This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]

On: 19 December 2014, At: 06:00

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hunger & Environmental

Nutrition
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/when20

Understanding Barriers to Farmers'

Market Patronage in Michigan:
Perspectives From Marginalized
Populations
a

Kathryn J. A. Colasanti , David S. Conner & Susan B. Smalley

CS Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems, Department of

Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies , Michigan
State University , East Lansing, Michigan, USA
Published online: 17 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: Kathryn J. A. Colasanti , David S. Conner & Susan B. Smalley (2010)
Understanding Barriers to Farmers' Market Patronage in Michigan: Perspectives From
Marginalized Populations, Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 5:3, 316-338, DOI:
10.1080/19320248.2010.504097
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2010.504097

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

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

Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 5:316338, 2010

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1932-0248 print/1932-0256 online
DOI: 10.1080/19320248.2010.504097

Understanding Barriers to Farmers Market

Patronage in Michigan: Perspectives
From Marginalized Populations

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

KATHRYN J. A. COLASANTI, DAVID S. CONNER, and

SUSAN B. SMALLEY
CS Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems, Department of Community, Agriculture,
Recreation and Resource Studies, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

Farmers markets are touted to bring community development and

nutritional benefits yet are criticized for being patronized by narrow segments of society. We review literature on farmers market
attributes that motivate patrons, finding little research that explores
either the interaction of incentives and disincentives or unique
perspectives from marginalized populations. We report on focus
groups and a statewide survey in Michigan investigating attitudes
and behaviors surrounding farmers markets with an eye toward
underrepresented groups. Though interest in fresh, local products was widespread, attitudes and barriers experienced differed
across demographics. We conclude with implications for stakeholders wishing to increase the relevance of direct markets in diverse
societies.
KEYWORDS Farmers markets, diversity, civic agriculture, local
food systems

Between 2000 and 2005 farmers markets increased by 43% across the United
States.1 These direct market venues often provide a market opportunity for
The authors thank all the individuals who participated in this research. The authors
are grateful for the helpful critiques from two anonymous reviewers and the state funds
for this project, which were matched with federal funds under the FederalState Marketing
Improvement Program of the Agricultural Marketing Service, US Department of Agriculture,
that made this research possible.
Address correspondence to Kathryn J. A. Colasanti, Department of CARRS, Michigan State
University, 303 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail: colokat@msu.edu

316

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

Understanding Barriers to Farmers Market Patronage

317

farmers, act as a business incubator for beginning farmers,2,3 and serve as an

economic anchor that brings additional dollars into a community.4 Farmers
markets are also thought to provide benefits to their patrons. Advocates
argue that direct sales of produce can provide access to healthy food
in neighborhoods where fresh fruits and vegetables are otherwise scarce.
Farmers markets have also been described as centerpieces of locally integrated food systems, which connect producers and consumers, and of civic
agriculture, which (re)embeds market transactions within community relationships that build social capital.5-8 In short, farmers markets are thought
to be a venue that fosters social connection, reciprocity and trust (p. 296),7
both between vendors and patrons and among patrons, in ways that are
not only personally fulfilling but foundational to equitable, sustainable, and
democratic market exchange.
In reality, however, the relationship between farmers markets and these
lofty ideals is more complex. Several scholars have noted that farmers markets are frequented by particular demographics (notably white and middle
to upper class) and, furthermore, that the ways in which they are established, managed, and promoted privilege particular demographics. Hinrichs
et al.8 related the rising popularity of farmers markets to the cachet of colorful open-air markets as trendy arenas for consumption (p. 34). Similarly,
DeLind9 warned that niche marketing strategies most often target an elite
customer base. Allen10 noted that the low participation in farmers markets
by food stamp recipients runs the risk of reinscribing class privilege. Alkon
and McCullen11 discussed how white culture shapes farmers markets, first
through appealing to romantic imagery of small farmers, which generally
ignores the historically oppressed role of African Americans in agriculture
and the current role of Latinos as farm workers; secondly, through the reality
that the community nurtured through a farmers market is too often defined
in a way that excludes people of color; and thirdly, through the intersection
with gourmet food practices, which reinforces farmers markets as places for
the affluent. These observations remind us that the social space of farmers
markets is not inherently equitable and may not be equally attractive across
racial and socioeconomic lines.
In a different line of critique, Hinrichs,7 drawing on Fred Block,12
argued that even if farmers market exchanges are embedded within
face-to-face interaction and personal relationships (a state of socially based
market exchange she refers to as embeddedness), self-interested behavior
(instrumentalism), particularly in regards to market prices (marketness
describes the degree to which price takes primacy over other factors),
remains relevant for both vendors and patrons. For patrons this means that
even if a farmers market offers higher quality produce and a more socially
satisfying shopping experience, price will play a factor in the decision
whether to shop there. To this end, market and non-market shoppers cannot
be differentiated simply on the basis of values. Low-resource customers
may not have the luxury of prioritizing the aura of personal relations and

318

K. J. A. Colasanti et al.

social connection (p. 299) sold at the farmers market.7 Taken together,
these critiques point toward the importance of understanding perceptions of
farmers markets, including reasons for deciding whether or not to patronize
these venues, among the demographics largely underrepresented at these
markets. Our research offered this opportunity through both focus groups
and a statewide phone survey.

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

FARMERS MARKET PATRONAGE

The current literature on farmers markets provides a context for understanding patron demographics and perceptions. By and large, research has found
that market shoppers tend to be highly educated, professional, middle-aged
to older, white, and female.13-15 As one example, a survey of over 300
patrons of New Jersey farmers markets found that 84% were white, 83%
were female, 83% lived in the suburbs, and 68% had no children under 18
in the household.16 On the other hand, Keeling-Bond et al.17 contended that
more recent increases in the number of people shopping at farmers markets has brought in a larger cross section of the population. Accordingly,
Wolf et al.18 found that their 2005 study of farmers market customer demographics revealed a slightly broader demographic profile than a similar study
they conducted in 1995, though market patrons were still more likely to be
female, married, and have completed postgraduate work.
Other studies, however, have indicated that demographics do not
always tell the full story. Thilmany et al.19 found that desires to support
local businesses and producers were much stronger predictors of frequent
direct market purchases than race or income. Stephenson and Lev20 found
that though support for local food cut across income and education lines,
younger people (aged 2129) showed considerably less interest in purchasing locally grown foods compared to middle-aged and older individuals.
Yet neither of these studies were able to look at the factors influencing the
decision to patronize direct markets.
Researchers have consistently shown that high-quality products and
produce freshness are among the most important factors that motivate
patrons to shop at farmers markets.14,18,21-24 Conversely, convenience, location, and a money-back guarantee are reasons to prefer a supermarket over
a farmers market.22 Inconvenient locations (including too far away), inconvenient times, and lack of awareness of the existence of a market have
been shown to be the most significant deterrents to shopping at a farmers
market.13,14,18,21,24
Other research has attempted to understand with greater sophistication how values influence farmers market behavior. Elepu14 differentiated
between the two largest consumer segments as market enthusiasts, who
value the shopping experience and seek out a wide variety of organic,
high-quality produce, and basic shoppers, who mainly value high-quality

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

Understanding Barriers to Farmers Market Patronage

319

produce. According to this differentiation, only 28% of patrons fell into the
category of those who value the shopping experience itself highly. KeelingBond et al.17 also differentiated between frequent farmers market patrons,
who value producer relationships, connections with other market patrons,
and locally grown produce, and infrequent patrons, who tend to place
greater emphasis on convenience, aesthetics, and price. Thilmany et al.19
found that the willingness to pay for farmers market products increases if
patrons are motivated by external benefits such as environmental protection
or sustaining local agriculture.
Taken as a whole, the literature shows some of the key farmers market
attributes that motivate patrons as well as apparent sociodemographic and
value-based patron groupings. Yet little research has explored the interaction of incentives and disincentives through in-depth qualitative study and
even fewer studies have considered the possibility of a unique perspective
from marginalized populations. Furthermore, because much of the research
on farmers markets has targeted farmers market patrons,13,14,22-25 rather
than the general population,17,18,20,26 we targeted our research toward those
who had never before or only infrequently shopped at farmers markets.
We also aimed to reach demographics less frequently observed at farmers
markets, including young singles, families with young children, low-income
households, and racial and ethnic minorities. In order to assess potential differences in perceptions of farmers markets and shopping behavior between
demographic groups, we framed our research around two questions: (1)
What are consumers awareness levels, motivations and behaviors surrounding farmers markets? and (2) What are consumers perceived barriers or
disincentives to greater participation in farmers markets?
In the first stage of our research we utilized focus groups as a way to
gain insight into these questions and understand nuances of perspective.
Exploring individuals perspectives on farmers markets and their perceived
barriers or disincentives to shopping at these venues with a range of demographics allowed us to increase our understanding of the reasons consumers
are or are not motivated to shop at a farmers market. These focus groups
fulfilled the dual purposes of conducting exploratory research into the
multifaceted behavioral patterns of food shopping and informing the development of the larger scale quantitative survey we employed in the second
stage of our research.27

RESEARCH METHODS
Focus Groups
Our goal was to conduct 6 to 8 focus groups of 8 to 10 participants who
would collectively represent urban and rural households and the aforementioned demographics of particular interest to this research. We partnered

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

320

K. J. A. Colasanti et al.

with organizations located in communities with farmers markets and who

served our target demographics to recruit participants and host the focus
groups. We conducted 7 focus groups with a total of 63 people in both urban
(3) and rural (4) locations across Michigan. All of the research participants
were the primary shoppers for their households and collectively represented
many of the demographics that are frequently underrepresented at farmers
markets (FMs). Three of the focus groups were conducted with communities
who spoke a first language other than English: Latinos, Arab Americans, and
international graduate student parents. Though we were unable to arrange
a focus group exclusively with African Americans, two of the predominantly
white focus groups included African American individuals. Due to the mix
of races present in these groups, however, it is possible that opinions from
individuals of minority racial status may have been suppressed. Though we
did not collect data on income, based on participant affiliations with programs targeted toward low-income households (eg, Women, Infants, and
Children [WIC]) or status as graduate students, we presume that all or nearly
all participants were of low to moderate income status. (See Table 1 for
further details on demographics of each group.)
TABLE 1 Major Results by Focus Group
No. of
people

Demographics

Major results

Rural, non-Hispanic
white women, range of
ages

Rural, women, majority

non-Hispanic white but
several Asian, Hispanic
and African American;
range of ages

10

Rural, Latina women,

majority young
mothers

Two people attended FM regularly; more drawn by

produce than crafts or baked goods; liked the
visibility and walkability of the downtown
location. Limited time and limited selection were
major deterrents; complaints that fruit sells out
quickly; thought that hours that aligned with
another reason to be downtown would be most
convenient.
No one attended FM regularly. Group felt that most
town residents were unfamiliar with FM because
of lack of visibility and inadequate signage.
Produce most highly valued in selection. The
inability to use EBT, limited time, and
inconvenient hours and locations were main
deterrents. Different opinions about downtown
location expressed.
No one attended FM regularly. Placed fairly high
emphasis on customer service; believed FM
prices to be higher than stores. Location was
inconvenient, especially for those dependent on
public transportation, and were deterred by
need for multiple trips. Felt they were distrusted
by vendors and atmosphere was unfriendly for
children; were offended by vendors appearance.
Generally preferred a location near major
grocery stores.
(Continued)

Understanding Barriers to Farmers Market Patronage

321

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

No. of
people

Demographics

Major results

Urban, Arab American

women, range of ages

10

Urban, men and women,

foreign graduate
student parents (Asian,
Middle Eastern, and
European) with
elementary-age
children

Rural, non-Hispanic
white women, majority
young mothers

15

Urban, men and women,

majority non-Hispanic
white but several
Hispanic, Asian, and
African American;
young singles in law
school

No one attended FM regularly. Assumed FMs

would have fresher, higher quality, local, and
more natural produce and expressed frustrations
when this didnt hold true. Preferred to shop for
produce more than 1 day/week. Location was
inconvenient because nearly 45-minute drive.
A few were willing to travel only if prices were
better.
No one attended FM regularly. Perception of FMs
as source of fresher, local, and more natural
produce. Some were satisfied with selection;
others wished for more ethnic foods. Thought
FM should advertise, especially to ethnic
communities, and use better signage. Time
constraints were major deterrent and many
found location inconvenient and wished for
longer hours.
Three people shopped at FM regularly. Group
placed fairly high emphasis on supporting local
farmers. Wished for larger selection and more
competitive prices. Complained that weekday
market closes before people get out of work and
best selection is only found in morning. Some
liked downtown location but others complained
of heavy traffic and congestion, particularly in
regards to bringing children to the FM.
No one attended FM regularly. Expected FM to be
lively, engaging and have wide selection of
local, seasonal, and organic produce but felt
their FM didnt offer this, so were not motivated
to shop there. Saw lack of advertising and
inadequate signage, as well as run-down
building, as deterrents but felt the selection
oriented toward crafts and dry goods was
unappealing. Assumed that FM would not accept
EBT even though it did.

Focus groups were semistructured and consisted of open-ended questions (see Table 2). A question guide was developed based on our research
objectives, a review of farmers market literature, and direct experience with
on-site farmers market research and activities in order to ensure consistency
across focus groups. Question wording and order were based on established guidelines27-30 and reviewed and modified by colleagues experienced
in focus group techniques and working with lower income people. Followup questions and probes were used to seek greater depth and to explore
agreement or disagreement with opinions shared from other group members. Participants were asked to describe their food shopping habits and

322

K. J. A. Colasanti et al.

TABLE 2 Focus Group Questions

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

Category

Main questions

Probes

Warmup questions

Who in your house usually

gets food and where does
that person go?
When you want fresh food,
where do you go to get it?

Why do you go there?

When do you go?
How do you get there?
Who goes with you?
How is the selection?
How do they treat you?
How are the prices?
Do the accept food
stamps/EBT?
Do they accept Project FRESH
coupons?

Transition questions

Do you know of any farmers

markets around here? When
I say farmers market, Im
thinking of a place where a
group of farmers come
together, usually once a
week, to sell their farm
products.
What have you heard about
the farmers market(s)?
How have you heard about
the market(s)?
What kinds of people do you
think shop at the farmers
market(s)?
What about any other farmers
markets youve heard about?

Can you say more about that?

Does anyone have a different
experience?
Any other thoughts?

Key questions

Tell us about any times that

you shopped or considered
shopping at the farmers
market.

What was it like?

What did you buy?
How was the selection?
How were the prices?
How did they treat you?
Was it easy to get there?
Can you say more about that?
Does anyone have a different
experience?
Any other thoughts?

Summary questions

What was the best part about

shopping at the farmers
market?
What was the worst part about
shopping at the farmers
market?
What keeps you from
shopping at farmers
markets more often?
What changes could the
farmers market(s) make
that would encourage you
to shop there more often?

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

Understanding Barriers to Farmers Market Patronage

323

motivations as a way of eliciting the values guiding food purchasing decisions and contextualizing their behaviors with respect to farmers markets.
We then explored participants experiences with, perceptions of, and the
motivations or deterrents for shopping at farmers markets. At the conclusion
of each focus group, the moderator gave a summary of what she understood
to be the dominant themes of the conversation to bolster the interpretative
validity of the analysis. Focus groups were moderated by the primary author
and an assistant was present to take notes.
Focus group transcripts were transcribed verbatim1 and the resulting
transcripts were coded for dominant themes using the software Atlas.ti
5.5 (Atlas.ti Scientific Softwere Development GmbH Berlin, Germany).
Transcripts were cross-referenced with focus group notes in order to ensure
accuracy of transcription and to differentiate by speaker. Codes were developed inductively, with respect to our research questions, for the initial
transcripts and then adjusted as needed to reflect themes that emerged in
later transcripts. Coded passages of text were analyzed and summary statements for the research questions were developed for each data collection.
Coding was done by the primary author and codes were discussed extensively with the coauthors in order to explore alternative interpretations of
themes, first prior to the development of the survey and later in the context
of the survey results. After refining and revising the summary statements,
they were aligned in a table that allowed comparison across data collections
and provided the foundation for our analysis.31

Statewide Telephone Survey

In the second research phase, a telephone survey was used to test the frequency of and relationships between key variables identified in the focus
groups. We commissioned a series of questions on the Fall 2008 State of the
State Survey conducted by Michigan State Universitys Institute for Public
Policy and Survey Research. The referent population was the noninstitutionalized, English-speaking adult population of Michigan, aged 18 and over.
Because the survey was conducted by telephone, only persons who lived
in households with landline telephones had a chance of being interviewed.
The sample was weighted to be representative of state residents. A total of
953 interviews was completed in October 2008.32
The questions we commissioned began by asking whether and how
often the respondent shopped for food. Those answering never were not
asked any of the remaining farmers market questions. Respondents were
then given a definition of a farmers market (a place where a group of
1

This is true for all but one of the focus groups for which an audio equipment malfunction made
verbatim transcription impossible. For this group, the moderator immediately wrote down everything she
could remember from the conversation and these notes were sent to the person who had recruited focus
group participants and was present through the conversation for cross-checking.

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

324

K. J. A. Colasanti et al.

farmers come together, usually once a week, to sell their farm products)
and asked whether they had shopped at a farmers market in the past year.
Dummy variables were created: shopper (coded 0 for those who never shop
for food, 1 otherwise) and FM shopper (1 for those who had shopped at a
farmers market the previous month, 0 otherwise).
We used a 4-point Likert-type scale to measure the importance of 12
factors in deciding whether to shop at a farmers market, the majority of
which emerged from the focus groups: good value, top-quality products,
variety of products available, convenient location, convenient hours, ability
to do all shopping at one location, supporting local farms, ability to get
information from the vendor about where or how the food was grown, a
welcoming atmosphere, a large variety of antibiotic- or hormone-free products, a large variety of organic or pesticide-free products, and food is handled
in a manner that minimizes the chances of food-borne disease. The factors
that did not appear in the focus groups (information from vendor, antibioticor hormone-free products, and food-borne disease) came from previous
research on farmers markets.17,20
Demographic variables that were of particular interest, given focus
group results, included sex, age, income, education, and race. Dummy variables were created, including female (coded 1 for females, 0 for males);
Latino (coded 1 for self-reported members of this ethnic group, 0 otherwise), young adult (coded 1 if age is 1835, 0 otherwise), college grad
(coded 1 if college graduate [bachelors degree], 0 otherwise); and low
income (coded 1 if income is less than $40 000, 0 otherwise).
Analysis of the data took two basic forms. First, the descriptive statistics were calculated. Next, a series of individual T -tests, which measure the
statistical probability that a member of a particular subgroup will respond
differently to a given question, was conducted on the key behavioral and
attitudinal variables from the focus groups: shopper and FM shopper, as
well as the importance of value, market location, convenient hours, onestop shopping, supporting local farms, getting information about the food,
welcoming atmosphere, and presence of pesticide-free produce. By running
separate T -tests comparing binary demographic variables to our full survey sample, we were able to determine whether mean responses varied by
demographics.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Focus Group Results: Awareness, Behavior, and Perception
In each of the focus groups the majority of participants were aware of their
local farmers market, although in 4 of the groups there were at least some
participants who had not heard of the market at all. Many of those who
were aware of their local farmers market were unsure of the details: the

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

Understanding Barriers to Farmers Market Patronage

325

specific location, the hours and season of operation, the methods of payment
accepted, etc. Driving by, word-of-mouth, and promotion from organizations
such as Extension or WIC agencies were the most common ways in which
people learned of farmers markets. In the 3 focus groups with participants
living in the vicinity of multiple farmers markets, virtually no one was aware
of the smaller, neighborhood-based farmers markets beyond the most visible
or largest market in their area.
Very few of the focus group participants shopped at farmers markets
regularly and in every group there were some participants who had never
been there. Two to 3 individuals in the 2 rural and exclusively non-Hispanic
white groups regularly shopped at their farmers market, whereas no one in
the groups with urban residents or people of other ethnicities did so.
Across all 7 focus groups the conversations revealed a fairly consistent
perception of what participants felt a farmers market should be. Though
some people mentioned that they would like to see items such as meat,
fish, eggs, cheese, bread, mushrooms, and nuts, by far the greatest number
of people expressed the greatest interest in farmers markets as a source
of fresh fruits and vegetables. One individual described his disappointment
with a selection that did not focus on produce saying:
See, I think people go there thinking they are going to have fresh produce, or stuff like you can buy fresh and just kind of take and go. When
you go its kind of like, yeah, your Aunt Sallys knick knacks, and like
just little stuff. Its not really what you expect or really what you need in
terms of stuff to take with you, which is actually to eat. . . . I think most
people find it a big disappointment.

Also consistent across the 7 focus groups was a perception that farmers markets should offer produce with attributes distinct from the produce available
at mainline grocers. Freshness was the attribute mentioned most frequently
as a reason for wanting to shop at a farmers market and the perception that
farmers markets offer fresher produce was shared both by those who do
shop and those who had never shopped at a farmers market (see Table 1).
The majority of focus group participants also expected the produce
at farmers markets to be local and natural or organically grown. As one
person put it, The only reason that I go to the farmers market is with the
expectation that I will get fresh food, you know? Fresh fruits and vegetables
without them being through the system of food preservation, you know?
That way we love it, you know. Another woman seemed to indicate that
the marketing of a farmers market was dishonest if the produce offered was
not local:
Something I would change is I am sick of seeing people come from
six hours away or I find out that this is from Indiana. This is a farmers

326

K. J. A. Colasanti et al.

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

market. It is supposed to be local gathering where farmers sell directly

to the public, it is not supposed to have a distributorthat is the whole
point. And they are not as fresh, they have just as many chemicals and it
is just a new way of sneaking into a market that does not want that.

These expectations were remarkably consistent across all 7 focus groups

and held in cases where participants had and had not been to the farmers
market and were and were not satisfied with the farmers market in their
communities. The participants who felt that their market fell short of these
expectations were generally less inclined to shop there.
For many of the focus group participants, price was a significant consideration in deciding whether to shop at farmers markets. Participants in
2 of the urban focus groups felt that prices at farmers markets were generally higher than the prices at stores and in the third urban group no one
had sufficient experience with the farmers market to be able to compare
prices. In contrast, the 3 rural and predominantly white groups tended to
think the farmers market prices were competitive with, and in some cases
better than, store prices. Interestingly, however, members of the Latino focus
group, which took place in one of these same rural communities, all agreed
that prices at the farmers market were consistently higher than store prices.
In all of the focus groups the level of willingness to spend extra money
on farmers market produce varied considerably, but in each of the groups
there was a general sentiment that prices should be in the general range of
store prices in order for the farmers market to have a broad level of appeal
and accessibility in the community.

Focus Group Results: Barriers and Disincentives

Beyond the general discussion of product selection and prices, participants
discussed a number of specific barriers and disincentives to shopping at
farmers markets. The most prominent of these included the need for signage and promotion, time constraints, inconvenient location or inadequate
facilities, and an unwelcoming atmosphere.
SIGNAGE

AND PROMOTION

In 4 of the focus groups, 3 of which included participants who were unaware

of their local market, group members brought up what they saw as a need
for the market to advertise to the community. People in these 4 groups felt
that the lack of awareness of the market among community residents was
largely due to inadequate signage or promotion. In one group where everyone was familiar with the market, one person acknowledged how essential
visible signs are in informing people about the presence of the farmers market by saying I would argue I wouldnt know it was there without the signs.

Understanding Barriers to Farmers Market Patronage

327

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

To me those big yellow signs are very important. When I am going through
town you can see the signs, so that is helpful.
Beyond simply using signs to promote the presence of the farmers
market, many of the focus group participants wished for more readily available information about the hours and product offerings. In one city, several
participants were aware of the building that housed the farmers market
but, because of the inadequate signage, either had no idea what the hours
were or simply thought the building was abandoned. The following comment shows how this participant feels the limited hours of a farmers market
necessitate more prevalent advertising:
I think that time for farmer market is key. You must let people know
when, where, to open the farm market. Maybe many people like to
choose fresh vegetables, fresh fruit from market. But if they always miss
the time, they always miss the farm market in just maybe Saturday, one
day in only one place, so I think you let people know where, when, is
very important.

Many of the foreign-born participants also spoke of a desire for farmers

market promotion within their communities through media channels that are
familiar to them. The 2 focus groups in which the need for better signage
or promotion of the farmers market was not mentioned were held in small
towns where the market was located in a highly visible, central area.
When asked about the best means for advertising farmers markets,
participants expressed a wide array of ideas. These ranged from television commercials, to mailers, to working with the local Chamber of
Commerce, but the local newspaper was the venue most consistently suggested. Participants in several groups recommended promoting the market
to specific communities such as the downtown employees or ethnic communities for whom farmers market shopping may be a culturally familiar
practice.
Finally, a number of people felt that the farmers market could draw
more people in by offering promotions or even simply advertising a featured product. Several people liked the idea of knowing in advance what
some of the product offerings would be and one person specifically stated
that signs advertising what was currently in season, especially which fruits,
might make her more inclined to stop when she was driving by. And given
the large number of focus group participants who first learned about and
attended a farmers market because they were given a coupon through the
WIC program, a broader system of distributing coupons may attract many
first-time market shoppers. But a word of caution from one group member serves as a good reminder that promotion will be most effective when
the product selection at the farmers market itself is a draw: I think you
could advertise that place like crazy and until there is something in there

328

K. J. A. Colasanti et al.

that would continually draw people back, I dont know if its a viable daily
option.

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

TIME

CONSTRAINTS

Not surprisingly, across all focus groups time constraints were one of the
most frequently cited barriers to shopping at farmers markets. Many people
wished that the farmers market was open more than one day a week. But
though all but one of the farmers markets in the locations where we held
focus groups had weekend hours and though most participants across the
groups felt that weekends were the most convenient time for shopping,
young adults and parents of young children in particular acknowledged that
attending a farmers market can be difficult to fit in. In the words of one
young adult participant, I mean who wants to spend a Saturday afternoon
to go to downtown [city] to go dig out some green beans? One young
mother explained: Its like sometimes we dont go because we are too
exhausted. Its only on that day, and even though we know its only on that
day but when were tired its like Ok, well miss it, well just go to the store.
Of course, to a large degree time constraints reflect family and societal
patterns that are beyond the realm of farmers market managers. But participants comments also revealed a number of possible avenues that managers
could utilize to better meet the needs of a broader spectrum of the community. For one thing, many participants commented that the selection at
the farmers markets gets progressively more limited through the day. This
in itself can be a disincentive for those unable to attend the market in the
opening hours:
. . . there is certain food that they run out of and that they only bring a
certain amount of and when it is gone it is gone. And this year I have
noticed because it is a lot busier than it has ever been if you are not there
early you do not have a lot of choices. Sometimes if I cant get there until
the afternoon I might not go. It might not be worth my time to go.

When the need to get to the market early is paired with already limited
hours, it can make farmers market attendance even more difficult to fit into
ones schedule.
Participants in all 7 groups expressed a desire for longer operating
hours. As one person commented, See they shut down in the afternoon
and people are out doing in the afternoon. I know its warm you know
but a lot of times Im just getting started at twelve, one oclock and theyre
finished. These comments, then, demonstrate that longer hours or ensuring sufficient product supply through the duration of the market may help
draw in more customers. Customer interests, however, should be considered
alongside the interests of farmers because for the latter, longer hours could

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

Understanding Barriers to Farmers Market Patronage

329

mean more time away from the farm and ensuring a more complete supply
could translate into greater losses at the end of the market day.
Secondly, participants revealed that it is easiest to attend markets when
the operating hours easily integrate with the rhythms of their daily lives and
most difficult to attend when a trip to the farmers market requires a unique
trip or foregoing other activities. Several participants in one group had been
given WIC coupons to a farmers market that was nearly a 30-minute drive
from where they lived, and many had been unwilling or unable to make
the trip. In another focus group location, the farmers market was open on
2 different weekdays, but because it was closed by 4 PM, those working
typical business hours had to squeeze in a trip on their lunch break in order
to make it. Nearly all of the Latina focus group participants had no reason
to visit the downtown area where the farmers market was located other
than the market itself. For this reason many were unable to prioritize the
extra time commitment of multiple shopping trips. These sentiments show
that beyond the general time constraints potential farmers market shoppers
may face, the operating days and hours, as well as the location, can provide
additional barriers or disincentives to farmers market attendance.
As a potential way to mitigate these challenges, participants in several
focus groups felt that farmers markets operating on a day and at a time
in which people would already be in the area would likely draw the most
people in. Two of the rural groups discussed the idea of a market that
would be open on Sundays after church, a time when they would already
be downtown. Another group discussed holding the market in conjunction
with another monthly downtown event.
LOCATION

AND FACILITIES

The question of the convenience level of a farmers market location provided

an interesting debate over the pros and cons of a downtown location in 4 of
the focus groups. Those who supported the downtown location valued the
fact that it brings people into what were in several cases underpopulated
downtowns, that a market is a walkable location for area residents, and
that it is frequently a visible event. On the other hand, many participants
expressed the desire for a farmers market location that was on the way to
other places they already frequent or do their shopping. In one focus group
the debate seemed to more directly split along the lines of those who were
looking for an enjoyable excursion versus those who wanted convenient
in-and-out shopping. One woman explained the reasons she enjoys the
downtown location, saying:
I am grateful that it is downtown because I am more apt to go Oh I think
I will walk to the farmers market today and will hit the book store and
maybe treat myself to I dont know what elsea little coffee. . . . I am

330

K. J. A. Colasanti et al.

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

more apt to do the farmers market and then do something downtown

and supporting our people downtown versus Wal-Mart or Meijer.

The groups with young adults, young parents, and Latina women tended to
place a higher emphasis on convenience in food purchasing decisions and
these same groups expressed the least support for a downtown location.
One young adult indicated his priority on convenience saying, I have got
better ways to spend my time, especially my recreational time, than shopping. I dont need to be entertained when I go to get stuff, get me in, and
get me out.
Beyond the convenience of the location itself, some downtown locations may also be more limited in their space for the flow of both pedestrian
and automobile traffic. One woman described the disadvantages of her
communitys busy downtown farmers market by saying:
And I have heard people complain about it being so congested that
being down there or they get down there and there is nowhere to park.
Or they are trying to, because it is congested, just crossing the street to
park. Or going with children you have to hold their hand and see what
the driver is . . . whether you are young or elderly, it does not matter. Its
just congested. Maybe a larger space with more options on a different
day in a different area might help.

This concern that heavy traffic can present extra challenges to those who
might be attending a farmers market with small children was echoed by
several other participants as well.
The ability to accept various forms of payments, including electronic
benefits transfer (EBT) for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
at the farmers market was an important issue for a number of respondents
in 3 focus groups. Several people admitted that they were unable to shop
at the farmers market because they were unable to utilize EBT there. In
another group, participants said they wished the farmers market accepted
EBT even though the market in question actually did, indicating that this
amenity may need to be better advertised. Similarly, in one of the groups
several women were unaware that they were able to utilize Project FRESH
coupons (Michigans version of the Farmers Market Nutrition Program) at
the farmers market in their city. In the group with Latina women, though
they were aware that they could use Project FRESH coupons at the market, the difficulties they experienced in obtaining these coupons, including
unreliable public transportation, limited hours of coupon distribution, and
rapid exhaustion of the coupon supply, translated into less frequent farmers
market attendance.
One international graduate student mother expressed the desire to use
credit or debit cards at the farmers market because the cash-only system

Understanding Barriers to Farmers Market Patronage

331

often meant that she had to make a trip to the ATM prior to going to the
market, making the excursion all the more difficult to fit into her schedule.
In short, the acceptance of only cash at a farmers market presents a significant disincentive for potential farmers market patrons who receive public
assistance and may also present an additional hurdle for those who are not
in the habit of carrying cash. As one person put it, in regards to methods of
payment, More options are always better.

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

ATMOSPHERE
Focus group conversations revealed that an overly crowded or overly empty
setting and dilapidated facilities are elements that detract from a welcoming
and pleasant atmosphere for some farmers market patrons. Another recurring theme in 3 of the groups was the perception that a farmers market is
often not conducive to young families. One woman described how difficult
it was to navigate through the crowds at her local farmers market with her
children:
I had three of my kids with me. . . . I had two hanging onto the stroller
and one in the stroller. It was really hard. . . . It was just so hard with the
kids. Especially when you have got like three or four of them. . . . They
are little and they like to run everywhere, it is scary.

But beyond these inconveniences, participants in 6 of the groups either

enjoyed or had no particular opinion about the nature of the social setting and the vendor interaction at the farmers market. The exception was
the focus group with the Latina women, in which the women expressed
great discomfort with the farmers market atmosphere. Of all the topics discussed with the women in this group, this topic by far generated the greatest
emotional intensity.
These women brought up a number of distinct concerns. Though
women in other groups noted that shopping at the farmers market with
children presents challenges, several in this group felt that vendors and
other customers were distrustful of or openly annoyed with their children.
One woman told a story of a time when her kids had been running around
and playing at the farmers market and another customer approached her
and rudely asked What is your problem? which upset her greatly. Several
women said that they were asked to purchase items that their kids had
touched and they specifically noted that they felt that white parents were
not asked to do the same thing. The women in this group also felt that
they themselves were disrespected by the vendors. One woman described
how she felt like she was being watched whenever she went to the farmers market and others agreed that they had had similar experiences. The
women vociferously agreed that the vendors were not very friendly. One

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

332

K. J. A. Colasanti et al.

woman recounted a time when a vendor looked at her and said [imitating a
snarl] What do you want? The language barrier between these women and
the vendors, none of whom spoke Spanish, likely added to the challenges
of vendor interaction. It is also possible that because all of these women
were WIC program clients, the use of Project FRESH coupons at the farmers
market contributed to the poor reception they received from vendors.
These focus group participants were also concerned with, and even
offended by, how the farmers or vendors presented themselves. They felt
that the farmers were often dressed sloppily, were overly casual, and let their
pet dogs run around too much. Some women were uncomfortable around
the pet dogs either because they were worried on behalf of their children
or were worried about the impacts on sanitation. They felt that the farmers
sloppy appearance was a matter of both respect and sanitation. One woman
commented that it was difficult to teach her kids to dress well and present
themselves nicely in public when they see farmers who are poorly dressed.

Survey Results
About 90% of respondents handled at least some household food shopping.
Of those, more than half reported attending a farmers market in the previous
year. The factors with the highest mean importance for shopping at farmers markets were food quality (3.80), safety from food-borne illness (3.75),
and ability to support local farms (3.71). The factors with the lowest mean
response were availability of pesticide-free (2.98) and hormone-free (3.07)
foods and ability to do one-stop shopping (3.08). Table 3 provides the mean
values for the behavioral and attitudinal variables that emerged as important
themes within the focus groups. Along with sex, income, and education, we
compared Latino ethnicity and young adults to the general population based
on the apparent distinction in perspective from these demographics in the
focus groups.
The T -tests revealed a number of statistically significant differences in
responses among ethnic groups (Table 3). Latinos were particularly likely to
have statistically significant differences in response than non-Latinos. They
were, for example, more likely to shop for food but less likely to have
attended a farmers market. Furthermore, Latinos placed greater importance
on all attributes. Females also rated all attributes as more important than the
sample mean, with many differences significant.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Summarizing the focus group results with an eye toward how they may
indicate barriers or disincentives to farmers market attendance for underrepresented groups in particular, we note several key points. Participants

333

0.90
0.95
1.00
0.88
0.96
0.76

.05, and

0.61
0.62
0.27
0.57
0.62
0.54

Farmers
market
shopper?

Significantly different at the .10,

Sample
Female
Latino
Low income
College grad
Young adult

Subgroup

Household
food
shopper?

Shopping behaviors
(yes or no)

3.44
3.52
3.66
3.48
3.50
3.33

Location
3.40
3.52
3.76
3.55
3.43
3.28

Hours
3.08
3.17
3.51
3.34
2.94
3.16

One-stop
shopping
3.71
3.79
3.90
3.78
3.64
3.78

3.19
3.23
3.84
3.24
3.06
3.32

Getting
Supporting info from
local farm
vendor

3.25
3.27
3.68
3.27
3.11
3.33

Welcoming
atmosphere

2.98
3.07
3.25
3.01
2.90
2.93

Pesticide-free
product

.01 levels, respectively, between the subgroup and the sample as a whole as measured by a paired means T -test.

3.50
3.56
3.76
3.65
3.43
3.44

Good
value

Importance of factors in determining whether to shop at a farmers market (1 = not important at all; 2
= not very important; 3 = somewhat important; 4 = very important)

TABLE 3 Mean Values of Farmers Market Attitudinal and Behavioral Variables by All Respondents (Sample) and by Demographic Groups

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

334

K. J. A. Colasanti et al.

consistently expected farmers markets to offer fresh, locally and naturally

grown produce at competitive prices and in a welcoming atmosphere, neither dull nor chaotic. The focus group conversations indicated that the
more these attributes held true for their neighborhood market, the stronger
the desire among residents was to shop regularly at farmers markets.
Conversely, when these general expectations of competitive prices and a
broad selection of fresh produce were not met, many participants had little
desire to attend the farmers market. The interest in locally and naturally
grown produce expressed across demographics and equally among those
who did and did not shop at farmers markets challenges the tendency
to correlate particular values with farmers market behavior. Rather, our
research indicates that nonparticipation in farmers markets relates not to
a lack of interest in high-quality farm-direct produce but to an array of barriers, disincentives, and competing priorities, some of which seem to fall
along socioeconomic and demographic lines.
Limited promotion of farmers markets and use of mostly mainstream
channels may encourage proportionately greater farmers market attendance
from mainstream cultures. The typically limited hours of a farmers market
mean that those with the luxury of greater flexibility in their schedules will
have an easier time patronizing farmers markets, whereas those, for example, the international graduate student parents, who are juggling school,
work, and parenthood will have a more difficult time. Similarly, the atmosphere and aesthetics of a downtown market will be easier to appreciate for
those with the ability to make a special trip. On the other hand, farmers
markets in locations that people already frequent, such as the parking lot
of a major food retailer, may be easier for those preferring convenience to
attend. The inability of farmers markets to accept EBT, or simply the perception of this inability, presents an even more concrete barrier for low-income
individuals. Lastly, the difficulty of bringing young kids to a market and
the strong social discomfort experienced by the Latina women reveal that
the atmosphere of a farmers market can have an influence on attendance
beyond simply the product offerings.
Taking the qualitative and quantitative results together, we can begin to
draw several conclusions. First, the focus groups demonstrated that across all
demographics represented, participants valued and expected fresh, naturally
grown, local produce at farmers markets. The survey results indicate that
Latinos place greater importance on attributes more commonly associated
with farmers market produce like pesticide free and grown on a local farm
but are also far less likely to shop there. The survey data further show
that increased desire for the convenience of one-stop shopping does not
necessarily mean that people feel less strongly about other food attributes.
These results indicate that people hold largely similar values with respect to
food purchasing but differ in their abilities to act on all their values because
of other constraints.

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

Understanding Barriers to Farmers Market Patronage

335

Secondly, both qualitative and quantitative results indicate that young

adults tend to be less likely to shop at farmers markets than the general
population. From the focus groups, this seems to be related to a general
disinterest by young singles in prioritizing weekend time to go to a market
and young parents difficulty bringing small children to a market.
Thirdly, the discussion of the location of farmers markets and the
trade-offs between downtown and suburban locations does reveal some
dichotomy in the values that people hold and act on. But what may be
missing from the research relying on closed-ended survey questions that
this study reveals are the interactions between food purchasing values and
the way in which desires to purchase naturally grown, healthy foods from
trusted sources are mediated by the need for convenience, affordability, and
one-stop shopping.
Finally, the focus group conversations around the lack of farmers market promotion seem to indicate that more culturally diverse means of market
advertising may help to broaden the customer base. Yet, returning to the
discomfort that the Latina women felt with the social interactions at their
local market, and given the large discrepancy in the value placed on the
types of produce typically available at a farmers market and the comparatively low likelihood of shopping at a farmers market from the survey data,
there may be reason to think that Latinos are experiencing some levels of
racism in these venues. It is also worth recalling that our inability to arrange
a focus group with solely African American individuals and the fact that
African Americans are only represented by 3 or fewer individuals in each
of 2 focus groups in this research means that we cannot rule out the possibility of African Americans, or other racial minorities, maintaining distinct
perspectives on the social interactions of a farmers market.
This research raises important questions about what farmers markets
are intended to be, to whom they appeal, and who has the financial capacity, the time, and the social cachet to privilege patronizing these venues
in their day-to-day decisions. The results give shape and dimension to
the interplay of embeddedness, marketness, and instrumentalism (in this
case, the competing interests of supporting local farmers and an enjoyable
excursion versus price and convenience) within farmers market exchange.
Furthermore, they indicate potential barriers to accessing the external social
benefits associated with direct markets. As Hinrichs reminded us, Social ties
and personal connections in no way preclude instrumental behaviors or the
relevance of price. In practice, all jostle side by side. (p. 296)7 This research
helps shed light on what those jostling values are and how they might be
prioritized by different groups.
The distinct concerns brought up by the Latinas point to a need for further research into the experiences of minority groups in regards to the social
setting at farmers markets. But the indication that the market was perceived

336

K. J. A. Colasanti et al.

as dirty and the vendors as disrespectful may also signal that farmers markets are not equated with status or trendiness in all demographic groups. In
conclusion, we hope this research will offer some practical insight for market managers on barriers or disincentives that potential market patrons may
face as well as stimulate dialogue on the broader significance and meaning
of direct market venues within our diverse society.

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

REFERENCES
1. US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service. National Farmers
Market Manager Survey. Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/
getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5077203&acct=wdmgeninfo. Accessed June 9,
2009.
2. Lyson TA, Gillespie GW, Hilchey D. Farmers markets and the local community: bridging the formal and informal economy. Am J Alternative Agr.
1995;10:108113.
3. Feenstra GW, Lewis CC, Hinrichs CC, Gillespie GW, Hilchey D. Entrepreneurial
outcomes and enterprise size in US retail farmers markets. Am J Altern Agric.
2003;18:4655.
4. Hilchey D, Lyson TA, Gillespie GW. Farmers Markets and Rural Economic
Development. Ithaca, NY: Farming Alternatives Program Department of Rural
Sociology Cornell University; 1995.
5. Lyson TA. Civic Agriculture. Reconnecting Farm, Food, and Community.
Medford, Mass: Tufts University Press; 2004.
6. Wright W, Middendorf G. Introduction: fighting over food: change in the agrifood system. In: Wright W, Middendorf G, eds. The Fight Over Food: Producers,
Consumers, and Activists Challenge the Global Food System. University Park, Pa:
The Pennsylvania State University Press; 2008:126.
7. Hinrichs CC. Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of
direct agricultural market. J Rural Stud. 2000;16:295303.
8. Hinrichs CC, Gillespie GW, Feenstra GW. Social learning and innovation at retail
farmers markets. Rural Sociol. 2004;69:3158.
9. DeLind LB. Market niches, cul de sacs, and social context: alternative systems
of food production. Cult Agric. 1993;13:712.
10. Allen P. Together at the Table, Sustainability and Sustenance in the American
Agrifood System. University Park, Pa: The Pennsylvania State University Press;
2004.
11. Alkon A, McCullen C. How farmers markets become white spaces, and what
we can do about it. Available at: https://elist.tuffs.edu/wws/arc/comfood/200805/msg00059.html. Accessed July 28, 2010.
12. Block F. Postindustrial Possibilities: A Critique of Economic Discourse. Berkeley,
Calif: University of California Press; 1990.
13. Eastwood DB, Brooker JR, Gray MD. Location and other market attributes
affecting farmers market patronage: the case of Tennessee. J Food Distrib Res.
1999;30:6372.

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

Understanding Barriers to Farmers Market Patronage

337

14. Elepu G. Urban and Suburban Farmers Markets in Illinois: A Comparative

Analysis of Consumer Segmentation Using Demographics, Preferences, and
Behaviors [dissertation]. Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign;
2005.
15. Wolf MM, Berrenson E. A comparison of purchasing behaviors and consumer
profiles at San Luis Obispos Thursday night farmers market. J Food Distrib Res.
2003;34:107122.
16. Govindasamy R, Zurbriggen M, Italia J, Adelaja A, Nitzsche P, VanVranken
R. Farmers Markets: Consumer Trends, Preferences, and Characteristics. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University; 1998.
17. Keeling-Bond J, Thilmany D, Bond CA. What influences consumer choice of
fresh produce purchase location? J Agric Appl Econ. 2009;41:6174.
18. Wolf MM, Spittler A, Ahern J. A profile of farmers market consumers and the
perceived advantages of produce sold at farmers markets. J Food Distrib Res.
2005;36:192201.
19. Thilmany D, Bond CA, Keeling-Bond J. Going local: exploring consumer
behavior and motivations for direct food purchases. Am J Agric Econ.
2008;90:13031309.
20. Stephenson G, Lev L. Common support for local agriculture in two contrasting
Oregon communities. Renew Agric Food Syst. 2004;19:210217.
21. Manalo AB, Sciabarrasi MR, Haddad NA, Jellie GM. Buying products directly
from farmers and valuing agriculture: behavior and attitudes of New
Hampshire food shoppers. Available at: http://extension.unh.edu/pubs/AgPubs/
FCSR703.pdf. Accessed May 6, 2009.
22. Onianwa O, Mojica M, Wheelock G. Consumer characteristics and views
regarding farmers markets: an examination of on-site survey data of Alabama
consumers. J Food Distrib Res. 2006;37:119125.
23. Govindasamy R, Italia J, Adelaja A. Farmers markets: consumer trends, preferences, and characteristics. J Ext. 2002;40. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/
2002february/rb6.php. Accessed May 11, 2009.
24. Andreatta S, William Wickliffe I. Managing farmer and consumer expectations:
a study of a North Carolina farmers market. Hum Organ. 2002;61:167176.
25. Connell DJ, Smithers J, Joseph A. Farmers markets and the good food value
chain: a preliminary study. Local Environ. 2008;13:169185.
26. Keeling-Bond J, Thilmany D, Bond CA. Direct marketing of fresh produce:
understanding consumer purchasing decisions. Choices. 2006;21:16.
27. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research.
3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 2000.
28. Morgan D. The Focus Group Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage
Publications; 1998.
29. Morgan D, ed. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif:
Sage Publications; 1997.
30. Greenbaum TL. Moderating Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Group
Facilitation. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 2000.

338

K. J. A. Colasanti et al.

Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 06:00 19 December 2014

31. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 1994.
32. Hembroff L. Methodological Report, Michigan State University State of the State
Survey. East Lansing, Mich: Institute for Public Policy and Social Research Office
for Survey Research, Michigan State University; 2009.