constrained in their ability to provide local and regional options due to periodic menu planning cycles, and the imperatives of availability and continuity of supply.

� The significance of the larger trade players for future growth and

development is further highlighted by their growing awareness of the importance of the sector and, in particular, the movements of the major retail operators to start to develop their activities around the local and regional food agenda e.g. building it into their marketing and promotion, and the development of regional food hubs for distribution.

� Many of the larger foodservice businesses have more recently been

turning their attention to this, in most cases behind activities of the multiple retailers, and the smaller foodservice and retail outlets, where the strategic and business positioning effects of local and regional produce are seen as important for drawing customers into their outlets. There was some evidence also of larger regional players pursuing similar strategic opportunities around local sourcing, taking advantage of flexibility of delivery which was seen to be the most important factor to trade buyers when sourcing produce locally.

� Trade buyers perceive that consumer demand is the main driver of sales

growth, and that this is linked to food quality, freshness, taste and provenance, and support for the local economy, but that this was variable across different consumer groups in different geographical areas. The characteristics of the catchment area, market sector or outlet brand are of key importance in determining the extent to which national players integrate local and regional food into their business strategies and operations.


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory xxi.

� By carefully targeting different consumer groups with the messages that are relevant to their own particular needs and constraints, and working with retail and food service organizations to make the produce more widely and readily available, it may be possible to further grow and develop the local and regional food sector.

Recommendations Building from these conclusions, the following recommendations are proposed as areas of possible action.

� Initially, the significance of the further development of consumption of

local and regional food and drink to future policy needs to be assessed. The practical barriers that most consumers encounter, and the potential difficulties involved in the systemic retailer/foodservice supply chain make the growth of the sector a challenging task.

� Nonetheless, attitudes towards local and regional produce are generally positive, and there has been a trend of growth evidenced by both consumer buying patterns and trade interest and initiatives. Despite the widespread recognition of the benefits of these products, there are, however, many obstacles to buying that tend to take prominence over the perceived advantages, thus leading to many consumers not fulfilling their intentions to buy. This is particularly evident amongst younger, urban, middle-income consumers, consistent with the ‘Abstainers’ of the developed typology, and representing the largest group of food and drink shoppers in the population as a whole. Targeting this segment would appear to be a potentially viable way forward, and this may be achieved by harnessing retailers’ databases and loyalty schemes, pinpointing customers that meet the ‘profile’ for specific promotional effort.

� A marketing strategy for the ‘Abstainer’ segment would need to be carefully developed, especially given that many will be located in urban areas and thus have their own particular ‘representation’ of local and regional that may not necessarily have its provenance in the rural domain, but be more county, region, or indeed, nationally oriented. ‘Regional’ & ‘British’ brands are, therefore, more likely to appeal to these groups. Supermarkets need to be encouraged in their stocking and promotion of these products, as grocery shopping habits are entrenched amongst these customers, and it is not viable to try to modify this behaviour (in terms of store(s) used and shopping patterns) to any great extent.


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory xxii.

� As urban consumers demonstrate less identification with ‘local’ produce, and are generally not experimental in their shopping choices, clear and consistent (i.e. national) branding of regionally produced fruit and vegetables, meat and fish, and possibly dairy products would inform and encourage consumers and also ‘lead’ the trade in both grocery retailing and foodservices. To this end, there appears to be substantial scope for greater education, especially amongst younger consumers, about the availability of regional foods, and their specific qualities, building on tradition and reputation.

� If a new ‘regional food’ brand is to be developed, the consumer confusion between local, organic and free-range needs to be addressed, as does the misunderstanding between locally grown, locally stocked and locally produced.

� Promotional messages should educate consumers on these differences;

labelling of local products needs to be clear in terms of weights/prices as well as provenance, as does menu information in the foodservice environment. Information and promotion should, therefore, not only clearly restate the specific tangible benefits FOR buying, but also help overcome reasons for NOT buying. Quality, freshness, taste, seasonality, local support, health benefits, are all on the agenda here, but not environmental issues which are viewed as ‘negative motivators’. Reassurance about overcoming barriers should focus on what to buy, when and where from; value for money, particularly being able to buy in the quantities required, and so avoid waste; and ease of preparation and versatility of use.

� In order to help ‘connect’ urban consumers with local/regional products, marketing support for independent specialist outlets (and traditional markets), as well as local independent restaurants etc should be considered (e.g. patronising a local baker who sells fresh bread has a number of the sensory and emotional benefits associated with buying local, and is a lot easier to access than farms/farm shops for city dwellers). Although successful at bringing fresh products into urban areas, farmers’ markets are itinerant and, therefore, more difficult to connect with emotionally than neighbourhood shops. This recommendation has particular resonance when one considers the importance of supporting the local economy to respondents.

� Developing a brand which emphasises trust, by consumers and along the food chain, extending into the heart of urban areas, would be ambitious. There is evidence, however, that local food artisans, such as butchers and bakers, for example, can generate high levels of trust on the part of their customers.


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory xxiii.

� Availability and seasonality are restrictive choice factors for the locally grown produce we recommend promoting; however these can be used to marketing advantage (scarcity and exclusivity are readily relatable concepts, and scarce/limited production is a classic reason for price premiums for natural products). This works well with the regional food concept, and there may be potential to extend this into the positioning of local food and drink.

� These measures, already outlined, relate to increasing purchases by the

primary target group of ‘Abstainers’; the secondary market to be addressed is the ‘Persisters’ (older, more rural, less well paid respondents). Apart from social group and income, these have more in common with the ‘Devotees’ than other segments. Supporting and extending the marketing operations of local suppliers and retailers in rural areas should encourage both these groups. The ‘Cynics’ can be equated to new product adoption ‘laggards’ and need not be included in any early strategy development (they may never be convinced and ‘convert’ and the marketing effort required would be prohibitive and not reap the returns).

� Facilitating growth amongst existing and potential buyers is dependent on overcoming restrictions in the supply chain and improving the effectiveness of marketing to raise awareness and aid accessibility by the large scale food trade, both retail and foodservice.

� An opportunity exists in developing regional distribution hubs that not only collect and transfer produce to the large retailers’ Regional Distribution Centres, but also provide supplier vetting, sourcing and assistance with presentations, ‘meet the buyer’ sessions, and advice on costings. Regional Food Groups could be used as facilitators of such networks, and could also assist large foodservice chains in gaining access to assured sources, and overcoming the particular anxieties that they hold with regard to continuity of supply, potentially taking advantage of flexibility of supply.

� Further to this, the main retailers could make a big impact if they

dedicated shelf space to local produce rather than diluting it within categories; this could be achieved through the use of end of aisle, ‘gondola’ type displays. There may be an opportunity to offer marketing support in partnership with RFGs or county Food Links, who could be responsible for merchandising and management of that area of the store.

� The evidence provided in this research suggests that there is potential for the further growth in the sales of local and regional food and drink products, but currently there are significant behavioural, structural, and institutional factors that impede its wholesale expansion.


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory xxiv.

� The recommendations proposed here go some way to addressing how these restrictions may be tackled, but some other areas of research may further facilitate understanding of the most effective way forward.

� Further understanding of how consumers make trade-off decisions, between the negative factors associated with local and regional food and the positive benefits accrued, could be undertaken by looking at, for example, price sensitivities and sensitivity of time inconvenience on demand.

� The viability of using retailer and food service loyalty scheme databases

to target particular consumers could be explored, especially with respect to identifying target segments through profiling techniques. This could be based upon responses to the importance of buying and non-buying factors, and pinpointing consumer segments through geodemographic databases.

� Finally, it may be opportune to examine possible pre-existing and developmental models for regionally based distribution networks (hubs) that can integrate with major trade buying structures, leading to more effective and efficient access to local and regional produce throughout the sector.



Contents Page

page SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background to the Research 1 1.2 Research Aims and Objectives 1 1.3 Structure of the Report 2 SECTION TWO: METHOD 4 2.1 Research Approach 4 2.2 Phase One: Secondary Research and Discussions with Industry

Experts 4

2.3 Phase Two: Primary Qualitative Research 5 2.3.1 Consumer Focus Groups 5 2.3.2 Retail and Foodservice Organisation Depth Interviews 8 2.4 Phase Three: Primary Quantitative Research 10 2.4.1 Consumer Quantitative Survey 10 2.4.2 Trade Quantitative Survey 10 2.4.3 Data Analysis 11 SECTION THREE: OVERVIEW OF POLICY CONTEXT AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH

12

3.1 The Policy Context 12 3.2 Previous Research 13 3.2.1 The Changing Food Sector 13 3.2.2 Local and Regional Food 16 3.2.3 Definitions 16 3.2.4 Buying Behaviour and Influences 18 3.2.5 Summary and General Implications 19 SECTION FOUR: CONSUMER ELEMENT 21 4.1 Introduction 21 4.2 Summary of Main Findings 21 4.2.1 Definition of ‘Local’ and ‘Regional’ Foods 21 4.2.2 Attitudes and Behaviour towards Local and Regional Food

Purchases 24

4.2.3 Buying Local and Regional Products: Barriers, Benefits and Drivers

27

4.2.3.1 Barriers 27 4.2.3.2 Benefits and Drivers 29 4.3 Factors Influencing Consumers’ Choices 30 4.4 Urban and Rural Differences 32



page 4.5 Regional Differences 33 4.5.1 London 34 4.5.2 The South East 35 4.5.3 The West Midlands 36 4.5.4 East Midlands 36 4.5.5 The North West 37 4.5.6 Yorkshire and Humberside 37 4.5.7 The North East 38 4.5.8 East Anglia 38 4.5.9 The South West 39 4.6 Food Categories 40 4.6.1 Bread and Bakery Products 40 4.6.2 Dairy Products 40 4.6.3 Drinks 41 4.6.4 Fish and Seafood 41 4.6.5 Fruit and Vegetables 42 4.6.6 Meat and Meat Products 43 4.7 Eating Out 44 4.7.1 Awareness of Local and Regional Ingredients 44 4.7.2 Types of Outlet 45 4.7.3 Eating Out Occasions 45 4.7.4 Key Product Categories 45 4.8 Summary 47 SECTION FIVE: CONSUMER QUANTITATIVE SURVEY: SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

49

5.1 Introduction 49 5.2 Descriptive Statistics: Respondent Characteristics 49 5.3 Buying Behaviour when Purchasing Food and Drink for Use at Home 55 5.4 Buying Behaviour when Purchasing Food and Drink When Eating

Out 57

5.5 Defining the Concepts of Local and Regional Food and Drink 60 5.5.1 Distance Definitions of Local Food and Drink 61 5.5.2 Spatial Perceptions of Local Food and Drink 62 5.5.3 Perceptual Definitions of Regional Food and Drink 63 5.6 Buying Behaviour of Local and Regional Food and Drink 65 5.6.1 Buying Local Food and Drink 65 5.6.1.1 Actual and Intended Buying Behaviour 65 5.6.1.2 Differences in Buying by Product Category 70 5.6.1.3 Buying Occasions 72 5.6.1.4 Outlets Used 73 5.6.2 Buying Regional Food and Drink 75 5.6.2.1 Actual and Intended Buying Behaviour 75 5.6.2.2 Differences in Buying by Product Category 79 5.6.2.3 Buying Occasions 82 5.6.2.4 Outlets Used 83



page 5.7 Influences on the Buying of Local and Regional Food and Drink 85 5.7.1 Influences on Buying Local Food and Drink 85 5.7.1.1 Attitudes toward the Buying of Local Food and Drink 85 5.8 Consumer Psychographics 86 5.9 Factors Influencing the Purchasing of Local Food and Drink 87 5.9.1 Reasons for Buying 88 5.9.2 Barriers to Buying 90

5.9.3 Associations between Buying Behaviour and Factors

Influencing Buying of Local Food and Drink 92

5.9.3.1 Analysis of Relationships between Reasons for Buying/Not

Buying and Actual Buying Behaviour (Purchase Frequency over Past 3 Months)

93

5.9.3.2 Analysis of Relationships between Reasons for Buying/Not

Buying and Behavioural Intentions (Intention to Buy in Next 2 Weeks)

95

5.9.3.3 Analysis of Relationships between Buying Factors and

Buying Behaviour 96


Actual Behaviour (Purchase Frequency over Past 3 Months)

96


Behavioural Intentions (Intention to Buy in Next 2 Weeks) 98

5.10 Factors Influencing the Purchasing of Regional Food and Drink 100 5.10.1 Reasons for Buying 100

5.10.2 Associations between Buying Behaviour and Factors

Influencing Buying of Regional Food and Drink 102

5.10.2.1 Analysis of Relationships between Reasons for Buying

and Actual Buying Behaviour (Purchase Frequency over Past 3 Months)

103

5.10.2.2 Analysis of Relationships between Reasons for Buying

and Behavioural Intentions (Intention to Buy in Next 2 Weeks)

104

5.10.3 Analysis of Relationships between Buying Factors and

Buying Behaviour 105


Actual Behaviour (Purchase Frequency over Past 3 Months)

105


Behavioural Intentions (Intention to Buy in Next 2 Weeks) 107

5.11 Differences in Consumer Buying Behaviour and Influences 108 5.11.1 Differences by Buyer Characteristics 108 5.11.1.1 Urban and Rural Buying Differences 108 5.11.1.2 Regional Buying Differences 110 5.11.1.3 Buying Differences between Age Groups 111 5.11.1.4 Buying Differences between Genders 113 5.11.1.5 Buying Differences by Marital Status 114 5.11.1.6 Buying Differences by Socio-Economic Grouping 115 5.11.1.7 Other Differences 115



page 5.12 Classifying Local and Regional Food and Drink Buyers 116 5.13 Summary 121 SECTION SIX: QUALITATIVE TRADE ELEMENT 127 6.1 Introduction 127 6.2 Main Findings 127 6.2.1 Definition of ‘Local’ and ‘Regional’ Foods 127 6.2.2 Relative Importance of Local and Regional Food and Drink 130 6.2.3 Key Commercial Drivers: Advantages and Disadvantages

of Local and Regional Food and Drink 131

6.2.4 Perceptions of the Future for Local and Regional Food and Drink

135

6.2.5 Selling Local and Regional Food and Drink 138 6.2.6 Percentage by Value for Local Food and Drink of Total

Food and Drink Purchases 138

6.2.7 The Marketing and Promotion of Local Food and Drink

139

6.2.8 Local and Regional Products by Category 139 6.2.9 Constraints in Procuring Local Food and Drink 141 6.2.10 Important Considerations when Buying Local and Regional

Food and Drink 141

6.2.11 Changes to Infrastructure with Respect to Local and Regional Food and Drink Purchasing

142

6.2.12 Impact on Logistics and Distribution Arrangements of Local and Regional Food and Drink

143

6.2.13 Regional Food Groups and Trade Associations 144 6.3 Summary 144

SECTION SEVEN: QUANTITATIVE TRADE STUDY 147 7.1 Introduction 147 7.2 Descriptive Statistics of the Sample 147 7.2.1 Type of Business 147 7.2.2 Size of Business 148 7.2.3 Location 149 7.3 Definitions of Local and Regional Food and Drink 151 7.4 Importance of Local Food and Drink 154 7.5 Purchasing Behaviour 158 7.5.1 Buying of Specific Local and Regional Produce 164 7.5.2 Promotion of Local and Regional Produce 166 7.5.3 Trade Perceptions of Consumer Buying Factors 168 7.6 Summary 169



page SECTION EIGHT: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 171

8.1 Conclusions 171 8.2 Recommendations 175 SECTION NINE: BIBLIOGRAPHY 180 Appendices 183 Appendix One Consumer Focus Group Discussion Outline 184 Appendix Two Local and Regional Food and Drink Buying:

Consumer Survey Questionnaire and Introductory Preamble

186

Appendix Three DEFRA Local Food and Drinks Quantitative Trade Survey

200

Appendix Four Quantitative Trade Cover Letter 208 Appendix Five Quantitative Trade Reminder Letter 210 Appendix Six Trade Face-to-Face Interview Schedule 212 Appendix Seven Trade Tele-Depth Interview Schedule 215 INDEX OF TABLES Table One The Focus Group Sample 7 Table Two Telephone Depth Interviews Quota Sample 9 Table Three Respondent Age 49 Table Four Respondent Location 50 Table Five Type of Location 50 Table Six Income of Main Income Earner in Household 51 Table Seven Occupation Type of Main Income Earner in

Household 52

Table Eight Education Level (highest reached) of Main Income Earner in Household

53

Table Nine Sample by Socio-economic Group (JICNARS) 53 Table Ten Number of Dependent Children under 18 years in

the Household 54

Table Eleven Frequency of Shop for Food and Drink For Use at Home

55

Table Twelve Mode of Transport Used to Buy Food and Drink for Use at Home

56

Table Thirteen Distance Travelled to Buy Food and Drink for Use at Home

56

Table Fourteen Type of Outlet Used to Buy Food and Drink for Use at Home

57

Table Fifteen Frequency of Eating Out 58 Table Sixteen Distance Travelled to Buy Food and Drink when

Eating Out 58



page Table Seventeen Mode of Transport Used to Buy Food and Drink

when Eating Out 59

Table Eighteen Type of Outlet Usually Frequented when Eating Out 60 Table Nineteen Consumers’ Definitions of Local Food and Drink by

Distance from Home 61

Table Twenty Consumers’ Spatial Perceptions of Local Food and Drink

62

Table Twenty-one Consumers’ Perceptions of Regional Food and Drink 63 Table Twenty-two Purchasing of Local Food and Drink for Use at Home 65 Table Twenty-three Purchasing of Local Food and Drink when Eating

Out 66

Table Twenty-four Frequency Distribution for 2 Item Scale for 3 month Buying Behaviour of Local Food and Drink for Use at Home

67

Table Twenty-five Frequency Distribution for 2 Item Scale for 3 Month Buying Behaviour of Local Food and Drink when Eating Out

68

Table Twenty-six Frequency Distribution for 3 Item Scale for 2 Week Buying Intentions for Local Food and Drink for Use at Home

69

Table Twenty-seven Frequency Distribution for 3 Item Scale for 2 Week Buying Intentions for Local Food and Drink when Eating Out

70

Table Twenty-eight Buying of Local Food and Drink by Product Category 71 Table Twenty-nine Frequency of Purchase of Local Food and Drink in

Different Product Categories 72

Table Thirty Purchase Occasion for Local Food and Drink Buying 73 Table Thirty-one Purchase Outlets for Buying Local Food and Drink

for Use at Home 74

Table Thirty-two Purchase Outlets for Buying Local Food and Drink when Eating Out

75

Table Thirty-three Purchasing of Regional Food and Drink for Use at Home

76

Table Thirty-four Purchasing of Regional Food and Drink when Eating Out

76

Table Thirty-five Frequency Distribution 3 Month buying Behaviour of Regional Food and Drink for Use at Home

77

Table Thirty-six Frequency Distribution 3 Month buying Behaviour of Regional Food and Drink when Eating Out

78

Table Thirty-seven Buying Intentions for Regional Food and Drink over Different Time Periods

79

Table Thirty-eight Buying of Regional Food and Drink by Product Category

80

Table Thirty-nine Frequency of Purchase of Regional Food and Drink in Different Product Categories

81

Table Forty Purchase Occasion for Regional Food and Drink Buying

82

Table Forty-one Purchase Outlets for Buying Local Food and Drink for Use at Home

83



page Table Forty-two Purchase Outlets for Buying Regional Food and

Drink when Eating Out 84

Table Forty-three Basic Statistics for Attitude Measures for Buying Local Food and Drink

85

Table Forty-four Basic Statistics for Consumer Psychographic Measures

87

Table Forty-five Main Reasons for Buying of Local Food and Drink (Mean Values)

89

Table Forty-six Main Factors Influencing the Buying of Local Food and Drink

90

Table Forty-seven Main Reasons for Not Buying of Local Food and Drink (Mean Values)

91

Table Forty-eight Main Barriers Affecting the Buying of Local Food and Drink

92

Table Forty-nine Regression Results for Reasons for Buying/Not Buying and Actual Buying Behaviour for Local Food and Drink

94

Table Fifty Regression Results for Reasons for Buying/Not Buying and Behavioural Intentions toward Buying Local Food and Drink

95

Table Fifty-one Regression Results for Factors of Influence and Buyer Characteristics and Actual Buying Behaviour for Local Food and Drink

97

Table Fifty-two Regression Results for Factors of Influence and Buyer Characteristics and Buying Behavioural intentions for Local Food and Drink

99

Table Fifty-three Main Reasons for Buying of Regional Food and Drink (Mean Values)

101

Table Fifty-four Main Factors Influencing the Buying of regional Food and Drink

102

Table Fifty-five Regression Results for Reasons for Buying and Actual Buying Behaviour for Regional Food and Drink

103

Table Fifty-six Regression Results for Reasons for Buying and Behavioural Intentions toward Buying Regional Food and Drink

104

Table Fifty-seven Regression Results for Factors of Influence and Buyer Characteristics and Actual Buying Behaviour for Regional Food and Drink

106

Table Fifty-eight Regression Results for Factors of Influence and Buyer Characteristics and Actual Buying Behaviour for Regional Food and Drink

107

Table Fifty-nine Differences in Buying Behaviour and Influences between residents in Urban and Rural Areas

109

Table Sixty Differences in Buying Behaviour and Influences between Regions

110

Table Sixty-one Differences in Buying Behaviour and Influences between Regions

112



page Table Sixty-two Differences in Buying Behaviour and Influences

between Genders 113

Table Sixty-three Differences in Buying Behaviour and Influences by Marital Status

114

Table Sixty-four Differences in Buying Behaviour and Influences between Socio-Economic Grouping

115

Table Sixty-five Differences in Buying Behaviour between Segments 117 Table Sixty-six Differences in Buying and Non Buying Factors

between Segments 118

Table Sixty-seven Differences in Attitudes and Psychographics between Segments

119

Table Sixty-eight Product Groups where Local and Regional Food and Drink are more Dominant within Organisations

140

Table Sixty-nine Ownership Type of Responding Organisations 147 Table Seventy Turnover Band of Responding Organisations 149 Table Seventy-one Regional Distribution of Responding Organisations 150 Table Seventy-two Distribution of Responding Organisations by Area 150 Table Seventy-three Annual Spend on Food and Drink Products in 2006/7 151 Table Seventy-four Definitional Aspects of Local and Regional Food and

Drink 152

Table Seventy-five Geographical Definitions of Local Food and Drink 153 Table Seventy-six Geographical Definitions of Regional Food and Drink 154 Table Seventy-seven Changing Importance of Local and Regional

Produce 155

Table Seventy-eight Future of Local and Regional Food and Drink Market 156 Table Seventy-nine Importance of Local and Regional Produce to

Responding Businesses 157

Table Eighty Sourcing of Local and Regional Food and Drink 158 Table Eighty-one Factors Influencing Purchase of Local and Regional

Food and Drink 159

Table Eighty-two Factors Leading to Increased Purchasing of Local and Regional Food and Drink

160

Table Eighty-three Proportion of Spend on Local and Regional Products 162 Table Eighty-four Change in Proportion Spent on Local and Regional

Food and Drink 163

Table Eighty-five Change in Proportion Spent on Local and Regional Food

164

Table Eighty-six Buying of Specific Local and Regional Product 165 Table Eighty-seven Methods of Promoting Local and Regional Produce 167 Table Eighty-eight Trade Perceptions of Importance of Consumer

Buying Factors (Mean Values) 168


Social-economic Research & Intelligence Observatory

1.


SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the Research

The increasing demand for local and regional foods (IGD, 2005) presents potential economic and sustainability benefits. However, a range of driving forces that may increase motivation to purchase particular food types or reduce perceived barriers to purchasing create constant change in consumer tastes and preferences towards the purchasing of such produce. Moreover, it is clear that supermarkets remain the preferred shopping option for most buyers, based on the general desire of shoppers for convenience, product range, quality and value for money that they provide. In line with changing consumer attitudes and behaviours, trade intermediaries and providers of food service may identify that they need to respond to market changes, or indeed be proactive in developing a position which is consistent with these trends. Policy initiatives also affect demand and supply dynamics that are, in this case, inextricably linked to both the sustainable consumption agenda (Jackson, 2005), and its enactment in the rural food production and farming environment (Defra, 2002). Thus the Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory (SERIO), formerly the Social Research & Regeneration Unit (SRRU), in collaboration with the University of Plymouth’s Agrifood Centre (AfC), Rural Futures Unit and Small Business and Services Research Unit, was commissioned by Defra in April 2007 to undertake research to further understand consumer attitudes and actual purchasing behaviour, with reference to local and regional foods.

1.2 Research Aims and Objectives

The overall aim of this project is to contribute to the knowledge and understanding of the factors influencing consumers’ attitudes and behaviour in the market for local and regional foods in England. Within this the research has four main objectives:

� To characterise and evaluate the local and regional food industry in England, from the point of view of household and trade buyers, with a view to estimating its magnitude, the underlying driving



2.

forces, and the exact nature of the benefits sought from products of this type.

� To understand the various factors that influence purchasing

decisions made by household consumers and trade buyers with regard to local and regional foods, with a view to assessing their relative importance in decision making.

� To identify and synthesise relevant sources of data relating to the

consumption and marketing of local and regional foods, in order to provide a resource for the development of appropriate market offers by producers and processors.

� To inform future commercial and public policies in the local and

regional food sector, through improving the viability and efficiency of suppliers, and ensuring that additional environmental and social benefits are achieved.

For Defra the project will contribute significantly to its understanding of the local and regional food purchasing in England, and provide an evidence base from which policy can be developed. It is anticipated that findings from the study will be employed as a platform for instigating strategies for the sector that will enable effective product development and marketing, and stimulate rural enterprise. At the same time the potential economic benefits will be complemented by the environmental advantages offered by a more sustainable farm production and food processing industry.

1.3 Structure of the Report

This final report - SFFSD 0609 ‘Understanding of Consumer Attitudes and Actual Purchasing Behaviour, with Reference to Local and Regional Foods’ highlights the key findings from the research programme.

The report maps the pattern of interest in, and promotion of, local and regional food and drink in England. In doing so it provides an indication of the difference in understanding of the local and regional food market between intermediaries and consumers, and also within the industry. This is particularly noticeable in terms of the range of views from the major multiple supermarkets and foodservice providers to independent operators.



3.

Section Two outlines the overall methodology in relation to secondary and primary sources, covering both the qualitative and quantitative elements. Section Three provides an overview of the policy context and previous research. Sections Four and Five focus on the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the consumer element while Sections Six and Seven focus on the trade element. Finally, Section Eight draws together the key findings and proposes potential areas of action.



4.

SECTION TWO: METHOD 2.1 Research Approach

The study employed an integrative research framework, incorporating both primary and secondary research to achieve the project’s four objectives. Using a sequential approach, quantitative statistical survey research has been based upon secondary research and grounded qualitative understanding of respondents’ motivations, perceptions, attitudes and behaviours. Reflecting this, the research design comprised three distinct phases:

� Secondary research.

� Primary qualitative research.

� Primary quantitative research.

This approach enabled a detailed understanding of the factors influencing the purchasing behaviour of consumers in the local and regional food and drink market to be achieved. Moreover it provided strategic insights into the potential for developing the local and regional food production and processing sector as a vehicle for growth and sustainable development of the rural economy.

2.2 Phase One: Secondary Research and Discussions with Industry

Experts

The first phase of research combined a desk based investigation of secondary sources with discussions with industry experts in order to contextualise the study and enabled linkages with related work by government departments, industry agencies, trade representative bodies, and proprietary market research agencies, to be identified. This incorporated an examination of previous related research, including a review of existing literature and relevant academic research that has studied the demand for local and regional foods and the market more generally. The literature review was based on a range of published sources that had considered recent growth and development of the sector, the nature of local and regional and drink, the perceived benefits it offers, factors influencing buying behaviour, and barriers to purchase. A range of government, trade, market research and academic sources were considered for the review, which included work undertaken outside the UK, although this was somewhat limited. Relevant literature was initially identified via an on-line search of academic databases, and this



5.

was further extended through discussions with public agencies, trade bodies and industry experts. The review focussed on studies that could provide contemporary insights into the market within the context of government policy, and in particular present an overview of issues relating to consumer and trade demand, and relationships with previously identified perceived benefits. The literature considered provided a comprehensive overview of empirical work undertaken to date regarding consumer and trade buying decisions which enabled gaps to be identified in areas where further detailed investigation was required. Hence, it provided a starting point from which the study could shape its field research both in terms of the qualitative and qualitative elements that would provide detailed empirical evidence on consumer and trade behaviour. Informal discussions with a number of industry experts from important stakeholder groups and agencies represent an additional key activity in phase one. Insights generated from these discussion interviews have been combined with the findings of the desk research to shape the subsequent qualitative fieldwork with consumers and trade buyers, and have enabled more detailed sampling and appropriate group discussion and semi-structured interview questions to be formulated. Specific aspects of the interviews with industry experts have been included with the findings of the qualitative research of trade buying organisations.

2.3 Phase Two: Primary Qualitative Research The second phase of the study includes two separate elements of qualitative research with consumers and trade intermediaries respectively.

2.3.1 Consumer Focus Groups

Twenty consumer focus group discussions were held throughout England during August and September 2007. The composition of each group was determined by an interlocking quota sampling approach to gain coverage and develop understanding of a range of different consumer types. Two focus groups were held in each of the nine Defra regions, (one urban and one rural1), and an additional to two groups in the South East, and two in London. This ensured that regional differences in local and regional food buying could be identified.

1 According to the Census-Output Areas Rural/Urban definition 2004. 2 Based on ‘The British Shopper’ profile in The Retail Pocket Book, 2005.



6.

Respondents were recruited by a research agency and standard incentive rates paid to achieve the necessary participation rates. When recruited, respondents were asked six questions relating to their attitudes to foods and purchasing behaviour. To ensure results were unbiased toward current users of local and regional foods, and in line with Defra’s brief, respondents with low or no interest in local and/or regional foods were still included in the group discussions. The responses to these questions were used to ensure the focus groups consisted of a mix of those currently predisposed to buying and using local/regional food and drink products, and those who were not. This approach aimed to stimulate interesting interactions within the focus group discussions. Additionally, age, gender, socio-economics, geodemographics, family size and composition, ethical stance, were used by recruiters to establish group membership2. As shown in Table One, the individual focus groups were homogenous by lifestyle, gender and social group. Sixteen of the twenty focus groups were conducted amongst women, reflecting the current prevalence of women in the ‘main shopper’ category within households; the remaining four groups ensured that the influence of males in shopping and eating out choices was also examined.



7.

Table One: The Focus Group Sample

REGION URBAN RURAL GENDER SOCIAL GROUP *LIFESTAGE

London North London Male ABC1 Pre/no family

South London Female C2DE Older children

South East

Brighton Reading

Female Female

C2DE ABC1

Pre/no family Older children

Crowthorne East Grinstead

Male Female

C2DE ABC1

3rd age/retired

Young children

East of England Norwich Female ABC1 3

rd age/retired

Diss Female C2DE Young children

South West Bristol Female C2DE Young children

St Austell Female ABC1 3rd age/retired

West Midlands Birmingham Female ABC1 Older children

Stourbridge Female C2DE Young children

East Midlands Nottingham Female C2DE *Older children

Long Eaton Female ABC1 Pre/no children

North West Manchester Female C2DE Young children

Colne Male ABC1 Older children

North East Newcastle Female ABC1 Pre/no family

Morpeth Female C2DE 3rd age/retired

Yorkshire & Humber

Leeds Male ABC1 Young children

Ripon Female C2DE 3rd age/retired

Source: SERIO 2007

* LIFESTAGE:

Pre/no children = single or all adult household (H/H) Young children = H/H with all or most children at pre- or primary school age (11 or under) Older children = H/H with all or most children at secondary school or older (12+) 3rd age/retired = ‘empty-nesters’ and/or no longer working

The group moderator used a discussion outline to establish insights into attitudes and behaviours with respect to local and regional food and drink consumption, with a specific focus on consumers’ understanding of the exact nature of ‘local’ and ‘regional’ in this context, the motivations for use and non-use, the decision-making unit, and actual and intended behaviour patterns depending on variations in the characteristics of the food and drink offered (see Appendix One for a copy of the discussion outline). All focus groups, comprising an average of ten members, lasted approximately one hour and thirty minutes and were digitally recorded and transcribed.



8.

The data was then analysed using a sequential emic/etic approach: similarities and differences between urban and rural groups in each region were identified and used to build a framework of national urban and rural characteristics and attitudes. Firstly, assuming the emic approach, that the data is best understood within its specific regional context, the urban and rural groups were analysed for each Defra region in turn. This approach was able to tease out local differences in motives, attitudes and behaviour across the urban/rural ‘divide’. Following this, and based on the etic assumption that at least some components of the local and regional food construct might be national in scope, an overall analysis of all urban and rural focus group data was conducted. Therefore, this second stage of analysis aimed to identify similarities.

2.3.2 Retail and Foodservice Organisation Depth Interviews The second strand of the qualitative research comprised a series of 130 depth interviews with buying representatives within trade organisations. A total of 30 buying representatives within private sector retail and food services organisations were approached directly in a face-to-face scenario, while a further 100 respondents were contacted through a tele-depth approach. A semi-structured discussion approach was utilised in both the face-to-face interviews and telephone depth interviews to ensure that all topics of interest were included within the interview, whilst allowing the interviewer to explore emerging issues further. Discussion guides were devised, and tailored to the face-to-face and telephone approaches, to include a core set of closed questions to systematically capture profiling and certain attitudinal data, together with a set of open-ended questions to explore specific issues in a non-prescriptive format. The topics within the guide included reasons for buying/not buying local and regional foods, buying criteria and their relative importance, structural impediments in the buying structure, the decision-making process and decision-making unit, and planned future use. The interview guides are shown in Appendices Three and Four respectively. Sampling was complex to take account of wide ranging factors across the retail and food service sectors. The 30 organisations that were approached to participate in the face-to-face interviews were selected from the Retail and Shopping Centre Directory 2007. Organisations included the major chain and independent supermarkets, foodservice businesses and major public house/ restaurant/ hotel chains. Additionally, a number of Regional Food Groups were interviewed to elicit any nuances in demand in a cross section of the regions. Organisations were approached by experienced members of the



9.

research team and respondents with key responsibility for buying local and regional food and drink were identified. In advance of the interview, respondents were sent a briefing note to provide an opportunity to make data available at the meeting itself. Each interview lasted between thirty and ninety minutes and, where possible, was digitally recorded and transcribed.

A total of 100 respondents participated in the tele-depth interviews. A quota sample was used with potential organisational contact details being purchased from Equifax. Annual turnover figures obtained from the National Statistics’ Annual Business Inquiry (ONS, 2007), informed the number of respondents to be recruited from each organisational type. Details of the sample breakdown are illustrated in Table Two. Using a recruitment questionnaire, each organisation was contacted and invited to participate at a time convenient to them. Organisations were located within all nine English regions and represent a range of sizes, both in terms of annual turnover and number of employees. Table Two: Telephone Depth Interviews Quota Sample

Organisational Type Interviews Completed

Wholesale 18

Retail – non specialised 41

Retail – specialised 6

Hotels 8

Restaurants 12

Bars 11

Catering 4

Total 100

Source: SERIO, 2008

The research team experienced a number of problems in recruiting small businesses to participate due to time constraints. Restaurants and retail outlets in particular were susceptible to such constraints and, despite their willingness to participate within the study, in the event, some were unable to dedicate thirty minutes to a telephone interview.



10.

2.4 Phase Three: Primary Quantitative Research

Reflecting the sequential approach, the findings from the preceding phases have informed the design of quantitative research, which comprises two separate strands with consumers, and trade intermediary and food service buying organisations.

2.4.1 Consumer Quantitative Survey

The consumer survey collected data from a stratified sample of 1223 buyers using quota sampling criteria including regional location, age and gender to reflect the distribution of population and participation in food and drink buying behaviour. The respondents surveyed were the main/joint decision maker in shopping/eating out decisions in the household. The survey was administered using an on-line consumer panel with over 145,000 potential respondents run by a well-established, international, commercial on-line research agency. This method was adopted in order to achieve the required number of responses within the quota bandings, and to attain coverage of all the question areas in a detailed questionnaire (all responses have to be fully completed by respondents to gain their incentive reward). The survey instrument comprised a set of closed questions to capture essential demographic, psychographic, attitudinal and behavioural characteristics, and batteries of Likert-type scales to assess the importance of particular factors in decision making and how this translates into actual and intended purchasing behaviour. A copy of the questionnaire that was translated into a series of online questions is provided in Appendix Two, along with the preamble that was provided by way of introduction to prospective respondents.

2.4.2 Trade Quantitative Survey

The trade survey collected data using a rough quota sample based on annual turnover figures obtained from the National Statistics’ Annual Business Inquiry (ONS, 2007). A postal survey was sent to a sample of 3,350 organisations sourced from the Equifax database, along with a covering letter explaining the purpose of the research. Organisations were sent a number of reminders to maximise the response rate and, as an incentive to take part, organisations were entered into a prize draw to



11.

win £500. In addition, a number of telephone booster interviews were conducted to further increase the response rate. Significant difficulties were encountered in recruiting participants for the trade survey, a number of which were attributed to time constraints and organisations feeling that the survey was not applicable to them; however a total of 154 retail organisations and 193 catering organisations completed the survey. A copy of the questionnaire, cover letter and reminder letter is provided in the Appendix (see Appendices Three to Five).

2.4.3 Data Analysis

Data from the surveys were constructed into two separate databases using SPSS. Initial analysis of the consumer data was undertaken using cross-tabulations and appropriate statistical tests (t-test and ANOVA) to identify differences amongst respondents. Following this, key buying variables were established using factor analysis, relationships between these and buying behaviour identified using regression modelling, and types of buyer classified using cluster analysis. Analysis of the trade data was undertaken using cross-tabulations and appropriate statistical tests (t-test and Chi-square) to establish significant differences in responses between the different types of buying organisations.



12.

SECTION THREE: OVERVIEW OF THE POLICY CONTEXT AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH 3.1 The Policy Context

A recent government discussion paper “Food: An analysis of the Issues” (Cabinet Office, 2008), suggests that consumer choice about what and how they eat are related to their wealth, aspirations, tastes and politics. This is no more apparent than in consumers’ decisions to purchase local and regional produce where purchasing behaviour can not only be regarded as a economic choice, but also have a political dimension, as well as being an expression of personal identity, and a reflection of what is done for leisure and pleasure. At the same time, the dominance of multiple supermarket groups in the supply chain of food and groceries has never been more apparent (Competition Commission, 2008), and any investigation of the future of food buying must inevitably involve an assessment of the motives and behaviour of these major players. Given this backdrop, the forces shaping the demand and supply of local and regional food and drink, are likely to be wide ranging, complex and inter-related. They will also be shaped to a greater or lesser extent by policy decisions that are driven by priorities emerging around issues of economics, sustainability, health, and the future of agriculture and rural areas.

Following the Curry Report on the findings of the Policy Commission on Farming and Food, “Farming and Food a Sustainable Future” (2002), a working group was formed to investigate Local Food. The report stated that:

“...one of the greatest opportunities for farmers to add value...is to build on the public’s enthusiasm for locally-produced food or food with a clear regional provenance”.

The Working Group on Local Food further investigated this belief and reported with its ‘Snapshot of the Sector’ in 2003. Its’ main findings of relevance to this project indicated that there was no single definition of local food; that there is a strong consumer interest in local food, and consumers have a wide range of expectations of local food; the scope of the local food sector is difficult to determine; organisations that facilitate links between enterprises at a local scale are essential for the future development of the sector; local food businesses are mostly micro-businesses and hence suffer from the constraints of this business form; the local food sector lacks diversity of supply and infrastructure to support growth; and the local food sector is perceived to have wide potential to grow.



13.

Building on this report and the relevant aspects contained in the Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food (Defra, 2002) a subsequent Defra Policy Paper on Local Food (2004), considered the future of the sector. The paper confirmed a number of issues associated with the definition of local food and the distinction with regional food; the perceived benefits of local food; the coherence of support from the public sector; barriers to the development of the sector; and possible support measures.

Within this policy document a distinction is made between local and regional food, with local food being identified as being produced and sold within limited areas, whereas regional food is regarded as quality food with a specific geographic provenance. In practice, however, it is noted that the distinction between local and regional food is not always clear cut. Benefits accruing from the provision of local food are considered to come in a number of respects with socio-economic, environmental, and health advantages all being possible outcomes from the development of the sector. From a socio-economic perspective it is argued that producers may retain a greater proportion of profits, that money is likely to remain in the local economy, that tourism may benefit, that farmers’ markets may build closer rural communities, and increased consumer demand for local food will be satisfied. With regard to the environment it is suggested that food miles may be reduced, and more ‘environmentally friendly’ farming methods may be encouraged. The health benefits are seen to come from encouraging the purchase of fresh food instead of previously consumed unhealthy alternatives. Additional areas of the policy paper provide insights into the potential for growth and development of the sector through distribution channels. Farmers’ markets are recognized as possible nodes for the future growth of the sales of local produce, and it is proposed that penetration of the multiple grocery retail chains would be a way of further increasing the sales of local food. Underpinning all of this, however, is the need to understand more about the buying of local food and confirm whether there is an actual demand for it; establish where it fits in terms of the benefits it offers to consumers and how these rank against other priorities; and to identify the extent to which multiples and other retailers, and foodservice organisations have responded to the perceived growth in the local produce sector.

3.2 Previous Research 3.2.1 The Changing Food Sector

The Cabinet Office discussion paper (2008) sets the context for the research undertaken in this project by identifying a number of macro issues that affect the future of local and regional food. Their overview of



14.

consumer demand suggests that food has become more affordable and the UKs’ food culture is becoming more aspirational, and that there is increasing demand for healthier, more convenient, ethical food as well as it tasting good. However, they recognize that there is a gap between what people say and what they do, and that the ‘intention-action gap’ is manifest in positive attitudes toward healthy eating and the environment not being matched by spending patterns. They further identify that the gap is evident in rituals around food and the pursuit of culturally desirable activities such as cooking a meal from first principles....”but good intentions are not always put into practice” (p.22). Moreover they propose that shoppers’ choices are not necessarily ‘value-consistent’, as trade-offs are made between convenience, ethics, quality, health and well being benefits as well as price. This latter factor remains important especially amongst younger shoppers, those with larger households, and those in social classes D and E.

Additional factors both directly and indirectly related to local and regional produce are considered in this paper. It is apparent that more people are now prepared to pay premium prices for food produce that meets their needs in terms of quality and provenance, amongst other benefits, and that this offers up opportunities for differentiation for products offering something better than the mainstream. In conjunction with this an increasing demand for ethically produced food has been identified, together with increasing concern for environmental issues relating to food such as packaging waste. At the same time they note the complex mix of beliefs surrounding the consumption of organic food, and the increasing health consciousness of consumers, some of whom are prepared to pay more for healthy eating. Parallel trends were identified in consumer’s increasing interest in the country of origin of food, and a resurgence of interest in buying seasonal food. Specific reference to local food indicates that it is difficult to estimate the size of the local food market due to there being no agreed definitions, and that these varied amongst consumers and the trade. However, ADAS (2007) have estimated the turnover of the UK regional food sector to be around £5 bn, and that the sector grew by 39% between 2003 and 2006, which represented 7% of total food and drink manufacturing in England. Further to this, Food from Britain (2007) report that local and regional foods account for nearly a third of the UK premium food market, which values it at around £4bn.

Another recent report by Deloitte Touche, (2007), also provides useful relevant insights into food sector trends based on a survey of 1000 food consumers and 70 food manufacturers, retail, and foodservice executives. Pertinent issues associated with local and regional food are revealed including:



15.

� Health, provenance, nutrition, localness and authenticity of food have moved on to the boardroom agenda over the last 2-3 years.

� The ‘slow food’ movement is gaining ground.

� A key market driver for the next few years is the baby boomer generation, nearing retirement, well educated, active, health conscious, cognisant of local food issues and relatively, in the most part, wealthy.

� Intentions and actual consumer behaviour differ according to executives surveyed e.g. intention to buy more locally sourced produce against a backdrop of increased purchasing through supermarkets.

� Convenience to home was most important factor when deciding where to shop, local produce came 15th out of 19 evaluation criteria.

� More local products ranked third in ‘what can supermarkets do to better meet your requirements’, top was more choice and variety.

� Executives’ view of key consumer trends facing the industry rated authenticity and freshness as important - in contrast a preference for local produce was mentioned by only 15% of consumers.

� Provenance, localness and authenticity were rated highly by manufacturers and retailers but less so by foodservice sector.

� Larger businesses were more aware of localness and sustainability issues.

� Authentication of provenance were not high on consumer’s requirements although with increasing food issues like bird flu and BSE such factors are likely to rise in prominence.

� Localness is perceived by the food industry to be an important consumer preference, causing them to re-think its distribution methods, possibly leading to ‘piggybacking’ onto routes from regional distribution centres.



16.

The findings of these two recent investigations provide some overarching principles upon which the research presented in this report can be founded, together with specific details relating to aspects of the demand and supply for local and regional food. This is now further developed by briefly considering the key works of previous literature on the topic of local and regional food.

3.2.2 Local and Regional Food

During the past five years or so there has been a significant amount of empirical work undertaken into the field of local and regional produce, which has built from the increasing consumer, trade and government policy interest in the field. Thus proprietary market research agencies, trade bodies, government agencies, and a number of academics from a range of disciplines (including consumer behaviour and marketing, geography, agriculture and rural studies) have made important contributions to enlightening knowledge and developing thinking in the area. The focus of the remainder of this section will be on interpreting the terminology of local and regional food, understanding the attitudes and behaviours of consumers based upon the factors they perceive to be important when making buying decisions, and any implications for practice and policy that have been identified thus far.

3.2.3 Definitions

Local and regional food is a complex concept and often lacks a clear, agreed and fully-articulated meaning in the mind of the consumer (COI/FSA, 2003). Indeed the ‘combination’ of local and regional food often creates further misunderstanding, particularly from the standpoint of any overlap between the two. As already noted, the Defra (2004) policy paper acknowledges this, and goes some way to overcoming any confusion, by stating that local food is generally regarded as being sold and produced within a particular area whilst regional food has particular quality connotations. Yet it is apparent that in some instances quality regional food may also be local. Definitional attempts of ‘local’ in a food sense have suggested that it is often simply defined by reference to an existing socio-administrative area such as a county in which it is produced, or to an unspecified distance factor e.g. local may be up to 50 miles but not up to 100 miles (Morris and Buller, 2003).

Further definitional elaboration has been undertaken by rooting the local food concept in the mind of the consumer and, in particular, by developing detailed understanding of whether it is indeed an extended concept that could relate to ‘products made nationally, within the region,



17.

or within the immediate local area’ (BrookLyndhurst/Countryside Agency, 2004). An IGD (2005) study identified that as far as consumers are concerned, local food is predominantly about distance, and that the most common response from shoppers is that ‘local represents a fairly small area around where they live or are buying a product’ (p3). Of the total sample, 21% associate local with the county in which they live, and a further 32% believe that it is either within 30 miles of from where they live or where they buy the product. As part of the same study, distance was not considered to be important to a definition of regional food, with regional being representative of a larger area than local, and associated with a particular area of the country often representing a specific regional speciality. This is further extended by a later omnibus report produced by COI/FAS which identified again that respondents had different interpretations of what the term local food means: most (40%) said it was within a 10 mile radius, but others defined it as their county (20%), from their neighbouring county (15%), or from their region (20%). They also noted that shoppers from different parts of the UK had different perspectives on what size of area local meant, with shoppers from some areas understanding that ‘local’ meant from their ‘region’. This suggests that there remains therefore a general distinction between local and regional but in many minds there is a closeness of association which makes the two indistinguishable. In sum, although definitions of local remain many and varied (Rickets Hein et al, 2006), it is fair to say that the idea of proximity dominates understanding of the concept amongst both relevant organisations (e.g. FLAIR, 2002), and consumers (IGD, 2002). For regional food, then it is not only ‘place identified’, but associated with traditional and authentic food eaten by locals (Kuznesof et al, 1997).

An attempt to further illuminate the distinction between local and regional is undertaken in the COI/FSA 2003 research which suggests that, although for many the local food concept is ‘fuzzy’ for the majority of consumers, it has generally positive associations, particularly with the benefits of proximity – ‘small scale, good husbandry, greeness, distinctiveness, quality, craft and skill, avoidance of mass production, etc’ (p1). By way of contrast, their research suggests that regional food is a slightly hollow concept which does not generally register with the pubic, particularly if they have been branded as regional, which is often regarded as an empty ‘marketing gimmick’. These observations provide some initial direction for a more detailed discussion of the benefits associated with local and regional foods, and the reasons that underpin consumers’ buying decisions.



18.

3.2.4 Buying Behaviour and Influences

Empirical studies of the purchasing behaviour indicate that the interest in buying local and regional food is high (IGD, 2005), with 70% wanting to buy local food, nearly 50% wanting to buy more in the future, and 60% saying that they are currently buying local. Another report shows that shoppers were divided over the importance of buying local food with over half (56%) saying that it was important to them and the remainder stating that it was not important (COI/FSA, 2007). Both these studies, along with the Mintel report into attitudes towards buying local produce (2003) identify variations in buying attitudes and behaviour across customer type. Specifically, the purchase of local food and its importance to customers increases with age, with the 55+ age group being the most likely purchasers, and the 18-34 year olds the least likely (IGD, 2005). Additionally, they identified regional variations in buying, but no differences amongst social grade. Both of these, it was suggested, provide marketing opportunities for the future sales of local and regional produce, with London , in particular, and higher professional social grades being presented as ideal targets for future growth. Further findings of this research indicate that product choice within the local and regional food sector is dominated by fruit and vegetables, bread, eggs and dairy produce, and meat and meat products (see IGD 2006, p. 15).

According to COI/FSA (2007) the main reasons for buying local food were supporting local businesses and the local community, food quality issues including where the food comes from, and freshness, and environmental factors such as reducing food miles and pollution. The IGD report (2005) generally concurs with this and summarises the factors for buying into three groups: product quality, sustainability, and the shopping experience. Within this the overwhelmingly most important factor is freshness, which it is perceived to provide improved taste, better nutrition, and also a sense of it being ‘like it is meant to be’. In the same study, the main barriers to customers buying are identified as lack of awareness of local and regional produce, a lack of practical access to outlets and being out of their price range, and uncertainty about availability to plan into their food shopping. Of these, high price is seen to be this biggest hurdle to overcome, followed by it being difficult to find in the supermarket or the supermarket not selling it, in addition to not having the time to visit farmers’ markets or farm shops, or to look at where the product comes from. Two academic studies investigating consumer behaviour toward local food are worthy of some consideration. A study by Weatherell et al (2003), suggests that the practical benefits of food (e.g. freshness, taste, healthiness, appearance, and availability), dominate decisions when choosing food, over what they term ‘civic’ factors, even amongst the



19.

‘issue aware’ respondents; the use of supermarkets also prevailed as the preferred choice for accessing local foods. They also identify numerous significant differences between respondents’ views according to their urban/rural residency, particularly from the point of view of ‘civic’ issues of food choice, which tend to be much higher priority of those located in rural areas, as does concern over food provisioning issues, and interest in local foods. These researchers also found evidence to support an identified group of ‘concerned consumers’ who gave priority to all food-related issues except price, and were particularly interested in buying local foods. Nonetheless, even this group put practical buying criteria and moral and health concerns before the origin of food when making choices, and still nominated the supermarket as their first choice for local foods, thus signifying that “trade-offs do take place between wider concerns and pragmatic factors” (p. 243). A further study, along similar lines by Tregear and Ness (2005), attempts to identify factors that distinguish interest amongst consumers in local food. Their findings also indicate that in addition to extrinsic food features such as environment, welfare and origin, pragmatic features of food, namely, price and intrinsic features such as quality, taste and freshness are important determinants of interest. They also identify that rurally resident consumers had a higher interest in local food issues compared with those in urban areas, and concur with other research that older respondents are more interested in local food compared with younger ones.

3.2.5 Summary and General Implications

A summary of the extant research suggests that definitional issues are inherent in the understanding of local and regional food and can tend to obscure some of the critical issues surrounding the future development of the sector. In essence the understanding and perceptions of different consumers should lead the growth of the area based upon the benefits they seek and the difficulties that they encounter ‘in their mind’ when buying. To this end, it is clear that a large number of shoppers are interested in, and have positive attitudes toward local and regional food, and many translate this into actual buying behaviour. Yet it is also apparent that many do not buy at all, or as frequently as they would like to, either because they do not recognize the latent benefits in so doing, or because they encounter insurmountable barriers to buying.

Evidence appears to indicate that there are wide ranging motivations for buying local and regional food and that there will be some differences between the two. However, despite the acknowledgement of an interest in a number of different advantages of local and regional produce, for most shoppers it is the quality, freshness and taste attributes that tend to positively influence buying decisions. Similarly, barriers around price,



20.

accessibility, awareness, and availability exist that need to be addressed. The general implications of these findings suggest that marketing communications messages need to take account of the different ‘tiers’ of motives for buying, and that there is a role for more widespread information to support consumers’ decision making. Such messages need to recognize consumers’ priorities and also target the particular needs and perceived disadvantages of different customer types when so doing. Further to this, there needs to be a better understanding of the way in which trade outlets, both retail and foodservice in particular which lags behind the retail trade (IGD, 2006), can facilitate the future development of the sector.

The next section presents the findings of the primary research undertaken in this project. Following a detailed analysis of the results of this research, the conclusions and recommendation of the study will be outlined that will build upon the broad inferences discussed above, providing more detailed suggestions for marketing initiatives, and commercial and public policy.



21.

SECTION FOUR: QUALITATIVE CONSUMER ELEMENT 4.1 Introduction

This section of the report examines the key findings from the first of two stages of the consumer research programme. It will start by discussing the overall findings, and will move on to identify some particular differences: by region, urban versus rural, by food and drink category and finally in terms of eating out as opposed to grocery shopping. Qualitative research has been conducted initially, in order to:

� Investigate and define the constructs of ‘local’ and ‘regional’ food and drink, as perceived by consumers.

� Examine the relationship between attitudes and behaviour with regard to these products.

� Identify the main drivers of, and barriers to, purchasing local and

regional foods and drinks, and the exact nature of the benefits sought.

� Investigate the factors influencing consumers’ decisions.

4.2 Summary of Main Findings

The findings below include some supporting quotes from respondents. Where these are given, they are identified by the location of the group discussion at which they were made.

4.2.1 Definition of ‘Local’ and ‘Regional’ Foods

There are disparate definitions of what constitutes ‘local’ food in the literature, and in keeping with this the research team found that there is no commonly accepted view amongst consumers across England as to what constitutes ‘local’ foods. Though there seems to be greater agreement on the nature of ‘regional’ food, definitions may assume an overlap between the two categories (Morris and Buller 2003; Tastes of England’s North West/Weber Shandwick, 2004).

Specifically, two sets of definitions of ‘local’ food emerged: the predominant set amongst consumers in rural areas is that it means the immediate vicinity:



22.

“You’re on first name terms with the farmer” (Morpeth respondent) or as broad as ‘our county’ to urban respondents.

Our findings support the general consensus in the literature (Morris and Buller, 2003) that ‘regional’ food is ‘place identified’ (Kuznesov et al, 1997), referring to regions of the UK that are strongly associated with particular produce (e.g. Devon and Cornwall for dairy products). Put simply, to the majority of consumers investigated, ‘local food’ means ‘local enough for me’ to reach the source if I want to’; whilst ‘regional food’ means – in its broad sense – British:

“Anything that’s been grown, killed or brought up in England” (Ripon).

“I’m quite happy if it’s just British” (Reading).

The use of ‘Britishness’ often, rather than ‘Englishness’ is important, (see also Morris and Buller, 2003 p.560) with Aberdeen Angus beef, Scottish smoked salmon and Welsh lamb being the most frequently mentioned examples of ‘regional’ food. These findings support Defra (2005) in terms of defining regional food as produced within a particular geographical area, and ‘perceived to have a distinctive quality because of the area or method by which it was produced’. Our research extends this insofar as a number of regional foods (such as the above) were seen as generic brands: and this is potentially important for future regional food promotion.

A set of definitions linked to distances was also identified, though this is secondary to those above. This appears a more common definition in retail practice than in the general literature; though ‘local’ produce has been defined in secondary sources as originating or being produced within a radius: most often a radius of 30 miles (IGD 2005). Within this secondary set, ‘local’ means within a 10-30 mile radius of our respondents’ homes (a lesser distance amongst respondents who do not drive); whilst ‘regional’ means up to a 50 mile radius. These ‘radius definitions’ may be influenced by awareness - at least amongst respondents from the upper social groups - of farmers’ market (National Association of Farmers’ Markets) definitions of ‘local’ as within 30-50 miles. These radius limits are not ‘perfect circles’, however, but relate to key towns or villages at the boundaries of each location i.e. ‘local’ to Crowthorne was defined by one respondent as:

“…no further west than Reading”.



23.

Inevitably, it is impossible to produce a standard ‘mileage radius’ for either ‘local’ or ‘regional’, when each area has its own focal points of production (e.g. cider apples in Somerset); and when, large population centres are not, by definition, food source areas:

“I…. don’t really see (farms) as anywhere round here: it’s a bit too cityish” (North London).

Hence respondents in urban areas, when asked to identify a ‘local’ food product, responded in one of three ways:

� By referring to a well-known food manufacturer (e.g. Cadbury’s in Birmingham). However, this is at odds with the Omnibus Research Report 2007 finding, that ‘local’ does not mean processed locally (though it may well mean sourced and processed locally).

� By linking their definition to the nearest known centre for particular produce: “Evesham for apples” (Birmingham).

� By extending the mileage radius used in rural or ‘mixed’ parts of

the country (e.g. London: “There’s a negative to buying meat (from) within the M25…..Is that because of the pollution on the M25?” (South London).

So ‘local’ food for urban dwellers is either factory (rather than farm) produced, or relates to a wider geographic area, which rural respondents would class as ‘regional’. Put simply, therefore, ‘local’ food is the preserve of rural areas, although it is also perceived as a wider concept in urban locations.

Overall, then, our findings support the view that ‘local’ food is not necessarily defined by a ‘bounded system’ related to proximity to source or retailer (Institute of Grocery Distribution, 2002; Morris and Buller, 2003, Rickets Hein, et al 2006), and where the main preoccupation is with:

”…the shortest and simplest route from field to plate” (FLAIR, 2002, in Ricketts Hein et al 2006).

Rather, it is flexible, subject to changes over time and space (Ricketts Hein et al 2006). Plus, in rural areas definitions of ‘local’ and ‘regional’ food will, of necessity, overlap, depending on whether or not consumers live in a place which provides a specific geographical provenance for a food (Tastes of England’s North West/Weber Shandwick, 2004).



24.

4.2.2 Attitudes and Behaviour towards Local and Regional Food Purchases

Previous research in the area of food sociology indicates that there are many factors and associations linked to food choice, a number of which are only tenuously connected to production and provenance (Weatherell et al 2003). Hence it is not surprising that our study uncovered some variability between respondents’ attitudes to local foods in particular, and their behaviour. On the whole, attitudes to local and regional foods are positive. This produce itself is seen as:

� Fresher: “dug up that day” (Manchester). � Better quality: “cos it’s not travelled far” (Nottingham).

� Tastier: “taste doesn’t keep in a supermarket” (Birmingham).

� Healthier/more ‘natural’ (fewer pollutants, no additives).

� With trustworthy provenance: “You know where it’s come from”

(Nottingham respondent referring to regional food).

In addition, the imagery and associations surrounding local and regional foods represent nostalgia, wholesomeness, and a simpler, less stressful way of life, where the links between the land and the plate were clear. Also, buying local food was seen as creating less transportation pollution in the environment:

“Because it’s locally produced it shouldn’t have so many food miles” (Bristol).

Counterbalancing this, however, are the behavioural constraints created by time-poor life-styles, and family catering:

“Fast food is easy” (Newcastle). “If I had the time and the money, yes, I would love to…be really good about what I’m putting into the children” (East Grinstead).



25.

A critical aspect of this is that a number of respondents cannot cook from scratch:

“If I go out for Sunday lunch I’ll have beef”. Moderator: “Why is that?” “Cos I can’t cook it”.

These differences between generally positive attitudes, and actual behaviour, support previous research indicating that only a fraction of consumers who express an interest in local foods actually buy them; in line with our findings, trade-offs against the factors of convenience and accessibility have been reported in the past (Weatherell et al 2003). Despite widespread support for, and loyalty towards, British foods as claimed by our respondents, there were occasional reservations expressed about its quality in comparison to European foods where the food chain from farm to market was seen as considerably shorter (e.g. France, Italy, Greece):

“It’s mass produced, it’s not good quality (compared with) France” (Bristol).

In addition, it is worth saying that some food and drink categories were not as positively regarded as others:

“You just don’t associate wine with England” (Birmingham).

“I’d rather not eat British meat, after all the BSE scares” (North London).

A small, but quite extreme, minority expressed distrust, dislike and some resentment about local and regional food in particular and advocates of ‘healthy eating’ in general. This reaction was confined to some of the C2DE urban focus groups. Younger respondents in this category, for example, tend to eat primarily frozen food:

“It’s fresher to have it frozen, as well”.

“I’m a fussy eater actually: oven chips, frozen chicken, not normally vegetables”.

“It won’t last….without preservatives” (Brighton).



26.

And some of these respondents expressed revulsion at food presented to them in a ‘natural’ form:

“I don’t like (eggs with) bird poo and feathers on” (Brighton).

Also, long-standing habits and preferences have developed conservative and non-experimental attitudes to food in these respondents. This is not helped by lack of money for groceries:

“I think I’d be scared to try new stuff in case I didn’t like it and then it’s a waste of money” (Brighton).

Within this urban C2DE category, even parents, trying to feed their children responsibly, refer to buying cheap frozen products from supermarkets as providing:

“A proper meal that’s well-balanced” (Bristol).

The outlets with which local and regional foods are most associated are farm shops, pick-your-own farms, independent specialist shops such as butchers, bakers, fishmongers, farmers’ markets, delivery services such as Riverford, and specialist internet sites. A sizeable minority of respondents also either grow their own produce or are given produce by family members and friends who do so. A number of farm shops have diversified in ways that encourage, particularly young families, to consider them as ‘family outings’ rather than just outlets for local products. For example, some respondents patronize ‘dig your own vegetables’ as well as ‘pick your own fruit’ farms, some of which provide other forms of entertainment and education for children, to help them understand the provenance of foods such as meat and vegetables:

“It’s quite nice to pull something out of the ground or off a tree”. “You know how they’re grown and I think that’s really important” (South London).

“They (children) all know the ‘M’ sign for MacDonalds yet some of them can’t recognise a cabbage” (Reading).



27.

On the whole, however, there was a feeling that local independent outlets, particularly specialist shops and restaurants, do not advertise the local or regional origin of their products enough. Crucially, it is recognised that – whilst it may be possible to modify behaviour in terms of the product choices made in-store - it will be much more difficult, if not impossible, to disrupt grocery shopping behaviour in such a way as to break dependence on the supermarkets. Hence, it was considered that greater co-operation is needed from these supermarket chains. At the moment Marks and Spencer, Waitrose, and (to a lesser extent) the ‘Co-op’, are seen as making headway in the provision of local produce. The two former of these are seen as ‘up-market’ supermarkets, however, and:

“If you’ve got a family or are on benefits, you shop where you can afford to shop. You can’t afford to have so many principles” (St Austell).

With the exception of what are seen as generic distribution (in particular, locally produced milk in stores), the other supermarket chains were not seen as having particular interest in providing locally produced foods. (The possible exception here is Morrison’s but this multiple is seen as providing ‘fresh food counters’ such as fish counters, rather than local or regionally produced foods).

4.2.3 Buying Local and Regional Products: Barriers, Benefits and Drivers 4.2.3.1 Barriers

The main barriers to buying local and regional produce are cost, as well as availability (and more broadly, accessibility). Locally produced food and drink is seen as more expensive, with the most common reason for this seen to be small-scale of production:

“You expect it to be cheaper but it’s not” (East Grinstead). “No economies of scale” (Reading).

This is a clear barrier to the less well off, and those with large families to feed. It also helps solve what may be seen as a moral dilemma:



28.

“If it’s me going poor or the animals having a good life, I won’t go poor” (Long Eaton).

Linked to price, there is some confusion over ‘local’ as opposed to ‘organic’ vegetables and ‘free-range’ eggs and poultry. :

“There’s a big difference in the price…..I do disagree with the price of organic food” (South London).

In addition, there is some confusion between local independent retail specialists and the stocking of local produce:

“I kind of assume that the eggs that (I) get would be local….I don’t really look – I think you just assume they’re from a farm locally….Just from my local shop. I just assume” (Brighton).

Availability covers a range of issues, related to particular products being displayed for sale e.g. seasonality, as well as geographic proximity:

“We are spoilt now because you can buy these things all year round. Whereas runner beans when you go out and pick them yourself they’re lovely” (Norwich).

Accessibility may be seen as the other aspects of shoppers’ lives which make purchasing local and regional produce more difficult, or which require a change in habitual behaviour. Most importantly, these relate to the ubiquitous nature of supermarkets, and the strength of the supermarket habit in the lives of UK grocery shoppers (Memery et al 2005). Shopping at outlets specialising in local and regional produce is less frequent (e.g. once a month compared to once a week ‘mainstream’ grocery shopping) because:

� One-stop shopping with ‘free’ parking, banking and petrol facilities is easy and time-saving.

� Larger supermarket outlets are open ‘24/7’ and therefore accessible to working shoppers.

� Shoppers are becoming less and less cash dependent, but small

local outlets usually require cash for purchases.



29.

� Lack of clear labelling and packaging can make it difficult for shoppers conditioned in the supermarket shopping environment to gauge quantities and prices. This may inhibit them from making purchases:

“If I do find a butchers…you think ‘that much?’ because when it’s pre-packed you know what you’re going to pay. I feel too embarrassed to ask how much one chop is…embarrassed by the cost” (South London).

4.2.3.2 Benefits and Drivers

There are several driving forces behind decisions to buy local and regional food: these can be categorised as personal, moral and social. On a personal level, local and regional produce is seen as ‘good for you and your family’ (particularly children); a healthier, less processed alternative:

“A moral and a health choice” (Colne). There is also a very strong ‘feel-good’ factor associated with sourcing your own produce:

“It’s nice to be able to go and dig it up” (Crowthorne);

as well as with providing the high quality tasty food to family, friends and other relatives;

“If you grow your own apples and blackberries and make your own crumble there’s something about the worthiness of doing that, that really adds to the taste” (Reading).

The ‘home-made’ and ‘freshly made’ claims of specialist shops such as bakers and restaurants can provide substitutes for the more direct ‘feel-good factor’ associated with home cooking. Finally here, the traditional associations of buying and eating local food are reinforced by the fact that it is currently fashionable to do so:

“It’s cool to eat well” (Newcastle respondent).



30.

On a moral level the most important benefit to buying locally is that to do so contributes to the local economy, in rural areas, and the regional/British economy in urban areas:

“To support the British, not just the local economy” (North London).

This factor appears more important than the environmentally friendly impact of fewer food miles. So, although overall the factors mentioned by our respondents support those previously published (IGD report, 2005; Morris and Buller 2003; Food Security Learning Center, 2007; Pretty et al 2005), including ethical and well-being considerations (e.g. Food Ethics Council, 2001; Manning et al 2006), it is the New Economics benefits of decentralised organisation and local self-reliance, alongside perceived benefits of reducing food miles (Morris and Buller 2003) which emerge as the clearest benefits from this phase of our study (Seyfang 2007). At a social level, the price and relative inaccessibility of local and regional foods and drinks tend to reserve them for special occasions, rather than everyday consumption. Christmas is the most popular time for buying locally produced poultry, meat and vegetables:

“(Fresh local Christmas turkey) was £30 or something and it was boned and it was massive, it was for eighteen people and it was delicious and it really made me feel good” (East Grinstead).

Other special occasions include family get-togethers, dinner-parties, eating out, and when on holiday, or a day trip to the coast or countryside:

“There’s a lot of treating yourself behind this” (South London).

4.3 Factors Influencing Consumers’ Choices

The key issue here is awareness: firstly, of exactly why local produce is more expensive; as well as where and when local outlets which stock these products can be visited. It was felt that restaurants as well as local independent specialist retailers (e.g. greengrocers, butchers) would do well to advertise the local and regional origin of British produce more stridently.



31.

Despite the nostalgic associations of local and regional foods, and the perceived advantages of the shortest possible food chain from farm to plate, there is a practical recognition that the nature of modern living means that considerable increases in purchase and consumption of these products will only be achieved with the co-operation of the supermarket chains:

“You can’t be out there digging up soil when you’ve got a job to go to, can you?” (South London).

Dedicated shelf-space on a considerably larger scale than currently used, is seen by busy working parents as the best feasible way of ensuring that they are able to access local and regional foods:

“I would love to support local producers more…if the supermarkets support our local producers more then I would certainly buy that over anything” (East Grinstead).

In addition, stronger branding of regional produce, much of which already has strong generic brand associations (e.g. Somerset cider, Scotch whisky) would create more wide-spread recognition of products and outlets:

“If you just say ‘this is local’ just in a tiny little thing…it’s one thing, but if you’ve got a nice picture of a farmer hugging his cow or whatever, you’re going to get across a little more love” (North London).

Word of mouth from family (children, parents, partners etc.) as well as friends and colleagues is a key factor in the choice of local specialist outlets and restaurants. It has been forcibly argued elsewhere that supplier/customer interfaces need to be clear, consistent, and based on trust; and that this trust extends beyond retail outlets to include food manufacturers and policy makers (Manning et al 2006). Our finding here, of the importance to respondents of family and social networks in obtaining information and – critically – recommendations, tends to support this argument. In other words, the development of systemic and consistent trust relationships in the promotion of local food and drink categories and outlets is a consistent development from the information networks currently employed by consumers.



32.

Finally, there is a general recognition that British society, particularly urban society, has lost touch with its farming and fresh food heritage, and a desire to ‘reconnect’ themselves (and their families) with the supply chain (Ricketts Hein et al 2005). The impact Jamie Oliver has had in educating parents as well as children of the disadvantages of some processed foods is almost universally acknowledged, in a positive way. Also, there is clear recognition that the most influential factors relating to food choice are those inculcated from childhood. Future promotional activities, therefore, need to continue their educational and informative function, both towards children as well as a generation of parents, many of whom were brought up in a convenience food culture. In this context several focus groups discussed the need to emphasise food education in schools, as well as the potential for co-operative promotions and the development of more ‘all under one roof’ co-operative markets by local producers, assisted by both the NFU and Defra. Our findings indicate that, in this context, the definitions of ‘local’ and ‘regional’ foods need to be consistent when used for communication purposes, but not necessarily regulatorily enforceable; here our findings support the earlier research of COI, 2007.

4.4 Urban and Rural Differences

“If you live in the country or nearer a farm you have access to the local products, but if you live in a city you have to buy from a supermarket, that’s just the way society works” (Leeds).

Previous research has indicated that rural consumers show greater interest in, and understanding of, local foods than those from urban areas (Weatherell et al 2003). Though dependence on supermarkets for grocery shopping is endemic, the above quote reflects a perception that rural dwellers have more choices than those available in major towns and cities. This is sometimes associated with a nostalgia on the part of urban dwellers for ‘old-style High Street’ shopping. At the same time, urban respondents are more likely than their rural counterparts to emphasise the time-poor nature of their lifestyles, indicating that the dissonance mentioned earlier, between the shopping choices respondents make and those they claim they would prefer to make, may be greater in towns and cities than in country areas.



33.

Not all urban respondents experience this dilemma, however, younger respondents from urban lower social groups were more likely to express clear resistance to fresh local foods; with processed and frozen foods preferred and defended. In addition, when asked about meat and game, urban consumers as a whole were more likely to mention processed meats, such as sausages and pies, rather than fresh meat.

There is evidence of greater confusion between ‘local’ and ‘organic’ produce in urban rather than in rural areas. This confusion may well arise in part from the difficulties already mentioned, in defining what is meant by ‘local’ produce in an urban context. For example, when Birmingham respondents were asked to name local foods or drinks, one respondent immediately volunteered:

‘…curry and chocolate’. This leads to another potential source of confusion: between what is locally sourced, locally made and locally retailed (c.f. COI Report 2007). Our study uncovered more evidence of concern with these distinctions amongst rural consumers, possibly indicating greater familiarity with the issues, greater choices as a result of location, or both. In towns and cities, on the other hand, greater emphasis is placed on specialist retailers’ ‘home-made’ products (such as freshly-made bread), perhaps because of the limited local food options available. It is impossible to ignore the effect of farmers’ markets on cities, of course, and these were mentioned in several urban focus groups as being a good, or the best, source of local produce. There is, however, a recognition that these markets ‘move around’, so the claimed 30 or 50 mile radius of such operations becomes rather flexible in interpretation (i.e. it depends where respondents happen to be living within that radius). Other main retail options for city dwellers are traditional markets, whereas rural shoppers are more likely to visit farm shops and other geographically independent outlets.

4.5 Regional Differences

As can be seen from the above, many attitudes and values relating to local and regional food are shared by the groups surveyed. However, it became clear as the qualitative fieldwork progressed that some food,



34.

drink and eating habits are still quite deeply rooted in local culture: this section summarises the main differences. Also, levels of interest in, and sympathy with, local (and regional) food suppliers, tend to be greater in areas with the greatest number of food producers e.g. the South West, as well as the East and North of England (see also Ricketts Hein et al 2006.)

It should be noted, however, that, whilst the overall focus group sample reflects the targeted population nationally, the homogenous nature of each group means that results do not necessarily reflect consumers within each region. For example, the groups in the South West of England consisted of lower social groups with young children (Bristol) and third age respondents, mostly retired (St. Austell). Had the demographics of these groups included more affluent consumers there is little doubt that the discussions would have been affected. The contents of this section, therefore, do not attempt to represent each region, but they do offer a flavour of the variations evidenced across the country during this stage of the research.

4.5.1 London

“We live within the M25 area; you don’t really get cows and pigs roaming around……….so personally, I would rather think that my cows and pigs are growing on a lovely green hill somewhere out in the lush countryside, and the meat is brought to me, rather than (along) the A3 breathing all the fumes” (South London).

Even within this qualitative study, it seems that the more urban the area, the more likely it was that respondents would define ‘local’ more broadly, and this is most clearly demonstrated in the London groups, where ‘local’ was most often defined as ‘English’ or ‘British’. One reason for this, apart from the obvious lack of farms etc. in the immediate vicinity, may be in the nature of London’s most famous markets. Billingsgate fish market was mentioned by both the North and South London groups, as was Covent Garden as a source of fresh fruit and vegetables:

“London markets are English, not local” (North London). Whilst traditional markets and specialist retailers are generally recognised as purveying fresher produce with a more transparent and reassuring provenance, the time pressures on Londoners are such that nowhere in the country is it clearer to consumers that the supermarkets



35.

rule, and ‘local’ produce is bought very much as a treat, often associated with leisure and holiday activities (see Mintel, 2003). Apart from eggs and milk (presumed to have been sourced from within the South East), the predominant local products mentioned were drinks: Youngs beer, Gordon’s gin, Guinness (from the North London brewery); as well as the more far-flung Chiltern water, New Forest wine and – in the fruit and vegetables category – soft fruit from Kent.

4.5.2 The South East

“It pricks your conscience – the day of the corner shop is gone” (Reading). “I expect something that looks perfect” (Brighton).

Respondents in the South East have clearer views of what constitutes ‘local’ produce than Londoners, and in that sense are closer to their counterparts in other UK regions. i.e. ‘Local’ was defined most often as originating within the county, or bordering counties. Examples of such ‘local’ foods are varied: with cheeses, eggs, honey, beer, fruit and vegetables, farm shop meats and butchers’ sausages, as well as fresh bread from local bakeries being mentioned by urban and rural consumers alike. However, particularly in the cities, the imperatives of time and convenience prevail, as in London. Though outlet choices are more varied, with local farm shops and ‘pick your own’/’dig your own’/’grow your own’ options more common, there was little perception that ‘local’ produce is being emphasised by food outlets overall (whether in grocery or catering). Rural respondents in this region mentioned increasing urban encroachment as affecting local supply:

“The cherry and apple orchards have gone. I used to buy them on the way home. The choice is going……….” (Crowthorne).



36.

4.5.3 The West Midlands

“We’re industry, really, the Black Country, it’s known for its industry not its fodder!” (Stourbridge).

The above quote indicates that, whilst London might demonstrate the strongest of such characteristics, the Metropolis and the South East are not the only areas in which it is difficult to define ‘local’ produce. In Birmingham as well as London, for example, there is confusion between what constitutes ‘local’ as opposed to ‘organic’ produce. And in common with the South East, ‘local’ was defined as being at a rather greater distance than in other rural locations. Having said that, Tamworth pork and Tamworth wine were both mentioned as examples of local products, along with Evesham apples, and Malvern and Ashbourne water.

Respondents in this region were cynical about supermarket claims that they stock ‘local’ products. Alongside this, the West Midlands demonstrates an ‘inland’ distrust of, and unfamiliarity with, fish and seafood. Stourbridge respondents, a group of lower social group young mothers, were particularly derisive, eschewing fish as a choice even when eating out:

“I don’t want eyes on my plate” or “a plate full of bones”. 4.5.4 East Midlands

“There used to be (a farmers’ market) where I am, but I was never able to go to it. I’d like to have gone. I don’t think they do it any more” (Nottingham).

Of all the regions, East Midlands respondents demonstrated the strongest dissonance in terms of the convenience and price advantages of the supermarket habit versus the perceived benefits of fresh local produce. In addition, the Nottingham group displayed concern about the trade-offs between buying locally sourced as opposed to locally made produce, and the benefits of buying (not necessarily local produce) from a local retailer. They demonstrated the same confusion regarding ‘local’ versus ‘organic’ food as did some of the London and Birmingham respondents; and most of examples of ‘local’ foods from this region were of processed products i.e. tarts, pies and sausages. The ‘rural’ Long Eaton group added pork, fruit and vegetables, Bass beer and Buxton water to its list of local produce.



37.

4.5.5 The North West “Everyone has a ‘bad fish’ story” (Manchester).

The Midlands suspicion of fish and seafood products extends to the inland focus group locations of the North West. Indeed, Manchester respondents were hard pressed to identify any local food products, though they did mention ‘Boddies’ (Boddington’s) beer. In rather more rural Colne, Bass beers and those of some local micro-breweries were mentioned, as was the soft drink sasparilla, Lancashire cheeses, black pudding, tripe and locally produced meat, fruit and vegetables. Despite difficulties in identifying particular local foods, North Western respondents demonstrated a strong sense of loyalty to shopping traditions, considering specialist retailers such as butchers to be cheaper and better than supermarkets, and to see high street shopping as a social as well as a functional occasion.

4.5.6 Yorkshire and Humberside

“They used to make us eat tripe; we couldn’t get down from the table till we’d eaten it” (Ripon).

Yorkshire and Humberside is another area where respondents found it hard to identify any distinguishing local foods. Indeed, there was some initial confusion in the Ripon group between local foods and local branches of national supermarket chains such as Sainsbury’s and Morrison’s. However, local farm shops and markets were later identified, and together with the Leeds group, locally-made sausages and local ham were mentioned, as well as locally farmed fruit and vegetables, and fish brought from Harrogate. Again, however, the majority of local products named were in the drinks category: Theakston’s beer, Harrogate water, local wine, Dale’s ginger beer and Yorkshire tea. These latter categories again illustrate the confusion between locally sourced and locally made produce. Possibly because of the perceived dearth of distinctive local produce emphasis was particularly placed on factors other than geographic source, when defining ‘local’ produce:

“At the farmer’s market the food is heaven” (Leeds).



38.

‘Local’ food and drink is seen, not just in terms of the distance travelled, but how the food is made: the provenance of meat from a local butcher, for example.

4.5.7 The North East

“We relate to the Scottish up here” (Newcastle).

In contrast to a number of the cities in which focus groups took place, respondents in Newcastle, the northernmost city investigated, mentioned fish (kippers) and seafood as prevalent local food products:

“The cockneys can keep their jellied eels”. Also mentioned were Lindisfarne mead, Abbeywell water, local berries and black-faced lamb. Scottish raspberries were also spoken of enthusiastically; and it is probably worth mentioning here that, for those areas bordering other parts of the United Kingdom (i.e. The North East/West of England and Scotland; the West Midlands and Wales) ‘local’ food comes from those places which are geographically and psychologically close to respondents, and therefore not necessarily and exclusively ‘English’ (for earlier evidence of this see also Ricketts Hein et al 2006). In the context of Morpeth’s well-known farmer’s market, the group mentioned a wider range of fruit and vegetables (though Scottish berries were again included), as well as the produce of local breweries. Local meat, and pies and bacon sold by independent butchers, were also mentioned.

4.5.8 East Anglia

“Shoot your own game” and “the best seafood in Britain” (Diss).

The final two regions represent, in a sense, what respondents around England see as the ‘foodbowls’ of England. Although of secondary importance to the South West in the eyes of respondents in other regions, the East Anglian groups expressed strong awareness (almost self-satisfaction) with their locally produced food and drink, particularly fish and seafood, Lincolnshire vegetables and meat.



39.

Having said that, respondents in Norwich, in common with other urban focus groups, emphasised processed foods (sausages and pies) when discussing local meat produce. Probably the greatest fish-eaters within the regions investigated, there were no anxieties relating to freshness here. There was, however, some concern at what is seen as the exploitation of Poles and other Eastern European labour in the food and drink producing sector generally. Interestingly, Diss was the only group in the country which raised this issue.

4.5.9 The South West

“Because it’s locally produced it shouldn’t have so many food miles, it shouldn’t cost them so much to transport it. So why are we paying so much more?” (St Austell).

Although not the only region to note the irony of local produce being more expensive than non-local supermarket food and drink, discussions in the South West, dependent as it is on agriculture and tourism, raised a less-than-idyllic aspect of rural life. St Austell respondents in particular pointed out that the rural South West is also one of the most economically deprived parts of the UK. Reflecting the longstanding and socially embedded tradition of locally produced food and drink (Morris and Buller 2003) there was no shortage of local food examples: from processed bakery products such as saffron buns and pasties, fish and seafood, meat, cheese and dairy products, fruits and vegetables (including ‘pick your own’ and ‘grow your own’ options) to drinks, particularly cider. South West consumers, however, tend to view the local farming and fishing industries without the ‘rose-tinted glasses’ that typify the nostalgia for a more rural past demonstrated in some other parts of the country:

“British food is mass-produced and not good quality” (Bristol).

Despite this, helping the local economy and supporting local farmers is a key aspect when buying local produce, and the importance of the fishing and farming industries to the local economy, as well as the importance of local food traditions to respondents, appears strong.



40.

4.6 Food Categories 4.6.1 Bread and Bakery Products

“If I…can actually smell it being made……it definitely has an attraction to me if it’s baked on the premises” (North London).

‘Freshness’ has different characteristics depending on the category of produce under discussion, and nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in discussions about bread. It seems that respondents see ‘freshness’ as conveying slightly different meanings, dependent on origin: in particular whether loaves and rolls are bought in supermarkets as opposed to specialist bakers’. (Apart from the rural South West, there was little evidence of home bread-baking.) Specifically, pre-baked bread bought in a supermarket might be ‘fresh’ in the sense that it has a reasonable sell-by date, but it does not really qualify as ‘fresh bread’. However, bread baked in-store - even if not made from scratch – does qualify, to an extent. In sensory terms, respondents distinguish foods’ ‘freshness’ mostly by smell, and the smell of newly-baked bread is perhaps the most evocative of all the food categories investigated. There is, however, an underlying meaning to ‘fresh bread’ which even in-store baked bread does not have. Paradoxically this relates to what happens when it is no longer fresh i.e. the effect of preservatives: while baker’s bread goes hard when stale, supermarket bread goes mouldy. This can be a positive as well as a negative for supermarket bread, with some respondents valuing the longer shelf-life of pre-baked supermarket breads and rolls. The broader category of bakery products e.g. pies, tarts and pasties, included some of the individual regions’ most defining produce: from Cornish pasties to Melton Mowbray pies, and from Bakewell tarts to lardy cakes.

4.6.2 Dairy Products

“There’s a nice place that sells cheeses….. a lot of them are English, if you want variety; (though) a lot of them are South West, local” (Bristol).

Of the categories examined, eggs and milk are considered the most generic, in that respondents consider these products likely to be sourced reasonably locally, irrespective of the type of outlet from which they are



41.

bought. Conversely, cheeses appear strongly associated with the areas from which the type derives: Cheddar, Caerphilly, Leicester, Stilton etc. Whilst it is recognised that not all such cheeses are actually sourced from the places they are named after, cheese as a product probably best exemplifies respondents’ overall definition of ‘regional’ food, as originating in a part of the country with which it has strong associations; and where the origin represents a brand in its own right. Milk and cream-based dairy products are associated most closely with the South West of England: all groups mentioned clotted cream or cream teas, and a number also mentioned Cornish ice-creams by brand name. The ‘natural’ attributes of dairy products would seem to be highly valued: with the most important of these appearing to be ‘free range’ eggs; though the lack of additives (e.g. ‘e-numbers) in ‘local’ and ‘regional’ ice creams and yoghurts was also mentioned.

4.6.3 Drinks

“When my husband goes out he would always drink local beer; if he can find a local brewery one he’ll drink that” (Brimingham).

Beer brands were the most frequently mentioned local products by urban respondents (except in Bristol, where its place was taken by Somerset cider). Around England, male and female groups alike expressed awareness, not only of established local beer brands, but of a number of micro-breweries. Interestingly, uniqueness of provenance appears to be at least as important as unique taste (though bearing in mind beer-drinkers’ predominantly male profile, it is worth reiterating here that most of our respondents were female). Perhaps surprisingly, another category which seems to have strong local identity is bottled water. Several locally-associated carbonated drinks (e.g. sasparilla) were also mentioned; though few local fruit drink brands were mentioned.

4.6.4 Fish and Seafood

“I’m always happier eating seafood when I’m nearer the sea. You always worry about the health issue with seafood, food poisoning” (Colne).



42.

Of all the categories investigated, fish and seafood inspired the most mixed reactions among respondents. As has already been indicated, some of this was dependent on the location of the focus groups: with the Midlands and North West demonstrating quite strong reservations. These reservations relate to both freshness and familiarity. The strength of feeling elicited on the subject of fish and seafood is probably because, of all the products covered in this survey, lack of freshness is seen as the most worrying in health terms. Several respondents around the country mentioned that fresh fish should not smell of fish, but despite this, most fish does smell by the time it reaches point of sale. Fish was less likely than meat or vegetables to be cooked at home, with a number of respondents claiming not to know how to cook it. Others, as has been indicated, did not wish to be reminded that fish is fish-shaped, complete with a head and bones. Of all the specialist grocery outlets, independent fish-mongers were least mourned. Having said that, ‘man with the (fish) van’ outlets appear still to be widespread throughout the country. These were mentioned by respondents in some inland locations as well as near the coast as ‘safe’ outlets from which to buy fish and, where available, seafood.

4.6.5 Fruit and Vegetables

“I go (to a local farm) once a week in the season, and it’s a therapeutic thing, picking strawberries and raspberries and there’s a lark singing. You don’t get that in Tesco’s!” (Crowthorne).

Next to eggs and milk, at least some forms of fresh fruit and vegetables are seen as originating locally in all regions. Taste and lack of additives and preservatives (health reasons) are the most common motivators for buying in this category. Although all areas (even London) are aware of some fruits or vegetables sourced fairly locally, to buy on a strictly local basis would inevitably restrict choice in a category where choice is already quite heavily restricted by seasonality. (95% of fruit and half of the vegetables consumed in the UK are imported: bbc.co.uk Food 2008; yet almost a half of shoppers – 44% - claim to try to buy British when shopping for fruit and vegetables: Mintel 2003). Hence this food category epitomises the complexity of ‘local and regional food’ definitions, with ‘local’ fruit and vegetables varying from close-by ‘pick your own’, ‘dig your own’ and even ‘grow your own’ locations where applicable (Tozer, 2008), to the



43.

nearest viable location when this was not the case. For example, Riverford’s organic ‘veg boxes’ were mentioned by several respondents outside of the South West as supplying fresh natural produce, thereby qualifying as ‘local’ on two important criteria, though actually quite geographically distant. Bearing in mind that local fruits were restricted to apples and berries, some respondents are aware that they compromise their ‘local’ preferences by buying from overseas; others are unashamed about their preference for bananas, or the fact that they buy berries from overseas during the winter so that their children have supplies of fresh fruit that they like. On the whole, respondents were negative about the standard-sized, washed and pre-packed vegetables available at supermarkets. Having said that, many are also reluctant to clean and prepare vegetables from scratch themselves. In short, the fruit and vegetable category is one where almost all regions can cite produce sourced close-by, but where the term ‘local’ is the most flexible in definition.

4.6.6 Meat and Meat Products

“In the supermarket it’s (meat) very red; and I like to think that it’s been hung in the butcher’s” (Reading).

A number of rural respondents buy meat, and meat products such as sausages from farms. However, farm shops and markets, and local independent butchers, are probably the most trusted of all specialist retailers, as well as the most regularly patronised. The reasons for this are two-fold, and both are largely due to provenance. English meat and poultry production has had a chequered recent past, and this has been well documented in the media, so traceability provides a very practical reassurance of safety, as well as quality (CRPV 2007). In addition, of all the categories examined, the way that meat is treated en route from farm to plate is critical: animal welfare appears to be increasing in importance; also the method of slaughter, butchery, handling and treatment are all, in their different ways, important indicators of taste and texture to those who prefer local meat from local butchers’. Traceability reassures consumers not only that the product is local, but perhaps more importantly that it has been stored and hung appropriately. Of all the food categories investigated in this study, nowhere is the importance of trust between consumers and producers more important (Manning et al 2006).



44.

Meat and poultry are seen as the most susceptible to cross-contamination; yet meat and game often needs to be hung for an appropriate time in order that it may be consumed at its best. Texture and tenderness are also affected by the cut and fat content of meat. With the other food categories listed, ‘freshness’ in some form is important, even though how ‘freshness’ is defined may vary; however, with meat products ‘freshness’ in itself is often a negative attribute. Hence the importance of the role of a specialist tradesperson whom one can trust, in the form of an independent butcher; one who is able to label and explain the provenance of his products to consumers.

4.7 Eating Out

“There are quite a lot of factors in terms of where you eat, apart from what’s on the menu in terms of where the food comes from, which is perhaps less the case when you’re shopping for your own grocery food” (Bristol).

4.7.1 Awareness of Local and Regional Ingredients

“There’s a pub just beyond Henley….. and they have on the door that you bring your own produce, fruit or veg that you’ve grown, and they’ll swap it for lunch. And they pride themselves on local stuff….. it’s very ‘community spirit’” (Reading).

There seems to be high levels of awareness and appreciation of some nationally recognised purveyors of fresh local and regional food (most particular Rick Stein’s championing of local fish and seafood), but a generally ‘patchy’ awareness of local catering outlets offering local and regional ingredients. Having said that, some restaurants, even within the M25 area, are known to make a point of highlighting their locally grown and sourced ingredients, and these outlets tend to be well regarded. Across the country consumers equate fewer food miles with fresher, tastier produce on their plates. Also, the strongest driver of local and regional food choice when grocery shopping is support of the local economy; and local caterers who make local food choices are seen as reinforcing these benefits for local farmers and independent producers.



45.

4.7.2 Types of Outlet

“McDonald’s, everyone’s like (sharp intake of breath) that’s shocking, you shouldn’t eat that, bad for your health! But they do use local produce…There was a campaign recently where they said that they support local farmers” (Brighton).

The types of catering outlet attracting most discussion are fairly predictable: respondents with young children mostly mentioned ‘family friendly’ pubs and restaurants; lower social categories (particularly in urban areas) mentioned – and sometimes defended - fast food outlets; city dwellers spoke mostly of ‘ethnic’ restaurants (particularly Chinese, Indian and Italian); whilst those from rural areas mentioned more country inns and independent specialist restaurants. It is these latter specialist independent outlets that are mostly associated with the use of local ingredients.

4.7.3 Eating Out Occasions

Apart from demographic influences on outlet choice, occasion seems to be the key driver; and ‘occasion’ can be broadly divided into two categories: convenience and special occasions. Although constituting the reason for the majority of eating out, convenience, by its very nature, is not a motivator in which the provenance of food ingredients plays a major part: time, location and price seem to be the most important factors here. The main driver when eating out on special occasions is to choose an outlet/menu choice providing dishes respondents cannot cook themselves, or do not eat at home. A less frequent activity than eating out for convenience, eating out on special occasions is also much less price sensitive. It is also strongly linked to leisure contexts, in particular holidays in other regions of the country.

4.7.4 Key Product Categories

“That’s what you like about a holiday, when you go on holiday and (you’re) in a local fish restaurant on the marina” (East Grinstead).

Previous research has indicated that food plays a significant part in whether or not a holiday is enjoyable (McCarthy, 2002), and fish and seafood is the category most associated with eating out by respondents.



46.

There appear to be two main reasons for this. The first is that, though fish and chip shops are still seen as a national institution, the fish and seafood category is the least familiar to respondents. As such, a number of them confessed to not knowing how to cook fish or seafood properly. It therefore becomes a strong candidate for choice when eating out. The second reason has to do with eating out occasion: as has been indicated, the outlets most associated with local food and drink are specialist pubs and restaurants, and these are likely to be used more for special occasions than convenience. Special occasions are often associated with holidays; popular holiday destinations are often coastal; and it is in these locations that fish restaurants are most likely to be found. Even on the part of inland city dwellers, sceptical of buying fish when at home, eating at a fish restaurant when on holiday has a number of the elements of an indulgent experience: a ‘treat’. The provision of fresh vegetable and fruit, as well as meat and game dishes, were also choice factors when eating out on special occasions. Some restaurants make a feature of offering local seasonal game, vegetables and fruits during the short ‘windows’ in the year when these are available; hence using as an advantage a factor that is often seen as a drawback when choosing local fruits and vegetables for home consumption.

Within the drinks category, local beers were the only important differentiators, with some respondents mentioning the provision of a wide variety of beers, often from local micro-breweries, as being a choice factor when eating out at a pub restaurant. Some dairy products, notably cheeses, as well as creams and ice creams, were seen as supporting restaurant choices for special occasion meals: though a variety of regional options were more important than strictly local sourcing of this category. Respondents not fond of sweet foods, for example, might well appreciate the provision of a cheese board offering a variety of quality English cheeses. Finally, the provision of local bread and bakery products per se does not appear to be a feature in restaurant choice. Though ‘home-baked’ bread, and to a lesser extent home-made desserts, were occasionally mentioned, this was more within the context of freshness as a benefit, than that of local provenance.



47.

4.8 Summary

� ‘Local’ produce is understood by consumers in the context of rural or close-to-rural areas. It is predominantly associated with particular vegetables and some fruits, as well as meat and game, and fish and seafood in coastal areas.

� ‘Regional food’ is predominantly defined as ‘from a region of

Britain known for its production of particular foods/drinks’ (e.g. clotted cream from Cornwall); or as ‘the region I live in’ (e.g. East Anglia). Londoners and other city dwellers are more likely to consider that, when applied to food and drinks, the terms ‘local’ and ‘regional’ overlap, having the same defining characteristics of taste, quality and provenance. Cheeses are the best examples of how ‘regional’ can be substituted for ‘local’ in this context.

� The positive associations of local and regional produce are well

accepted amongst most of the shoppers taking part in the focus groups; the notable exception to this, where acceptance is lower and some hostility encountered, is among the younger, poorer, urban groups.

� With the exception of these young urban lower social

respondents, product attributes of ‘local’ and ‘regional’ foods are seen as overwhelmingly positive; and provenance/heritage is a critical aspect of this.

� Imagery and associations reflect nostalgia for a pre-supermarket

past. However, there are clear tensions between these desirable associations and the time-pressures of modern everyday shopping and cooking, particularly among urban respondents.

� Benefits to the local, regional or national economies were the

most frequently cited reasons for buying local produce. From a personal perspective, the ‘feel-good’ factor of serving meals with local and regional ingredients is a major factor.

� Expense and lack of everyday accessibility for most people,

particularly in urban areas, means that local and regional foods tend to be bought for special occasions and treats, rather than incorporated into regular shopping habits.

� Catering outlets’ use of local and regionally sourced ingredients is

not relevant when the motive for eating out is convenience. It is, however, an important driver when deciding where to eat out on special occasions. In addition, the context of these special



48.

occasions, associated as they are with leisure, ‘treats’ and holidays, is consistent with similar contexts in which local and regional food and drinks are bought for home use.

� Local fruit and vegetables when in season, as well as game and

some meats, seem to be the most popular local grocery foods. Fish appears to be the most popular local food when eating out on special occasions, largely due to respondents’ unfamiliarity with how to cook it.

� Whilst the innovative methods used to attract families in particular,

by a number of independent local farms and retail outlets (e.g. public houses) was praised, there is an acceptance that large-scale changes in shopping behaviour can only feasibly occur with the active co-operation of the major supermarket multiples. A national advertising campaign, utilising the endorsement of at least one personality nationally recognised as having authority on the subject of food and drink/cooking/healthy eating, was recommended by most focus groups.



49.

SECTION FIVE: QUANTITATIVE CONSUMER ELEMENT 5.1 Introduction

This section of the report builds on the findings from the twenty focus groups which helped to shape an on-line survey of consumers across England. The section begins with an overview of the respondent characteristics, before specifically reporting on their behaviour when purchasing food and drink for use at home as well as when eating out. The section also explores respondents’ understanding of local and regional food and drink; their actual and intended buying behaviour in relation to local and regional food and drink; and their main influences, broken down by key buyer characteristics and leading to a classification of local and regional food and drink buyers.

5.2 Descriptive Statistics: Respondent Characteristics

An online survey was carried out that covered the nine regions of England defined by Defra. The sample consisted of 1223 respondents of which 775 were female (63.4%) and 448 were male (36.6%). All respondents were the main/joint grocery shopper in the household and aged 18 years or over. A more detailed breakdown of their characteristics with regard to age and location is given in Tables Three and Four.

Table Three: Respondent Age

Age Range Number Percent (%)

18-24 years 125 10.2

25-34 years 233 19.1

35-44 years 244 20.0

45-54 years 210 17.2

55+ years 411 33.6

Total 1223 100

Base: 1223 Source: Consumer Quantitative Survey



50.

Table Four: Respondent Location

Region Number Percent (%)

East Anglia 137 11.2

East Midlands 111 9.1

London 172 14.1

North East 84 6.9

North West 158 12.9

South East 201 16.4

South West 124 10.1

West Midlands 97 7.9

Yorkshire; Humberside 139 11.4

Total 1223 100


With regard to prior research there has been suggestions that purchasing habits may vary between consumers living in rural(r) and urban(u) areas. Therefore it was necessary to include a broad range of location types within the sample. At the most basic breakdown it can be stated that 801 respondents (65.5%) lived in an urban area and 422 respondents (34.5%) lived in a rural location. This can be broken down further into types of urban and rural location as illustrated in Table Five.

Table Five: Type of Location

Location Type Number Percent (%)

Inner city (u) 119 9.7

Major town centre (u) 106 8.7

Suburban area (of city or major town) (u) 576 47.1

Small country/market town (r) 236 19.3

Rural countryside/village (r) 186 15.2

Total 1223 100




51.

Within the sample 758 respondents (62.0%) stated they were the main income earner in the household, with the remaining 465 (38.0%) stating they were not. Table Six shows the income brackets for the main income earner in the household demonstrating a wide cross-section of earnings.

Table Six: Income of Main Income Earner in Household

Income Bracket Number Percent (%)

Under £10,000 162 13.2

£10,000-£15,499 212 17.3

£15,500-£24,999 354 28.9

£25,000-£29,999 179 14.6

£30,000-£49,999 220 18.0

£50,000-£74,999 67 5.5

£75,000-£99,999 13 1.1

£100,000+ 16 1.3

Total 1223 100


A diverse variety of occupation types and education levels of the main income earner were also represented in the sample as illustrated in Tables Seven and Eight.



52.

Table Seven: Occupation Type of Main Income Earner in Household

Occupation Type Number Percent (%)

Professional 137 11.2

Senior Management 51 4.2

Senior Civil Servant 3 0.2

Middle Management 116 9.5

Executive 10 0.8

Local Government Officer 25 2.0

Civil Service Officer 37 3.0

Education 49 4.0

Service 29 2.4

Junior Management 113 9.2

Skilled Manual 133 10.9

Semi-skilled Manual 60 4.9

Un-skilled Manual 38 3.1

Apprentice 1 0.1

Unemployed 46 3.8

Retired 213 17.4

Self Employed 84 6.9

House wife / husband 51 4.2

Student 27 2.2

Total 1223 100




53.

Table Eight: Education Level (highest reached) of Main Income Earner in Household

Education Level Number Percent (%)

No qualifications 135 11

GCSE, CSEs, GCEs / O Levels 358 29.3

A Levels 253 20.7

ONDs/ONCs 51 4.2

HNDs/HNCs 87 7.1

Degree 258 21.1

Masters Degree 63 5.2

Doctorate Degree (e.g. PhD) 18 1.5

Total 1223 100


The aforementioned characteristics enabled respondents to be classified by socio-economic group using JICNARS social grading scale. Results for the sample can be seen in Table Nine showing that a good representation of all classifications were surveyed.

Table Nine: Sample by Socio-economic Group (JICNARS)

Socio-economic Group Number Percent (%)

A 143 11.7

B 103 8.4

C1 288 23.5

C2 299 24.4

D 283 23.1

E 107 8.7

Total 1223 100




54.

Prior research has shown that the life-stage consumers are in can affect their purchasing decisions, especially if they have dependent children. Therefore it was considered necessary to include a range of respondents both with and without dependent children in the household to investigate this suggested difference. Within the sample 833 respondents (68.1%) did not have dependent children under the age of 18 years in the household whereas 390 respondents (31.9%) did, and the number of children in these households varied between one and nine children. A more detailed breakdown of these numbers can be viewed in Table Ten.

Table Ten: Number of Dependent Children under 18 years in the Household

Number of Dependent Children under 18 years

Number Percent (%)

0 833 68.1

1 162 13.2

2 155 12.7

3 54 4.4

4 11 0.9

5 3 0.2

6 4 0.3

9 1 0.1

Total 1223 100


In addition to looking at demographic characteristics the survey also established several statistical measures of respondents buying behaviour in relation to two different purchasing situations:

1) The purchasing of food and drink for use at home. 2) The purchasing of food and drink when eating out.

These measures established behavioural factors such as frequency of activity, mode of transport, distance travelled and types of outlet used for each situation.



55.

5.3 Buying Behaviour when Purchasing Food and Drink for Use at Home

Table Eleven shows that the majority of respondents (42.6%) shop ‘2-3 times a week’ for food and drink to use at home, with a significant amount also shopping ‘once a week’ (35.6%). In total, 956 respondents (78.2%) participated in shopping activities within these frequencies. Table Eleven: Frequency of Shop for Food and Drink For Use at Home

Frequency Number Percent (%)

Daily 67 5.5

Every other day 118 9.6

2-3 times a week 521 42.6

Once a week 435 35.6

Every fortnight 66 5.4

Once a month 16 1.3

Total 1223 100


Respondents were asked what types of transport they used to go and buy food and drink for use at home (more than one mode could be stated if applicable). Several choices were given, all of which were used by one or more respondents as shown in Table Twelve. It can be seen that the most frequently used mode of transport was a car mentioned by 954 respondents (78%), followed at a considerably lower frequency of travel by foot (474 respondents; 38.8%).



56.

Table Twelve: Mode of Transport Used to Buy Food and Drink for Use at Home

Mode of Transport Number Percent (%)

Foot 474 38.8

Car 954 78.0

Public bus/tram 196 16.0

Train 25 2.0

Shopper free bus 6 0.5

Motorbike 10 0.8

Bicycle 35 2.9

Cab/taxi 6 0.5

Van 1 0.1

Mobility Scooter 1 0.1

Wheelchair 1 0.1

Base: 1223 Source: Consumer Quantitative Survey Responses for those only buying from home, and not travelling to buy have not been included

A factor that can be compared to the mode of transport used is that of distance travelled to buy food and drink. From Table Thirteen it can be seen that the majority of respondents travel between 1 and 2 miles (33.3%) to buy food and drink, although there are also a significant number who travel less than 1 mile (27.1%) and between 2 and 5 miles (28.3%). In total 1084 respondents (88.7%) travelled under 5 miles to buy food and drink for use at home, not including the 23 respondents (1.9%) who only bought from home.

Table Thirteen: Distance Travelled to Buy Food and Drink for Use at Home

Distance Number Percent (%)

No distance (buy from home) 23 1.9

Less than 1 mile 331 27.1

Between 1 and 2 miles 407 33.3


More than 5 miles 116 9.5

Total 1223 100




57.

A large supermarket chain was the type of outlet frequented the most by respondents (93.0%) to purchase their food and drink for use at home (shown in Table Fourteen). The majority of this was done at the actual store rather than via the internet, and this trend holds for all other types of outlet identified, with the exception of box schemes who see a higher proportion bought via the internet than at the store (2.1% compared to 1.5%). A significant number (527 respondents; 43.1%) used local specialist shops such as butchers, bakers and greengrocers, and of particular interest is the number of respondents who said they used a farm shop (399 respondents; 32.6%), farmers’ market (323 respondents; 26.4%) or street market (262 respondents; 21.4%) to buy food and drink for use at home.

Table Fourteen: Type of Outlet Used to Buy Food and Drink for Use at Home

Type of Outlet At Store Via Internet

Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%)

Large supermarket chain 1137 93 214 17.5

Local specialist shop(s) (e.g. baker, butcher, greengrocer)

527 43.1 5 0.4

Convenience store 367 30.0 0 0.0

Farm Shop 399 32.6 5 0.4

Pick/dig your own 101 8.3 2 0.2

Box Scheme 18 1.5 26 2.1

Farmer’s Market 323 26.4 2 0.2

Street Market 262 21.4 2 0.2

Van Sales to Door (e.g. milkman, fishmonger)

69 5.6 1 0.1


5.4 Buying Behaviour when Purchasing Food and Drink When Eating

Out

As well as looking at consumers purchasing behaviour when buying food and drink for use at home, this study also investigates their behaviour when eating out.



58.

With regard to frequency of eating out it can be seen from Table Fifteen that the majority of respondents eat out between once a week and once a month (697 respondents; 57.0%). However, there is a significant number who eat out less than once a month (448 respondents; 36.6%). Table Fifteen: Frequency of Eating Out

Frequency Number Percent (%)

Daily 4 0.3

Every other day 14 1.1

2-3 times a week 60 4.9

Once a week 208 17.0

Every fortnight 199 16.3

Once a month 290 23.7

Less than once a month 448 36.6

Total 1223 100


The distance respondents travelled to buy food and drink when eating out is shown in Table Sixteen. Most respondents travel between 2 and 5 miles to eat out (435 respondents; 35.6%), however, all categories are fairly well represented. Table Sixteen: Distance Travelled to Buy Food and Drink when Eating Out

Distance Travelled Number Percent (%)

Less than 1 mile 203 16.6



More than 5 miles 280 22.9

Total 1223 100




59.

Looking at the mode of transport respondents used to travel to eat out (Table Seventeen) it can be seen that the most frequently stated mode of transport was the car with 933 respondents (76.3%) mentioning it. The second most frequently mentioned mode was foot (375 respondents; 30.7%) followed by public bus/tram (190 respondents; 15.5%). Other types of transport were used but with significantly lower frequency.

Table Seventeen: Mode of Transport Used to Buy Food and Drink when Eating Out

Mode of Transport Number Percent (%)

Foot 375 30.7

Car 933 76.3

Public bus/tram 190 15.5

Train 84 6.9

Shopper free bus 4 0.3

Motorbike 6 0.5

Bicycle 16 1.3

Cab/taxi 20 1.7

Metro/Tube 5 0.4

Wheelchair 1 0.1

None (do not eat out) 12 1.1


The majority of respondents stated that they usually frequented a pub restaurant/bistro (878 respondents; 71.8%) when eating out as is shown in Table Eighteen. Whilst a quality restaurant was stated as being the second highest individual type of outlet that was frequented (567 respondents; 46.4%) it should be noted that when looking at take-away outlets in general (independent and chains) rather than individually they were visited more frequently (667 respondents; 54.6%) than quality restaurants.



60.

Table Eighteen: Type of Outlet Usually Frequented when Eating Out

Type of Outlet Number Percent (%)

Quality restaurant 567 46.4

Pub restaurant/bistro 878 71.8

Cafe 396 32.4

Take-away/fast food chain 407 33.3

Local independent take-away 260 21.3

Coffee Shop 2 0.2

Local golf club 2 0.2

Local tapas bar 1 0.1

Fish & Chip shop 1 0.1


Having established the basic buying behaviour of the sample population when purchasing food and drink for consumption both at home and when eating out, this study will move on to look at defining the concepts of local and regional food and drink.

5.5 Defining the Concepts of Local and Regional Food and Drink

As already revealed by previous research and the focus group study, consumers’ understanding of local and regional food/ drink is wide ranging, and variable across different groups. Two approaches to establishing a better understanding of the meaning of local produce were utilised in the questionnaire. Initially respondents were asked to reveal the distance that they thought ‘local’ could be defined as in the context of food and drink. Following this they were asked to identify the extent to which they agreed with perceptual statements describing the spatial characteristics of local food and drink. Subsequently a perceptual approach was also adopted for establishing a greater understanding of the concept of regional food and drink. In order to gain further detail of definition, some assessment of differences across customer groups was undertaken in this section of the findings.



61.

5.5.1 Distance Definitions of Local Food and Drink Results shown in Table Nineteen below indicate that the most frequently stated distance was within 30 miles of where the respondent lives, with over 70% of respondents identifying local as being up to 30 miles from home. Around 30% of the sample indicated that they would expect local food to be produced within 10 miles of where they live. However, a similar proportion would see local food as being produced within 50 miles from where they live. At a national level, results are inconclusive and not dissimilar with previous research. Table: Nineteen: Consumers’ Definitions of Local Food and Drink by Distance from Home

Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative (%)

Local food and drink is grown or produced within 10 miles of where I live

375 30.7 30.7


488 39.9 70.6


360 29.4 100

Total 1223 100 100


Yet when making comparisons across key consumer groups there are notable variations in understanding of the concept, particularly in terms of the spatial distribution of food buyers. Comparing rural customers with those located in urban and suburban areas, there is a clear reduction in the distance from which ‘local’ produce is derived (with more seeing it as coming from within 10 and 30 miles from home). Conversely in non-rural areas a much wider distance (up to 50 miles) equates with locally sourced produce. At a regional level a similar pattern exists for London in comparison to regions with a greater rural dimension such as the South West, and also interestingly other regions that may have a broader composition of rural and urban areas such as the South East, the East Midlands, the North West and, Yorkshire and Humberside. There would also appear to be a significant difference between the distance definitions of women and men, with the latter group being more tolerant of greater differences when conceptualising ’local’ in this respect.



62.

5.5.2 Spatial Perceptions of Local Food and Drink

When asked the extent to which they agreed that local food and drink had particular spatial characteristics as illustrated in Table Twenty, respondents broadly agreed with all of the eight statements with very little variance in the mean scores between all of the statements. Table Twenty: Consumers’ Spatial Perceptions of Local Food and Drink

Mean Score: scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is ‘strongly disagree’ and 7 is ‘strongly agree’

Base: 1223

Source: Consumer Quantitative Survey

From these results it could be argued that a wide definition of local food and drink, which covers a number of spatial alternatives, is appropriate for the range of different types of consumers that exist in the food market.

Although for the population as a whole there is no significant differentiation in the concept of local food and drink from the broadest alternative (in Britain) to the narrowest (in the immediate vicinity), examining differences between different types of consumer adds something to the understanding of the concept. Analysis of differences between rural and urban/suburban food buyers suggest a much stronger connectivity of the understanding of local food and drink amongst the rurally located group, with significantly higher scores on all of the spatial statements describing such produce.

Mean Score

Local food and drink is grown or produced in the county that I live 4.75

Local food and drink is grown and produced locally 4.75

Local food and drink is grown or produced in Britain 4.74

Local food and drink is food sold in local shops 4.73

Local food and drink is grow or produced within the area that I live 4.72

Local food and drink is grown or produced in the region that I live 4.71

Local food and drink is sourced from outside the area that I live but processed in that area

4.69

Local food and drink is grown or produced in the immediate vicinity of where I live 4.67



63.

In addition, regional differences were evident particularly from the point of view of London residents who generally regarded local food and drink as something that was not produced locally in their area, and indeed from a broader perspective a concept which they felt quite distant from in comparison to other more rural regions such as East Anglia across all the measures used. This applied equally to local food and drink being grown or produced in Britain as to it being grown or produced in the county, region or immediate vicinity of where they lived. Further to this, there were significant differences amongst some age groups with a generally higher awareness of the concept, as well as a more specific understanding of ‘local’ being associated with the county or region of origin, amongst the over 55 age group compared with the 18-24 year old consumer group.

5.5.3 Perceptual Definitions of Regional Food and Drink

In order to gain a detailed grasp of the concept of regional food and drink, respondents were asked to signify their level of agreement with a number of perceptual statements relating to specific characteristics of regional produce. Results are shown in Table Twenty-one. Table Twenty-one: Consumers’ Perceptions of Regional Food and Drink


Base: 1223


Mean Score

Regional food and drinks are grown or produced within a particular geographic area 4.95

Regional food and drinks are specialist foods grown or produced in the regions of Britain

4.85

Regional food and drinks are marketed as coming from a particular geographic area 4.80

Regional food and drinks are grown or produced in the region that I live 4.70

Regional food and drinks are grown/produced in an area with a reputation for that type of food and drink

4.70

Regional food and drinks are high quality or premium foods 4.58

Regional food and drinks are branded and easily recognizable 4.05

There is no difference between regional and local food and drink 3.85

Total 1223



64.

Top line results from this analysis indicate that there is a good degree of agreement that regional food and drink is specialist, high quality/premium food grown, produced, and marketed within a particular geographic region that has a reputation for that product category. On the whole respondents were neutral to the notion that regional food and drink is branded and easily recognizable, and on balance generally tend to disagree with the belief that there is no difference between regional and local food and drink.

Regarding differences amongst buyers, there would appear to be a similar split as that identified for local food between rural and urban/suburban consumers in terms of a greater acceptance and understanding of the regional concept by the former group. In particular rural consumers identified more than those from other areas with regional food and drink being sourced from a particular region of the UK. They also displayed as a greater recognition of the region having a reputation for producing and marketing that particular type of produce. Interestingly, there was some indication that rural customers, unlike their urban/suburban counterparts, closely associate regional foods as being grown or produced in the region that they live, which suggests a similarity of understanding between local and regional foods amongst rurally located consumers. Non-rural buyers, however, see regional food as being from a particular region within the UK not necessarily that in which they are located. Similarly, analysis of regional differences indicate that consumers in the London region do not associate regional food with the area that they live and there is a significant difference between these buyers and those in all other regions besides the North East. Further analysis of demographic differences in perceptions of regional food suggest that there is a difference between older (55+) and younger (18-34) customers in terms of identifying a region with a reputation for producing a particular product, with older consumers’ higher evaluation perhaps being based on their greater experience and knowledge of the market. This is further illustrated by older customers also having a significantly higher evaluation of the association of regional food being grown or produced in a particular geographic area. A final area of variation is in the perception of there being no difference between local and regional food and drink. This applies not only in terms of age differences, with older customers (45+) having a lower level of agreement with this compared with younger food buyers (18-24), but also between males and females, with women having a greater recognition of the difference than men.



65.

5.6 Buying Behaviour of Local and Regional Food and Drink Consumers’ buying behaviour with regard to their actual purchase of local and regional food and drink for use at home and when eating out was measured in a number of ways. Further data was collected and analysed to provide insights into buyers’ frequency of purchase and intentions to purchase. Variations in buying behaviour were also assessed across different food and drink product categories, buying occasion and outlets used.

5.6.1 Buying Local Food and Drink 5.6.1.1 Actual and Intended Buying Behaviour

An initial evaluation of buying behaviour was gleaned by asking shoppers whether they had bought local food and drink for use at home or when eating out over three different time periods: in the last week, in the last fortnight and in the last month. Table Twenty-two shows the distribution of those buying over each of these time scales when purchasing for use at home. Table Twenty-two: Purchasing of Local Food and Drink for Use at Home

Frequency Percentage (%) of Total Buyers

Purchased in Last Week 598 48.9

Purchased in Last Fortnight 754 61.7

Purchased in Last Month 908 74.2


Approaching half of the total sample of 1223 respondents reported that they had bought local food and drink in the last week. This went up to over 60% when buying in the last fortnight was considered and nearly three-quarters of the total sample when asked if they had bought in the last month. These results suggest different frequencies of buying local/food drink exist amongst the food and drink purchasing population, with the likelihood of someone buying local food and drink for use at home becoming greater as the timescale increases.



66.

Table Twenty-three identifies that about a quarter of the sample had purchased local food and drink when eating out in the last week, which increased to a little over a third buying such produce in the in the last fortnight. When the timescale increased to one month, the number buying grew to approximately 45%. TableTwenty-three: Purchasing of Local Food and Drink when Eating Out





Base: 1223 Source: Consumer Quantitative Survey Clearly, as with buying for use at home, the longer the timescale, the greater the likelihood of a consumer buying local food and drink when eating out. Yet there is a much lower incidence of local produce consumption when eating out compared with buying for use at home, which reflects the differences in these forms of behaviour generally.

Further investigation of buying behaviour toward local food and drink was undertaken through measuring respondent’s reported frequency of actual purchasing behaviour over the past three months for both use at home and eating out (in order to increase validity of the measure a composite 2 item scale was employed based on answers asking the respondents how often they bought) Table Twenty-four shows the distribution of responses from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very many times) for the use of local food and drink at home. The mean score for this scale was 4.45 indicating an average buying frequency for the sample a little in excess of the mid-point of the scale (4.00). Fewer than 30% of respondents bought less frequently than the scale mid-point, whereas half of them bought more frequently than the scale mid-point.



67.

TableTwenty-four: Frequency Distribution for 2 Item Scale for 3 month Buying Behaviour of Local Food and Drink for Use at Home

Composite 2 Item Score

Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent

1.00 87 7.1 7.1

1.50 16 1.3 8.4

2.00 75 6.1 14.6

2.50 41 3.4 17.9

3.00 83 6.8 24.7

3.50 55 4.5 29.2

4.00 166 13.6 42.8

4.50 88 7.2 50.0

5.00 214 17.5 67.5

5.50 83 6.8 74.2

6.00 135 11.0 85.3

6.50 27 2.2 87.5

7.00 153 12.5 100

Total 1223 100 100

Mean for scale = 4.45

Mean Score: scale of 1 to 7, on composite scale Base: 1223 Source: Consumer Quantitative Survey

A comparable measure was developed for buying of local food and drink when eating out over the past three months. The distribution of responses is illustrated in TableTwenty-five below, and the mean score for this scale was 3.30 which is somewhat lower than the mid-point of the scale (4.00). Over 55% bought less frequently than the scale’s mid-point, whilst only around 30% of respondents bought more frequently than the mid-point value.



68.

TableTwenty-five: Frequency Distribution for 2 Item Scale for 3 Month Buying Behaviour of Local Food and Drink when Eating Out



1.00 243 19.9 19.9

1.50 32 2.6 22.5

2.00 136 11.1 33.6

2.50 68 5.6 39.2

3.00 119 9.7 48.9

3.50 81 6.6 55.5

4.00 175 14.3 69.8

4.50 98 8.0 77.8

5.00 131 10.7 88.6

5.50 40 3.3 91.8

6.00 53 4.3 96.2

6.50 11 0.9 97.1

7.00 36 2.9 100

Total 1223 100 100

Mean for scale = 3.30 Mean Score: scale of 1 to 7, on composite scale Base: 1223 Source: Consumer Quantitative Survey

As already revealed with the direct purchasing frequency data, the results indicate that on average people buy local food and drink for use at home more frequently than when eating out. In addition to assessing buying behaviour, respondents were also asked about their buying intentions over the next fortnight. A similar measure as that used for actual purchasing behaviour, employing 1 to 7 Likert-type response scales was developed to achieve this (in this instance using 3 item responses enquiring about likelihood, desire, and intention to buy). Table Twenty-six shows a distribution of responses that indicate a high level of intention to purchase local food for use at home over the next fortnight with a mean value for the scale of very nearly 5.00, much in excess of the scale midpoint of 4.00.



69.

TableTwenty-six: Frequency Distribution for 3 Item Scale for 2 Week Buying Intentions for Local Food and Drink for Use at Home



1.00 – 1.99 43 3.5 3.5

2.00 – 2.99 73 6.0 9.5

3.00 – 3.99 139 11.4 20.9

4.00 – 4.99 297 24.3 45.2

5.00 – 5.99 256 20.9 66.1

6.00 – 7.00 415 33.9 100

Total 1223 100 100


Only around one-fifth of respondents intended to buy local food and drink for use at home less often over the next two weeks than the scale mid-point frequency, whereas nearly 80% stated that they would buy at least as frequently or above the mid-point value, with high degrees of intention at the top end of the range.

Behavioural intentions for local food and drink when eating out over the next fortnight were then measured in the same way, as illustrated in Table Twenty-seven.



70.

TableTwenty-seven: Frequency Distribution for 3 Item Scale for 2 Week Buying Intentions for Local Food and Drink when Eating Out

Composite 3 item Score


1.00 – 1.99 128 10.5 10.5

2.00 – 2.99 133 10.9 21.4

3.00 – 3.99 231 18.9 40.2

4.00 – 4.99 363 29.7 69.9

5.00 – 5.99 198 16.2 86.1

6.00 – 7.00 170 13.9 100

Total 1223 100 100


The mean value for the measure for all respondents is 4.04 which is very close to the mid-point of the scale range. For intention to buy local/regional food when eating out around 40% of the sample scored less than the mid-point value. The remaining 60% scored equivalent to, or in excess of that value, but with many of those being toward the lower end of that banding.

Again, as with previous measures of buying local food and drink, there is a lower intention to buy when eating out compared with use at home.

5.6.1.2 Differences in Buying by Product Category

In order to gauge the extent to which buying behaviour varied by type of food and drink product, respondents were asked whether they ever bought local food and drink in each of six different categories the results of which are presented in Table Twenty-eight below (categories are listed in descending order of buying popularity).



71.

Table Twenty-eight: Buying of Local Food and Drink by Product Category

Product Category Buying Not Buying

Frequency Percent (%) Frequency Percent (%)

Fruit and vegetables 921 75.3 302 24.7

Eggs/dairy produce 730 59.7 493 40.3

Meat and meat products

648 53.0 575 47.0

Bread/cereals 458 37.4 765 62.6

Fish/seafood 271 22.2 952 77.8

Drinks/beverages 180 14.7 1043 85.3

Base: 1223


Unsurprisingly, the most widely purchased local food is fruit and vegetables with around three-quarters of buyers stating that they buy this product category. This is followed by eggs and dairy produce with around 60% purchasing, and meat and meat products with over half of the respondents stating that they buy. Local bread/cereals drops below 40% of total respondents purchasing, whilst fish and seafood is only ever bought by just over one-fifth of buyers. Local drinks and beverages have the lowest incidence of buying with fewer than 15% of purchasers acquiring this produce category.

Further analysis was then undertaken with regard to frequency of purchase for those buying each of these categories for use at home and when eating out. Respondents were asked to evaluate on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (very many times) their buying behaviour for each category over the past 3 months. Table twenty-nine illustrates the mean scores for each of the different categories for use at home and when eating out.



72.

Table Twenty-nine: Frequency of Purchase of Local Food and Drink in Different Product Categories

Mean Score: scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is ‘not at all’ and 7 is ‘very many times

Base: Those buying local food and drink product categories Source: Consumer Quantitative Survey

When buying for use at home there appears to be a generally high frequency of purchase across all product categories where they are actually bought by customers, with all categories displaying a score of at least 5.00 in comparison with a mid-point scale value of 4.00. This suggests that even though some produce is not bought by many in total, the frequency of purchase is high amongst that group. Indeed in some of the categories where there are fewer buyers, the frequency of purchase is higher than the main fruit and vegetables category. However, when eating out, buying frequency is generally lower than, or close to, the mid-point scale value of 4.00 for all product categories. This suggests that the number of purchasers is not only smaller than for use at home, but also that the frequency of buying when eating out is lower. Yet it is interesting to note that, when eating out, the two least popular categories in terms of buying local food and drink have the highest frequencies of purchase.

5.6.1.3 Buying Occasions Further understanding of purchasing behaviour was acquired from investigating on what different occasion’s consumers bought local food and drink, with more than one choice being possible for each respondent.

Product Category Mean score for use at home Mean score when eating out

Fruit and vegetables 5.06 3.21

Eggs/dairy produce 5.44 3.60

Meat and meat products 5.44 3.56

Bread/cereals 5.42 3.57

Fish/seafood 5.45 4.18

Drinks/beverages 5.36 4.02



73.

Table Thirty: Purchase Occasion for Local Food and Drink Buying

Base: Those buying local food and drink


Table Thirty above shows, in descending order of importance, the numbers of respondents stating that they bought local food and drink for use on different occasions. In excess of 70% of all food buyers buy local food and drink as part of their regular shop. Of the remaining occasions on which local/food drink was purchased, a significant number of buyers (approaching one-fifth in all cases) bought for a special occasion, or as a treat, or when eating out. Around 15% stated that they bought when on holiday, and a smaller proportion again, approximately 10% when visiting friends and relatives; only a very small proportion of around 2% bought when travelling on business. The evidence here suggests that the vast majority of buyers buying local food and drink do so as part of their normal household shop for use at home, yet there are reasonably large groups of customers that buy it irregularly for a special occasion or as a treat, or when eating out. Another smaller group buy when away from home on holiday, visiting friends and relatives, or in a very few instances when on business.

5.6.1.4 Outlets Used

The source of purchasing of local food and drink for both use at home and when eating out was investigated by asking respondents to identify the outlets used for buying.

Results for outlet used when buying for use at home are displayed in Table Thirty-one below in descending order of importance.

Purchase Occasion (Multiple Responses)

Frequency Percent (%)

As part of regular shop 882 72.1

For a special occasion 224 18.3

As a treat 223 18.2

When eating out 220 18.0

When on holidays 190 15.5

When visiting friends or relatives 129 10.5

When travelling on business 28 2.3



74.

Table Thirty-one: Purchase Outlets for Buying Local Food and Drink for Use at Home


Over 60% of all respondents to the survey buy local food and drink for use at home from large multiple supermarkets, with a further 45% using local specialist shops such as greengrocers, butchers and bakers, and an equal number using farm shops. Just over a third of the sample frequent farmers’ markets, around a quarter of all shoppers buy from street or covered markets, and about 15% from convenience stores. In addition to these conventional outlets, alternative but less popular methods of acquiring local produce include: pick/dig your own with 12% of buyers, van sales to door with about 6% of buyers, and box schemes with about 4% of buyers.

Respondents were also asked whether they use the Internet to buy local food and drink. In two instances significant proportions of the total customers using particular distribution outlets bought on-line with 15% of the total sample buying from supermarket chains on-line, and just over 2% of the total sample subscribing to box schemes via the Internet.

Details of the outlets used to purchase local food and drink when eating out are given in Table Thirty-two, in descending order of importance.

Purchase Outlet: Use at Home (Multiple Responses)


Large supermarket chain 759 62.1

Local specialist shop 565 45.0

Farm shop 545 44.6

Farmer’s market 433 35.4

Street/covered market 320 26.2

Convenience store 182 14.9

Pick/dig your own 147 12.0

Van sales to door 78 6.4

Box scheme 54 4.4



75.

Table Thirty-two: Purchase Outlets for Buying Local Food and Drink when Eating Out


Around one-fifth of all respondents buy local food and drink when eating out from a pub restaurant or bistro, with a further 14% using a quality restaurant for the same purpose. In addition, approaching 10% of all consumers used a cafe to buy local food and drink when eating out. Take away fast food outlets accounted for the remainder of the foodservice sales of local food and drink with around 7% coming from chains and a further 6% approximately coming from local outlets of this type.

5.6.2 Buying Regional Food and Drink 5.6.2.1 Actual and Intended Buying Behaviour

Buying behaviour with regard to regional food and drink was initially assessed through questions relating to the purchase of regional food and drink for use at home and when eating out over three time periods. Table Thirty-three illustrates shoppers’ purchasing patterns for regional food bought for use at home for last week, the last fortnight and the last month. Approximately 45% of the total sample had bought regional food and drink for use at home in the last week, which rose to over 56% when the consumption timescale increased to the last fortnight. In the last month, two-thirds of all consumers surveyed bought regional food and drink for use at home. This is a similar pattern to local food and drink buying which indicates greater incidence of people buying as the timescale increases. However, in general there is a lower level of buying regional food and drink compared with the percentages purchasing local food and drink over the same timescales.

Purchase Outlet: Eating Out (Multiple Responses)




Cafe 114 9.3

Take away/fast food chain 91 7.4

Local independent take away 78 6.4



76.

Table Thirty-three: Purchasing of Regional Food and Drink for Use at Home






Data for the buying of regional food and drink when eating out is shown in Table Thirty-four. TableThirty-four: Purchasing of Regional Food and Drink when Eating Out






Approaching 30% of respondents purchased regional food and drink when eating out in the last week. This increased to just over 36% when buying was undertaken in the last fortnight, and to 45% when asked if they had bought in the last month. As with local food and drink, there are a lower number of people buying regional food when eating out compared with using it at home. Yet in comparison with local food and drink, there is a marginally higher incidence of buying regional produce when eating out in both the one week and two week timescales, although the figures converge when buying in the one month timeframe is assessed. Additional understanding of regional food and drink buying was gained by gathering data relating to frequency of purchasing for use at home and when eating out over the past three months. Table Thirty-five gives the distribution of responses for the frequency of buying over the period by reporting responses on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (very many times).



77.

Table Thirty-five: Frequency Distribution 3 Month buying Behaviour of Regional Food and Drink for Use at Home

Response Score Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent

1.00 138 11.3 11.3

2.00 85 7.0 18.2

3.00 153 12.5 30.7

4.00 284 23.2 54.0

5.00 279 22.8 76.8

6.00 115 9.4 86.2

7.00 169 13.8 100

Total 1223 100

Mean for scale = 4.23

Mean Score: scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is ‘not at all’ and 7 is ‘very many times’

Base: 1223


The mean score for all consumers’ responses was 4.23 which is a little above the mid-point for the scale of 4.00. Around 30% of responses were lower than the scale mid-point. On the other hand there were over 45% that scored more than the scale mid-point, indicating regular buying of regional food and drink amongst a large proportion of total consumers. Overall the frequency of buying regional food and drink is a little lower amongst consumers generally than when buying local food and drink.

Results for 3 month regional food and drink purchasing frequency behaviour are presented in Table Thirty-six.



78.

Table Thirty-six: Frequency Distribution 3 Month buying Behaviour of Regional Food and Drink when Eating Out

Response Score Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent

1.00 301 24.6 24.6

2.00 183 15.0 39.6

3.00 169 13.8 53.4

4.00 259 21.2 74.6

5.00 185 15.1 89.7

6.00 60 4.9 94.6

7.00 66 5.4 100

Total 1223 100

Mean for scale = 3.24 Mean Score: scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is ‘not at all’ and 7 is ‘very many times’


The mean for the responses of all shoppers was 3.24 which is somewhat below the mid-point of the scale of 4.00, and which indicates on average that there is relatively infrequent buying of regional food and drink when eating out. More than 50% of respondents scored lower than the mid-point of 4.00, whereas only about a quarter of total responses were higher than the mid-point of the scale. Results reveal that purchasers buy regional/food for use at home more frequently than when eating out. On the whole there is a lower frequency of purchasing regional food and drink compared with local food drink, with the differences being more prominent for use at home rather than when eating out where there is only a small difference.

As well as measuring reported buying frequency, respondents were also asked about their behavioural intentions toward regional food and drink over three different time periods: next fortnight, next month, and next three months (for both use at home and eating out combined). The questions required each respondent to assess the likelihood of their purchasing regional food and drink over each time period on a scale from 1 (not at all likely) to 7 (very likely). Frequencies, percentage responses and means for the scale are reported in Table Thirty-seven below.



79.

Table Thirty-seven: Buying Intentions for Regional Food and Drink over Different Time Periods

Response Score

Next Fortnight Frequency/(%) (Mean = 4.49)

Next Month Frequency/(%) (Mean = 4.59)

Next 3 Months Frequency/(%) (Mean = 4.80)

1.00 114 9.3 102 8.3 94 7.7

2.00 67 5.5 68 5.6 53 4.3

3.00 130 10.6 119 9.7 109 8.9

4.00 282 23.1 267 21.8 233 19.1

5.00 263 21.5 259 21.2 264 21.6

6.00 161 13.2 197 16.1 201 16.4

7.00 206 16.8 211 17.3 269 22.0

Total 1223 100.0 1223 100.0 1223 100

Mean Score: scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is ‘not at all’ and 7 is ‘very many times’


Two week behavioural intentions indicate that around 25% of the sample score below the mid-point of the scale (4.00), with about half of respondents scoring higher. In the one month buying period, those below the scale mid-point fall marginally, and the number above also increase to approximately 55%. Over the longer three month period only about one-fifth of buyers score below the mid-point, while in the region of 60% score above that level.

The mean scores for each time period reveal quite high levels of intended purchase of regional food and drink on average, with intentions to buy rising as the time scale increases. Although not directly comparable, these intended purchase behaviours for regional food and drink are not dissimilar from the intended purchasing of local produce.

5.6.2.2 Differences in Buying by Product Category

Variations in purchasing behaviour across different regional food and drink products was evaluated initially by asking shoppers whether they buy regional food and drink in a range of six categories. Table Thirty-eight illustrates the purchasing by respondents of regional produce by food and drink category in descending order of buying popularity.



80.

Table Thirty-eight: Buying of Regional Food and Drink by Product Category

Product Category

Buying Not Buying

Frequency Percent (%) Frequency Percent (%)

Fruit and vegetables 732 60.0 491 40.0

Eggs/dairy produce 639 52.2 584 47.8

Meat and meat products 588 48.1 635 51.9

Bread/cereals 394 32.2 829 67.8

Fish/seafood 357 29.2 866 70.8

Drinks/beverages 249 20.4 974 79.6


The category of regional food and drink bought by most consumers is fruit and vegetables, with about 60% of respondents purchasing. This is followed by eggs and dairy produce with just over 50% buying, and meat and meat products with just under half the shoppers stating that they buy this category. Only about a third of the sample buy regional bread and cereals, with just under 30% purchasing regional fish and seafood. The least popular form of regional produce is drink and beverages with only around 20% of all buyers purchasing this category. Comparing this with local food and drink produce, there is a much lower incidence of buying fruit and vegetables and to a lesser extent eggs and dairy produce, meat and meat products, and bread and cereals. However, slightly higher purchasing rates of both regional fish and seafood, and drinks and beverages are displayed in comparison with buying locally sourced produce in these categories. The ranking of product categories is nonetheless the same for regional and local produce.

Additional analysis of buying behaviour by category of regional produce was embarked upon through measuring frequency of purchase amongst those buying each category. Respondents were asked to indicate their buying behaviour for each category over the past 3 months on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 7 (very many times) the results of which are presented in Table Thirty-nine.



81.

Table Thirty-nine: Frequency of Purchase of Regional Food and Drink in Different Product Categories

Mean Score: scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is ‘not at all’ and 7 is ‘very many times

Base: Those buying regional food and drink product categories Source: Consumer Quantitative Survey

Across the range of product categories there is a consistently high frequency of purchase when they are bought by shoppers, with all except the fruit and vegetables buyers scoring in excess of 5.00 compared with the scale mid-point of 4.00. These results appear to indicate that even though there may be relatively few customers buying regional food and drink of a particular type (e.g. fish and seafood, drinks and beverages) the frequency of purchase is high when buying for use at home. The data for eating out with regard to regional food and drink, however, shows mean scores to be much lower, with the top four categories in terms of numbers buying, each having a purchase frequency score well below the scale mid-point of 4.00. It is interesting to note, however, that, as with regional food and drink bought for home use, the categories with the lowest number of buyers display the most frequent purchasing behaviour. Comparison with local food buying frequency reveals broadly similar patterns of behaviour across product category, with generally high purchase frequency for use at home, and lower frequency of purchase patterns displayed when eating out. Some variations of note include local meat and meat products being bought less frequently for use at home compared to regional produce of the same type; local fruit and vegetables being less frequently purchased when eating out compared with regional produce in this category; and regional fish and seafood being bought more frequently when eating out compared with local produce of this type.

Product Category Mean Score for Use at Home

Mean Score when Eating Out

Fruit and vegetables 4.93 3.21

Eggs/dairy produce 5.44 3.60

Meat and meat products 5.44 3.56

Bread/cereals 5.42 3.57

Fish/seafood 5.45 4.18

Drinks/beverages 5.36 4.02



82.

5.6.2.3 Buying Occasions Purchasing behaviour was further investigated through identifying the nature of the occasion on which regional food and drink produce was purchased, with multiple responses being possible for each respondent. Table Forty below illustrates in descending order of importance, the number of responses for each of the occasions on which regional food and drink was bought. Table Forty: Purchase Occasion for Regional Food and Drink Buying

Base: Those buying regional food and drink Source: Consumer Quantitative Survey

Almost three quarters of the buyers of regional produce bought it as part of their regular shop. Other occasions on which reasonably large numbers of buyers purchased regional food and drink (ranging between approximately 17 and 18%) included special occasions, when eating out, when on holidays and as a treat. Approximately 10% of all purchases were made when visiting friends and relatives, and a small number, around 2% bought when travelling on business.

Regional food and drink is generally bought as part of a household’s regular shop when buying for use at home, although there are other occasions on which significant numbers of buyers acquire regional produce, which can often be related to either a special occasion or treat, or being away from home for various reasons. In general the results displayed for regional food and drink buying occasion are very similar to those depicted in the pattern of buying local produce.

Purchase Occasion (Multiple Responses)


As part of regular shop 911 74.5

For a special occasion 221 18.1

When eating out 219 17.9

When on holidays 214 17.5

As a treat 205 16.8

When visiting friends or relatives 123 10.1

When travelling on business 23 1.9



83.

5.6.2.4 Outlets Used Respondents were asked to identify the outlets they used for buying regional food and drink produce, with multiple selections being possible for both use at home and when eating out. The results for the different outlets frequented when buying regional produce for use at home are displayed in Table Forty-one below in descending order of importance. Table Forty-one: Purchase Outlets for Buying Local Food and Drink for Use at Home


Approximately three-quarters of all respondents buy regional food and drink for use at home from large multiple supermarkets, which is far in excess of the numbers using any other form of outlet. Around 38% buy from local specialist food retail outlets, with approximately 30% frequenting farm shops. Farmers’ markets are used by approximately 27% of shoppers, and street or covered markets are used by approaching 20% of respondents; convenience stores are frequented by about 13% of buyers when buying regional produce. Additional sales are made through pick/dig your own outlets (approximately 7%), van sales to door (nearly 5%), and box schemes (approaching 3%). In two instances the use of the Internet for buying produce was important, with around 15% of people buying their supermarket regional supplies on-line, and half the box scheme purchasers taking advantage of the on-line ordering

Purchase Outlet: Use at Home (Multiple Responses)


Large supermarket chain 912 74.6

Local specialist shop 460 37.6

Farm shop 365 29.8

Farmers’ market 328 26.8

Street/covered market 232 19.0

Convenience store 162 13.2

Pick/dig your own 83 6.8

Van sales to door 59 4.8

Box scheme 34 2.8



84.

services provided by these suppliers. Comparison with local food buying suggests that many more buyers use multiple supermarkets to buy regional food and drink, with fewer frequenting all the other specialist fresh food and drink retail outlets that offer regional produce for sale; the pattern of Internet use is the same for regional as local food and drink.

Details of the outlets used to purchase regional food and drink when eating out are given in Table Forty-two, in descending order of importance.

Table Forty-two: Purchase Outlets for Buying Regional Food and Drink when Eating Out


Regional food and drink is bought in the main when eating out from pub restaurants and bistros with about 17% of respondents using these outlets, and quality restaurants with approximately 12% of buyers frequenting these sources of regional produce. In addition cafes are used by just over 7% of buyers, local independent take aways are frequented by a further 5%, take away fast food chains by another 4% of respondents, and tourist attractions by around 2% of those buying regional food and drink when eating out. When comparing the use of these outlets for the purchase of regional produce when eating out with the purchase of local food and drink there is a lower usage of all the outlets types.

Purchase Outlet: Eating Out (Multiple Responses)




Cafe 90 7.4

Local independent take away 62 5.1

Take away/fast food chain 49 4.0

Tourist Attraction 27 2.2



85.

5.7 Influences on the Buying of Local and Regional Food and Drink

5.7.1 Influences on Buying Local Food and Drink

In order to assess potential influences upon and differences in behaviour with regard to the buying of local food and drink respondents were asked a number of questions to evaluate aspects of attitude toward buying these products.

5.7.1.1 Attitudes toward the Buying of Local Food and Drink

A series of questions were composed that addressed key dimensions of attitudinal behaviour to include: attitude toward buying local food; subjective norms relating to the views of others about the buying of local food; and the perceived control over their ability to buy local food. All questions were configured on 1 to 7 Likert type response scales anchored with a range of appropriate terms to match the questions asked.

Respondents’ attitudes were measured using a series of four items relating to the desirability of buying local food and drink over the next fortnight. The subjective norm was measured using three items conveying how people important to them might look upon the buying of local food and drink by the respondents over the next fortnight. In addition perceived control was measured using five items relating to their ability to buy local food and drink over the next fortnight.

For each of these measures a composite scale was developed that could be used as a basis for further investigation. Statistics for these measures are presented in Table Forty-three below.

Table Forty-three: Basic Statistics for Attitude Measures for Buying Local Food and Drink

Attitude Measure Mean SD Maximum and

Minimum Values

Attitude (4 items) 5.09 1.40 1.00 – 7.00

Subjective norm (3 items) 4.15 1.67 1.00 – 7.00

Perceived control (5 items) 4.90 1.60 1.00 – 7.00

Mean Score: scale of 1 to 7, on composite scale




86.

On the basis of the mid-point of the scale for each of these measures being 4.00, it is clear that for the sample as a whole there is a generally positive attitude amongst shoppers for the buying of local food and drink indicated by a mean of 5.09. The mean score for subjective norm, of 4.15, shows that there is a fairly neutral position amongst the sample as a whole with regard to people important to them supporting their buying of local food and drink. The mean perceived control value of 4.90 indicates that respondents generally believe that they have a fair degree of control over with buying decisions about local food and drink. However, the standard deviation values for all of these measures suggest that there is a reasonable degree of variability amongst all of the respondents for each of these variables.

5.8 Consumer Psychographics

Given the nature of the product categories under investigation in this study, a number of consumer psychographic characteristics are potentially influential on buying behaviour. The following were all identified as having an effect on the buying of local and regional food and drink: food safety concerns, health consciousness, environmental concerns, ethical identity, and three aspects of geographical identity and attachment (local, regional and national). Each respondent was therefore asked a series of questions that enable these psychographic characteristics to be measured using standard item measures that have been developed in previous research studies.

For each of these measures, a composite scale was developed that could be used as a basis for understanding buying behaviour generally and differences amongst the sample with regard to the purchasing of local and regional food and drink. Table Forty-four below presents the statistics for each of these measures.



87.

Table Forty-four: Basic Statistics for Consumer Psychographic Measures

Psychographic Measure Mean SD Maximum and Minimum Values

Food safety concern (3 items) 5.15 1.24 1.00 – 7.00

Health consciousness (9 items) 5.10 1.19 1.00 – 7.00

Local identity and attachment (4 items) 5.01 1.36 1.00 – 7.00

Environmental concern (10 items) 4.91 0.90 2.00 – 7.00

Regional identity and attachment (4 items) 4.88 1.34 1.00 – 7.00

National identity and attachment (4 items) 4.84 1.42 1.00 – 7.00

Ethical identity (3 items) 4.55 1.42 1.00 – 7.00

Mean Score: scale of 1 to 7, on composite scale


Each of these measures scores reasonably highly on average for the sample as a whole, with particularly high values for food safety concern, health consciousness and local identity and attachment, each in excess of 5.00 compared with a scale mid-point of 4.00. Environmental concern, and national and regional identity and attachment also score well in excess of the scale mid-point. Ethical identity is lower on average across all respondents but still larger than the scale mid-point. Despite these large scores for all shoppers, there would appear to be a generally high amount of variability in the sample as indicted by the standard deviations for each variable.

5.9 Factors Influencing the Purchasing of Local Food and Drink

Given the variety of different potential attributes and benefits associated with local food and drink in previous research, the number of possible contributory factors influencing consumers’ buying decisions is likely to be wide ranging. The qualitative phase of this study provided deep insights into the nature and significance of some of the key buying factors, which will be further enlightened through the quantitative analysis presented here.



88.

5.9.1 Reasons for Buying

Respondents were initially asked to assess their level of agreement with various statements relating to why they bought local food and drink on a scale rating from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The questionnaire asked for responses to a total of 37 statements relating to buying factors. The mean values for the top 21 reasons (with means greater than 4.50) are presented below in Table Forty-five ranked in descending order of importance.



89.

Table Forty-five: Main Reasons for Buying of Local Food and Drink (Mean Values)

Reason for Buying Local Food and Drink Mean Value/(SD)

Supports local producers 5.44 (1.55)

Is fresh 5.38 (1.45)

Supports the local community 5.36 (1.53)

Supports local retailers 5.35 (1.54)

Tastes good 5.10 (1.48)

Reduces food miles 5.10 (1.68)

I know where it comes from 5.03 (1.63)

It is of high quality 4.98 (1.46)

It is environmentally friendly 4.86 (1.64)

It reduces packaging 4.85 (1.64)

It is seasonal 4.84 (1.57)

Its origin is traceable 4.83 (1.66)

It reduces pollution 4.78 (1.71)

It is sustainable 4.74 (1.55)

I can trust it 4.71 (1.55)

It is healthy 4.66 (1.51)

It is nutritious 4.66 (1.53)

It is natural 4.65 (1.57)

It is wholesome 4.62 (1.53)

I can buy the amount that I want to 4.61 (1.64)

It makes me feel good 4.51 (1.63)



The results indicate that an array of different influences are present in consumers’ buying decisions with regard to purchasing local food and drink both for use at home and when eating out. However, they show that the main influences that were to be expected are indeed relevant to buyers when making decisions about buying local produce. Broadly, the data illustrates that support for the local area, specific food qualities,



90.

environment and sustainability issues, provenance, and some specific purchasing advantages are amongst the top reasons for buying local food. As a means of clarifying the substantive factors underlying buying behaviour for local food and drink, a Principal Components Analysis of all the reasons for buying was undertaken.

The outcome of this analysis identified that four broad groups of reasons could be classified as factors that influence buying behaviour. Table Forty-six specifies the factors and their constituent elements.

Table Forty-six: Main Factors Influencing the Buying of Local Food and Drink

Factor 1: Food and Drink Characteristics 8 items

Factor 2: Local support and provenance 7 items

Factor 3: Sustainable and ethical 4 items

Factor 4: Shopping 8 items

Free from preservatives Supports local producers Reduces food miles Brings back memories of the past

Free from chemicals Supports local community Environmentally friendly Nostalgic

Natural Fresh Reduces pollution Feel guilty

Nutritious Know where it comes from Ethical Traditional

Wholesome Origin is traceable Treat

Has a good appearance Seasonal Interesting

Lasts longer Experience satisfying

More variety Shopping for fun


In total, 27 items relating to different reasons for buying were identified as four separate factors from this analysis. The importance of these in influencing buying decisions will be reported on later in the report.

5.9.2 Potential Barriers to Buying

Previous research has also identified a number of key reasons that possibly impair purchasing with regard to local food and drink, which were further elaborated by the earlier qualitative work. Respondents were initially asked to assess their level of agreement with various statements relating to why they did not buy local food and drink on a scale rating from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The



91.

questionnaire asked for responses to 14 statements relating to possible reasons for not buying. The mean values for all of these are presented below in Table Forty-seven, ranked in descending order of importance. Table Forty-seven: Main Reasons for Not Buying of Local Food and Drink (Mean Values)

Reason for Not Buying Local Food and Drink Mean Value/(SD)

Is expensive 3.58 (1.72)

Not readily available 3.57 (1.83)

Information on where to find it is not available 3.42 (1.79)

The range of products is limited 3.40 (1.65)

Not well promoted 3.36 (1.74)

Food produced elsewhere is sometimes better 3.20 (1.60)

I have to travel further to do so 2.99 (1.63)

The price is not always clear 2.96 (1.58)

It requires extra effort 2.94 (1.58)

It is inconvenient 2.92 (1.60)

It is not well labelled 2.92 (1.59)

To do so is time consuming 2.86 (1.55)

It is not branded 2.53 (1.47)

It is a fad 2.48 (1.47)



The data indicate that, for the sample as a whole, all of the potential barriers to not buying local food have a mean score of less than 4.00 (the scale mid-point), and therefore, when all buyers are considered in aggregate, there appears to be a tendency to disagree with these being factors preventing the purchase of local food and drink. However, there is variation in the means identified for the different factors which may contribute to differences in behaviour, and the general magnitude of the standard deviations indicates that there is substantial variability in the answers received from different respondents in the sample as a whole.



92.

On the face of it, results suggest that cost, inconvenience, lack of information and awareness, and some specific product factors represent the main reasons why consumers may not buy local food and drink.

As with the buying reasons above, Principal Components Analysis was employed to investigate the substantive possible barriers to buying as determined by the range reasons given for not buying. The analysis identified that three broad groups of potential barriers to buying could be classified as factors that influence buying behaviour in this instance. Table Forty-eight specifies these factors and their component items.

Table Forty-eight: Main Barriers Affecting the Buying of Local Food and Drink

Factor 1: Availability and Awareness 5 items

Factor 2: Inconvenience 4 items

Factor 3: Product 3 items

Information not available Time consuming Not branded

Not well promoted Requires extra effort Fad

Not readily available Inconvenient Price not clear

Range of products limited Travel further

Not well labelled


In total, 12 items relating to different reasons for not buying were identified as three separate factors from this analysis. The importance of these in influencing buying decisions will be investigated later in the report.

5.9.3 Associations between Buying Behaviour and Factors Influencing

Buying of Local Food and Drink Having established the relative importance of the different reasons for buying and not buying local food and drink, it is now possible to establish relationships between the buying factors and buying behaviour. Behaviour was assessed in two respects: actual buying based on frequency of purchase over past 3 months, and intention to buy over the next two weeks.



93.

Four levels of analysis were undertaken using multiple regression modelling:

� Relationships between all buying and non-buying reasons and actual buying behaviour for local food and drink for use at home and when eating out (separate analyses).

� Relationships between all buying and non-buying reasons and behavioural intentions for local food and drink for use at home and when eating out (separate analyses).

� Relationships between buying factors and actual buying behaviour for local food and drink for use at home and when eating out (separate analyses).

� Relationships between buying factors and behavioural intentions for local food and drink for use at home and when eating out (separate analyses).

5.9.3.1 Analysis of Relationships between Reasons for Buying/Not Buying and Actual Buying Behaviour (Purchase Frequency over Past 3 Months)

An initial analysis was undertaken of the main relationships between actual buying behaviour and the reasons for buying and not buying local food and drink for both the use at home and eating out situations, which is presented in Table Forty-nine.



94.

Table Forty-nine: Regression Results for Reasons for Buying/Not Buying and Actual Buying Behaviour for Local Food and Drink

Independent Variables: Reasons for Buying

Use at Home Model R

2 = 0.47

When Eating Out Model R

2 = 0.17

Standardised Beta (β) Coefficient

Significance Standardised Beta (β) Coefficient

Significance

Fresh .097 .010

Tastes good .109 .005 .156 .001

Makes me feel good .069 .037

Seasonal .075 .019 .090 .025

Buy amount want to .105 .000 .080 .011

Know where it comes from .127 .012

Time consuming -.090 .013

Expensive -.089 .024

Information not available -.115 .001 -.136 .001

Fad .059 .050 .074 .049

Not branded .059 .042 .106 .003

Dependent variable: 3 month buying behaviour, frequency of purchasing local food and drink.

Only reasons with minimum significance values of p = 0.050 are reported here.

Base: 1223


Actual buying behaviour with regard to local food and drink for use at home is positively and significantly related to being able to buy in the quantities required, tasting good, and being fresh and seasonal. Other less significant but positive relationships exist between making the buyer feel good, and the food and drink not being branded and its buying being a fad. Significant negative reasons for buying when using at home include information not being available on where to find local food and drink, and it being time consuming to acquire the produce.

When looking at significant positive influences on frequency of eating out, tasting good and being seasonal, as well as being able to buy the amount you want, are relevant to this situation. The branded and fad effects are also significant when understanding frequency of eating out. In addition, knowing where the produce comes from is a positively



95.

significant influence on buying behaviour in this context. Negative significant influences are again a lack of information on where to buy it, plus the local food and drink being regarded as expensive when eating out.

5.9.3.2 Analysis of Relationships between Reasons for Buying/Not Buying and Behavioural Intentions (Intention to Buy in Next 2 Weeks)

Further analysis was undertaken into how the reasons for buying and not buying are associated with the buying intentions of consumers to buy local food and drink over the coming two week period, which are displayed in Table Fifty.

Table Fifty: Regression Results for Reasons for Buying/Not Buying and Behavioural Intentions toward Buying Local Food and Drink

Independent Variables: Reasons for Buying/ Not Buying

Use at Home Model R

2 = 0.60


2 = 0.29



Significance

Fresh .103 .002

Tastes good .092 .007 .136 .003

Supports local producers .085 .029

Seasonal .067 .016 .155 .000

Buy amount want to .085 .000 .066 .024

Know where it comes from .140 .000

Sustainable .094 .006

Reduces pollution .075 .023

Reduces food miles .085 .012

Environmentally friendly -.098 .008

Not well promoted .091 .018

Not branded .066 .049

Time consuming -.075 .017 - .097 .021

Inconvenient -.071 .017

Dependent variable: 2 week buying intentions, likelihood of purchasing local food and drink

Only reasons with minimum significance values of p = 0.050 are reported here

Base: 1223




96.

Behavioural intentions toward buying local food and drink for use at home are positively and significantly associated with being able to buy the amount you want to, and the taste, freshness and seasonality of the produce. In addition support for local producers has a significant effect. A number of environmental impact factors including being sustainable, reducing food miles and reducing pollution are also significantly related to behavioural intentions to buy local food and drink for use at home. Yet, contrary to immediate intuition, being environmentally friendly appears to have a negative association with buying intentions. Other significant negative reasons for intended buying when using local food and drink at home include the time involved in acquiring it, and the inconvenience of buying.

When looking at significant positive influences on intentions to buy local food and drink when eating out, being seasonal and tasting good, as well as being able to buy the amount you want, are all relevant to this context. Additional positive effects are associated with not being well promoted and it not being branded. A negative significant influence is the belief that it is so time consuming to buy it.

5.9.3.3 Analysis of Relationships between Buying Factors and Buying

Behaviour

Having investigated how the individual reasons for buying and not buying are related to actual buying and buying behavioural intentions, the next stage of analysis reported here looks at how the buying factors already identified are associated with the same outcomes. Further to this, to add to the understanding of buyer behaviour with respect to local food and drink, the regression analyses undertaken here also incorporate particular characteristics of buyers. In order to achieve this, psychographic characteristic variables constructed for each respondent, as well as a dummy variable for whether they were located in a rural or urban area, were added to the regression models developed.

5.9.3.4 Analysis of Relationships between Buying Factors and Actual

Behaviour (Purchase Frequency over Past 3 Months)

A second stage of analysis was undertaken identifying the relationships between actual buying behaviour and the factors of influence and buyer psychographic characteristics (including rural/urban location) for the buying of local produce. Results of the regression analysis are presented in Table Fifty-one.



97.

Table Fifty-one: Regression Results for Factors of Influence and Buyer Characteristics and

Actual Buying Behaviour for Local Food and Drink

Independent Variables: Buying factors and buyer psychographics

Use at Home Model R

2 = 0.45


2 = 0.18



Significance

Food and drink characteristics .048 .256 .062 .235

Local support and provenance .439 .000 .163 .002

Sustainable and ethical -.054 .212 -.110 .039

Shopping .043 .226 .170 .000

Availability and awareness -.200 .000 -.125 .006

Inconvenience -.147 .000 -.037 .411

Product .083 .014 .109 .009

Rural location .048 .029 .016 .546

Food safety concern -.058 .063 -.012 .757

Health consciousness .028 .364 .019 .606

Environmental concern -.051 .059 -.169 .000

Ethical identity .069 .036 .119 .003

National identity and attachment

-.022 .410 .002 .948

Regional identity and attachment

.011 .806 .081 .148

Local identity and attachment .062 .171 -.029 .596

Dependent variable: 3 month buying behaviour, frequency of purchasing local food and drink

Significant results with at least p < 0.050 are in bold

Base: 1223


Results indicate that when looking at relationships between frequency of buying local produce for use at home and the factors of influence, a significant positive effect is present between local support and provenance and the dependent variable. In addition, two buyer characteristics, rural location and ethical identity are also positively associated with actual buying behaviour. Significant negative effects exist for availability and awareness, and inconvenience. Buying frequency of local produce when eating out is significantly positively



98.

associated with local support and provenance and shopping factors; the non buying factor of product is also positively associated with buying frequency. Negative associations exist between availability and awareness and purchase frequency, and also the sustainable and ethical buying factor. Ethical identity of the consumer is positively significantly related to buying, whereas environmental concern is also significant but has a negative effect.

5.9.3.5 Analysis of Relationships between Buying Factors and Behavioural

Intentions (Intention to Buy in Next 2 Weeks)

Following the consideration of actual buying associations and a range of factors and characteristics, analysis was then undertaken relating to future intentions of consumers to purchase local produce for use at home and when eating out over the coming two week period. Table Fifty-two illustrates the findings of this analysis.



99.

Table Fifty-two: Regression Results for Factors of Influence and Buyer Characteristics and Buying Behavioural Intentions for Local Food and Drink


Use at Home Model R

2 = 0.58


2 = 0.28



Significance

Food and drink characteristics .028 .459 .021 .668

Local support and provenance .525 .000 .289 .000

Sustainable and ethical .033 .390 .002 .963

Shopping -.009 .774 .119 .003

Availability and awareness -.082 .012 -.043 .306

Inconvenience -.165 .000 -.074 .074

Product .015 .619 .064 .098

Rural location .024 .211 .004 .874

Food safety concern -.037 .174 .023 .517


Environmental concern .004 .871 -.089 .004

Ethical identity .024 .415 .119 .002

National identity and attachment -.043 .067 -.031 .310

Regional identity and attachment .019 .629 .021 .691

Local identity and attachment .059 .136 .049 .346

Dependent variable: 2 week buying intentions, likelihood of purchasing local food and drink



For future behavioural intentions relating to buying local produce for use at home, the local support and provenance factor is strongly related to buying from a positive perspective, whilst inconvenience and availability and awareness are significantly negatively related to the dependent variable. The health consciousness psychographic characteristic is positively and strongly associated with future purchasing intentions to buy local food and drink for use at home. When looking at intentions to buy local produce when eating out, local support and provenance is a



100.

strongly related positive factor, as is the shopping factor. Ethical identity of the consumer is also positively related to the intention to eat out, whilst the environmental concern psychographic characteristic is negatively related to future intended behaviour to buy local produce when eating out.

5.10 Factors Influencing the Purchasing of Regional Food and Drink

Following on from the discussion of local food buying, it is now possible to investigate the factors that influence the buying of regional food and drink. Given the narrower definitional boundaries and specific attributes and benefits of regional produce, fewer reasons for buying are considered in comparison with local food and drink.

5.10.1 Reasons for Buying

Respondents were asked to gauge their level of agreement with various statements relating to why they bought regional food and drink on a scale rating from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The survey instrument asked for responses to 13 statements relating to buying reasons. The mean values for the all of these are presented below in Table Fifty-three ranked in descending order of importance.



101.

Table Fifty-three: Main Reasons for Buying of Regional Food and Drink (Mean Values)

Reason for Buying Local Food and Drink Mean Value/(SD)

Supports the regional economy 4.46 (1.69)

It is of high quality 4.43 (1.56)

Supports the national economy 4.19 (1.70)

Its reputation 4.16 (1.58)

It is the best available 4.13 (1.60)

Even though there are cheaper alternatives 4.08 (1.69)

It is associated with a particular region 4.06 (1.61)

It provides good value for money 4.04 (1.58)

It is widely available 3.83 (1.61)

Even though it is priced at a premium 3.77 (1.55)

It is traditional 3.73 (1.62)

It is easily recognizable 3.72 (1.58)

It is promoted nationally 3.55 (1.57)



The data for buying reasons shows that a variety of different factors influence buying behaviour with regard to regional produce for use at home and when eating out. In general terms the reasons can be classified as association with and supporting the regional/national economy, product characteristics of quality and value, and availability and awareness. Even though many of these reasons have relatively low means in comparison with the scale mid-point of 4.00, there is sufficient variability between them to make different contributions to behaviour, and sufficiently high standard deviations to indicate differences between buyers in the sample as a whole.

As with the analysis undertaken of local produce buying factors the next stage was to consolidate these factors using a Principal Components Analysis.

Three factors emerged from this analysis which represented broad groups of reasons for buying regional produce both for use at home and when eating out; these are presented in Table Fifty-four.



102.

Table Fifty-four: Main Factors Influencing the Buying of regional Food and Drink

Factor 1: High Quality 5 items

Factor 2: Branded positioning 3 items

Factor 3: Area association and support 3 items

Best available Promoted nationally Supports regional economy

Of high quality Branded and easily recognizable

Supports national economy

Even though cheaper alternatives available

Traditional Associated with particular region

Provides good value for money

Even though priced at a premium


In total, 13 items relating to different reasons for buying were classified as three separate factors from this analysis. The importance of these in influencing buying behaviour will be discussed later in the report.

5.10.2 Associations between Buying Behaviour and Factors Influencing

Buying of Regional Food and Drink After identifying reasons for buying regional produce, it is now possible to move on to establishing relationships between these buying reasons and buying behaviour. As with local produce, behaviour is evaluated both in terms of actual purchasing frequency in a 3 month period, and intention to buy in the next fortnight. Again four levels of analysis were undertaken through developing multiple regression models:

� Relationships between all buying reasons and actual buying behaviour for regional food and drink for use at home and when eating out (separate analyses).

� Relationships between all buying reasons and behavioural intentions for regional food and drink for use at home and when eating out (joint analyses).

� Relationships between buying factors and actual buying behaviour for regional food and drink for use at home and when eating out (separate analyses).



103.

� Relationships between buying factors and behavioural intentions for regional food and drink for use at home and when eating out (joint analyses).

5.10.2.1 Analysis of Relationships between Reasons for Buying and

Actual Buying Behaviour (Purchase Frequency over Past 3 Months) The first stage of analysis was to evaluate the associations between the reasons for buying regional food and drink and the actual purchasing behaviour with regard to those products for use at home and when eating out. The results of this analysis are shown in Table Fifty-five.

Table Fifty-five: Regression Results for Reasons for Buying and Actual Buying Behaviour for Regional Food and Drink

Independent Variables: Reasons for Buying/ Not Buying

Use at Home Model R

2 = 0.53


2 = 0.28



Significance

Best available .177 .000 .116 .008

Supports regional economy .144 .000

Widely available .219 .000 .191 .000

Promoted nationally -.079 .014

Provides good value for money .091 .008 .082 .049

Even though cheaper alternative available

.187 .000 .114 .006

Even though priced at a premium .156 .000

Dependent variable: 3 month buying behaviour, frequency of purchasing regional food and drink

Only reasons with a minimum significance values of p = 0.050 are reported here


Actual buying behaviour for regional produce for use at home, as defined by purchase frequency over a three month period, is positively associated with being the best available, being bought even though cheaper alternatives are available, and consequently because they represent good value for money. They are also bought because buyers perceive that they are supporting the regional economy by doing so. In addition wide availability is positively and significantly associated with



104.

actual buying frequency. Of note is the negative significant relationship between being promoted nationally and actual buying behaviour.

In considering the positive associations between buying frequency of regional produce when eating out, being the best available and being widely available are significantly related to purchasing behaviour. Further significant positive relationships exist with providing good value for money, products being bought even though premium prices are charged and even though cheaper products are available.

5.10.2.2 Analysis of Relationships between Reasons for Buying and

Behavioural Intentions (Intention to Buy in Next 2 Weeks)

Subsequent analysis investigated how the reasons for buying are associated with the buying intentions of consumers to buy regional food and drink over the coming two week period. Results of this analysis are displayed in Table Fifty-six.

Table Fifty-six: Regression Results for Reasons for Buying and Behavioural Intentions toward Buying Regional Food and Drink

Independent Variables: Reasons for Buying

Use at Home and When Eating Out Model R

2 = 0.52


Significance

High quality .080 .028

Best available .203 .000

Traditional -.087 .004

Reputation .116 .001

Even though priced at a premium .076 .018

Supports regional economy .157 .000

Widely available .147 .000

Promoted nationally -.101 .001

Provides good value for money .067 .046

Even though cheaper alternative available .117 .000

Dependent variable: 2 week buying intentions, likelihood of purchasing regional food and drink

Only reasons with a minimum significance values of p = 0.050 are reported here

Base: 1223




105.

Behavioural intentions to purchase regional food and drink for either use at home or when eating out are significantly and positively associated with being the best available and of high quality; the reputation of the produce and its tradition; providing good value for money including buying them even though cheaper products are available and even though they are sold at premium prices; and supporting the regional economy. A negative significant relationship exists for regional produce being promoted nationally and buying intentions.

5.10.3 Analysis of Relationships between Buying Factors and Buying Behaviour

From investigating how the individual reasons for buying are related to actual buying behaviour and behavioural intentions, the report now moves on to consideration of how the identified regional produce buying factors are associated with the same dependent variables. Moreover, to add to our knowledge of buyer behaviour with respect to regional food and drink, the regression analyses performed here incorporate particular psychographic characteristics of buyers, and a dummy variable representing rural or urban location of the respondent.

5.10.3.1 Analysis of Relationships between Buying Factors and Actual

Behaviour (Purchase Frequency over Past 3 Months)

A further level of analysis was undertaken identifying the relationships between actual buying, and factors of influence and buyer psychographic characteristics (including rural/urban location) for the purchase frequency of regional produce. Regression analysis results are presented in Table Fifty-seven.



106.

Table Fifty-seven: Regression Results for Factors of Influence and Buyer Characteristics and Actual Buying Behaviour for Regional Food and Drink


Use at Home Model R

2 = 0.50


2 = 0.26



Significance

High quality .581 .000 .435 .000

Branded positioning -.048 .169 .090 .434

Area association and support .161 .000 .019 .678

Rural location .046 .025 .016 .520

Food safety concern -.013 .662 -.001 .980


Environmental concern .014 .583 -.120 .000

Ethical identity -.048 .088 .015 .659

National identity and attachment

-.034 .184 -.035 .264

Regional identity and attachment

-.011 .686 .004 .947

Local identity and attachment .101 .017 .017 .747

Dependent variable: 3 month buying behaviour, frequency of purchasing local food and drink


Base: 1223


The regression findings show that, when looking at the relationship between buying frequency of regional produce for use at home, a number of positive and significant effects are present. The high quality factor together with area association and support are strongly associated with buying frequency. Furthermore, health consciousness, local identity and attachment as well as rural location of respondents are significantly and positively related to frequency of buying over the previous three months. Results for buying frequency when eating out identify high quality as the only positively significant factor associated with the purchasing frequency of regional food and drink in this situation. Conversely, environmental concern is significantly and negatively associated with previous buying of regional food when eating out.



107.

5.10.3.2 Analysis of Relationships between Buying Factors and Behavioural Intentions (Intention to Buy in Next 2 Weeks)

A similar regression analysis was then performed with future buying intentions over the next two weeks as the dependent variable with associations being sought for the regional food and drink buying factors, consumer psychographics and rural/urban location.

Table Fifty-eight: Regression Results for Factors of Influence and Buyer Characteristics and Buying Intentions for Regional Food and Drink


Use at Home and When Eating Out Model R

2 = 0.52


Significance

High quality .590 .000

Branded positioning -.065 .059

Area association and support .186 .000

Rural location .010 .639

Food safety concern -.027 .352

Health consciousness .069 .015

Environmental concern .066 .007

Ethical identity -.065 .020

National identity and attachment -.066 .009

Regional identity and attachment .042 .325

Local identity and attachment .053 .202

Dependent variable: 2 week buying intentions, likelihood of purchasing regional food and drink Significant results with at least p < 0.050 are in bold Base: 1223 Source: Consumer Quantitative Survey

Results of this analysis indicate that there are positive significant relationships between future buying intentions and the high quality, area association and support factors of regional produce. The health consciousness and environmental concern psychographic characteristics of buyers are also positively related to purchase intentions to buy



108.

regional produce. However, both the ethical identity and national identity and attachment variables are negatively and significantly associated with future buying intentions.

5.11 Differences in Consumer Buying Behaviour and Influences

The behaviour of local and regional food and drink buyers and influences upon purchasing have been considered in some detail. Yet it is evident from previous research studies and the qualitative research already undertaken, that there are variations in the way that different buyers behave and the relative importance of a range of influences on that behaviour. The analysis presented here considers a number of different consumer characteristics and analyses differences in behaviour and factors of influence between them. Having discussed each of the factors in turn, further analysis will then be undertaken to present a taxonomy of consumer types for the buying of local and regional food and drink.

5.11.1 Differences by Buyer Characteristics

5.11.1.1 Urban and Rural Buying Differences

Analysis was undertaken of significant differences between those resident in rural and urban areas for a number of aspects of buying behaviour of local and regional food and the previously identified factors influencing this behaviour. In the case of a two-way categorical split, t-tests were employed to identify significant differences between urban and rural consumers. Table Fifty-nine below presents the findings of this analysis. To facilitate ease of understanding, and discriminate key differences, data is only presented for variables with significant differences between the mean values for the different groups.



109.

Table Fifty-nine: Differences in Buying Behaviour and Influences between residents in Urban and Rural Areas

Buying Behaviour or Influence Difference Identified

Significance of Difference

3 month buying frequency local food and drink use at home rural > urban .000

2 week buying intention local food and drink use at home rural > urban .000

2 week buying intention local food and drink eating out rural > urban .027

3 month buying frequency regional food and drink use at home rural > urban .001

2 week buying intention regional food and drink use at home and eating out rural > urban .043

Factor 1 local buying: Food and drink characteristics rural > urban .006

Factor 2 local buying: Local support and provenance rural > urban .000

Factor 3 local buying: Sustainable and ethical rural > urban .001

Factor 1 local not buying: Availability and awareness urban > rural .000

Factor 2 local not buying: Inconvenience urban > rural .000

Factor 3 local not buying: Product urban > rural .000

Only differences with minimum significance values of p = 0.050 are reported


A number of significant differences are apparent between rural and urban buyers both in terms of the behaviour of buying, and the importance of factors for buying and not buying. In general rural buyers buy local and regional food and drink more frequently than those located in urban areas, particularly for use at home. Buying intentions for rural consumers are greater than those for their urban counterparts for both local and regional food and drink, when buying for use at home and when eating out. Analysis of differences in the factors for buying indicate that rural buyers buy local food more than those in urban areas for three of the four main reasons, with the shopping factor being the only one where differences are not significant. Conversely, urban residents score all three of the reasons for not buying significantly higher than those in living in rural locations. There are no significant differences for any of the regional buying factors. It is clear that rural consumers buy and intend to buy more local and regional food than those resident in rural areas. They also generally score much higher on the reasons for buying local food, compared with urban consumers who recognize all the barriers to buying local as being an important issue when making their purchase decisions.



110.

5.11.1.2 Regional Buying Differences

A similar analysis was undertaken for differences in behaviour and factors of influence between consumers located in different regions. As more than two categories were being compared Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was adopted as the most appropriate technique to compare differences in means between the regions. Table Sixty presents the Results of the ANOVA. Again to facilitate ease of understanding, and discriminate key differences, data is only presented for variables with significant differences between the mean scores for consumers in the different regions.

Table Sixty: Differences in Buying Behaviour and Influences between Regions

Buying Behaviour or Influence Difference Identified Significance of Difference

3 month buying frequency local food and drink use at home South West > London .017

2 week buying intention local food and drink use at home South West and East Anglia > London

.037

3 month buying frequency regional food and drink use at home

Yorkshire and Humberside > London and South East

.027

Factor 2 local buying: Local support and provenance South West > East Midlands, London, North East, North West , and West Midlands

.001

Factor 1 local not buying: Availability and awareness London > South West. All other regions > South West.

.000

Factor 2 local not buying: Inconvenience London > South West. London > East Anglia. All other regions > South West

.000

Factor 3 local not buying: Product London > South West. All other regions > South West.

.000

Only differences with minimum significance values of p = 0.050 are reported

Base: 1223


The data reveals that regional differences exist between buying behaviour and intentions for use of local and regional food and drink at home. In particular buying frequency and intention is greater in the South West compared with London and the South East. Also there appears to be more frequent purchasing of regional produce in Yorkshire and Humberside compared with London and the South East. In



111.

analysing positive reasons for buying, local support and provenance is stronger in the South West compared with several other regions which a more urban profile; there are no significant differences in the other factors. Considering the reasons for not buying indicates that London residents regard all three of these factors being detrimental to purchasing local produce compared with the South West and, in the case of inconvenience, East Anglia as well. Consumers located in the South West score all three of the not buying factors significantly lower than residents of all other regions. No differences exist for the regional buying factors.

5.11.1.3 Buying Differences between Age Groups

A similar analysis was undertaken for differences in behaviour and factors of influence between consumers located in different regions. As more than two categories were being compared Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was adopted as the most appropriate technique to compare differences in means between the regions. Table Sixty-one presents the results of the ANOVA. Data is only presented for variables with significant differences between the mean scores for consumers in the different regions.



112.

Table Sixty-one: Differences in Buying Behaviour and Influences between Age Groups

Buying Behaviour or Influence Difference Identified Significance

of Difference

3 month buying frequency local food and drink use at home Over 55s > 18 - 24 .040

3 month buying frequency local food and drink eating out 18 – 34 > Over 55s .003

2 week buying intention local food and drink use at home Over 55s > 18 - 44 .000

3 month buying frequency regional food and drink use at home Over 55s > 25 - 44 .023

3 month buying frequency regional food and drink use eating out 18 – 34 > 35 – 44 .000

2 week buying intention regional food and drink use at home and eating out

45 – 54 > 18 - 44 .006

Factor 1 local buying: Food and drink characteristics Over 55s > 18 – 24 and 35 - 44 .048

Factor 2 local buying: Local support and provenance Over 45s > 18 – 34, 35 – 44 > 18 - 24 .000

Factor 1 local not buying: Availability and awareness 18 – 44 > Over 55s .000

Factor 2 local not buying: Inconvenience 18 – 44 > Over 55s .000

Factor 3 local not buying: Product 18 – 34 > Over 55s, 18 – 24 > 45 – 54 .000

Only differences with a minimum significance values of p = 0.050 are reported

Base: 1223


Significant differences in buying behaviour and intentions exist between the older consumers (over 55 years) and younger buyers generally when local and regional food and drink is bought for use at home, with the older consumers buying more frequently and intending to do so than younger ones. In the case of eating out the reverse is true, which reflects patterns of eating out generally between age groups. The characteristics and support and provenance factors relating to reasons for buying are generally stronger for older customers compared with younger ones. In contrast the younger age groups recognize the barriers to be more important in deterring them from buying compared with older buyers. No differences appear to exist between age groups regarding regional buying factors.



113.

5.11.1.4 Buying Differences between Genders

Further analysis was carried out identifying significant differences between men and women for a number of aspects of buying behaviour and the identified factors influencing behaviour. For identifying significant differences in this situation, t-tests were employed. Table Sixty-two below presents the findings of the analysis of the differences between means for men and women. Results are only presented for variables with significant differences between the mean values for men and women. Table Sixty-two: Differences in Buying Behaviour and Influences between Genders

Buying Behaviour or Influence Difference Identified

Significance of Difference

2 week buying intention local food and drink use at home women > men .005

Factor 1 local buying: Food and drink characteristics women > men .000

Factor 2 local buying: Local support and provenance women > men .000

Factor 3 local buying: Sustainable and ethical women > men .000

Factor 4 local buying: Shopping women > men .012

Factor 3 local not buying: Product men > women .008

Factor 3 regional buying: Area association and support women > men .021



The only significant difference in terms of buying behaviour is the greater intention of women to buy local produce for use at home in future compared with men. Women score significantly higher than men on all the positive reasons for buying factors, whereas men score higher on the non-buying product factor. Women’s mean value for the regional buying factor of area association and support is also higher than men. In general women appear to recognize the positive benefits of buying local compared with men, although the buying differences only come through in intention to buy and not frequency of buying, and not in buying differences when eating out. No differences are significant for regional buying factors.



114.

5.11.1.5 Buying Differences by Marital Status Aspects of buying behaviour and factors of influence were examined for significant differences between consumers with different marital status. An ANOVA analysis was utilised for this purpose, the results of which are presented in Table Sixty-three. Data are only presented for variables with significant differences between the mean values for the different groups. Table Sixty-three: Differences in Buying Behaviour and Influences by Marital Status


2 week buying intention local food and drink use at home married and all other groups > single

.000

3 month buying frequency regional food and drink use at home married and all other groups > single

.039

Factor 2 local buying: Local support and provenance married and all other groups > single

.004

Factor 3 local buying: Sustainable and ethical married and all other groups > single

.043

Factor 1 local not buying: Availability and awareness single > married and all other groups

.000

Factor 2 local not buying: Inconvenience single > married and all other groups

.000

Factor 3 local not buying: Product single > married and all other groups

.003



Significant differences exist between some aspects of buying behaviour and the factors for buying and not buying, and in particular, single consumers compared with the rest of the buying public. Differences are especially apparent in buying intentions to buy local produce for use at home, and frequency of buying regional food and drink for use at home. In both these cases single people have significantly lower mean scores compared with the rest of the population particularly married and widowed buyers. A reverse pattern exist for importance of the two



115.

buying factors identified (local support and provenance, and ethics and sustainability), with married and other non-single groups having higher values for these factors, and single groups having higher scores for the all non-buying factors. Differences in the regional produce buying factors are not significant.

5.11.1.6 Buying Differences by Socio-Economic Grouping

Further analysis was undertaken for differences in buying behaviour and factors of influence between socio-economic groupings. An ANOVA analysis was utilised for this purpose, the results of which are presented in Table Sixty-four. Data are only presented for variables with significant differences between the mean values for the different groups. Table Sixty-four: Differences in Buying Behaviour and Influences between Socio-Economic Grouping


3 month buying frequency local food and drink eating out A > D and E .000

2 week buying intention local food and drink eating out A > D and E .001

Factor 1 local buying: Food and drink characteristics A > E .050



Differences exist in buying behaviour and intentions for buying local produce when eating out between the highest socio-economic group A and the two lowest groups D and E, which reflects patterns of eating out generally. The A socio-economic group also recognizes food and drink characteristics as an important factor in buying more than members of the E group.

5.11.1.7 Other Differences

There is some general evidence to suggest that buying behaviour varies by level of educational qualification with more highly educated consumers buying more frequently and intending to buy both local and regional produce when eating out.



116.

In addition it is interesting to note that there is only one significant difference for those respondents with children under 18 living at home compared to those without. This relates to a significantly higher frequency of buying local produce when eating out. The same variable is also appears to be the only significant difference across income groups with households on higher incomes buying local food and drink more frequently when eating out compared with other income bands.

5.12 Classifying Local and Regional Food and Drink Buyers

To facilitate understanding of the differences in the market for local and regional food and drink it is possible to classify customers into a taxonomy of ‘types’ of buyers with similar behaviour, priorities in terms of what benefits they are seeking, attributes that they believe to be important, and barriers that they envisage may restrict their purchasing. Once identified, the groups of customers can be profiled using other key demographic characteristics and personal attributes such as attitudes and psychographics to enable appropriate marketing strategies to be formulated. Specifically, segmenting the market through classification and profiling can provide a platform for developing branding and communications messages, in addition to new product opportunities, and policies relating to pricing and distribution channels. A common approach to achieve a classification of customers is by building a taxonomy through the use of cluster analysis. Data collected from the quantitative survey was utilised to establish different customer segments in the local and regional food and drink market through a cluster analysis of all respondents. The method adopted was one commonly utilised in consumer research based upon the factors influencing buyer behaviour in this context. Hence a 2-stage cluster analysis regime was performed using the already identified factors for buying local food and drink (4), the factors for not buying local food and drink (3), and the factors for buying regional food and drink (3) as the clustering variables. The resultant analysis led to four segments being identified. Defining behaviour and characteristics indicate there to be one group of enthusiastic buyers of local and regional food and drink that will buy such produce regularly on all occasions (“Devotees”, comprising 23% of all consumers), and another group with totally opposite behaviour buying very low quantities of local and regional produce both at home and when eating out (“Cynics” accounting for 16% of all consumers). In addition two groups sit in the middle which are distinguished by their consumption of local and regional food at home. The first of these are those that are



117.

low users of local and regional produce for use at home, and average use when eating out (the “Abstainers”, making up 36% of total consumers). The final group are high users of local and regional produce at home, and average users when eating out (“Persisters”, comprising 25% of all consumers). The differences in buying and buying intentions between the segments illustrating this are shown in the following Table Sixty-five.

Table Sixty-five: Differences in Buying Behaviour between Segments

Buying Behaviour and Intentions Persisters (25%)

Devotees (23%)

Abstainers (36%)

Cynics (16%)

Overall Mean

Three month buying frequency local food and drink use at home

4.94 5.78 4.05 2.51 4.45

Three month buying frequency local food and drink eating out

3.27 4.04 3.30 2.17 3.30

Two week buying intention local food and drink use at home

5.42 6.43 4.57 3.08 4.96

Two week buying intention local food and drink eating out

4.02 5.06 3.95 2.67 4.04

Three month buying frequency regional food and drink use at home

4.45 5.70 3.93 2.26 4.23

Three month buying frequency regional food and drink use eating out

3.13 4.07 3.30 1.96 3.24

Two week buying intention regional food and drink use at home and eating out

4.68 5.92 4.28 2.42 4.49

Mean Score: scale of 1 to 7, on composite or individual scales

Base: 1223


Interpretation of this data suggests that the contrasting behaviour of different groups will be subject to varying degrees of influence of the buying and non-buying reasons that were used to distinguish the segments, as illustrated in Table Sixty-six.



118.

Table Sixty-six: Differences in Buying and Non Buying Factors between Segments

Buying Factors Persisters (25%)

Devotees (23%)

Abstainers (36%)

Cynics (16%)

Overall Mean

Factor 1 local buying: Food and

drink characteristics

4.29 5.78 4.33 2.50 4.39

Factor 2 local buying: Local

support and provenance

5.32 6.49 5.06 3.14 5.18

Factor 3 local buying:

Sustainable and ethical

4.65 6.25 4.87 2.81 4.83

Factor 4 local buying: Shopping 3.19 4.59 3.91 2.12 3.62

Factor 1 local not buying:

Availability and awareness

2.43 2.14 4.33 4.32 3.33


Inconvenience

1.99 1.82 3.95 3.78 2.93


Product

1.89 1.75 3.55 3.25 2.66

Factor 1 regional buying: High

quality

3.94 5.48 4.11 2.12 4.09

Factor 2 regional buying:

Branded positioning

3.25 4.89 3.91 1.85 3.67

Factor 3 regional buying: Area

association and support

3.91 5.70 4.39 2.12 4.24

Mean Score: scale of 1 to 7, on composite scales for factors

Base: 1223


These results show that the Devotees have high scores on the positive reasons for buying factors and low ones for non-buying factors, whilst the reverse is true for the Cynics, explaining the polarised behaviour between these segments. The differences between the Abstainers and the Persisters, however, is less stark, with the distinctive differences being in the latter group’s much lower scores on the non-buying reasons. This suggests that they are prepared to make the effort to buy local produce whereas the other group find the barriers to buying difficult to overcome, and hence buy less local food and drink for use at home.



119.

This can be further explained in terms of different attitudes and psychographic characteristics between the segments as illustrated in Table Sixty-seven.

Table Sixty-seven: Differences in Attitudes and Psychographics between Segments

Attitude and Psychographic Factors Persisters (25%)

Devotees (23%)

Abstainers (36%)

Cynics (16%)

Overall Mean

Attitude 5.25 6.29 4.92 3.30 5.09

Subjective norm 3.97 5.57 4.10 2.36 4.15

Perceived control 5.46 6.26 4.46 2.87 4.90

Food safety concern 5.01 5.92 4.99 4.57 5.15

Health consciousness 4.99 5.81 4.82 4.27 5.01

Environmental concern 4.97 5.24 4.77 4.62 4.91

Ethical identity 4.33 5.68 4.48 3.30 4.55

National identity and attachment 4.69 5.47 4.73 4.41 4.84

Regional identity and attachment 4.80 5.79 4.66 4.13 4.88

Local identity and attachment 5.00 5.89 4.75 4.18 5.00

Mean Score: scale of 1 to 7, on composite scales


Clear differences exist between the two extreme groups in terms of attitudes and its associated measures, subjective norm and perceived control. This indicates that attitudes and behaviour are closely linked, as are the importance of the views of others, and particularly the amount of control that they believe that they have over seeing through their buying decisions. This is especially notable between the other two groups where the perceived control of the Persisters is much greater than that of the Abstainers. Interesting differences also exist across some of the psychographic measures with very big differences between the polarised groups, where the Devotees are generally much higher across all measures compared with the Cynics. Differences between the two intermediate groups are not as apparent, although in most cases the Persisters score higher on the psychographics which generally suggests that they are more likely to buy local and regional produce.



120.

Finally there are some differences in demographic characteristics that are significant between the segments which provide a more refined definition of the groups for targeting of the marketing effort. These are included in the descriptors for each segment that are illustrated below in Figure One.

Figure One: Local and Regional Produce Consumer Segments

Devotees (23%)

� More women

� More 45+

� More rural

� Fewer London and NW

� More SW, EA and Y&H

� More married

� More degrees and A levels

Persisters (25%)

� More men

� More 55+

� More rural

� Fewer 35-44

� Fewer London

� More SW and EA

� More £15-25,000

� Fewer C1

� Fewer degrees

Abstainers (36%)

� More women

� More 18-44

� More urban

� More London, SE and NW

� Fewer SW and EA

� More single

� More inner city and town centre

� More £30-50,000 income

� More C1

Cynics (16%)

� More men

� More 55+ and 35-44 � More urban/inner city � Fewer SW � More GCSEs



121.

Many of the specific characteristics mirror the individual differences discussed in the previous section, but when brought together in the segment profiles, provide deeper understanding of the different customer types. When combined with the buying behaviour, factors of influence, attitudes and psychographic data for each group, these characteristics provide a powerful platform for developing strategies to bring about behavioural change and consequently the pattern of demand for local and regional food and drink.

5.13 Summary

Consumers’ distance definitions of local food and drink generally indicate that they believe it to come from within 30 miles of where they live. However, when comparing rural with urban consumers, there is a clear difference in the distance from which produce is considered local with buyers in rural areas and rural regions seeing as coming from a shorter distance than those located in urban areas and regions.

Conceptual definitions relating to where local produce comes from indicate that there is a wide ranging understanding of local food and drink generally, but again rural and urban differences exist both in terms of the areas and regions in which they are located. Rural consumers appear to display a greater connectivity with the concept of local produce than those in urban areas, and with those in London in particular.

Regional food and drink is generally considered by most buyers to be specialist, high quality, premium produce grown, produced and marketed in a specific geographic region that has a reputation for providing that product category. There are, however, differences between consumers. Rural consumers again appear to be more in tune with the concept and have a more refined understanding in comparison to those in urban areas and London residents in particular. Age differences also exist with older customers being more aware of the regional provenance of food compared with younger buyers.

About half of food and drink buyers stated that they bought local produce in the last week for use at home and about a quarter when eating out. As the time period increases so does the incidence of buying in both these situations. Actual purchase frequency amongst those buying is variable but overall quite high when buying for home use, but not when eating out. Buying intentions to purchase local produce for use at home were also quite high, with intentions to buy when eating out again being lower.



122.

Regional food and drink followed a similar pattern of buying to local produce with a smaller proportion buying, just under half, for use at home in the last week, but more, around thirty percent, buying when eating out in the same time period. There is variability in the frequency of buying regional produce, although overall a large proportion of consumers buy regional food regularly when using at home, but not as many when eating out. Intentions to buy regional produce were quite high and increased as the purchasing time period increased.

When buying both local and regional food and drink, the main food types bought were fruit and vegetables, eggs and dairy products, and meat and meat products. Bread and cereals, fish and seafood, and drinks and beverages were bought by fewer consumers, both for local and regional produce. In general local produce was more widely bought than regional except in the case of the two least popular categories, fish and seafood, and drinks and beverages.

Frequency of buying local and regional produce for all categories is generally high with no real differences apparent between the two, except perhaps in the case of meat where regional produce appeared to be bought more frequently for use at home, and regionally supplied fish which was bought more frequently when eating out. In general frequency of buying when eating out was lower than when buying for use at home.

Most consumers buy local and regional produce as part of their regular shop and buy predominantly from supermarkets and local specialist shops. Farm shops and farmers’ markets are also popular outlets particularly for local food and drink. Secondary purchasing occasions include special occasions, buying as a treat, and when eating out. The most popular venues for eating out are pub restaurants and bistros followed by quality restaurants in the case of both local and regional produce.

Attitudes toward buying local food and drink are generally positive across the buying population as a whole. However, there is a degree of variability in this particularly with regard to the role of influential others in buying decisions, and the ability of consumers to have the control over their buying which enables them to translate their positive attitudes into actual buying behaviour.

The main reasons given for buying local produce were support for local producers, retailers and the community; freshness, taste and quality of the produce; reducing food miles; and knowing where the produce comes from. Categorising these into broad sets of factors indicates that



123.

food and drink characteristics, local support and provenance, sustainability and ethics, and shopping factors positively affect buying.

Important barriers to buying local produce include cost and availability. Also important are a lack of information on availability and limited promotion. Restricted range of products is a further important barrier. Overall factors that can be regarded as negative influences on buying local produce are availability and awareness, inconvenience, and specific product characteristics.

When looking at relationships between actual buying and reasons for buying and not buying, the main positive determinants of consumers’ buying behaviour for use at home were buying the amount they want to, and the taste, freshness and seasonality of the produce, with the main negative influences being a lack of information and buying being time consuming. When eating out buying the amount they want to, knowing where the produce comes from, taste and seasonality were important to consumers as well as the produce being ‘not branded’. Negative eating out effects were associated with a lack of information and expense.

Similar relationships existed for behavioural intentions when using at home, although with intentions a much wider range of reasons were important including support for the local economy and sustainability factors; being environmentally friendly had a negative effect on behavioural intentions in this situation. Intentions to buy when eating out were governed by similar factors as actual buying, although interestingly, being not well promoted and not branded were seen to induce positive effects, and being time consuming a negative effect.

When considering larger buying factors and psychographics, local support and provenance bring about positive effects and, availability and awareness and inconvenience negative effects on buying local food for use at home. The rural location of the consumer and their ethical identity are also positively associated with buying in this situation. Generally similar effects exist when eating out, although there were additional positive ‘shopping’ and ‘product’ effects in this situation, together with a negative sustainability and ethical effect. Rural location is no longer significant in this instance, but there is a strong negative relationship with consumers’ environmental concern.

Some differences exist between the effects on actual buying and buying intentions when eating out, with rural location and ethical identity no longer being important, but the health consciousness of the consumer becoming so. For eating out intentions far fewer effects are significant with only positive effects of local support and provenance, shopping, and



124.

ethical identity being presents, and the main negative effect being associated with the environmental concern of the consumer.

The main reasons for buying regional food and drink were support for the regional and national economy, the high quality and reputation of the produce coming from that region, and providing good value for money. The general factors for buying regional produce categorised into high quality, branded positioning and area association and support.

Positive associations with the actual buying of regional food for use at home are being the best available, being widely available, even though there are cheaper alternatives available, supporting the regional economy, and providing good value for money; being promoted nationally had a negative effect. Similar effects were present for eating out except for being promoted nationally, with being priced at a premium providing a further positive effect.

A large number of positive effects are associated with the buying behavioural intentions of consumers for regional food and drink including support for the local economy, high quality, best available, widely available, reputation, providing good value for money even though it is priced at a premium and there are cheaper alternatives available. Negative effects occur with the produce being promoted nationally, and being traditional.

Positive buying factors and consumer psychographic effects on actual buying of regional food for use at home include high quality, area association and support, rural location, health consciousness, and local identity and attachment. For eating out there was a positive effect for high quality and a negative one for environmental concern of the consumer. Behavioural intentions for regional food are positively related to high quality, area association and support, and environmental concern, and negatively related to consumers’ ethical identity and identity and attachment to the nation.

In considering the main factors that affect local produce buying and buying intentions, the overwhelmingly most positive factor is local support and provenance, whilst the main negative effects come from lack of availability and awareness, and inconvenience. The perceived high quality of regional food and drink is by far the most important factor in positively influencing the behaviour of buyers, followed by area association and support.

Major differences exist between the buying behaviour of rural and urban consumers, with rural buyers intending to and actually buying more local and regional produce on all occasions compared with those located in



125.

urban areas. There are also differences in the importance of buying factors with rural consumers putting a higher emphasis on the positive reasons for buying local produce, and the urban consumers indicating a higher importance of negative factors.

Regional differences in buying behaviour also exist with, in general, rurally dominant regions having a greater propensity to buy local and regional produce for use at home compared with London in particular. The local support and provenance factor is also higher in rurally dominant regions especially the South West compared with regions that have a predominantly urban composition. All the negative buying factors are higher in all other regions compared with the South West, and especially in London.

Older consumers generally buy more local and regional produce for use at home. However, fewer older people buy local produce when eating out, due to the overall effect of younger people eating out more in comparison with older people. Older consumers recognize the positive effects of food and drink characteristics, and local support and provenance more than those in younger age groups, whilst younger buyers are generally influenced by all the identified barriers to buying.

The buying intentions of women toward local produce are greater than those of men. Women are much more positive about buying local food for all the reasons identified compared with men, and also recognise the significance of area association and support when making regional produce buying decisions.

Differences exist between single buyers compared with all other groups, particularly married consumers. Single buyers’ purchase intentions are lower for local produce and buying frequency lower for regional produce. Married customers have a more positive recognition of the importance of local support and provenance and sustainability and ethics compared with single buyers. The latter group places much more importance on all the barriers to buying local produce compared with all other groups.

Some differences exist between socio-economic groups with consumers classified in the highest group buying more local produce when eating out more than the lowest groups, and also putting a greater emphasis on the importance of local food characteristics.

The number of children in a household does not appear to be a significant factor in influences differences in buying behaviour for local and regional produce.



126.

A classification of local and regional food buyers was developed based on the importance of buying influences. Four customer segments were identified: Persisters (25%), Devotees (23%), Abstainers (36%), and Cynics (16%). The Devotees are the most positive toward buying local and regional produce whilst the Cynics are wholly negative. Of the two intermediate groups, the Persisters have more positive attitudes, and try hard to overcome barriers and buy these products for use at home, through having greater control over their buying behaviour. On the other hand, the Abstainers find it difficult to go through with their buying intentions as they place greater emphasis on the barriers to buying, even though they view the positive aspects of these products in a similar way. The differences in the demographic characteristics of the segments generally reflect the variations in buying behaviour that have already been established.



127.

SECTION SIX: QUALITATIVE TRADE ELEMENT 6.1 Introduction

Section Six presents the key findings from the qualitative trade element of the research. To restate, this research element has used face-to-face and tele-depth interviews with industry experts, and buying representatives within wholesale, retail and food service organisations to investigate the:

� Current patterns of local and regional food and drink purchasing.

� Motivations and barriers to local and regional food and drink purchasing.

� Local and regional food and drink buying criteria

� Decision making processes and units.

� Planned future use of local and regional food and drink.

6.2 Main Findings

The research questions cover two main areas. The first concerns general issues with respect to local and regional food and drink and the second focuses on more specific issues with respect to the respondent’s organisation. The findings reflect opinions derived from the face to face interviews with leading retail and foodservice trade operators and trade associations such as the Food from Britain, supported regional food organisations and FARMA, the farm shops and farmer’s market promotion group, and a stratified sample of trade respondents interviewed by telephone. In total, for this element of the study, there were 130 respondents, 30 interviewed face to face and 100 by telephone.

6.2.1 Definition of ‘Local’ and ‘Regional’ Foods

The face-to-face interviews highlighted a variety of definitions to describe ‘local’ and ‘regional’. The general consensus was that ‘local’ equates to ‘within a county or defined region’, such as those defined by local food groups (e.g. Taste of Anglia, Deliciously Yorkshire). Some retailers/foodservice organisations had clear definitions e.g. within 30 mile radius of a store, while others leave it to the consumer:



128.

“…it is in the eye of the beholder”, “it depends who you are talking to”; and; ‘…as the customer sees it’ (local food buyer – UK retailer).

One major retail group is using local food in store to reinforce the local identity of the store:

‘We want to make sure they know where they are’ (Local purchasing executive-major retailer).

For foodservice businesses of a national scale, there is also a high degree of variability over the interpretation of ‘local’ and ‘regional’. Such uncertainty is identified within these businesses but also extends to their clients, as one respondent put it:

‘There is a lot of confusion out there in the whole food sourcing debate’ (national foodservice company); and then, ‘Quite often the client/customers don’t really know what they are asking for either’ (national foodservice company).

Definitions of ‘local’, which several say they are still working on, range from ‘within 25-30 miles of an outlet’ to ‘within the county’ (most mentioned) and then, broader still, to ‘British’ or ‘UK’. Scale clearly has a huge impact on what is logistically possible within these businesses and there is no doubt that this colours the definitions that have been arrived at, thus far. The tele-depth interviews also revealed that a large proportion of organisations (44%) felt that ‘local’ equates to the immediate vicinity. However, within this wider definition a range of more specific definitions were given which included:

“…just in the surrounding area, about a two mile radius” (retail – convenience store). “…the people in the residential area” (retail-butcher).

“…if I can drive to it within ten minutes then its local” (hotel).

“…any villages, small towns around that direct area within a 20 mile radius” (public house).



129.

An additional 13% of organisations participating in the tele-depth interviews equated ‘local’ with a larger area including anything up to and between a 20 and 50 mile radius. Furthermore, six percent of organisations felt ‘local’ equates to county boundaries, 11% felt it equates to regional boundaries and 6% felt it equates to UK boundaries. Findings from the face-to-face interviews indicated that there is a degree of overlap between the reported definitions of ‘local’ and ‘regional’. This was further supported by the tele-depth interviews whereby some respondents felt ‘local’ and ‘regional’ were the same. Nevertheless the general consensus was that ‘regional’ relates to ‘a bigger area’ as compared to ‘local’ with the most popular response being that ‘regional’ equates to some kind of regional boundaries.

The face-to-face interviews also highlighted that it was the provenance of the product that will support a branding proposition and, thus, will influence purchasing of that product nationally. Other factors influencing definitions of ‘local’ include distribution/logistical constraints and a minimum number of outlets required to be serviced by the product.

Whilst some respondents don’t distinguish between ‘local’ and ‘regional’, others offer a broader range of definitions of ‘regional’, some focusing on the administrative region (ie. produced in the South West), TV regions, or a collection of counties and others, identifying that it is perhaps more to do with the products that were characteristic of an area:

‘…sourcing countrywide according to specific expertise for particular products’ (national foodservice company).

One respondent suggested that ‘regional’ may have more meaning and, therefore, greater benefit in terms of marketing for some regions, perhaps more peripheral, such as the South West, than possibly from the West Midlands which was maybe seen as having less of a regional food identity. One or two respondents expressed heart-felt concern that such varied use of the terms, in some cases used vaguely for marketing purposes or in others synonymous with or suggestive of unfailing high quality, could lead ultimately to their demise. This was expressed as follows:

‘Too many people use it as a loose PR thing rather than trying to get under the bones of it’ (national foodservice company), and ‘’Local’ gets abused as a term that is misinterpreted as quality’....... ‘the consumer needs something more than a Farmers Market and the word ‘local’



130.

to give them an absolute guarantee that what they are eating is better for them’ (national beverage producer).

Ongoing discussions and activity to help with this are evidenced by a number of respondents, whilst others would welcome advice from elsewhere.

6.2.2 Relative Importance of Local and Regional Food and Drink

The tele-depth interviews also asked respondents a number of questions about the relative importance of local and regional food and drink. Respondents were firstly asked if they felt the area of local and regional food and drink has become more or less important to organisations and consumers in the last five years. Three quarters of organisations felt it had become more important and the main reason cited for this was a general increase in publicity and awareness in this area, some of which was attributed to the media, as one particular respondent claimed:

“…there’s all this on the TV, you know, try and shop locally and support your local shops’’ (catering organisation).

Other key reasons for this increase included greater awareness of environmental issues, a direct response to consumer demand, the need to support the local economy and the perceived higher quality of local and regional produce. Following this, almost three quarters of respondents felt local and regional food and drink was either ‘very’ or ‘quite’ important to their organisation. Again, for foodservice businesses of a national scale, the majority identified an increase in the importance over the last three or four years, as one respondent put it:

“…we have daily questions asking about local sourcing whereas five years ago they would probably have been more to do with the environment”; (national foodservice company), and,

‘Now every menu has a provenance product on there’ (national hospitality and catering company).



131.

With one or two exceptions, including bottled water, and locally or regionally brewed alcoholic drinks, the foodservice businesses were less exercised over drinks in terms of the source of this element of their provision.

6.2.3 Key Commercial Drivers: Advantages and Disadvantages of Local

and Regional Food and Drink

Respondents were then asked their views on the commercial drivers and the related advantages and disadvantages of promoting local and regional food and drink purchasing. Findings from both the face-to-face and tele-depth interviews revealed that the key commercial driver perceived by respondents was consumer demand. This was viewed to be a result of factors such as:

� Trust.

� Freshness.

� Lower environmental impact and better sustainability.

� Provenance (good connectivity to the region).

� Traceability.

� Supporting the local economy.

� Farmers markets.

� Perceived better quality.

� A reaction to processed/technical food: “people want back to basics” (Yorkshire and Humberside food group).

Furthermore, the tele-depth interviews also indicated that financial benefits were viewed as a commercial driver, both in terms of buying:

“Looking like promoting small suppliers, that creates word of mouth so smaller suppliers come forward offering produce at competitive rates” (public house) and selling: “…cost more so customers pay more for it” (retail-convenience store).



132.

The foodservice businesses of a national scale together rehearsed the whole range of drivers detailed above, varying in emphasis between drivers and between the companies, as exampled below:

‘…(it) gives our chefs the best ingredients and our customers what they want’ (regional brewery with tied houses); responding to consumer reaction to ‘faceless mass production’ (national foodservice company) and associated food safety scares; ‘local means friendly - ‘the friendly face of food’ (national foodservice company); ‘that real feel good / right thing to do’ from the customer perspective (national foodservice company); the need now for ‘weighing up the overall impact of sourcing...rather than just plain cost’ (national chain of coffee outlets).

Data garnered from the face-to-face interviews indicated that an early lead in reacting to consumer demand was seen to be advantageous, either directly, for the retailers, or through movement in restaurant/hotel businesses, for the foodservice sector. The foodservice businesses of a national scale, with one or two exceptions, see that the retailers have ‘stolen a march’ on this area of business. A number point to the Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative (PSFPI) as a strong motivation for developments in this direction, with strong demand from Educational, Health and Government sectors. More widely, others referred to increasing expectations in terms of Corporate Responsibility – issues of policy and practice. There is clear appreciation that a degree of focus on local and regional food and drink, using whatever definition, as part of their businesses, provides a valuable point of difference against competitors:

“…clients want to see something different” (national foodservice company).

For some, the presence of such ‘offers’ in their outlets helps with the positioning, maintenance and, in some cases, strengthening of their own brands. But the market for such provision varies across their businesses, reflecting much less than consistent consumer demand for local and regional food products. Some talk of the range of their outlets (from the top end restaurants to the lower end of the market) and the variation in appropriateness of such offers. Others talk of the value-action gap, where consumers, whilst indicating a preference for local food, will not buy it, articulated by one respondent as:



133.

“…a lot of families are on a budget and price does come into it” (regional brewery with tied houses)’.

Another respondent commented that, whilst locals to the outlet may attach greater value to such provision, appreciating not only the tangible but also some of the less tangible benefits that they saw being derived from such offers, tourists to an area are likely to be more variable in response.

In terms of non-commercial advantages the key advantage perceived by respondents was an environmental one “Carbon footprint is less with local”. Several of the foodservice businesses of a national scale found it difficult to identify any advantages or disadvantages that were of a non-commercial nature, their thoughts very firmly registered on commercial issues. Of the remainder, several spoke of, the ‘feel good factor’ reflected from the customer purchasing local food, articulated by one respondent as:

’…the dish isn’t exactly better but they feel good about it’ (regional brewery with tied houses).

Several businesses also mentioned the ‘feel good factor’ at work with their employees, where local food was being offered:

‘…it excites the chefs, and when they are passionate they produce better food’ (regional brewery with tied houses).

One respondent noted that prospective graduate recruits were increasingly asking questions at interview concerning sourcing. It is probable that all these ‘advantages’ would be likely to have direct commercial benefit. Perhaps less tangible, one or two respondents referred to the ethical and environmental (food mile) benefits perceived as accruing from local or regional provision.

One-fifth of respondents participating in the tele-depth interviews felt there were no commercial disadvantages to the promotion of local and regional food and drink purchasing. Amongst those feeling that there was a commercial disadvantage financial issues were perceived to be key, both in terms of customers:



134.

“I have to look harder for those that value the price of quality” (catering organisation) and; “…some (customers) cannot afford the more expensive local food” (retail-convenience store) and in terms of sourcing food and drink; and, “Cost implications, buying locally/regionally can often be more expensive whereas it’s easier for me sometimes to buy from abroad” (restaurant).

The availability and variety of local and regional food and drink was also perceived to be a disadvantage by a number of organisations and, to a lesser extent, the quality “local limited in terms of quality”.

The face-to-face interviews also highlighted that a premium is charged for some product groups, although the downside was a reduction in efficiency, leading to higher input and administrative costs and a lower net margin for the retailer/foodservice operator. There were also concerns about quality assurance, particularly with the smaller, non-accredited operators that may compromise retailer brands. Where possible, local products were sourced from existing suppliers by some retailers, but all reported that increasing the supply base with additional low capacity operators increases the administrative and technical burden. Respondents from the foodservice businesses of a national scale managed, with little effort, to come up with a wide range of commercial disadvantages that they saw associated with working with local and regional food and drink. Many of these were later also, not surprisingly, offered as constraints to such provision. Four key areas of difficulty, and thus disadvantage, were mentioned by many. Of greatest import were difficulties concerning the availability (range, quantity and quality) and consistency of supply, especially considering the complexity of their businesses in terms of business scale, geographical reach and brand variety and size. The supply difficulties mentioned, in comparison with their current arrangements, ranged across the current levels and seasonality of production in the UK, inadequate capacity of small producers to satisfy their requirements throughout the year and strong and increasing competition from supermarkets for these products:

‘..the UK produce has been snaffled by Tescos and the like’ (national foodservice company).



135.

For most of these businesses, a secure and consistent supply is paramount, with menus commonly reviewed periodically. Greater flexibility of menu, responding perhaps to seasonal availability of local supply would create complexity and require, for some brands, greater skills complements in the kitchen. Second in terms of importance was price, which in many cases was at a premium for most of these products, and partly unaided by the loss of purchasing power for spreading procurement, in comparison with the quantities currently being purchased. Also associated with dealing with multiple suppliers, the next issue was the cost of administering more contracts and the transport ‘inefficiencies’ associated with distribution, ‘very difficult for us to be local with the distributor that we have’ (national chain of catering outlets), in line with the retailer findings above. Interestingly, the cost of managing clients’ expectations, perhaps not always well informed, was also mentioned as an issue. The fourth area of disadvantage for these large corporate businesses concerned food safety. Respondents were only too aware of the animal disease problems of the past in this country and this was seen as having heightened the imperative of food safety and accreditation of supply. In dealing with a greater number of small producers, this was seen as involving greater time and cost and one or two interviewees notes that some suppliers were unable, ultimately, to satisfy their requirements. A number of businesses identified the contribution that SALSA (Safe and Local Supplier Approval) had made towards easing the concerns of buyers of local and regional food and drink.

6.2.4 Perceptions of the Future for Local and Regional Food and Drink

Respondents were also asked about the future of the local and regional food and drink market. Both the face-to-face and tele-depth interviews showed a consensus that consumer demand for local food and drink is growing and is likely to be a significant issue in the immediate future:

“People are getting more particular about what they buy and where they buy it from”. “Local foods seem to be less processed in the consumer’s eyes....products like ready meals seem to have less connectivity to the region” (Local food executive - UK large retailer).



136.

Findings from the face-to-face interviews revealed that some respondents equate this demand with that for organic foods but think the demand will rise faster, particularly allied to publicity surrounding global warming and environmental sustainability. There is unanimous feeling amongst the foodservice businesses of a national scale that local and regional food, but perhaps more particularly, UK food, is here to stay. Some say that food scares will always be around and that it is provenance that will continue to be important. A number of respondents suggest that, notwithstanding this, the significance and longevity of the terms ‘local’ and ‘regional’ may be limited, offering explanation in terms of continued risk of confusion and abuse with definition and labelling generally (local, regional, organic, Fair trade, free range, welfare friendly, etc.), suggested in respondents comments:

‘Local doesn’t always mean better’ (national chain of coffee outlets), and ‘they feel safe with the good old Union Jack’ (national foodservice company).

Continued presence in the media, at farmers’ markets and at food festivals and other events will also be important for the future. A common thread running through comments on the future, is that recent food price inflation, ‘not seen in the last 10-15 years’ (national foodservice company), could limit the rate of growth in the market for local and regional food business. Reflecting on the differences between the organic and local provision, however, more than one respondent suggested that UK food has a higher profile in the supermarkets already and, perhaps, offers:

‘…a more affordable option to give them the good feel factor’ (national foodservice company).

It is worth noting that a significant number of respondents participating in the tele-depth interviews felt that the local and regional food and drink market might decline in the future. A number of these respondents raised concerns about larger companies killing off the smaller independent retailers, either by offering low prices that other outlets can’t compete with or by buying out the more locally based outlets:

“Big boys will come in and put a label on, bang it sells…For smaller shops to survive they have to do the promotions, follow in the footsteps of Tesco express… you’re working on less and less margins”(retail-convenience store).



137.

“I see bigger companies coming in and taking over” (public house).

“Supermarkets getting more of a foothold (and) small shops die’’ (retail-convenience store).

Positively, over half of the tele-depth respondents felt that their organisation would take steps in the future to address changes in the consumption of local and regional food and drinks and these included responding to customers’ needs, sourcing more local and regional produce and generally promoting local and regional products more. Respondents participating in the tele-depth interviews were also asked what would encourage their organisation to source more food and drink from local and regional sources. The two key areas that would encourage organisations were price:

“…if it’s cheaper I would buy more” (hotel) and availability; “…just availability...if it was there we would get it” (wholesaler), “there are not many local suppliers here” (retail-convenience store).

Improved quality of local and regional food and drink was also mentioned by a number of respondents,

“…it would have to be a good quality product” (retail – bakery).

In addition, promotion and marketing was mentioned by a number of respondents, both in terms of raising consumer’s awareness:

“If they are promoted people get to know of it...too much is brand name recognition, which big stores have” (retail-convenience store).

And in terms of raising the trade industry’s awareness of where to source

such products: “At the moment I don’t know who the suppliers are” (public house).



138.

6.2.5 Selling Local and Regional Food and Drink

The majority (82%) of organisations completing the tele-depth interviews actually sold local and/or regional food and/or drink and the reasons for this closely matched the perceived commercial advantages of promoting local and regional food and drink purchasing, that have already been highlighted in Section 6.2.3. Respondents from head offices that completed the face-to-face interviews were asked to indicate the proportion of their outlets offering local and regional food and drink. Responses here varied with the indication that not all outlets in England have a local food offer, although listings are growing within the major retailers. The wholesale/franchise sector does, however, have a high penetration of local food, with between 5% and 30% which can be sourced locally rather than through central distribution. For the foodservice sector there was focus, for some, in the promotion of product lines from a number of regions across the country, as an initial step towards further development of regional specialities. These products were selected to fit into well established distribution networks. Several of the other national scale businesses were more likely to be purchasing high proportions of their supplies within the GB or the UK, again to suit these networks and the quantities required.

6.2.6 Percentage by Value for Local Food and Drink of Total Food and Drink Purchases

Respondents were also asked to indicate the share by value spent on local and regional food and drink. Most respondents could not, whilst a small number declined to, give a definitive answer to this question during both the face-to-face and tele-depth interviews. Where responses were given, estimates were generally around 1-2% of all food and drink sales in the main retail sector, however, the face-to-face interviews indicated that this differs within organisational categories. In wholesale/franchise operations the proportion is higher as a significant percentage of food and drink products are sourced locally by the store management.

When asked to indicate how this share by value had changed in recent years the general perception was that there had been significant growth within the last year or so, with over a third (37%) of respondents from the tele-depth interviews supporting this view. Over a third of the tele-depth respondents (38%) also indicated that they felt this growth would continue over the next five years, while 21% felt it would remain the same and 12% felt it would decline. Findings from the face-to-face



139.

interviews indicated that, for some within the wholesale/franchise sector, local procurement had been a feature for some years whilst, for the major retail operations, it has only gained momentum in England in the last 12-18 months.

6.2.7 The Marketing and Promotion of Local Food and Drink

Respondents were also asked about their organisation’s promotion of local and regional food and drink. Most respondents participating in the face-to-face interviews were found to promote local and regional food and drink. A few were found to market nationally but the majority were promoting in-store. Generally, products were mixed into their appropriate category, with the ‘local’ offer alongside other brands in-store. Of the organisations participating in the tele-depth interviews that sold local and regional food and drink two thirds (66%) actively promoted these products. Similar to the face-to-face interview findings, over half of these organisations used in-store advertising, such as in-store display or point of sale information, leaflets, billboards or posters, while over a third of organisations promoted the products by highlighting their origin either on the product (in retail organisations) or on the menu (in food service organisations). Thirteen percent of the organisations advertised their local and regional food and drink products on their website, 12% advertised them via special offers and promotions and 9% advertised them via special offers and promotions.

6.2.8 Local and Regional Products by Category

The interviews also explored specific product groups where local and regional sales were more dominant within their organisation. Respondents participating in the face-to-face interviews with the retail sector generally said that the local and regional food and drink products with which they were involved tended to be fresh products such as meat, vegetables and dairy. In addition, there was a significant presence of locally brewed beers, ciders and some wine. Some ambient products (e.g. honey, baked goods and condiments) were also being sold. The national scale foodservice businesses were largely involved with the procurement of a range of ‘regional’ products, with much of the balance sourced in GB or the UK. Their comments, however, reflect a degree of similarity in terms of the main product groups appropriate to local and regional sourcing. Fresh products (meat, vegetable, dairy, fish and eggs) were revealed as most appropriate, in addition to those with a recognisable nature of the product in the prepared form. This relates to



140.

the primary nature of the product, the need for ‘speed to the plate’ and the potential for price premium as a fresh ingredient. Processed products were seen as more complex and potentially misleading in terms of promotion as of ‘local’ or ‘regional’ origin. The results from the tele-depth interviews generally supported the findings of the face to face interviews, as illustrated in Table Sixty-eight below.

Table Sixty-eight: Product Groups where Local and Regional Food and Drink are more Dominant within Organisations

Product Group Number of Organisations % of Organisations

Vegetables 41 50%

Meat 35 43%

Fruit 29 35%

Beer, wine and spirits 25 30%

Bread 24 29%

Cheese 23 28%

Milk 21 26%

Other dairy products 19 23%

Biscuits and cakes 18 22%

Ice cream 15 18%

Fish 13 16%

Frozen products 10 12%

Other drinks (ie fruit juices) 9 11%

Ready meals 5 6%

Other 20 24%

Base: All organisations selling local and regional food and drink (82) Source: Trade Qualitative Interviews



141.

6.2.9 Constraints in Procuring Local Food and Drink

A number of issues were highlighted by the tele-depth interviewees when asked about any constraints that they experienced in sourcing specific products locally and regionally. Several bars specifically highlighted their ties with breweries and availability emerged more generally for a number of organisations as a major sourcing constraint for fruit, vegetables, meat and milk products, as well as other requirements:

’…it took me 18 months to find a decent local fish supplier’ (‘symbol’ group small store owner).

Where sourced, products generally displace others within that category on a local basis. For example, Cornish Brie will displace a French or Somerset brand in Cornwall and sales will be monitored on that basis.

During the face-to-face interviews, four key constraints were identified as potential disadvantages, as discussed in Section 6.2.3 above. For those who were involved in regional sourcing, the products were often sourced with the help of Regional Food Groups who arrange 'meet the buyer' events providing the innovative small producer with a low cost entry into the market. In many cases, however, ‘regional’ products, once identified, were then used across the country. This suggests, again some confusion in the use of the term ‘regional’ products. One or two large food service businesses raised a major difference between themselves and supermarkets in terms of the relative significance of local and regional products in their businesses. Potential problems concerning consistency of supply had to be avoided at all cost due to the relatively higher place of any product in the menu of a brand when compared with its position amongst thousands of other products in most supermarkets, where one off problems with supply would cause much fewer problems in that business.

6.2.10 Important Considerations when Buying Local and Regional Food

and Drink

Organisations participating in the tele-depth interviews with an element of influence over the purchasing of local and regional food and drink (44 organisations) described their buying criteria. Overall, quality and price are seen as equally important when buying local and regional food and drink:



142.

“Quality probably gets the edge, but you have to take into account price as you pass them onto customers” (public house).

6.2.11 Changes to Infrastructure with Respect to Local and Regional Food

and Drink Purchasing

Respondents participating in the face-to-face interviews were also asked to highlight any changes that their organisation had made in infrastructure with respect to local and regional food and drink. Most respondents talked about an increase in the number of staff employed to address the purchasing, technical and logistics issues associated with local food and drink procurement. For some of the larger retailers the investment in staff had been significant whilst, for others, local food and drink had been added to the daily purchasing agenda with some additional resources co-ordinating this area. Generally, the retailers have dedicated local food specialist teams working with or integrated into the central buying functions. As for the major foodservice businesses, until recently, apart from attending events dedicated to local and regional food and drink, with one or two notable exceptions, buying arrangements have not specifically focused on Local and Regional. Activity has, however, now hastened in many cases, with the recruitment of personnel with specific briefs regarding the assessment of the current situation and the potential for developing the offer or movement immediately towards contracted arrangements (regional/local buyers). For several businesses of this scale, there is the desire to ‘get closer to the producer’, for a range of reasons such as to provide greater assurance of quality and quantity in the context of greater consumer awareness and high levels of competition for supply from the retail sector. In addition, they saw such contracts as providing greater security for the producer, a feature of the Corporate Social Responsibility. Agreements were being established with producers, with the distribution aspects largely contracted out to major national operators. For many distributors, existing depots are being used, whilst others are developing/have developed regional/local hubs. For all of these businesses, the need for greater focus in the area of local, regional or British food and drink is clear and some see major changes in their organisation in the future (including staffing, procurement contracts, distribution systems and marketing), as a result.



143.

6.2.12 Impact on Logistics and Distribution Arrangements of Local and Regional Food and Drink

The impact of purchasing local and regional food and drink on their organisation’s distribution and logistics was discussed. The face-to-face interviews indicated that this is generally agreed to be the most difficult problem to solve, for example:

“Any retailer who says it isn't is a liar” (local foods executive - large UK retailer).

Local food into local stores flies in the face of the UK supermarket model that has been built up over the last twenty years, utilising regional distribution centres. One solution being developed is the use of sub-regional distribution hubs and ‘back hauling’ techniques involving the use of empty vehicles collecting product on the return run. The distribution hubs are private franchise operations specifically sub-contracted to some major retailers that link in to the regional distribution centres. Some face-to-face interview respondents stated that arrangements for supplier to store delivery were limited, but these tended to become un-economic when distribution radius is significantly extended, that is, more stores are brought on stream. In addition, the impact on food miles tends to be a lot worse than using centralised distribution systems. Some of the larger retailers indicated that they have set up local food and drink procurement offices within the regions to provide a more regional focus to procurement than can be provided by their central purchasing functions. For the respondent foodservice businesses of a national scale, this issue was identified as one of the major constraints, with many opting, at most, for regional provision, as the most convenient and commercially effective ‘fit’ to their nationally organised distribution network. In contrast, over a third of organisations participating in the tele-depth interviews did not feel that the purchasing of local and regional food and drink had had any impact on the distribution and logistics of their business. Indeed, a number of tele-depth interview respondents highlighted that local suppliers were flexible in terms of deliveries;

“…distribution is easy as they’re all local” (retail-bakery) and some had developed quite strong relationships:



144.

“…made some special arrangements with some companies. For example, we phone in the night before for delivery the next day. Very personalised level” (public house).

6.2.13 Regional Food Groups and Trade Associations

The regional food groups and trade associations interviewed generally concur with the statements of the rest of the trade, reported in the sections above. The regional food groups act as promoters of regional products and, in some cases, are set up to distribute products as a service function. All respondents stated that local food is a growing phenomenon although the current price inflation in consumer goods would provide a challenge. In addition, there was a definite need to monitor the level of supply through the increasing range of outlets to avoid over-competition in some areas.

In the South West positive links are being established between the SW of England and Tuscany to promote tourism, cultural and technical exchanges. Great emphasis is being put on the inherent food culture in some regions providing a magnet for tourists, whilst underpinning the food provenance opportunity of extra regional marketing. Once again, the difficulties of logistics in the supply chain were identified as a challenge, although there were examples of informal business to business arrangements operating at the truly local level. A number of respondents mentioned the merits of regional hub provision, with sub-hubs operating at the County level, but were equally aware of the challenges that this presented, not least, in terms of the investment needed but also the efficacy of running such a system. Groups such as FARMA are also focusing on the quality assurance aspects of their outlets to combat the now outdated assertion that a market equates to low quality.

6.3 Summary

� A large proportion of organisations felt that ‘local’ equated to the immediate vicinity and the general consensus was that ‘regional’ equated to some kind of regional boundaries, however, there was a degree of overlap between these two definitions.

� The majority of organisations felt the area of local and regional food and drink had become more important in the last five years, with the



145.

main reason for this being a general increase in publicity, awareness of the area and a desire to support the local economy.

� The key commercial driver of promoting local and regional food and

drink purchasing was consumer demand, reinforced by local promotional activities such as farmers’ markets, TV coverage and advertising, freshness and support for the local economy.

� The majority of organisations felt that consumer demand for local food and drink was growing and is likely to remain a significant issue in the immediate future, with some respondents equating this demand with that for organic foods, but feeling the demand will rise faster as a result of publicity surrounding global warming and environmental sustainability.

� The three key areas that would encourage organisations to source

more food and drink from local and regional sources were a lower price, increased availability of local and regional food and drink, and the assurance of quality.

� Currently local and regional food and drink accounts for an estimated

1-2% of all food and drink sales in the main retail sector, with an estimated equivalent amount being sold through farm shops and farmers markets, however, the face-to-face interviews indicated that this proportion differs within organisational categories. The consensus was that there had been a significant growth in these figures in recent years and that this was likely to continue over the next five years.

� Where local and regional food and drinks were promoted by

organisations this was generally done in-store, while a few were found to market nationally. Promotion and sales in national foodservice chains was more problematic due to the advanced menu planning systems employed and concerns over continuity of supply.

� Local and regional sales were found to be more dominant in fresh

products such as meat, fruit, vegetables and dairy products. Constraints in terms of availability were highlighted, however, for these fresh products. In addition, there was a significant presence of locally brewed beers, ciders and some wine, with increasing volumes of bottled drinks into the retail sector rather than cask products directly into pub outlets.



146.

� Respondents participating in the face-to-face interviews had, in some cases, increased the number of staff employed within their organisation in order to address the purchasing, technical and logistics issues associated with local food and drink procurement.

� In terms of the impacts of purchasing local and regional food and

drink on organisation’s distribution and logistics, the larger organisations participating in the face-to-face interviews generally agreed that this was the most difficult problem to solve. In contrast a number of organisations participating in the tele-depth interviews did not feel this had any impact with a number highlighting that local suppliers were particularly flexible in terms of deliveries.



147.

SECTION SEVEN: QUANTITATIVE TRADE STUDY 7.1 Introduction

Building on the findings from the trade qualitative element of the research programme, Section Seven discusses the quantitative survey conducted with retail and foodservice organisations. The section describes the characteristics of the sample organisations before specifically exploring respondents’ understanding of local and regional food and drink and the importance they perceive it as having to their organisation. Actual purchasing behaviour in relation to local and regional food and drink is discussed, alongside key influencing factors; the section also outlines respondents’ perceptions of consumer buying factors.

7.2 Descriptive Statistics of the Sample 7.2.1 Type of Business

The total number of respondents to the survey was 347. Of those responding to the question relating to the type of business (323), 150 (46%) identified themselves as being in retail with the remaining 173 (54%) being in foodservice (specifically restaurants, bars, cafes, takeways, hotels, and catering businesses). The sample consisted of a roughly even split of retail and foodservice businesses of different ownership types that is further illustrated below. Data presented in Table Sixty-nine shows responses to the question on ownership and business type (317).

Table Sixty-nine: Ownership Type of Responding Organisations

Business Ownership Type Retail Foodservice Total

Frequency Percentage

(%) Frequency

Percentage (%)

Frequency Percentage

(%)

Independent 76 52 131 77 207 65

Part of Larger Group 63 43 35 21 98 31

Franchise 8 5 4 2 12 4

Total 147 100 170 100 317 100

Base: 333

Source: Trade Quantitative Survey



148.

Of the total responses approximately two-thirds were from independent retail and foodservice businesses with around 30% from larger groups, and a small number of franchise operations. Of the retail businesses responding, around half were independents, whereas over three-quarters of the foodservice businesses were independently owned. Conversely there were more retail businesses from multiple groups compared with foodservice organisations.

In terms of number of outlets, well over half of businesses surveyed (55%) operated from just a single outlet, with a further 13% running 2 to 10 outlets. There were, however, more than a fifth (22%) of businesses with over 100 outlets represented in the survey sample.

7.2.2 Size of Business

Figures for the number of employees revealed that about half the number of businesses surveyed (49%) employed between 2 and 5 full time staff, with nearly one fifth (18%) employing just one full time member of staff. A further 13% employed 6 to10 full time employees, with the remaining 19% employing over 10 full time staff.

A broadly similar distribution existed for part-time equivalents with around 20% employing one staff member, approximately 36% 2 to 5 part-time equivalents, around 15% with 6 to 10 part timers, and approaching 30% employing over 10 full time equivalent part time staff. There does generally appear to be a greater incidence of part-time rather than full-time employment, however, which is consistent with the nature of the trade undertaken by these businesses. The turnover of the businesses responding is illustrated in Table Seventy.



149.

Table Seventy: Turnover Band of Responding Organisations

Turnover Band Frequency Percentage (%) Cumulative

Percentage (%)

Less than £10,000 10 3.0 3.0

£10,001 - £25,000 6 1.8 4.8

£25,001 - £50,000 14 4.2 9.1

£50,001 - £100,000 36 10.9 20.0

£100,001 - £200,000 43 13.0 33.0

£200,001 - £500,000 56 17.0 50.0

£500,001 - £1M 31 9.4 59.4

More than £1M 63 19.1 78.5

Don't know 24 7.3 85.8

Prefer not to say 47 14.2

Total 330 100

Base: 330 Source: Trade Quantitative Survey

The data indicates that the sample represents a good distribution of businesses of different sizes in terms of turnover with 50% those responding positively to this question being relatively small businesses with a turnover of less than half a million turnover per annum. Approaching 30% of all respondents indicated that they had a turnover greater than this and nearly 20% that they turned over more than £1 million per annum.

7.2.3 Location The regional distribution of responding businesses is illustrated in Table Seventy-one below.



150.

Table Seventy-one: Regional Distribution of Responding Organisations

Region Frequency Percentage (%)

South West 55 16.2

South East 65 19.2

London 31 9.1

West Midlands 33 9.7

East Midlands 24 7.1

East Anglia 26 7.7

North West 41 12.1

North East 36 10.6

Yorkshire and Humberside 28 8.3

Total 339 100


The statistics show a good dispersal of businesses surveyed across the regions of England with both those regions with a strong rural dimension and those with more urban areas being well represented.

To supplement this, respondents were specifically asked to give details of the nature of the area where their business was located. This is revealed in Table Seventy-two.

Table Seventy-two: Distribution of Responding Organisations by Area

Location Frequency Percentage (%)

Major town or city area 75 23.4

Suburbs of large town or city 105 31.2

Small country/market town 82 24.3

Countryside/village 71 21.1

Total 337 100




151.

Finally, in order to assess the relevance of the business to the issues associated with purchasing of local and regional food and drink, the respondents were asked to identify the approximate spending of the business on all food and drink products in the last financial year. The results of this are presented in Table Seventy-three. Table Seventy-three: Annual Spend on Food and Drink Products in 2006/7

Location Frequency Percentage (%) Cumulative

Percentage (%)

Less than £10,000 33 9.9 9.9

£10,001 - £25,000 46 13.8 23.7

£25,001 - £50,000 35 10.5 34.1

£50,001 - £100,000 42 12.6 46.7

£100,001 - £200,000 29 8.7 55.4

£200,001 - £500,000 44 13.2 68.6

£500,001 - £1M 11 3.3 71.9

More than £1M 33 9.9 81.7

Don't know/prefer not to say 61 18.3 100

Total 334 100 9.9


The distribution shows that there are a good range of respondents in terms of spending on food and drink, with many small businesses spending quite low amounts on sourcing food and drink, whilst large buying organisations, some spending in excess of £1 million per annum, are also well represented.

7.3 Definitions of Local and Regional Food and Drink Respondents were initially asked to specify definitions of local and regional food and drink that they agreed with. These are presented in table Seventy-four, and are based on multiple responses.



152.

Table Seventy-four: Definitional Aspects of Local and Regional Food and Drink

Definition Frequency Percentage (%)

Food and drink grown locally/regionally 287 84.4

Food and drink produced/processed locally/regionally 174 51.2

Food and drink packaged locally/regionally 38 11.2

Food and drink sold locally/regionally 57 16.8

Total 337 100


There is a general understanding amongst the trade that the most important aspect of local and regional food is that it is grown in that locality or region (in excess of 80%), with over 50% suggesting that it is produced or processed in that spatial area. Only relatively small proportions 17% and 11% respectively associate local/regional food and drink with it being sold or packaged in that area. When asked specifically about the definitions of local and regional separately, respondents provided the following responses presented in tables Seventy-five and Seventy-six.



153.

Table Seventy-five: Geographical Definitions of Local Food and Drink

Geographical Definition Frequency Percentage (%)

In the immediate vicinity (up to 20 miles) 122 35.7

Within a 20 - 50 miles radius 84 24.6

Within a 50 - 100 mile radius 19 5.6

In the County (e.g. Yorkshire) 58 17.0

In the County and neighbouring County 14 4.1

In the Region (e.g. South East) 21 6.1

In England 10 2.9

In the UK 6 1.8

In Britain 3 0.9

Don’t know 2 0.6

Other 3 0.9

Total 342 100


For local food and drink, geographical definitions generally suggest an association with the immediate vicinity, with 35% stating that they see it coming from within up to 20 miles; and following that, in terms of distance, a further 25% indicating that local is between 20 and 50 miles. Combining these, over 60% suggest that they see local food as coming from within 50 miles. The only other significant response relates to the businesses interpreting local as being in the county that they are based. Being produced within 20 or up to 50 miles therefore appear to be the distinguishing features of local produce, amongst the trade.



154.

TableSeventy-six: Geographical Definitions of Regional Food and Drink

Geographical Definition Frequency Percentage (%)

There is no difference between local and regional 30 8.8

In the immediate vicinity (up to 20 miles) 26 7.6

Within a 20 - 50 miles radius 32 9.4

Within a 50 - 100 mile radius 7 2.1

In the County (e.g. Yorkshire) 70 20.5

In the County and neighbouring County 37 10.9

In the Region (e.g. South East) 100 29.3

In England 15 4.4

In the UK 13 3.8

In Britain 2 0.6

Don’t know 4 1.2

Other 5 1.5

Total 341 100


With regard to regional food and drink, nearly 30% saw this as being related to a particular region. Many (20%) also saw this as being associated with a county, and a further 10% with that county or a neighbouring county. At one extreme, only relatively small proportions identified regional with a distance of up to 20 and 50 miles, and relatively few did not distinguish between local and regional produce. At the other end of the scale, trade respondents did not see a relationship between the regional and national dimensions, with fewer than 10% stating that regional had national connotations. Region and county (including the neighbouring county) therefore appear to be the distinguishing aspects of regional produce from the trade perspective.

7.4 Importance of Local Food and Drink

Respondents were asked a general question about how they saw the importance of local and regional food and drink changing over the last five years. The results are presented in Table Seventy-seven.



155.

Table Seventy-seven: Changing Importance of Local and Regional Produce

Local Regional

Change Frequency Percentage (%) Frequency Percentage (%)

More important 259 75.7 188 66.9

Stayed the same 44 12.7 48 17.1

Less important 16 4.6 18 6.4

Don’t know 23 6.6 27 9.6

Total 342 100 281 100

Base: 342 local; 281 regional Source: Trade Quantitative Survey

A very large proportion of respondents (around three-quarters) recognized that local food and drink had grown in importance over the past five years. Similarly, although not quite to the same degree, 67% of trade respondents saw regional food as growing in importance over the same period. Only small proportions, around 5% regarded these product categories as diminishing in importance over this period. There was a significant difference between independent and multiple trade organisations’ perceptions with more multiples indicating that they felt that both local and regional drink had become more important. More independents believed that it had stayed the same, or become less important.

Those surveyed were then asked about how they envisaged the future of the local and regional food and drink market to be in terms of growth and development. Table Seventy-eight shows the results for this.



156.

Table Seventy-eight: Future of Local and Regional Food and Drink Market

Local Regional


Growing dramatically 103 31.6 80 26.8

Growing slightly 144 44.2 142 47.5

Staying the same 35 10.7 37 12.4

Declining slightly 16 4.9 11 3.7

Declining dramatically 6 1.8 4 1.3

Don’t know 22 6.7 25 8.4

Total 326 100 299 100


The vast majority of responding trade buyers indicated that they expected both the local and regional produce markets to continue to grow with about three-quarters of those responding stating this in each instance. Many also identified that this growth would be dramatic, particularly with regard to local food and drink. Only small proportions in each case expected the market for such produce to decline over coming years. With respect to the importance of local and regional food to their own business, respondents’ perceptions are presented in the following Table Seventy-nine.



157.

Table Seventy-nine: Importance of Local and Regional Produce to Responding Businesses

Local Regional

Importance Frequency Percentage (%) Frequency Percentage (%)

Very important 100 29.8 66 22.0

Quite important 115 34.2 114 38.0

Neither important nor unimportant

63 18.8 64 21.3

Not very important 31 9.2 28 9.3

Not at all important 23 6.8 23 7.7

Don't know 4 1.2 5 1.7

Total 336 100 300 100

Base: 336 local; 300 regional


Of those responding positively to these questions, around 65% regarded local produce as being important, and 60% considered regional food to be important to their business. Overall, there would appear to be a generally small number of responding businesses that identify local and regional food and drink as unimportant.

Converting these into Likert scale measures of 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important), the mean values for local and regional are 3.71 compared with 3.58 respectively, suggesting a marginally higher importance of local food generally across the sample of respondents. Further investigation identified that there was no significant difference in importance between retail and foodservice businesses; neither were there any significant differences between businesses located in different geographical areas or regions, or between businesses of different ownership types or size by turnover and number of employees. This was further investigated by asking respondents whether they source local and regional food and drink for their business, shown in Table Eighty.



158.

Table Eighty: Sourcing of Local and Regional Food and Drink

Food Source Frequency Percent (%)

Local 217 63.3

Regional 178 51.9

Both 133 38.8

Neither 69 20.1

Total 343 100



Over 60% sourced local food and drink, and over half sourced regional food and drink; nearly 40% sourced both of these. Around one-fifth of respondents did not source either local or regional produce.

7.5 Purchasing Behaviour

Respondents were then asked to identify the four most important factors that they take into account when buying local food and drink products for their business compared with other products. The results for this question are presented in Table Eighty-one in descending order of importance.



159.

Table Eighty-one: Factors Influencing Purchase of Local and Regional Food and Drink

Factor Frequency Percent (%)

Greater support for the local economy 138 39.8

Improved freshness 110 31.7

Better quality 109 31.4

Higher consumer demand 102 29.4

Better traceability 91 26.2

Easier and cheaper transport and distribution 61 17.6

Greater consistency of quality 60 17.3

Better in terms of environmental impacts 59 17.0

Positioning of the business with local and regional produce 55 15.9

Greater consistency of supply 52 15.0

Higher convenience regarding availability 44 12.7

Higher food safety 38 11.0

Greater flexibility of suppliers 36 10.4

Perceived as better for health reasons 31 8.9

Better promotional and marketing support 30 8.6

Better range of products 30 8.6

Lower price of products 30 8.6


More established product provenance 28 8.1

Higher potential margin 16 4.6

Easier and less costly administration in sourcing 15 4.3

Base: 347


Nearly 40% of total respondents surveyed identified support for the local economy as one of the four most important factors when deciding to purchase local and regional produce compared with other products. Following this a number of particular product attributes including freshness, quality and traceability were identified. Amongst these, all of which were identified by at least a quarter of all respondents, was higher consumer demand. After that there appears to be no clear pattern of importance, with a number of commercial factors such as business positioning and transport and distribution benefits, being identified alongside product benefits such as higher food safety and environmental impacts amongst the mid-range factors that are taken into account.



160.

Some interesting factors are amongst the lower ranking reasons including product provenance, price and margin, and product range which suggest that these may not be key attributes when making trade sourcing decisions for this type of produce compared with other products. Respondents were then asked to rank the four most important factors that would lead to them buying more local and regional produce. The results of this are presented in Table Eighty-two. Table Eighty-two: Factors Leading to Increased Purchasing of Local and Regional Food and Drink

Factor Frequency Percent (%)

Higher consumer demand 160 46.1

Lower price of products 122 35.2

Better quality 91 26.2

Better range of products 89 25.6

Greater support for the local economy 85 24.5

Improved freshness 67 19.3

Easier and cheaper transport and distribution 62 17.9

Greater consistency of supply 61 17.6

Greater consistency of quality 60 17.6

Higher potential margin 58 16.7

Higher convenience regarding availability 56 16.1


Better traceability 46 13.3

Greater flexibility of suppliers 45 13.0

Better in terms of environmental impacts 41 11.8

Higher food safety 36 10.4

Easier and less costly administration in sourcing 35 10.1

Positioning of the business with local and regional produce

32 9.2

Perceived as better for health reasons 30 8.6

More established product provenance 21 6.1




161.

The potential of greater derived demand for local and regional produce from higher consumer demand for local and regional food and drink ranks top with approaching half of the total respondents, followed by lower prices with over a third of total respondents identifying this factor. Better range and better quality are also highly ranked with in excess of 25% of all respondents identifying them. Support for the local economy ranks only fifth in this listing, which is followed by a specific product attribute of better freshness and a number of commercial factors as mid-ranking influencers of greater purchase. Comparing the current buying factors with those identified as possible drivers of increased future purchasing provides some interesting insights. Currently perceived support for the local economy leads, followed by a number of product attributes, and then consumer demand, with commercial factors coming after these. In terms of future buying the key drivers are greater consumer demand and lower prices, with better quality and range of products after this and then greater support for the local economy. Clearly there is an intention amongst trade buyers to follow the consumer trend for buying more local and regional produce and increase their buying in line with this. Lower prices would support the business case for further expansion in this direction together with key product attributes that can be conveyed to consumers, including quality, freshness and range, regarded as being more important than supporting the local economy. A number of commercial efficiency factors follow on from this in the rankings of both sets of factors suggesting that these are important, but of less significance, than demand, main product attributes, and the local economy support issues.

Respondents were asked to indicate what proportion of their annual spend on food and drink products was spent on locally and regionally sourced products in the last financial year. Results of the answers to this question are presented in Table Eighty-three.



162.

Table Eighty-three: Proportion of Spend on Local and Regional Products

Local Regional

Proportion Frequency Percentage (%) Frequency Percentage (%)

Less than 1% 12 5.0 16 7.9

1 – 5% 34 14.2 25 12.3

6 – 10% 31 12.9 23 11.3

11 – 20% 22 9.2 23 11.3

21 – 30% 22 9.2 16 7.9

31 – 40% 24 10.0 14 6.9

41 – 50% 13 5.4 11 5.4

Over 50% 33 13.8 29 14.3

Don’t know 49 20.4 46 22.7

Total 240 100 203 100


Data for those responding to this question indicates significant variation in the importance of local and regional food and drink to different businesses according to the proportion of total spend on these products. It is evident that there are differences with many businesses sourcing less than 10% locally and regionally, whereas a significant proportion source 50% of their food and drink as local or regional produce. A notable difference existed between the responses of independents and multiples with the proportion of local and regional produce in multiples being generally less than their independent counterparts. They were then asked how their spend on local and regional food and drink had changed over the last five years, which is illustrated in Table Eighty-four.



163.

Table Eighty-four: Change in Proportion Spent on Local and Regional Food and Drink

Local Regional


Increased 156 63.9 130 61.0

Decreased 10 4.1 8 3.8


Don’t know 28 11.5 27 12.7

Total 244 100 213 100


Data in the table illustrates that in the case of both local and regional produce, over 60% of responding businesses have increased the proportion of their total spend on food and drink on these products. Of these around 40% grew the proportion of local produce by up to 10% of total spend; a further 20% by between 10% and 30% of the total; and another 20% by over 30% of total spend on this type of produce. For regional produce the percentages responding in the same growth bands were very close to those for regional produce in each instance.

In general, there was a clear difference between the buying of multiples compared with independent traders, with significantly more multiples increasing the proportion of local and regional produce bought over the last 5 years. However, even though more multiples have indicated that they have increased the proportion of local and regional produce there is a significantly lower rate of increase compared with independent buying organisations in the case of local food and drink.

When further asked about how they saw this developing over the next five years they provided responses as indicated in Table Eighty-five.



164.

Table Eighty-five: Change in Proportion Spent on Local and Regional Food

Local Regional


Increased 180 71.7 149 67.1

Decreased 10 4.0 4 1.8


Don’t know 21 8.4 20 9.0

Total 251 100 222 100



Over 70% of those responding predicted that they would spend more on local food and drink in future, with approaching that proportion indicating a similar trend in the buying of regional produce. For both local and regional produce around 40% identified that the proportions would grow by up to 10%, another 30% by between 10 and 30%, and around 13% by over 30% of total spend on all food and drink products.

This suggests that responding businesses have in general grown their spending on local and regional produce over the last 5 years, and see this trend progressing into the next 5 years. They also indicate that they are likely to slightly increase the rate of growth of the share of local and regional produce of total food and drink spend in the future.

Again there were differences between multiples and independent businesses in these figures with more multiples envisaging that the proportions spent on local and regional food will increase compared to independents, but with the rates of growth being lower than independently owned businesses.

7.5.1 Buying of Specific Local and Regional Produce

Further insights into trade buying behaviour were gleaned from investigating the types of different products bought and their importance to the business, where they were mainly sourced from, reasons for using these sources, and any constraints in using these particular sources. The findings of this analysis are presented in Table Eighty-six.


Social-economic Research & Intelligence Observatory 165.

Table Eighty-six: Buying of Specific Local and Regional Product

Food Type Number (%) Identifying Local and Regional Important

Main Sources Main Reasons Main Constraints

Milk 105 (30.3) Local suppliers Flexibility None

Cheese 79 (22.8) Local and regional suppliers Flexibility, consumer demand , product quality None

Ice Cream 58 (16.7) Local and regional suppliers Flexibility, product quality None

Other dairy 49 (14.1) Local suppliers Flexibility None

Fruit 90 (25.9) Local suppliers Flexibility, freshness Seasonal availability

Vegetables 123 (35.4) Local suppliers Flexibility, freshness Seasonal availability

Meat 123 (35.4) Local suppliers Flexibility, product quality None

Frozen food 35 (10.1) Local and regional suppliers Flexibility None

Ready meals 15 (4.3) Local suppliers Flexibility None

Fish 63 (18.2) Local suppliers Flexibility, product quality, freshness Some seasonal availability

Bread 100 (28.8) Local suppliers Flexibility, product quality, freshness None

Biscuits and cakes 49 (14.1) Local suppliers Flexibility, product quality None

Beers. Wines and spirits 75 (21.6) Local suppliers Flexibility None

Other drinks 50 (14.4) Local suppliers Flexibility None




166.

The results indicate that different food and drink products have varying degrees of significance for the trade businesses surveyed, although it is evident that the most widely used products in retail and foodservice to meet consumer demand, top the list: vegetables, meat, milk, bread, and fruit. Analysis of the sources of produce used shows that in most cases local suppliers are used with in some instances, regional suppliers also being employed. Of key importance when determining what supplier to use, and thus perhaps the most important factor in understanding why local food and drink is bought, is flexibility. This is particularly from the point of view of flexibility of delivery and all the associated benefits including ease, efficiency, speed, and convenience of sourcing. Following this in specific categories where it makes a difference, are product quality, particularly where there is a distinctive difference in the product (e.g. cheese, meat, and ice cream), and where freshness is a priority (e.g. vegetables, fruit, and fish). In the main, there are perceived to be no constraints in using local suppliers except again in some areas where freshness and availability are linked with a particular season.

7.5.2 Promotion of Local and Regional Produce Trade respondents were asked about whether or not they actively promote the food and drink that they source locally and regionally. Over 70% of respondents stated that they actively promote local and regional produce. Table Eighty-seven below, illustrates the numbers using different promotional methods in descending order of importance.



167.

Table Eighty-seven: Methods of Promoting Local and Regional Produce

Promotional Method Frequency Percent (%)

Point of sale 116 33.4

Word of mouth 82 23.6

On pack/menu information 61 17.6

Posters/billboards 58 16.7

Display information 45 13.0

Website 41 11.8

Space allocation in store 38 11.0

Special offers/promotions 36 10.4

Leaflets 34 9.8

Media advertising 21 6.1

Food awards 18 5.2

Joint supplier initiatives 17 4.9

Regional food groups 16 4.6

Food festivals and exhibitions 10 2.9


The focus of the effort is on traditional ways of developing awareness and increasing sales in retail environments (whether store or foodservice), although there is some use of on-line promotions, and limited evidence of employing joint initiatives with suppliers and trade exhibitions, awards, etc. Point of sale material leads the way in terms of traditional techniques followed by word of mouth promotion, on pack/menu information, posters and other display activities, special offers, leaflets and media promotion. Trade relationship activity is particularly disappointing and especially the interaction with regional food groups, although this may be dependent on the nature of the buying process within each business in the survey. Differences between promotional activity in retail and food service businesses are apparent here; however these tend to reflect the general nature of marketing and promotional activities in these two different sectors (e.g. retail businesses focus on posters, leaflets, and special offers, compared with a foodservice emphasis on word of mouth, websites and menu information). Yet there is no real difference in the overall level of promotional activity, although there is a general tendency for retailers to be more cooperative with suppliers and regional food groups in promoting local and regional produce.



168.

7.5.3 Trade Perceptions of Consumer Buying Factors

In order to supplement data derived from the consumer survey, trade respondents were asked to provide an assessment of their perceptions of the importance of factors governing consumers’ decisions relating to the purchase of local and regional food and drink products. These are presented in Table Eighty-eight below, based on a Likert type scale of 1(not at all important) to 5 (very important). Factors are presented in descending order of importance. Table Eighty-eight: Trade Perceptions of Importance of Consumer Buying Factors (Mean Values)

Factor of Influence Mean Value/(SD)

Freshness of product 4.05 (1.56)

Quality of product 4.00 (1.53)

Price of the product 3.70 (1.36)

Availability of product 3.67 (1.33)

Supporting the local economy 3.55 (1.43)

Variety of products available 3.53 (1.22)

Food safety aspects of product 3.50 (1.37)

Health aspects of product 3.45 (1.27)

Traceability of products 3.35 (1.27)

Provenance of product 3.34 (1.19)

Environmental impacts in the production and use of the product 3.32 (1.28)

Mean Score: scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is ‘not at all important’ and 5 is ‘very important’

Base: 347


Perceptions suggest that all of these factors are more important to customers than they are not. However, in terms of order of importance, the responses reveal that trade buyers perceive that product qualities, particularly freshness are the most important factors that consumers are looking for when deciding to buy local and regional produce. These are followed by a second group of product features including price, availability and variety. Amongst these is the issue of supporting the local economy ranked 5th of all factors. Food health benefits and safety aspects follow these, which in turn are followed by provenance and traceability. Environmental impact is the final factor on the ranked listing.



169.

Differences of perceived importance between retail and foodservice businesses were not generally discernible, although there was a significantly higher score from retailers compared with foodservice on the environmental impacts factor. This was also evident in rurally located businesses where scores for environmental impacts were significantly higher than those located in urban areas; and the same difference was also present for supporting the local economy factor. There were no differences between region and size of business, however. Of further interest is a particular difference between high spending businesses on all food and drink and those spending less, where there are generally higher scores for the traceability, environmental impact, and support for the local economy factors amongst larger food buyers. Bigger businesses spending more on food and drink appear to have a wider understanding of why consumers buy these products, and take into account more than the basic product attribute factors that buyers generally identify. Nonetheless, the overall opinions of the trade suggest that product attributes, including price are the main determinants of buying behaviour amongst consumers of local and regional produce. Other factors are seen to be less important from a general trade perspective, yet there are some variations between the different types of businesses examined.

7.6 Summary

The general understanding of trade buyers is that local or regional produce is grown within the boundaries of that locality or region, with significant proportion also believing that being produced or packaged in within the confines of those geographical areas is sufficient for such a definition. Most respondents regard local produce as being sourced from within 50 miles, although reasonable proportions identify it more narrowly with the immediate vicinity (up to 20 miles), or more widely (in the county). Regional food and drink was considered by most to be sourced from within that region although many also saw it as coming from within a county or neighbouring county. The vast majority of respondents regarded local and regional produce to be different. A large proportion of trade buyer identified a growing importance of local and regional produce over the past five years, and indicated that they saw this trend continuing into the future. The majority of organisations sourced local and regional food, and a large number of these considered both local and regional produce to be important to their organisation.



170.

The main reasons for organisations buying local and regional produce were support for the local economy, quality, freshness and traceability of the produce, and increased consumer demand. When considering what would encourage them to buy more local and regional food and drink, the main drivers were increasing consumer demand, lower prices, better quality and range of produce, and greater support for the local economy.

There are wide variations in the proportions of total spending on local and regional produce across the trade sector, yet there was a general consensus amongst the majority of buyers that spending on this produce had gone up over the last five years. Most buyers also indicated that they expected this growth to continue of the coming five year period.

The most widely sourced local and regional food and drink products were vegetables, meat, dairy, and bakery produce. The main reasons for sourcing these locally were flexibility, particularly of delivery, and specific product quality factors such as freshness. Most buyers did not see any real problems in sourcing local and regional produce, although in some cases the restriction of seasonality of produce was identified.

Promotion of local and regional produce was undertaken by most organisations, in a wide variety of ways. The dominant methods were in-store point of sale and display activities, word of mouth, on pack/menu information, posters, and websites. Differences existed in the approaches adopted by retail and foodservice organisations, due to the nature of their businesses. The incidence of joint promotions with suppliers and regional food groups was disappointingly low.

Trade buyers perceived that the main factors influencing consumer demand for local and regional produce were product quality, particularly freshness, followed by price and availability. Environmental impacts and traceability and provenance were regarded as being of lower importance.

Some interesting differences exist between types of businesses particularly multiple and independent traders, with multiples generally perceiving that local and regional produce has become more important overall and to their own businesses. Similarly, more of them see it as increasing in importance into the future. Yet they do not envisage it as growing at such a high rate as independents, both in terms of their own spending, and in the market as a whole.



171.

SECTION EIGHT: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Conclusions

Some general and specific points are now drawn from the research which are based upon a synthesis of all the areas of evidence utilised including consideration of pre-existing research, interviews with industry experts, and each of the two phases of consumer and trade field research.

� Definitions of ‘local’ and ‘regional’ food and drink are broadly

similar across consumers and the trade, although trade respondents seem more dependent on mileage classifications than consumers.

� Local generally relates to the immediate vicinity of where

consumers live or where businesses trade, and is almost universally associated with rural or close-to-rural areas. There is some variation in this with, in particular, rural consumers being more connected with the concepts of locality and provenance in food and drink compared to urban dwellers.

� Overall, definitions of ‘local’ around provenance are more clearly understood by consumers in rural contexts, and possibly by smaller independent retailers, and foodservice providers in these areas. On the other hand, urban consumers and traders have a wider understanding of the concept, and may link it to the county, a region, or even the nation.

� The existence of differences in understanding of the concept of local produce should be regarded as an opportunity to pursue appropriate targeted marketing initiatives based upon how it is perceived and the benefits it offers to different groups.

� Regional produce is predominantly defined by consumers and traders as coming from a specific geographical area and has quality and premium associations, based on tradition and reputation. Differences exist between the understanding of urban and rural consumers, with the former regarding it as a ‘wider’ definition of the ‘local’ concept. Older consumers also appear to have a better understanding of ‘regionality’ in food, which suggests potential for developing awareness of regional produce amongst younger age groups.



172.

� ‘Regional’ therefore seems to have more readily brand-able connotations, often coinciding with Defra regions (and presumably reflecting the efforts of regional food marketing groups).

� There appears to be a growing demand for local and regional food and drink which is essentially consumer-led. About half the respondents stated that they bought local produce for use at home, and a quarter when eating out, in the last week. Frequency of purchase of both local and regional produce is variable across consumer groups, and tends to be higher for use at home than when eating out.

� For most consumers this is based on the primarily positive attitudes toward such produce, and the perceived benefits it provides. Yet a notable exception exists amongst younger, poorer, urban consumers who do not necessarily recognize such advantages. However even those with positive attitudes may not always translate those directly across into their buying behaviour and differences occur in actual buying, often related to the time-pressures of modern everyday shopping, cooking, especially amongst urban consumers who also work.

� Trade demand, and therefore supply into the market, has generally been in response to this. The positive attitudes of the trade and recognition of the past, current, and future growth of the sector reflect increasing consumer demand, based on association with key attributes. This has been bolstered by greater awareness through the growth of farmers’ markets, and TV coverage and advertising promoting the advantages of local and regional produce.

� Fruit and vegetables, dairy products and meat (and fish in coastal areas) are the categories where ‘local’ is best understood and valued. This is evidenced by the main categories of buying local and regional food both amongst consumers and within the trade, and the impact on demand has been greatest in terms of buying for consumption at home rather than when eating out.

� The main outlets used when buying for use at home are supermarkets and local specialist food shops, which is generally undertaken as part of their regular shop. Farm shops and farmers’ markets are also popular outlets for buying local produce, but nowhere near as important to the vast majority of buyers. When buying local and regional produce when eating out the main venues are pub restaurants and bistros, and quality restaurants.



173.

� The key reasons for buying local produce are freshness, taste and quality of the produce; support for local producers, retailers and the community; perceived sustainability benefits, and known provenance of the produce. Barriers to buying local produce are cost, availability, a lack of information on what and where to buy, and limited promotion.

� The positive factors that determine the actual buying behaviour of local food are buying the amounts required, taste, freshness and seasonality, with negative influences on buying being a lack of information, and purchasing being time consuming. The fact that local food was ‘not branded’ has a positive effect on buying when eating out. These factors reflect the practical benefits identified by those that buy or do not buy.

� A wider set of factors influence behavioural intentions which include the additional effects of support for the local economy, and sustainability benefits (e.g. reduced food miles and pollution). Being ‘environmentally’ friendly had a negative effect on buying, which is important when identifying what messages to convey in any promotional activity. These factors tend to reflect the motives of those who buy local as a preferred choice, and buy more often, and include many older people in rural areas.

� For regional produce the main reasons for buying and factors influencing buying behaviour are overwhelmingly associated with its perceived quality, and regional and national support. Being a premium product its high price was generally regarded as positive; reaffirming that it was of the best quality and better than the cheaper alternatives available.

� ‘Local’ food (rather than regional) is important, for consumers, in foodservices, but only for a fairly narrow category of outlet (independent restaurants, country pubs etc.); and even then it is purchased less frequently. Local food is linked with ‘special occasions’ and this is reflected in terms of outlets where it is expected/would be seen as a benefit, as well as in domestic consumption.

� Major differences exist between the buying behaviour of rural and urban consumers, with more emphasis on the positive buying factors amongst the former, and a greater weight given to the negative barriers amongst the latter.



174.

� Other significant differences amongst consumers are apparent between age groups, gender, single compared with married food shoppers, and regions. In general older, married women in rurally dominant regions buy more local and regional produce. Interestingly the presence of children in the household, and socio-economic grade do not have any real effect on buying behaviour, except in the case of the latter where higher grade groups buy local produce when eating out more often.

� For targeting purposes it is possible to identify four different consumer segments of the local and regional food and drink market: Devotees (23%) who buy frequently and, at the other end of the scale Cynics (16%), who do not buy at all. In the middle ground a distinction can be drawn between the Persisters (25%) who make an effort to buy based on the perceived positive attributes, and the Abstainers (36%), who find it difficult to overcome the barriers to buying despite having some recognition of the potential advantages. A focus on the middle ground attempting to convert Abstainers to Persisters, overcoming the barriers to buying, and re-emphasising the advantages through marketing and other activities provides a potentially attractive avenue for future development.

� For many consumers there are strong emotional drivers for buying local and regional food, but also strong countervailing practical barriers to purchase, particularly when shopping for groceries for use at home. Conversely, the important moral drivers are economic (‘help the local economy’), and other drivers which indicate self-interest and family health considerations rather than broader ‘save the planet’ or ‘build a fairer world’ motives. The evidence suggests, not that most consumers don’t buy, but that many buy relatively little, and of a fairly narrow range of products (fruit, vegetables, dairy produce, some meat and fish, etc.). This confirms that the ‘value-action’ gap between what is desirable and what is achievable is very much apparent in the buying behaviour of consumers in this sector.

� The barriers to consumer buying are further exacerbated by the logistical and distribution implications for large multiples, on which the UK grocery sector largely depends, where it has been revealed that most shopping for local and regional food for use at home takes place. Similarly, national food service operators are constrained in their ability to provide local and regional options due to the periodic menu planning cycles, and the imperatives of availability and continuity of supply.



175.

� The significance of the larger trade players for future growth and development is further highlighted by their growing awareness of the importance of the sector, and in particular the movements of the major retail operators to start to develop their activities around the local and regional food agenda e.g. building it into their marketing and promotion, and the development of regional food hubs for distribution.

� Many of the larger foodservice businesses have more recently been turning their attention to this, in most cases behind the activities of the multiple retailers, and the smaller foodservice and retail outlets where the strategic and business positioning effects of local and regional produce are seen as important for drawing customers into their outlets. There was some evidence also of larger regional players pursuing similar strategic opportunities around local sourcing, taking advantage of flexibility of delivery which was seen to be the most important factor to trade buyers when sourcing produce locally.

� Trade buyers perceive that consumer demand is the main driver of sales growth, and that this is linked to food quality, freshness, taste and provenance, and support for the local economy, although this was variable across different consumer groups in different geographical areas. The characteristics of the catchment area, market sector or outlet brand are of key importance in determining the extent to which national players integrate local and regional food into their business strategies and operations.

� By carefully targeting different consumer groups with the messages that are relevant to their own particular needs and constraints, and working with retail and food service organisations to make the produce more widely and readily available, it may be possible to further grow and develop the local and regional food sector.

8.2 Recommendations

Building from these conclusions, the following recommendations are proposed as areas of possible action.

� Initially the significance of the further development of consumption

of local and regional food and drink to future policy needs to be assessed. The practical barriers that many consumers encounter, and the potential difficulties involved in the systemic



176.

retailer/foodservice supply chain make the rapid and prolonged development of the sector a challenging task.

� Nonetheless attitudes toward local and regional produce are generally positive, and there has been a trend of growth evidenced by both consumer buying patterns and trade interest and initiatives. Despite the widespread recognition of the benefits of these products for many buyers, there are however many obstacles to purchasing that tend to take prominence over the perceived advantages, thus leading to these consumers not fulfilling their intentions to buy. This is particularly evident amongst younger, urban, middle-income consumers, consistent with the ‘Abstainers’ of the developed typology, and representing the largest group of food and drink shoppers in the population as a whole. Targeting this segment would appear to be a potentially viable way forward, and this may be achieved by harnessing retailers’ databases and loyalty schemes, pinpointing customers that meet the ‘profile’ for specific promotional effort.

� A marketing strategy for the ‘Abstainer’ segment would need to be carefully developed, especially given that many will be located in urban areas and thus have their own particular ‘representation’ of local and regional that may not necessarily have its provenance in the rural domain, but be more county, region, or indeed, nationally oriented. Regional’ and ‘British’ brands are therefore more likely to appeal to these groups. Supermarkets need to be encouraged in their stocking and promotion of these products, as grocery shopping habits are entrenched amongst these customers, and it is not viable to try to modify this behaviour (in terms of store(s) used and shopping patterns) to any great extent.

� As urban consumers demonstrate less identification with ‘local’ produce, and are generally not experimental in their shopping choices, clear and consistent (i.e. national) branding of regionally produced fruit and vegetables, meat and fish, and possibly dairy products would inform and encourage consumers and also ‘lead’ the trade in both grocery retailing and foodservices. To this end there appears to be substantial scope for greater education, especially amongst younger consumers, about the availability of regional foods, and their specific qualities, building on tradition and reputation.

� If a new ‘regional food’ brand is to be developed, the consumer confusion between local, organic and free-range needs to be addressed, as does the misunderstanding between locally grown, locally stocked and locally produced.



177.

� Promotional messages should educate consumers on these differences; labelling of local products needs to be clear in terms of weights/prices as well as provenance, as does menu information in the foodservice environment. Information and promotion should therefore not only clearly restate the specific tangible benefits FOR buying, but also help overcome reasons for NOT buying. Quality, freshness, taste, seasonality, local support, health benefits, are all on the agenda here, but not environmental issues which are viewed as ‘negative motivators’. Reassurance about overcoming barriers should focus on what to buy, when and where from value for money, particularly being able to buy in the quantities required, and so avoid waste; and ease of preparation and versatility of use.

� In order to help ‘connect’ urban consumers with local/regional products, marketing support for independent specialist outlets (and traditional markets), as well as local independent restaurants etc should be considered (e.g. patronising a local baker who sells fresh bread has a number of the sensory and emotional benefits associated with buying local, and is a lot easier to access than farms/farm shops for city dwellers). Although successful at bringing fresh products into urban areas, farmers’ markets are itinerant and therefore more difficult to connect with emotionally than neighbourhood shops. This recommendation has particular resonance when one considers the importance of supporting the local economy to respondents.

� Developing a brand which emphasises trust, by consumers and along the food chain, extending into the heart of urban areas, would be ambitious. There is evidence, however, that local food artisans, such as butchers and bakers for example, can generate high levels of trust on the part of their customers.

� Availability and seasonality are restrictive choice factors for the locally grown produce we recommend promoting; however these can be used to marketing advantage (scarcity and exclusivity are readily relatable concepts, and scarce/limited production is a classic reason for price premiums for natural products). This works well with the regional food concept, and there may be potential to extend this into the positioning of local food and drink.

� The measures already outlined relate to increasing purchases by the primary target group of ‘Abstainers’; the secondary market to be addressed is the ‘Persisters’ (older, more rural, less well paid respondents). Apart from social group and income, these have more in common with the ‘Devotees’ than other segments.



178.

Supporting and extending the marketing operations of local suppliers and retailers in rural areas should encourage both these groups. The ‘Cynics’ can be equated to new product adoption ‘laggards’ and need not be included in any early strategy development (they may never be convinced and ‘convert’ and the marketing effort required would be prohibitive and not reap the returns).

� Facilitating growth amongst existing and potential buyers is dependent on overcoming restrictions in the supply chain and improving the effectiveness of marketing to raise awareness and aid accessibility by the large scale food trade, both retail and foodservice.

� An opportunity exists in developing regional distribution hubs that not only collect and transfer produce to the large retailers’ Regional Distribution Centres, but also provide supplier vetting, sourcing and assistance with presentations, ‘meet the buyer’ sessions, and advice on costings. Regional Food Groups could be used as facilitators of such networks, and could also assist large foodservice chains in gaining access to assured sources, and overcoming the particular anxieties that they hold with regard to continuity of supply, potentially taking advantage of flexibility of supply.

� Further to this, the main retailers could make a big impact if they dedicated shelf space to local produce rather than diluting it within categories; this could be end of aisle, ‘gondola’ type displays. There may be an opportunity to offer marketing support in partnership with RFGs or county Food Links, who could be responsible for merchandising and management of that area of the store.

� The evidence provided in this research suggests that there is potential for the further growth in the sales of local and regional food and drink products, but currently there are significant behavioural, structural, and institutional factors that impede its wholesale expansion.

� The recommendations proposed here go some way to addressing how these restrictions may be tackled, but some other areas of research may further facilitate understanding of the most effective way forward.



179.

� Further understanding of how consumers make trade-off decisions between the negative factors associated with local and regional food and the positive benefits accrued, could be undertaken looking at, for example price sensitivities and sensitivity of time inconvenience on demand.

� The viability of using retailer and food service loyalty scheme databases to target particular consumers could be explored, especially with respect to identifying target segments through profiling techniques. This could be based upon responses to the importance of buying and non-buying factors, and pinpointing consumer segments through geodemographic databases.

� Finally, it may be opportune to examine possible pre-existing and developmental models for regionally based distribution networks (hubs) that can integrate with major trade buying structures, leading to more effective and efficient access to local and regional produce throughout the sector.



180.

SECTION NINE: BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADAS 2007. “Market Research Report on Quality Regional Food Businesses”. ADAS. Wolverhampton.

BrookLyndhurst/Countryside Agency 2004. “Promoting Sustainable

Local Products in Yorkshire and Humberside Report for the Countryside Agency”.

Cabinet Office. 2008. “Food: an analysis of the Issues”. Strategy Unit

Discussion paper. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/work_areas/~/media/assets/

www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/food/food_analysis_of_issues%20pdf.ashx

COI/FSA 2003. “Local Food – Report on Qualitative Research for the

Food Standards Agency”. COI/FSA 2007. “Omnibus Research Report prepared for the Food

Standards Agency”. Competition Commission. 2008. “Grocery Market Inquiry”.

http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/inquiries/ref2006/grocery/index.htm

CRPV. 2007. “Food Engagement on Social Traceability and

Accountability – FESTA”. Project Proposal Draft 5. Projects and Development Service.

Deloitte Touche. 2007. “An Appetite for Change: Food and Beverage

2012”. Deloitte Touche. London. Defra. 2002. “Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food: Facing

the Future”. Defra. London. Defra. Policy Paper on Local Food. http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/foodname/lfood/pdf/locfoodpolicy.pdf

Foundation for Local Food Initiatives 2002. “The Local Food Sector”.

f3. Bristol. Food from Britain 2007. “UK Food and Drink Market Insights”, Vol. 1.

No. 1, p.1.



181.

IGD. 2002. “Consumer Watch 2002: Local and Regional Foods”. IGD. Watford.

IGD. 2005. “The Local and Regional Food Opportunity”. IGD. Watford.

IGD. 2006. “Retail and Foodservice Opportunities for Local Food”.

IGD. Watford.

Jackson, T. 2005. “Motivating Sustainable Consumption – a review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change”. Policy Studies Institute. London.

Kuznesov, S., Tregear, A. and Moxey, A. 1997. “Regional Foods: a

consumer perspective”. British Food Journal. Vol. 99 pp. 199-206. “Local Food for Local Shops: a toolkit for shopkeepers in

Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes & Oxfordshire (BBO)”. Oxford Brookes University, Oxford.

Manning, L., Baines, R.N. and Chadd, S.A. 2006. “Ethical Modelling of

the Food Supply Chain”. British Food Journal. Vol. 108 (5) pp. 358-370.

McCarthy, M. 2002. “Make Local Foods Focus of Rural Life, say

Experts”. The Independent, 20th April 2007. Memery, J., Megicks, P. and Williams, J. 2005. “Ethics and Social

Responsibility Issues in Grocery Shopping: a preliminary typology”. Qualitative Market Research: an International Journal. Vol. 8 (4) pp. 399-412.

Mintel Report. 2003. “Attitudes Towards Buying Local Produce –

UK”. Mintel. Mintel Report. 2003. “Organic Foods – UK”. Mintel. Mintel Report. 2006. “Attitudes Towards Ethical Foods – UK”. Mintel. Morris, C. and Buller, H. 2003. “The Local Food Sector: a preliminary

assessment of its form and impact in Gloucestershire”. British Food Journal. Vol 105 (8) pp. 599-566.

Pretty, J.N., Ball, A.S., Lang, T. and Morison, J.I.L. 2005. “Farm Costs

and Food Miles: an assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly shopping basket”. Food Policy, Vol. 30 (1) pp. 1-19



182.

The Retail Pocket Book 2005. “The British Shopper”. p.76. Ricketts Hein, J., Ilbery B. and Kneafsey M. 2006 “Distribution of Local

Food Activity in England and Wales: an Index of Food Relocalization”. Regional Studies. Vol. 40 (3) pp. 289-301.

Seyfang, G. 2007. “Sustainable Consumption, the New Economics

and Local Organic Food”. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE). University of East Anglia, Norwich.

Tastes of Englandsnorthwest/Weber Shandwick. 2004. “Developing

Regional and Quality Food and Drink in England’s NorthWest”. Weber Shandwick.

Tregear, A. and Ness, M 2005. “Discriminant Analysis of Consumer

Interest in Buying Locally Produced Foods”. Journal of Marketing Management Vol. 21 pp. 19-35.

Tozer, J. 2007. “Why the Vegetable Plot is Rediscovering its Roots”.

Daily Mail. 11th August 2007. Weatherell, C., Tregear, A. and Allinson, J. 2003. “In Search of the

Concerned Consumer: UK public perceptions of food, farming and buying local”. Journal of Rural Studies. Vol. 19 pp. 233-244.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_food

http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/rural_resd/rural_atlas/atlas_maps/4.jpg. http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/foodname/regional/regional01.htm. http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/food_matters/foodmiles.shtml. http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/food_matters/slowfood.shtml. http://worldhungeryear.org/fslc/faqs/ria_052.asp?section=5&click=1.



183.

APPENDICES – LISTED BY ORDER OF REFERENCE



184.

Appendix One: Consumer Focus Group Discussion Outline Defra FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – GUIDE

‘FORMING’ (10 mins max)

• [Personal introductions; explanation of topic and client; reassurance of confidentiality; how info will be used. Request mobile phones turned off. Get permission to record.]

• Are there any types of foods and drinks that you eat/drink regularly, that are local to this area (either at home or when eating out)? Any favourites?

‘PERFORMING’

NB. From here, start noting on flip chart any factors mentioned which affect choosing local produce when a) food shopping and b) eating out. SHOW COLOUR PICS OF FOOD TYPES in turn:

1. Cereals, bakery/patisserie products 4. Eggs and dairy products 2. Fruit and vegetables 5. Fish and seafood 3. Meat and poultry 6. Drinks

For each food type above, ask:

• Are there any foods of this type that are local to this area?

• And what part(s) of the country do you associate most strongly with these foods/drinks? (P: Apples from Kent; cider from Somerset etc.)

• Which of these do you choose to buy a) to eat at home; b) when eating out?

• WHY do you choose these to a) use at home; b) when eating out?

• Are there any of these foods that you’d never choose? WHY NOT? NORMING: Definitions

• Thinking about local foods generally now, let’s look at the factors that you’ve said are important when choosing local produce (SHOW FLIP CHART):

• Are there any other factors that you’d like to add to this list? Are any of these more important than others?

• OK, so what do you consider ’local’ to mean, when referring to food and drink? How would you define ‘local foods’?

• And what does the expression ‘regional foods’ mean to you? Can you think of any examples of a regional food or drink?



185.

SUMMARISE AGREED GROUP DEFINITIONS OF ‘LOCAL’ AND ‘REGIONAL’ FOOD AND DRINK.

Attitudes

• Is choosing local or indeed, regional, food and drink important to you? WHY? Or WHY NOT?

• What do you see as the main benefits of buying local foods (such as) [use local example])? What exactly are you looking for when buying local foods? (P: for retail outlet factors e.g. choice + product factors e.g. freshness)

• What about regional foods (such as…….[use local example])?

• Are there any disadvantages to buying local foods which we haven’t covered? What about regional foods?

Behaviour

• How often do you buy the foods and drinks we’ve been talking about? (P: when everyday grocery shopping for family, entertaining at home, special occasions, when eating out).

• What are the main barriers for you, when it comes to buying local foods? What about regional foods? (P: re family food preferences/eating behaviour, as well as in terms of availability, price etc.). (Also P: why don’t you buy these more often?)

• In what ways have members of your family or friends influenced your choice of food and drink products? Or made you aware of some of the issues we’ve been talking about?

Media

• Thinking back to when you first became aware these issues:

• How else did you become aware of them? (P: local/national media; advertising)

• Overall, how easy or difficult is it to obtain information on local and regional foodstuffs? (P)

‘Mourning’

• What advice do you have for those who are trying to make people more aware of local and regional food and drinks?

SUMMARISE MAIN POINTS OF DISCUSSION. THANK AND CLOSE. (DISTRIBUTE INCENTIVES & OBTAIN RESPONDENTS’ SIGNATURE



186.

Appendix Two: Local and Regional Food and Drink Buying: Consumer Survey Questionnaire and Introductory Preamble

Preamble A general statement will be made along the following lines: Dear Respondent, Thank you for agreeing to take part in this on-line survey which has been designed to develop a greater understanding of consumers’ and attitudes and buying behaviour towards local and regional foods. The research has been commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its findings will be used to inform future national and commercial public policies in the local and regional food and drink sector. Your participation is much appreciated and your individual contribution will form an important part of developing a better knowledge of this significant aspect of future food and drink provision. In addition the on-line agency will have made all panel members (i.e. potential respondents) aware of issues relating to confidentiality, completion instructions (including true and honest answers), contact details for queries, and the estimated length of completion. As previously noted there is no issue regarding further incentivising completion, and thus response rates, through the introductory note as all respondents will have volunteered to participate of surveys of this type

Survey Q1. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (1-7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree) Instruction: Rotate start point Local food/drink is grown or produced within the area that I live Local food/drink is grown or produced in the county that I live Local food/drink is grown or produced in the region that I live Local food /drink is grown or produced in Britain Local food/drink is sourced from outside the area that I live but processed in that area Local food/drink is grown and produced locally Local food/drink is food sold in local shops



187.

Q2.. Which of the following statements best describes what you understand as local food/drink? Local food/drink is grown or produced within 10 miles of where I live Local food/drink is grown or produced within 30 miles of where I live Local food/drink is grown or produced within 50 miles of where I live Local food/drink is grow or produced in the immediate vicinity of where I live Q3. For each of the following statements please indicate whether you have bought local food/drink for use at home or eating out in the period specified. (Yes/No) to use at home when eating out I have bought local food/drink in the last week I have bought local food/drink in the last fortnight I have bought local food/drink in the last month Q4. For each of the following please indicate your purchasing behaviour towards local food/drink. Instruction: Rotate start point How often have you bought local food/drink for use at home in the past 3 months? (1-7) (not at all to very many times) Do you intend to buy local food/drink to use at home in the next fortnight? (1-7) (not at all to definitely) How much do you want to buy local food/drink to use at home in the next fortnight? (1-7) (not at all to very much) How often have you bought local food/drink when eating out in the past 3 months? (1-7) (not at all to very many times) How likely/unlikely is it that you will buy local food/drink to use at home in the next fortnight? (1-7) (not at all likely to very likely) During the past 3 months, I have bought local food/drink when eating out (1-7) (not at all to very many times) Do you intend to buy local food/drink when you eat out in the next fortnight? (1-7) (not at all to definitely) How much do you want to buy local food/drink when you eat out in the next fortnight? (1-7) (not at all to very much)



188.

During the past 3 months, I have bought local food/drink for use at home (1-7) (not at all to very many times) How likely/unlikely is it that you will buy local food/drink when you eat out in the next fortnight? (1-7) (not at all likely to very likely) Q5 To what extent do you agree with the following statements when buying local food/drink to use at home or when eating out? (1–7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree) Instruction: Rotate start point I buy local food/drink because it is of high quality I buy local food/drink because I know where it comes from I buy local food/drink because it is healthy I buy local food/drink because it is fresh I buy local food/drink because it tastes good I buy local food/drink because its origin is traceable I buy local food/drink because it supports the local community I buy local food/drink because it supports local retailers I buy local food/drink because it supports local producers I buy local food/drink because it is interesting I buy local food/drink because it is safe I buy local food/drink because it is organic I buy local food/drink because it is ethical I buy local food/drink because it is good value for money I buy local food/drink because it is sustainable I buy local food/drink because it is nostalgic I buy local food/drink because it reduces pollution I buy local food/drink because it reduces food miles I buy local food/drink because it is a treat I buy local food/drink because it is wholesome I buy local food/drink because it is nutritious I buy local food/drink because it makes me feel good I buy local food/drink because it is free from chemicals I buy local food/drink because it is seasonal I buy local food/drink because it is free from preservatives I buy local food/drink because it is environmentally friendly I buy local food/drink because it has a good appearance I buy local food/drink because it reduces packaging I buy local food/drink because it is natural I buy local food/drink because there is more variety I buy local food/drink because it is considers animal welfare I buy local food/drink because it lasts longer



189.

I buy local food/drink because I can trust it I buy local food/drink because it is traditional I buy local food/drink because the shopping experience is satisfying I buy local food/drink because I can buy the amount I want I buy local food/drink because I feel guilty if I do not I buy local food/drink because shopping for it brings back memories of the past I buy local food/drink because shopping for it is fun I don’t buy local food/drink because it is inconvenient I don’t buy local food/drink because it is not well promoted I don’t buy local food/drink because it is not well labelled I don’t buy local food/drink because I have to travel further to do so I don’t buy local food/drink because to do so is time consuming I don’t buy local food/drink because it is not readily available I don’t buy local food/drink because it requires extra effort I don’t buy local food/drink because information on where to find it is not available I don’t buy local food/drink because it is expensive I don’t buy local food/drink because it is a fad I don’t buy local food/drink because food produced elsewhere is sometimes better I don’t buy local food/drink because the price is not always clear I don’t buy local food/drink because the range of products is limited I don’t buy local food/drink because it is not branded Q6. Please indicate whether or not you buy local produce for each of the following categories Instruction: Use stimulus material pictures of product categories Yes No

fruit and vegetables drinks/beverages bread/cereals meat and meat products fish/seafood eggs/dairy produce

If answer YES: In the past 3 months, how often have you bought local (specify category) for use at home: (1-7) (not at all to very many times) In the past 3 months, how often have you bought local (specify category) when eating out: (1-7) (not at all to very many times)



190.

If answer NO: Do you ever buy (specify category) for use at home or when eating out? (Yes / No) If NO why do you never buy it? Instruction: Multi-code answers

Personal dislike Vegetarian Vegan Food intolerance Allergic to food/drink type Unhealthy Religious reasons Other (please specify) Q7. From which of the following outlets do you buy local food/drink? Instruction: Multi-code answers

At store Via Internet large supermarket chain local specialist shop (e.g. greengrocer, baker, butcher) convenience store farm shop pick/dig your own box scheme farmers market street market van sales to door (e.g. fishmonger, milkman) quality restaurant pub restaurant/bistro cafe take away/fast food chain local independent take away

Q8. When do you buy local food/drinks? Instruction: Multi-code answers

as part of your regular shop for a special occasion when on holidays when visiting friends or relatives for a treat when eating out when travelling on business



191.

Q9. For each of the following please indicate your beliefs about buying local food/drink

Instruction: Rotate start point Buying local food/drink in the next fortnight would be good

(1-7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree)

Overall I feel that I should buy local food/drink

(1-7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree) People who are important to me would want me to buy local food/drink in the next fortnight (1-7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree) People who are important to me would approve of me buying local food/drink in the next fortnight (1-7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree) Buying local food/drink in the next fortnight would be pleasant

(1-7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree) I believe that I am able to buy local food/drink in the next fortnight (1-7) (I definitely do not to I definitely do) Do you think that you will be able to buy local food /drink in the next fortnight (1-7) (definitely no to definitely yes) Buying local food/drink in the next fortnight would be favourable

(1-7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree) Buying local food/drink in the next fortnight would be easy (1-7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree) I am confident that you will be able to buy local food/drink in the next fortnight (1-7) (not at all confident to very confident) People who are important to me think that I should buy local food/drink in the next fortnight (1-7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree) Buying local food/drink in the next fortnight would be positive

(1-7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree) If it were entirely up to me, I am confident that I would be able to buy local food/drink in the next fortnight (1-7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree)



192.

Q10. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (1-7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree) Instruction: Rotate start point Regional food/drinks are specialist foods grown or produced in the regions of Britain Regional food/drinks are high quality or premium foods Regional food/drinks are grown or produced in an area with a reputation for that type of food/drink Regional food/drinks are grown or produced within a particular geographic area Regional food/drinks are marketed as coming from a particular geographic area Regional food/drinks are branded and easily recognizable Regional food/drinks are grown or produced in the region that I live There is no difference between regional and local food/drink Q11. For each of the following statements please indicate whether you have bought regional food/drink for use at home or eating out in the period specified. (Yes/No) to use at home when eating out I have bought regional food/drink in the last week I have bought regional food/drink in the last fortnight I have bought regional food/drink in the last month Q12. For each o f the following please indicate your purchasing behaviour towards regional food/drink. How often have you bought regional food/drink for use at home in the past 3 months? (1-7) (not at all to very many times) How often have you bought regional food/drink when eating out in the past 3 months? (1-7) (not at all to very many times) How likely/unlikely is it that you will buy regional food/drink in the next fortnight? (1–7) (not at all likely to very likely) How likely/unlikely is it that you will buy regional food/drink in the next month? (1–7) (not at all likely to very likely) How likely/unlikely is it that you will buy regional food/drink in the next 3 months? (1–7) (not at all likely to very likely)



193.

Q13. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (1-7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree) Instruction: Rotate start point I buy regional food/drink because it is of high quality I buy regional food/drink because it is the best available I buy regional food/drink because it is traditional I buy regional food/drink because of its reputation I buy regional food/drink even though it is priced at a premium I buy regional food/drink because it supports the regional economy I buy regional food/drink because it supports the national economy I buy regional food/drink because it is widely available I buy regional food/drink because it is branded and easily recognizable I buy regional food/drink because it is promoted nationally I buy regional food/drink because it provides good value for money I buy regional food/drink because it is associated with a particular region I buy regional food/drink even though there are cheaper alternatives available Q14. Please indicate whether or not you buy regional produce for each of the following categories Instruction: Use stimulus material pictures of product categories Yes No fruit and vegetables

drinks/beverages bread/cereals meat and meat products fish/seafood eggs/dairy produce

If answer YES: In the past 3 months, how often have you bought regional (specify category) for use at home: (1-7) (not at all to very many times) In the past 3 months, how often have you bought regional (specify category) when eating out: (1-7) (not at all to very many times) If answer NO go to next category



194.

Q15. From which of the following outlets do you buy regional food/drink? Instruction: Multi-code answers

At store Via Internet large supermarket chain specialist shop (e.g. greengrocer, baker, butcher) convenience store farm shop pick/dig your own box scheme farmers market street market van sales to door (e.g. fishmonger, milkman) quality restaurant pub restaurant/bistro cafe take away/fast food chain local independent take away tourist attraction

Q16. When do you buy regional food/drinks? Instruction: Multi-code answers

as part of your regular shop for a special occasion when on holidays when visiting friends or relatives for a treat when eating out when travelling on business

Q17. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (1-7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree) Instruction: Rotate start point We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support I think of myself as an ethical consumer Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations I think of myself as someone who is concerned about ethical issue



195.

The so-called “ecological crisis” facing human kind has been greatly exaggerated The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it Ethics are important to me when making buying decisions Humans are severely abusing the environment

Q18. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (1-7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree) Instruction: Rotate start point The safety of food nowadays concerns me I reflect about my health a lot and the health of others for whom I shop in the household Nowadays most foods contain residues from chemical sprays and fertilizers I'm very conscious about my health and the health of others for whom I shop in the household I'm alert to changes in my health and the health of others for whom I shop in the household I'm usually aware of my health and the health of others for whom I shop in the household I take responsibility for the state of my health and the health of others for whom I shop in the household I'm aware of the state of my health and the health of others for whom I shop in the household as I go through the day I’m very concerned about the amount of artificial additives and preservatives in food I’m generally attentive to my inner feelings about my health and the health of others for whom I shop in the household I’m constantly examining my health and the health of others for whom I shop in the household I’m very involved with my health and the health of others for whom I shop in the household



196.

Q19. To what extent do you agree with the following statements about where you live? (1-7) (strongly agree to strongly disagree) Instruction: Rotate start point I identify strongly with this local area I feel no commitment to this region This nation means a lot to me I am very attached to this region I feel no commitment to this local area This region means a lot to me I identify strongly with this nation I am very attached to this local area I am very attached to this nation This local area means a lot to me I feel no commitment to this nation I identify strongly with this region Q20. Gender Q21. Age Q22. Family (composition and lifestage) number in household; dependants and ages Q23. Income Q24. Occupation Q25. Education/qualification Q26. Location – region (standard regions) Q27. Location – postcode Q28. Socio-economic grouping Q29. Which best describes the place that you live?

inner city major town centre suburban area (of city or major town) small country/market town rural countryside/village



197.

Q30. How often do you generally buy food/drink for use at home?

daily every other day 2-3 times a week once a week every fortnight once a month

Q31. What outlets do you frequent when buying food/drink to use at home? Instruction: Multi-code answers

At store Via internet large supermarket chain local specialist shop (e.g. greengrocer, baker, butcher) convenience store farm shop pick/dig your own box scheme farmers market street market van sales to door (e.g. fishmonger, milkman)

Q32. How far do you normally travel to buy food/drink for use at home? no distance (buy from home)

less than 1 mile 1 – 2 miles between 2 and 5 miles more than 5 miles



198.

Q33. What forms of transport do you normally use when buying food/drink to use at home? Instruction: Multi-code answers

none (buy from home) foot car public bus/tram train shopper free bus motorbike bicycle other (please specify)

Q34. How often do you generally eat out?

daily every other day 2-3 times a week once a week every fortnight once a month less than once a month

Q35. What outlets do you frequent when eating out? Instruction: Multi-code answers

quality restaurant pub restaurant/bistro cafe take away/fast food chain local independent take away

Q36. How far do you normally travel to buy food/drink when eating out?

less than 1 mile 1 – 2 miles between 2 and 5 miles more than 5 miles



199.

Q37. What forms of transport do you normally use when buying food/drink to eat out? Instruction: Multi-code answers

foot car public bus/tram train shopper free bus motorbike bicycle other (please specify)

Do you have any comments you would like to add about buying local and regional food?



200.

Appendix Three: DEFRA Local Food and Drinks Quantitative Trade Survey


201.

DEFRA: LOCAL AND REGIONAL FOOD AND DRINKS

QUANTITATIVE TRADE SURVEY

CONFIDENTIAL QUESTIONNAIRE

SERIO, Research & Innovation University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA t +44 (0) 1752 232747 e [email protected] f +44 (0) 1752 233813 w www.serio.ac.uk


Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory 202.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. The information you provide will be treated in the strictest confidence. If, for any reason, you feel unable to answer a question, simply leave it unanswered and skip to the next one. If your business is part of a larger group then please answer questions only for the outlet in which you are currently located.

If you have any questions about this survey or need any help to fill out the questionnaire, please do not hesitate to call the survey support team on: 01752 232747

REF NO: Section One: Definitions The first set of questions concern your opinions on the subject of regional food and drink in general. 1. Thinking about the definition of local and regional food and drink, which of the following do you think this includes? (Please mark all that apply) Food and drink grown locally/regionally � Food and drink produced/processed

locally/regionally

�

Food and drink packaged locally/regionally � Food and drink sold locally/regionally � 2. Which one of the following statements best describes how your business interprets the word ‘local’ in the food and drink sector in terms of geography? In the immediate vicinity (up to 20 miles) � In England � Within a 20 - 50 miles radius � In the UK � Within a 50 -100 mile radius � In Britain � In the County (e.g. Yorkshire) � Don’t know � In the County and neighbouring County � In the Region (e.g. South East) � Other (please specify)

3. Which one of the following statements best describes how your business interprets the word ‘regional’ in the food and drink sector in terms of geography? There is no difference between local and regional � In the Region (e.g. South East) � In the immediate vicinity (up to 20 miles) � In England � Within a 20 - 50 miles radius � In the UK � Within a 50 -100 mile radius � In Britain � In the County (e.g. Yorkshire) � Don’t know � In the County and neighbouring County � Other (please specify)

4. Do you think the area of local and regional food and drink has generally become more important, less important or stayed the same in the last five years amongst

businesses and consumers? (Please indicate your answer for local and regional food/drink in the column indicated) Local

Food/Drink Regional Food/Drink

More important � � Please answer Q5 Less important � � Please answer Q5 Stayed the same � � Please answer Q5 Don’t know � � Please skip to Q6 5. Why do you think the area of local and regional food and drink has become more important/less important/stayed the same in the last five years? Local food and drink:

Regional food and drink:

6. How important is local and regional food and drink to your business? Local

Food/Drink Regional Food/Drink

Very important � � Quite important � � Neither important nor unimportant � � Not very important � � Not at all important � � Don’t know � �



Section Two: Purchasing The next set of questions focus on purchasing food and drink products. 7. Approximately, what was the annual spend on all food and/or drink products in the last financial year? (2006/2007) (Please just answer for the individual outlet

where you are based) Less than £10,000 � £200,001 - £500,000 � £10,001 - £25,000 � £500,001 - £1M � £25,001 - £50,000 � More than £1M � £50,001 - £100,000 � Don’t know/prefer not to say � £100,001 - £200,000 � 8. Does your business source local and regional food and drink? Yes - Local � Please skip to Q10 Yes - Regional � Please skip to Q10 No � Please answer Q9 Don’t know � Please answer Q9 9. Why doesn’t your business source local and regional food and drink?

Please skip to Q12

10. Please select the most important factors influencing the purchase of local and regional food and drink products by your business. Please select up to four

factors and indicate these with a tick. Compared with other products, local and regional food and drink are purchased because of :

Important factors

Higher consumer demand �

Better quality �

Greater consistency of quality �

Greater consistency of supply �

Improved freshness �

Higher food safety �

Better traceability �

A more established product provenance �

Perceived as better for health reasons �

Higher convenience regarding availability �

Easier and less costly transport and distribution �

Easier and less costly administration in sourcing product �

Better range of products �

Lower price of products �

Higher potential margin over cost �

Greater support for the local economy �

Better perception in terms of reduced environmental impacts �

Greater flexibility of suppliers �

Better promotional and marketing support for the product �

A particular positioning of the business regarding local and regional food and drink �

11. Please indicate any other important factors that are not included above that are important to your business in terms of influencing the purchase of local and

regional food and drink products. Factor:

Factor:

Factor:



12. Please select the most important factors that would result in your business purchasing (or purchasing more) local and regional food and drink products. Please

select up to four factors and indicate these with a tick. The business would buy (or buy more) local and regional food and drink if there was:

Important factors

Higher consumer demand �

Better quality �

Greater consistency of quality �

Greater consistency of supply �

Improved freshness �

Higher food safety �

Better traceability �

A more established product provenance �

Better perception of health benefits �

Higher convenience regarding availability �

Easier and less costly transport and distribution �

Easier and less costly administration in sourcing product �

Better range of products �

Lower price of products �

Higher potential margin over cost �

Greater support for the local economy �

Better perception in terms of reduced environmental impacts �

Greater flexibility of suppliers �

Better promotional and marketing support for the product �

A particular positioning of the business regarding local and regional food and drink �

13. Please indicate any other important factors that are not included above that would result in your business purchasing (or purchasing more) local and regional

food and drink products. Factor: Factor: Factor:

If you do not sell either local or regional food and drink (at Q8) please skip to Q25 others continue with Q14 14. Does your individual business have any influence over the purchasing of local and regional food and drink products to sell within your outlet? Yes � Please answer Q15 No � Please skip to Q16 15. Approximately, how much influence do you have? (Please answer as a percentage whereby 100% is complete control) %

16. Approximately, what proportion of the annual spend on all food and drinks products (from Q7) was spent on local and regional food and drink in the last financial

year? (2006/07) (Please just answer for the individual outlet where you are based) Local Food/Drink Regional Food/Drink Less than 1% � � 1 – 5% � � 6 – 10% � � 11 – 20% � � 21 – 30% � � 31 – 40% � � 41 – 50% � � Over 50% � � Don’t know/prefer not to say � � 17. How has the proportion spent on local and regional food and drink product purchases changed over the last five years? Local Food/Drink Regional Food/Drink Increased � � Please answer Q18 Decreased � � Please answer Q18 Stayed the same � � Please skip to Q19 Don’t know � � Please skip to Q19 18. And by approximately how much has the proportion increased or decreased over the last five years? Local Food/Drink Regional Food/Drink Less than 1% � � 1 – 5% � � 6 – 10% � � 11 – 20% � � 21 – 30% � � 31 – 40% � � 41 – 50% � � Over 50% � � Don’t know/prefer not to say � �



19. How do you expect the proportion spent on local and regional food and drink products purchases to change over the next five years? Local Food/Drink Regional Food/Drink Increase � � Please answer Q20 Decrease � � Please answer Q20 Stay the same � � Please skip to Q21 Don’t know � � Please skip to Q21 20. And by approximately how much do you expect the proportion to increase or decrease over the next five years? Local Food/Drink Regional Food/Drink Less than 1% � � 1 – 5% � � 6 – 10% � � 11 – 20% � � 21 – 30% � � 31 – 40% � � 41 – 50% � � Over 50% � � Don’t know/prefer not to say � � 21. What impact, if any, has the purchasing of local and regional food and drink had on administration, transport and distribution in your business and why?

Section Three: Products and Promotion 22. Are there any specific product groups where local and regional food and drink sales are more dominant within your business? If so, please indicate with a tick

against the appropriate product groups in column A. For each of these dominant product groups that you sell that are locally and regionally sourced, please indicate: - Where you source these products from in column B - The main reason why you source them from here in column C - The main constraints, if any, in sourcing these products locally and regionally in column D (e.g. legal, availability, administrative, logistical, price)

Product Group A

Dominant sales B

Where source from C

Why source from here D

Any constraints

Example: Vegetables � Local Supplier Flexible delivery Not available all year round

Milk

Cheese

Ice cream

Other diary products

Fruit

Vegetables

Meat

Frozen produce

Ready meals

Fish

Bread

Biscuits and cakes

Beers, wines and spirits

Other drinks i.e. fruit juices

Other (please specify)



23. Does your business promote the food and drink that you source locally and regionally? Yes � Please answer Q24 No � Please skip to Q25 Don’t know � Please skip to Q25 24. How do you promote these products? (Please mark all that apply) Through regional food groups � Display information � Posters/billboard � State on product/menu � Point of sale information � Website � Space allocation in store � Word of mouth � Special offers/Promotions � Food awards � Media advertising � Food festivals and exhibitions � Farmers Markets � Don’t know � Jointly with suppliers � Leaflets � Other (please specify)

Section Four: Consumer Perception 25. Which of the following factors do you feel are most important to consumers when deciding to purchase local and regional foods and drink? Please circle on a

scale of one to five, where one is ‘very unimportant’ and five is ‘very important’. Very unimportant Fairly unimportant Neither Fairly important Very important A. Quality of the product 1 2 3 4 5 B. Freshness of the product 1 2 3 4 5 C. Health aspects of the product 1 2 3 4 5

D. Food safety aspects of the product

1 2 3 4 5

E. Traceability of the product 1 2 3 4 5 F. Provenance of the product 1 2 3 4 5 G. Availability of the product 1 2 3 4 5 H. Variety of products available 1 2 3 4 5 I. Price of the product 1 2 3 4 5

J. Environmental impacts in the production and use of the product

1 2 3 4 5

K. Supporting the local economy 1 2 3 4 5

Section Five: The Future 26. How do you see the future of the local and regional food and drink market? Local Food/drink Regional Food/drink Growing dramatically � � Growing slightly � � Staying the same � � Declining slightly � � Declining dramatically � � Don’t know � � 27. Why do you say that? Local food and drink:

Regional food and drink:



Section Six: Demographics Finally, in this section we would like you to tell us about some of the key characteristics of your business to help us understand the issues facing different types and sizes of organisations across the country. 28. Which of these best describes the location of your business? Major town or city centre � Suburbs of a large town or city � In a small country/market town � Out in the countryside/in a village � 29. Which region is your business located in? South West � East of England � South East � North West � London � North East � West Midlands � Yorkshire & Humberside � East Midlands � 30. Including yourself, approximately how many members of staff does your business employ? (Please just answer for the individual outlet where you are based) How many permanent full time?

How many permanent part time (full time equivalent)?

How many casual workers (full time equivalent)?

31. Approximately, what was the annual turnover of your business in the last financial year? (2006/07) (Please just answer for the individual outlet where you are

based) Less than £10,000 � £200,001 - £500,000 � £10,001 - £25,000 � £500,001 - £1M � £25,001 - £50,000 � More than £1M � £50,001 - £100,000 � Don’t know � £100,001 - £200,000 � Prefer not to say � 32. Which of the following categories does your business fall into? Retail � Food services

(e.g. restaurant/pub/takeaway/catering)

�

Other (please specify)

33. Is your business independent, part of a larger group or a franchise? Independent � Part of a larger group � Franchise � 34. Approximately how many outlets are there within the business as a whole?

Section Seven: Additional Information and Comments This final section gives you the opportunity to provide any additional information or comments. Please use this space to tell us about any other information you think may be useful or to provide any comments you have about this survey.

Would you like to be informed of the findings produced by this survey? Yes � No �

If yes, please ensure you complete your email address below.

Business Name

Your Name

Email

Contact Telephone No

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. Please return the questionnaire in the pre-paid envelope provided.

Understanding of Consumer Attitudes for Actual Purchasing Behaviour with Reference to Local and Regional Foods


Appendix Four: Quantitative Trade Cover Letter Manager / Proprietor Ref: «SERIO_ID» «BUS_NAME» «ADDRESS1» «ADDRESS2» «ADDRESS3» «TOWN» «PCD» 19th March 2008 Dear Manager / Proprietor, RE: Local and Regional Food and Drink Purchasing The Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory (SERIO) at the University of Plymouth has been commissioned by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (defra) to investigate the factors that influence purchasing decisions made by trade buyers with regard to local and regional food and drink in England. The results of this exercise will help to inform future national commercial and public policies in the local and regional food and drink sector. Your business has been randomly selected to participate in this survey. Participating will ensure your views contribute to our understanding of the national picture and also help to ensure that the conclusions from the survey are representative of businesses within the retail and food service sector across England. The survey should take 15 minutes to complete and all of the answers you provide will remain completely confidential. The survey should be completed by the manager or proprietor of your business or someone involved in purchasing food and drink products within the business. If this is not yourself please pass it on to the most suitable person. Although you need not participate, it is extremely important for future developments of the retail and food service sector that you do. If you return your completed questionnaire by 11th April you will be entered into our prize draw where you can win a prize of £500 to spend on yourself, your staff or donate to your favourite charity.



We hope that you will help us by spending a few minutes to complete your enclosed questionnaire and return it to us in the pre-paid envelope provided. Yours faithfully,

Dr Rebekah Southern Director Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory PS - To be entered into the prize draw you must complete the contact details on page 6 of the questionnaire and return it to us by Friday 11th April 2008.



Appendix Five: Quantitative Trade Reminder Letter Manager / Proprietor Ref:«SERIO_ID» «BUS_NAME» «ADDRESS1» «ADDRESS2» «ADDRESS3» «TOWN» «PCD» 25th March 2008 Dear Manager / Proprietor, RE: Local and Regional Food and Drink Purchasing We recently contacted you regarding research that the Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory (SERIO) at the University of Plymouth has been commissioned to conduct by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (defra) and, to date, we do not appear to have received your completed questionnaire. The research investigates the factors that influence purchasing decisions made by trade buyers with regard to local and regional food and drink in England. The results of this exercise will to help inform future national commercial and public policies in the local and regional food and drink sector. We are taking this opportunity to contact you again as we wish to offer you the chance to participate to ensure your views contribute to our understanding of the national picture. In addition your participation will help to ensure that the conclusions from the survey are representative of businesses within the retail and food service sector across England. The survey should take 15 minutes to complete and all of the answers you provide will remain completely confidential. The survey should be completed by the manager or proprietor of your business or someone involved in purchasing food and drink products within the business. If this is not yourself please pass it on to the most suitable person. Although you need not participate, it is extremely important for future developments of the retail and food service sector that you do. If you return your completed questionnaire by Friday 11th April you will be entered into our prize draw where you can win a prize of £500 to spend on yourself, your staff or donate to your favourite charity.



We hope that you will help us by spending a few minutes to complete your enclosed questionnaire and return it to us in the pre-paid envelope provided. If you have already returned your questionnaire please accept our apologies for contacting you again and thank you for your response. Yours faithfully,

Dr Rebekah Southern Director Socio-economic Research and Intelligence Observatory PS - To be entered into the prize draw you must complete the contact details on page 7 of the questionnaire and return it to us by Friday 11th April 2008.



Appendix Six: Trade Face-to-Face Interview Schedule Understanding of consumer attitudes and actual purchasing behaviour, with reference to local and regional foods – Defra SFFSD 0609 Introduction

1. From University of Plymouth.

2. The overall objective of the interview is to gauge your response and attitude to any changes that there may have been in consumer demand for local and regional food and drink in England.

3. In doing that, we hope to be able to understand the various factors that

influence purchasing decisions made by household consumers and trade buyers with regard to local and regional foods. This will help to inform future commercial and public policies in the local and regional food sector.

4. Clarify time available. 5. Check OK to record. 6. Emphasise confidentiality, and that it will not be possible to identify any

person’s individual response in any published document. 7. No obligation to answer any question, and can break interview at any

time.

INTERVIEWEE(S): INTERVIEWER: DATE:



Section One: Local and Regional Food and Drink – General Views The first three questions concern your opinions on the subject of local and regional foods, in general � How does your organisation interpret the words ‘local’ and ‘regional’ in the

food and drink sector? a. Do you identify any distinctions between the two terms? b. What criteria do you use to differentiate?

� Why, in your view, has this area started to assume a degree of importance?

a. What are the key drivers? b. What do you see as the commercial advantages/disadvantages of

promoting local / regional food and drink purchasing? c. Are there any other non-commercial advantages and disadvantages

of promoting local / regional food and drink purchasing? � How do you see the future of the local/ regional food and drink market and

what are your perceptions of purchasing trends of these products. Is this a ‘flash in the pan’ or do you see it as a sustained development?

Section Two: Local and Regional Food and Drink and your Business The second section contains a number of questions concerning the impact of the changes in demand for local and regional food and drink on your organisation and the responses that have been made as a result.

4. Do you market and promote local / regional food and drink? If YES GO TO Q5 If NO GO TO Q5 and then Q 16 5. Why is this? 6. What is the current percentage by value of the total food and drink purchases by your business represented by local and regional food and drink? If not prepared to disclose actual figure then....is this …..

Less than 10% 10-25% More than 25%

7. What proportion of your stores offer local and regional food and drink?



8. Are local and regional food and drink products identified through EPOS technology? 9. Are there any specific product groups where local / regional sales are more dominant? If so, what are these?

10. What are the main constraints in sourcing such products?

11. How has the share, by value, of local and regional food and drink product purchases changed over the last five years?

12. How has the proportion of stores offering local and regional food and drink changed over the last five years?

13. How are you structured with respect to local / regional food and drink purchasing?

i. do you have specific buying groups, add-ons to current structures,

ii. do you purchase by product groups e.g. cheese, meat 14. What impact has the purchasing of local / regional food and drink had on distribution and logistics in your business? 15. Have you made any special arrangements, distributions hubs, local offices etc? 16. Is there anything else that you would like to say about this subject that we have not already covered? ie. other constraints or other impacts on the business? Conclusion 1. Offer copy of summary of results. 2. OK to ring back with afterthoughts?

Thank you very much for your time today



Appendix Seven: Trade Tele-Depth Interview Schedule Defra Understanding of consumer attitudes and actual purchasing behaviour, with reference to local and regional foods Interview Schedule – Semi-structured interviews with private sector retail and food services organisations October 2007

INTRODUCTION: Good morning / afternoon, please can I speak to X (insert respondent name) / the manager. Good morning / afternoon, my name is X and I’m calling from the University of Plymouth in relation to some research we’re conducting on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). I’m looking to speak to someone who is involved in buying food and drink products within the organisation. Would you be the most appropriate person for us to speak to? (If not, speak to someone else and re-introduce yourself). Having located the appropriate person: We’ve been commissioned by Defra to investigate the various factors that influence purchasing decisions made by trade buyers with regard to local and regional food and drink in England. The results of this exercise will help to inform future commercial and public policies in the local and regional food sector. I was wondering whether you might be able to spare about 30 minutes of your time to go through a telephone survey with me about your organisations purchasing behaviour and attitudes towards local and regional food and drink? If yes: I’d like to thank you very much for giving up your time to participate in the study. I have a few things to go through with you before we start.

� The information that you provide us with today will be analysed along with information from all the other interviews we are undertaking and written into a report that will be passed back to Defra. Are you happy with that?

� Today’s interview should take approximately 30 minutes.



� If you feel uncomfortable with any of the questions or prefer not to answer that’s absolutely fine.

� Likewise, you are free to end the interview at any point if you don’t want

to continue answering questions.

� Are you happy to continue? Is there anything else you would like me to clarify?

� Do you have any questions before we start?

If no: Could I call back at a more convenient time?

- If yes, record date and time on the database and thank the respondent for their time.

- If no, check if there’s a more appropriate person for you to speak to. If not then thank the respondent for their time.



THE INTERVIEW: SERIO ID (from database): ____ Section One: Demographics

1. Firstly, I just need to confirm some details about your organisation. If

your organisation is part of a larger group then please answer questions only for the site on which you are currently located.

What is the name of your organisation?

Contact name:

Contact job title:

Contact tel. no:

Postcode:

And which region is your organisation located in:

[PROBE AS PER PRE CODES]

South West

South East

London

West Midlands

East Midlands

East of England

North West

North East

Yorkshire

2. Could you give me a very brief and basic description of the organisation and your role within it?

Organisation: PROBE – independent/chain/franchise Role: PROBE – Experience/decision maker



3. And which of the following groups does your organisation fall into…. READ OUT

Wholesale

Retail

Food services

4. Including yourself, approximately how many permanent members of staff does your organisation employ. So firstly… READ OUT

How many permanent full time

How many permanent part time

5. Approximately, what was the annual turnover of your business in the last financial year? (2006/07) PROBE AS PER PRE CODES

Less than £10,000

£10,001 - £25,000

£25,001 - £50,000

£50,001 - £100,000

£100,001 - £200,000

£200,001 - £500,000

£500,001 - £1M

More than £1M

Don’t know

Refused



Section Two: Local and Regional Food and Drink – General Views

The next few questions concern your opinions on the subject of local and regional foods in general.

6. How does your organisation interpret the words ‘local’ and ‘regional’ in the food and drink sector? So firstly… [ask about local, then regional then distinctions etc] READ OUT

PROBE FULLY - grown, produced, made or packaged locally/regionally - urban/rural focus

- any distinctions between the two terms - any criteria used to differentiate between them

7. Do you think the area of local and regional food and drink has become more important, less important or stayed the same in the last 5 years amongst organisations and consumers?

More important Ask Q8

Less important Skip to Q9

The same Skip to Q9

Don’t know Skip to Q9

Regional:

Local:



8. Why, in your view, has the area of local and regional food and drink started to assume a degree of importance to organisations and consumers?

PROBE FULLY - what are the key drivers of this (e.g. provenance of the food, trust (traceability), quality, freshness, health, support local economy, environmental impact, advertising, TV programmes etc.)

9. And how important is local and regional food and drink to your organisation? Would you say it is ….(READ OUT: SINGLE CODE)

Very Important

Quite important

Neither important nor unimportant

Not very important

Not at all important

Don’t know

10 What do you see as the commercial advantages and disadvantages, if any, of promoting local and regional food and drink purchasing? So firstly…[ask about advantages then disadvantages] READ OUT

[INTERVIEWER: SPLIT OUT LOCAL/ REGIONAL AND FOOD AND DRINK AS APPROPRIATE FOR BOTH ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES]

Advantages:

Specify:



11. Are there any other non-commercial advantages and disadvantages of promoting local / regional food and drink purchasing? So firstly… [ask about advantages then disadvantages] READ OUT

[INTERVIEWER: SPLIT OUT LOCAL/ REGIONAL AND FOOD AND DRINK AS APPROPRIATE FOR BOTH ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES]

PROBE FULLY - Environmental Issues

Disadvantages:

Advantages:

Disadvantages:



Section Three: Local and Regional Food and Drink – Your Business

The next few questions concern the impact of the changes in demand for local and regional food and drink on your organisation and the responses that have been made as a result.

12. Do you sell local and regional food and / or drink?

Yes

No Ask Q13, Q14 then Q28

Don’t know Ask Q13, Q14 then Q28

13. Why is that?

PROBE FULLY - Probe for any barriers amongst those that don’t sell

14. And approximately, what was the annual spend on food and / or drink products in the last financial year? (2006/07) PROBE AS PER PRE CODES

Less than £10,000

£10,001 - £25,000

£25,001 - £50,000

£50,001 - £100,000

£100,001 - £200,000

£200,001 - £500,000

£500,001 - £1M

More than £1M

Don’t know/refused

THOSE THAT DON’T SELL LOCAL/REGIONAL FOOD AND DRINK AT Q12 SKIP TO Q28, OTHERS CONTINUE WITH Q15

Specify:



15. And approximately, what proportion of this was spent on local and regional food and / or drink in the last financial year? (2006/07)

_______%

PROBE WITH PRE CODES AS NECESSARY

Less than 1%

1 – 5%

5 – 10%

11 – 20%

21 – 30%

31 – 40%

41 – 50%

Over 50%

Don’t know

16. How has the share, by value, of local and regional food and / or drink product purchases changed over the last five years?

PROBE FULLY FOR % INCREASE/DECREASE

17. And how do you expect it to change over the next 5 years?

PROBE FULLY

Specify:

Specify:



18. Does your organisation promote the local and regional food and / or drink that you sell?

Yes Go to Q20

No Answer Q19 then go to Q21

Don’t know Go to Q21

IF NO 19. Why is that?

PROBE FULLY

IF YES 20. How do you promote these products?

PROBE FULLY – stands / adverts / labelling / dedicated shelf space / menu

Specify:

Specify:



21. How does your organisation operate in terms of purchasing food and / or drink, and specifically local and regional food and / or drink?

[INTERVIEWER: Establish an overview of the buying process initially, then relate to local and regional food and / or drink]

PROBE FULLY - do you have specific buying groups, add-ons to current

structures grown or produced locally? - is buying centralised or localised and proportion split? - do you purchase by product groups e.g. cheese, meat? - what is your role within this process?

22. Can I just clarify, does your organisation have any influence over the purchasing of local and regional food and / or drink?

Yes Ask Q23

No Go to Q24

Don’t know Go to Q24

23. What do you look for when buying local and regional food and / or drink?

PROBE FULLY - what makes you buy from one organisation rather than another? - which elements are most important?

Specify:

Specify:



24. What impact, if any, has the purchasing of local and regional food and / or drink had on distribution and logistics in your business?

PROBE FULLY - Have you made any special arrangements? (For example

distributions hubs, local offices etc.)

25. How do you keep track of how much local and regional food and / or drink products you have sold?

PROBE FULLY - Stock control

- EPOS technology/bar coding

Specify:

Specify:



26. Are there any specific product groups where local and regional sales are more dominant within your organisation? If so, what are these? RUN THROUGH LIST

Milk

Cheese

Ice cream

Other dairy products

Fruit

Vegetables

Meat

Frozen produce

Ready meals

Fish

Bread

Biscuits and cakes

Beer, wines and spirits

Other drinks (i.e. fruit juices)

Other



27. Are there any constraints in sourcing any of the following products locally and regionally? (e.g. legal, availability, administrative, logistical, price) RUN THROUGH LIST

Milk

Cheese

Ice cream

Other dairy products

Fruit

Vegetables

Meat

Frozen produce

Ready meals

Fish

Bread

Biscuits and cakes

Beer, wines and spirits

Other drinks (i.e. fruit juices)

Other



SECTION FOUR: LOCAL AND REGIONAL FOOD AND DRINK – THE FUTURE ASK ALL 28. What, if anything, would encourage your organisation to source [more]

food and / or drink from local and regional sources?

PROBE FULLY

29. How do you see the future of the local/ regional food and drink market?

PROBE FULLY - What are your perceptions of purchasing trends of these products?

- Do you see it as a sustained development?

30. Will your organisation take any further steps in the future to address

changes in the consumption of local and regional food and drinks? IF YES: What would these be?

PROBE FULLY

Specify:

Specify:

Specify:



31. Is there anything else that you would like to say about this subject that we have not already covered? (e.g. other constraints or other impacts on the business?)

PROBE FULLY

Specify:



SECTION FIVE: CONCLUSION

32. Would you be happy for us to re-contact you in the future if we need to clarify any of the details you’ve given us today?

Yes

No

33. Would you like us to email or post you a summary of the results of this research?

Yes - email Obtain details below

Yes - post Obtain details below

No

Well, that is the end of the interview. Thank you very much for your time today. Do you have any questions or additional comments?

Email address OR postal address:

Additional comments:

final report understanding of consumer attitudes and ... of consumer attitudes... · final report...

Documents