Introduction
With the emergence of modern supply chains, the intensity of relations and communication between consumers and producers has decreased, leading to increased information asymmetry and decreased consumer trust (Meyer et al., Reference Meyer, Coveney, Henderson, Ward and Taylor2012; Török et al., Reference Török, Agárdi, Maró and Maró2022). These factors and consumers' commitment to healthier and more sustainable food have raised attention to the spread of short supply chains (Renting, Marsden and Banks, Reference Renting, Marsden and Banks2003). Short food supply chains (SFSCs) are based on a direct relationship between producer and consumer and are associated with a number of benefits for both parties, including a reduction in the number of trade intermediaries (Augère-Granier, Reference Augère-Granier2016; Kneafsey et al., Reference Kneafsey, Venn, Schmutz, Balázs, Trenchard, Eyden-Wood, Bos, Sutton and Blackett2013). SFSCs include several marketing schemes, such as direct sales on farms, farm shops, farmers' markets (hereafter: FMs), and partnerships between producers and consumers. SFSCs play a vital role in connecting local producers and consumers, providing access to fresh, high-quality produce, and supporting local economies (Bazzani and Canavari, Reference Bazzani and Canavari2013; Cirone et al., Reference Cirone, Masotti, Prosperi, Bosi, Dinelli and Vittuari2023; González-Azcárate, Maceín and Bardají, Reference González-Azcárate, Maceín and Bardají2021). SFSCs also try to offer solutions to social, economic, and environmental sustainability challenges, but their positive impact on the environment is often challenged, including in relation to their potentially large carbon footprint (Charatsari et al., Reference Charatsari, Lioutas, Michailidis, Aidonis, De Rosa, Partalidou, Achillas, Nastis and Camanzi2023; Malak-Rawlikowska et al., Reference Malak-Rawlikowska, Majewski, Wąs, Borgen, Csillag, Donati, Freeman, Hoàng, Lecoeur and Mancini2019). Farmers' markets are ‘recurrent markets at fixed locations where farm products are sold by farmers themselves’ (Brown, Reference Brown2001, p. 658). FMs existed even in ancient times; the first written record of one dates back to 500 BC in reference to the agora in Athens, which included a food market similar to a modern FM (Dixon, Reference Dixon1993). In North America, the prevalence of FMs declined after World War I due to modernization and industrialization that resulted in the first general stores and later supermarkets taking over their role (Basil, Reference Basil2012). On the other hand, in many European countries (Mediterranean ones, and some Central European countries in particular), FMs have persisted for centuries (Guthrie et al., Reference Guthrie, Guthrie, Lawson and Cameron2006), similarly to in Asia, where FMs are often called wet markets (Goldman, Krider and Ramaswami, Reference Goldman, Krider and Ramaswami1999).
The renaissance of modern FMs started in the 1970s when consumers' desire for fresh, seasonal, and tasty products strengthened, together with their environmental concerns and dislike of the industrialization of the food supply (Basil, Reference Basil2012). In the USA and Canada, government regulations have fueled the rise of FMs (Brown, Reference Brown2001), which have remained on the political agenda over the last 50 years. In Europe, however, FMs regained their prominent position in the 1980s, being considered one of the key elements of SFSCs (Renting, Marsden and Banks, Reference Renting, Marsden and Banks2003).
Therefore, the number of FMs has exponentially grown over recent decades, together with the related research. Much of this describes consumers who shop at FMs, mainly using a survey or interview-based approach and investigating one or a few FMs. Based on these consumer studies, we can identify similar patterns among different FMs. In many cases, gender, age, level of education, and income have been investigated. However, no single study has identified general conclusions about the former.
Against this backdrop, the present study describes the results of a systematic literature review that collected empirical evidence describing the main characteristics of FM consumers worldwide. To the best of our knowledge, only one review (Byker et al., Reference Byker, Shanks, Misyak and Serrano2012) has examined consumers of FMs, albeit employing a narrow time horizon and a limited number of dimensions (mainly demographic factors). The study employed a systematic literature review that applied the Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) protocol to generate a general and comprehensive overview. Our contribution to the literature is collecting and synthesizing empirically validated (survey-based) pieces of evidence from all the academic literature available in main scientific databases (Scopus and Web of Science [WoS]).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The second section describes the methodology that was applied and the steps taken during the systematic review. Results are presented in the third section, followed by a discussion. The last section concludes.
Methods
Review articles are intended to ‘critically analyze the extant literature in a given research area, theme or discipline’ (Paul and Criado, Reference Paul and Criado2020, p. 6). A framework-based review, a type of theme-based review, provides an informative, insightful, and impactful overview of topics selected from the literature (Paul, Merchant, et al., Reference Paul, Merchant, Dwivedi and Rose2021b). In recent years, comprehensive review articles in the field of business and economics have significantly risen in prominence (Mukherjee et al., Reference Mukherjee, Lim, Kumar and Donthu2022; Snyder, Reference Snyder2019).
Systematic literature reviews summarize and synthesize the literature findings about a research topic or field and can be applied in line with a predefined scope. In addition, the available dataset has to be small enough to be processed through a manual review (Donthu et al., Reference Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, Pandey and Lim2021). In our research, we applied the SPAR-4-SLR protocol, developed specifically for systematic reviews, to better justify review-related decisions (Paul, Lim, et al., Reference Paul, Lim, O'Cass, Hao and Bresciani2021a).
To start assembling the review, for the purpose of identification, we defined the domain as the profile of FM consumers. The respective guiding question was, ‘What can we learn from empirical (survey-based) consumer studies about the most important characteristics of this emerging segment of food consumers?’ We assessed only academic journal articles. Which database(s) to use in the initial search has been long-debated among researchers; however, WoS, Scopus, and Google Scholar are the most widely used (see e.g., Bar-Ilan, Reference Bar-Ilan2008; Jacso, Reference Jacso2005; Martin-Martin et al., Reference Martin-Martin, Orduna-Malea, Thelwall and Lopez-Cozar2018). In our systematic review, priority was given to peer-reviewed publications in English; therefore, Google Scholar was not considered for use, as this platform is associated with the largest proportion of formally unpublished materials and non-English publications (Martin-Martin et al., Reference Martin-Martin, Orduna-Malea, Thelwall and Lopez-Cozar2018). Accordingly, the WoS and Scopus search engines were used.
A comprehensive literature review was conducted to generate a wide-ranging overview of the characteristics of consumers of FMs. Publications meeting the search criterion of including ‘farmer* market’ together with ‘consumer’ and ‘survey’ in the title, abstract, author keywords, or keywords plus (WoS) or title, abstract, or keywords (Scopus) were considered. The search was conducted on 31 January 2023, including hits available until this date, with the period of publication of the articles defined as between 1981 and 2022. The initial database yielded over 300 hits, but after excluding duplicates and irrelevant studies, the final database for the in-depth analysis consisted of 103 items (see Fig. 1).
Research design.
Source: authors' construction
To arrange the review, special attention was devoted to the characteristics of items and consumers. We mainly assessed the methodology, place, and date of surveys described in studies, the number of FMs investigated, and the size of the consumer sample. The characteristics of the FM consumers were classified based on sociometric, economic, environmental, and social factors. Regarding inclusion criteria, the search was restricted to studies in English and those papers that (i) had a dedicated focus on FM consumers, (ii) applied a consumer survey (either online or paper-based), and (iii) for which a full text was available. Therefore, we excluded all results that were only partially dedicated to FMs (e.g., when FMs were only one of the sales channels investigated and/or it was impossible to clearly identify/distinguish results dedicated to FMs). In addition, we sought to synthesize the results of empirically validated research that used a relatively large number of samples. Therefore, we only considered consumer surveys with many respondents (N min = 70, N average = 543) and did not include studies that only relied on qualitative methodology with a small sample size (e.g., interviews with a couple of consumers). This approach allowed us to avoid heavily biased results. Finally, we also deployed technical exclusion criteria, as systematic reviews require access to the complete results of research. Therefore, we did not include results unassociated with a full text, or if the study was not published in English, as this would not have permitted in-depth analysis.
To assess the studies, we applied content analysis. The procedure for the systematic review was managed by the online platform Covidence (Babineau, Reference Babineau2014). The initial search resulted in 307 items from the online databases. After excluding duplicates, 217 studies remained. The initial screening based on title and abstract was conducted independently, but the authors discussed items with potentially conflicting parameters, similar to during the second screening phase, which involved a systematic assessment of the full texts by the authors. The screening process resulted in 114 items being excluded. The remaining 103 articles served as the basis for the review and contributed to the comprehensive overview of information on FM consumer characteristics.
Results
The paper first briefly discusses the methodological profile of the selected studies (e.g., distribution over time and territorial focus, methodologies applied), then assesses their sociometric characteristics, together with the economic, environmental, and social factors that influence FM consumers.
Methodological profile
Number of studies
After the 2000s, FM became increasingly popular worldwide (Ashtab and Campbell, Reference Ashtab and Campbell2021; Cameron, Reference Cameron2007; Statista, 2014), as reflected in the increase in the number of studies examining their consumers. Figure 2 illustrates publications that examined the characteristics of the consumers of FMs according to year of publication. Before the turn of the millennium, the amount of research on this topic was insignificant, although several publications existed, in line with the renaissance of FMs that started in the 1970s. However, a clear increase can be observed in the last two decades: more than two-thirds of the respective research has been done within the last 10 years.
Number of publications focusing on the consumers of farmers' markets by year of publication.
Source: authors' construction
Research setting
Consumers of FMs have been investigated worldwide. Most of the research with this focus has been carried out in the USA (58), as shown in Figure 3. This accounts for more than half of all research. Apart from the USA, Canada (8) and Europe (16) are outstanding in this respect. In terms of continents, Africa is the least well-researched area.
Territorial focus of analyses of consumers of farmers' markets.
Source: authors' construction
Table 1 highlights the territorial distribution of research over time. In the first periods, mainly customers in Anglocentric countries were investigated; however, the situation in both developing and developed countries from other parts of the world has recently come into focus.
Most frequently surveyed countries
Note: Totals exceed n because some studies surveyed multiple countries.
Source: authors' construction.
Research design and sample sizes
Table 2 collates the methodologies applied in the studies over time. Analyzing consumer surveys with descriptive statistics was the approach most commonly applied, involving almost two-thirds of the studies. Regression analysis (38%) was the second most common, and basic hypothesis testing methods (27%) were third. Fewer than 16% of studies used advanced methods, although the evolution of analytical rigor may clearly be seen. The table also shows that the largest average sample size (n = 556.08) was recorded in the period from 2002 to 2011.
Characteristics of studies
Totals exceed n because some studies used multiple methods/tools. The share of methodologies applied is relative to the total number of studies published in that period.
a In some studies, a national or online survey was implemented, in which case no specific farmers' market was investigated. In these cases, we calculated the number as one.
Source: authors' construction.
Table 2 also shows the number of investigated FMs and the sample size (number of consumers covered by the survey) for the 103 articles in the database. On average, studies examined four FMs and 543 consumers. Some studies did not examine the consumers of a specific farmers' market but instead implemented a national or online survey or did not detail the number of investigated FMs. In such cases, we calculated using one FM. The database contains 40 such studies.
Reasons for not visiting FMs (barriers to purchasing)
Before going through the typical characteristics of FM buyers, we first examined why consumers do not visit these markets. There are many reasons for not visiting or purchasing from FMs (the main reasons are summarized in Table 3). For the majority of consumers, price is the main issue (Aguirre, Reference Aguirre2007; Berg and Preston, Reference Berg and Preston2017; Bir et al., Reference Bir, Lai, Widmar, Thompson, Ellett and Crosslin2019; Chen, Yu and Fu, Reference Chen, Yu and Fu2021; Dobbelstein, Corbishley and Mason, Reference Dobbelstein, Corbishley and Mason2021; A1)Footnote 1, with the perception of higher prices at FMs than in stores. In the United States, for example, low-income consumer groups and households were found to need incentives to visit an FM (Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth, Reference Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth2017; Marques et al., Reference Marques, Torres, Behe, Langenhoven and Boas2021; Pitts et al., Reference Pitts, Hinkley, Wu, McGuirt, Lyonnais, Rafferty, Whitt, Winterbauer and Phillips2017; Taylor and Villas-Boas, Reference Taylor and Villas-Boas2016). Despite price being the main deterrent, some studies (Archer et al., Reference Archer, García Sánchez, Vignali and Chaillot2003; Brown, Reference Brown2003; Feagan, Morris and Krug, Reference Feagan, Morris and Krug2004; Kent et al., Reference Kent, Godrich, Murray, Auckland, Blekkenhorst, Penrose, Lo and Devine2020) show that consumers perceive that goods at FMs may be lower priced than at other shopping venues.
Main barriers to visiting FMs
In addition to price, two other important barriers are inappropriate opening hours (Chen, Yu and Fu, Reference Chen, Yu and Fu2021; Dodds et al., Reference Dodds, Holmes, Arunsopha, Chin, Le, Maung and Shum2014; Garner and Ayala, Reference Garner and Ayala2018; Pitts et al., Reference Pitts, Wu, Demarest, Dixon, Dortche, Bullock, McGuirt, Ward and Ammerman2015; Rust, Reference Rust2020; A2) and the location and accessibility of FMs (Berg and Preston, Reference Berg and Preston2017; Dodds et al., Reference Dodds, Holmes, Arunsopha, Chin, Le, Maung and Shum2014; Farmer et al., Reference Farmer, Babb, Minard and Veldman2019; Garner and Ayala, Reference Garner and Ayala2018; Gwin and Lev, Reference Gwin and Lev2011; A3). Furthermore, in some studies, product supply (e.g., availability, seasonality, variety) is reported to be an obstacle (Aguirre, Reference Aguirre2007; Bir et al., Reference Bir, Lai, Widmar, Thompson, Ellett and Crosslin2019; Dukeshire et al., Reference Dukeshire, Garbes, Kennedy, Boudreau and Osborne2010; Garner and Ayala, Reference Garner and Ayala2018; González, Reference González2009; A4). In addition, some consumers did not have adequate information about FMs and did not know whether there was an FM near them (Archer et al., Reference Archer, García Sánchez, Vignali and Chaillot2003; Dukeshire et al., Reference Dukeshire, Garbes, Kennedy, Boudreau and Osborne2010; Shakeel Ul and Selvaraj, Reference Shakeel Ul and Selvaraj2013; Singleton et al., Reference Singleton, Baskin, Levitan, Sen, Affuso and Affuso2017; Vargo et al., Reference Vargo, Ciesielski, Embaye, Bird and Freedman2022; A5).
Sociometric characteristics
Gender
With few exceptions, the majority of buyers at FMs are women. Previous studies have typically identified the proportion of female buyers at FMs as between 50 and 75% (Abelló et al., Reference Abelló, Palma, Waller and Anderson2013; Aguirre, Reference Aguirre2007; Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Hollingsworth, VanZee, Coli and Rhodes1996; Azavedo and Walsh, Reference Azavedo and Walsh2019; Berg and Preston, Reference Berg and Preston2017; A6). Less female participation is found in only a few cases (Foti and Timpanaro, Reference Foti and Timpanaro2021; Schneider and Francis, Reference Schneider and Francis2005; Shakeel Ul and Selvaraj, Reference Shakeel Ul and Selvaraj2013; Solanki and Inumula, Reference Solanki and Inumula2021), in proportions of 43.7% (Foti and Timpanaro, Reference Foti and Timpanaro2021) and 44.8% (Ashtab and Campbell, Reference Ashtab and Campbell2021). Generally, Asian FMs are associated with fewer female shoppers, ca. 35–40% (Shakeel Ul and Selvaraj, Reference Shakeel Ul and Selvaraj2013; Solanki and Inumula, Reference Solanki and Inumula2021). A study by González (Reference González2009) shows that between 1999 and 2008, the proportion of males purchasing at FMs increased from 38 to 48% in Costa Rica over a 10-year period. In addition, according to Schneider and Francis (Reference Schneider and Francis2005), women and men were almost equally (49 vs. 51%) likely to visit FMs (the consumer survey was conducted in 2003 in the USA). A markedly high female participation rate of more than 75% was observed only in a few cases (Elepu and Mazzocco, Reference Elepu and Mazzocco2010; Fehrenbach and Wharton, Reference Fehrenbach and Wharton2012; Ma and Chang, Reference Ma and Chang2022; Pitts et al., Reference Pitts, Hinkley, Wu, McGuirt, Lyonnais, Rafferty, Whitt, Winterbauer and Phillips2017; Ruelas et al., Reference Ruelas, Iverson, Kiekel and Peters2012), the study by Fehrenbach and Wharton (Reference Fehrenbach and Wharton2012) being an outlier, finding that 86% of respondents were women.
Age
Research conducted over the past decades shows that shoppers at FMs tend to be middle-aged (35–55 years) (Abelló et al., Reference Abelló, Palma, Waller and Anderson2013; Aguirre, Reference Aguirre2007; Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Hollingsworth, VanZee, Coli and Rhodes1996; Åsebø et al., Reference Åsebø, Jervell, Lieblein, Svennerud and Francis2007; Azavedo and Walsh, Reference Azavedo and Walsh2019; A7.1) or older (55+) (Chang et al., Reference Chang, Xu, Warmann, Lone, Munzimi and Opoku2013; Crandall et al., Reference Crandall, Friedly, Patton, O'Bryan, Gurubaramurugeshan, Seideman, Ricke and Rainey2010; Gary-Webb et al., Reference Gary-Webb, Bear, Mendez, Schiff, Keenan and Fabio2018; Lanfranchi and Giannetto, Reference Lanfranchi and Giannetto2015; Obach and Tobin, Reference Obach and Tobin2014; A7.2). The main reason is that middle-aged and older people are more concerned about the deterioration or maintenance of their health than younger ones (Tung, Tsay and Lin, Reference Tung, Tsay and Lin2015). Consumers believe health is closely linked to purchasing and consuming good-quality food. However, some exceptions are also found for typical FM age groups.
The younger (18–30) age group is more strongly represented (Ashtab and Campbell, Reference Ashtab and Campbell2021; Glover, Waliczek and Gandonou, Reference Glover, Waliczek and Gandonou2014; Mack and Tong, Reference Mack and Tong2015; Renko and Petljak, Reference Renko and Petljak2018; Shakeel Ul and Selvaraj, Reference Shakeel Ul and Selvaraj2013; A8) in some research, with a quarter of respondents in Ma and Chang's (Reference Ma and Chang2022) study being under 30 years old, while the average age of respondents in Singleton et al.'s (Reference Singleton, Baskin, Levitan, Sen, Affuso and Affuso2017) study was around 27.6 years old. The reasons for this may be twofold. On the one hand, it may be that a young society was studied (e.g., an analysis of the shopping habits of members of young Taiwanese society [Ma and Chang, Reference Ma and Chang2022]) or that research was specifically conducted on young age groups (e.g., an analysis of the shopping habits of young women and mothers participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP] (Singleton et al., Reference Singleton, Baskin, Levitan, Sen, Affuso and Affuso2017), a program implemented by the US government to supplement the food budgets of needy families by providing vouchers redeemable for healthy food at FMs).
Ethnicity
Ethnicity mainly appears to be a grouping criterion in research conducted in the USA, where the typical customers of farmers' markets are Caucasians (Abelló et al., Reference Abelló, Palma, Waller and Anderson2013; Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Hollingsworth, VanZee, Coli and Rhodes1996; Bottcher et al., Reference Bottcher, Marincic, Nahay, Baerlocher, Willis, Park, Gaillard and Greene2017; Chang et al., Reference Chang, Xu, Warmann, Lone, Munzimi and Opoku2013; Chen, Yu and Fu, Reference Chen, Yu and Fu2021; A9). The only exceptions are FMs where SNAP recipients are in the majority, with consumers predominantly being Black (Karpyn et al., Reference Karpyn, Tappe, Hillier, Cannuscio, Koprak and Glanz2014; Pitts et al., Reference Pitts, Hinkley, Wu, McGuirt, Lyonnais, Rafferty, Whitt, Winterbauer and Phillips2017; Singleton et al., Reference Singleton, Baskin, Levitan, Sen, Affuso and Affuso2017; Vargo et al., Reference Vargo, Ciesielski, Embaye, Bird and Freedman2022).
Education level and occupation
Previous research also confirms that, with some exceptions (Foti et al., Reference Foti, Scuderi, Stella and Timpanaro2019; Hoppe, Vieira and Barcellos, Reference Hoppe, Vieira and Barcellos2013; Hu, Clarke and Zendehdel, Reference Hu, Clarke and Zendehdel2021; Leiper and Clarke-Sather, Reference Leiper and Clarke-Sather2017; Pitts et al., Reference Pitts, Hinkley, Wu, McGuirt, Lyonnais, Rafferty, Whitt, Winterbauer and Phillips2017), the typical FM customer is highly educated (Abelló et al., Reference Abelló, Palma, Waller and Anderson2013; Aguirre, Reference Aguirre2007; Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Hollingsworth, VanZee, Coli and Rhodes1996; Åsebø et al., Reference Åsebø, Jervell, Lieblein, Svennerud and Francis2007; Azavedo and Walsh, Reference Azavedo and Walsh2019; A10). Questionnaire respondents typically had a college degree, with only a negligible number of unskilled or manual labor buyers using these markets (Spilkova, Reference Spilkova2018). The proportion of customers with college or university degrees was clearly predominant (Hunt, Reference Hunt2007); in Shi and Hodges' (Reference Shi and Hodges2016) work, for example, the proportion of college graduates was 32.7% compared to the Florida average of 25.4%. Similar overrepresentation was found by Schneider and Francis (Reference Schneider and Francis2005) in their study in Nebraska.
In terms of occupation, in addition to the small number of shoppers with manual jobs mentioned above (Spilkova, Reference Spilkova2018), a diverse range of occupations can be identified (Youngs, Reference Youngs2003b), but a large number of retired shoppers also attend such markets, accounting for up to 25–30% of shoppers in the samples (Lanfranchi and Giannetto, Reference Lanfranchi and Giannetto2015; Mack and Tong, Reference Mack and Tong2015). Homemakers and mothers with young children at home are also a significant group (Lanfranchi and Giannetto, Reference Lanfranchi and Giannetto2015; Pascucci et al., Reference Pascucci, Cicatiello, Franco, Pancino and Marino2011). These latter groups (pensioners, homemakers, and mothers with young children) prefer products from FMs to other sources of supply for their perceived health benefits, including for their families.
Income status
In most studies, typical buyers of FMs are identified as being in the high-income category (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Hollingsworth, VanZee, Coli and Rhodes1996; Dodds and Holmes, Reference Dodds and Holmes2017; Hunt, Reference Hunt2007; Obach and Tobin, Reference Obach and Tobin2014; Telligman, Worosz and Bratcher, Reference Telligman, Worosz and Bratcher2017; A11). Exceptions are buyers in studies that examined the situation in developing countries (Aguirre, Reference Aguirre2007; González, Reference González2009; Hoppe, Vieira and Barcellos, Reference Hoppe, Vieira and Barcellos2013; Pisarn, Kim and Yang, Reference Pisarn, Kim and Yang2020; Shakeel Ul and Selvaraj, Reference Shakeel Ul and Selvaraj2013; A12.1) and some research that examined American consumers (Farmer et al., Reference Farmer, Babb, Minard and Veldman2019; Farmer, Minard and Edens, Reference Farmer, Minard and Edens2016; Garner and Ayala, Reference Garner and Ayala2018; Gary-Webb et al., Reference Gary-Webb, Bear, Mendez, Schiff, Keenan and Fabio2018; Leiper and Clarke-Sather, Reference Leiper and Clarke-Sather2017; A12.1 and A12.2), which reported both high-income and low-income customers. This phenomenon may be explained by measures related to the SNAP program. In contrast, low-income consumers in Central Europe (in the Czech Republic and Hungary) avoid FMs (Spilková, Fendrychová and Syrovátková, Reference Spilková, Fendrychová and Syrovátková2013; Szabó and Juhász, Reference Szabó and Juhász2015).
Residence
The residence of FM shoppers is typically the same municipality as the FM itself (Abelló et al., Reference Abelló, Palma, Waller and Anderson2013; Chen, Yu and Fu, Reference Chen, Yu and Fu2021; Dukeshire et al., Reference Dukeshire, Garbes, Kennedy, Boudreau and Osborne2010; Feagan, Morris and Krug, Reference Feagan, Morris and Krug2004; Foti and Timpanaro, Reference Foti and Timpanaro2021; A13). FMs are visited mainly by residents of small and large cities (Bavorova, Unay-Gailhard and Lehberger, Reference Bavorova, Unay-Gailhard and Lehberger2016; González, Reference González2009; Pisarn, Kim and Yang, Reference Pisarn, Kim and Yang2020; Spilkova, Reference Spilkova2018; Spilková, Fendrychová and Syrovátková, Reference Spilková, Fendrychová and Syrovátková2013; A14), probably because in smaller municipalities (e.g., townships), fruit and vegetable are often grown locally or at home, so residents are less in need of FMs. In contrast, for urban residents, FMs offer freshness, quality, and healthy food (Youngs, Reference Youngs2003a).
Household size
Household size and number of children in a household are also important factors to consider. Here, results varied somewhat between surveys. Several studies show that the average household size is around two persons (Abelló et al., Reference Abelló, Palma, Waller and Anderson2013; Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Hollingsworth, VanZee, Coli and Rhodes1996; Chang et al., Reference Chang, Xu, Warmann, Lone, Munzimi and Opoku2013; Chen, Yu and Fu, Reference Chen, Yu and Fu2021; Cicia, Furno and Del Giudice, Reference Cicia, Furno and Del Giudice2021; A15.1), while other studies show a higher average of three of four (Aguirre, Reference Aguirre2007; Azavedo and Walsh, Reference Azavedo and Walsh2019; Farmer et al., Reference Farmer, Babb, Minard and Veldman2019; Farmer, Minard and Edens, Reference Farmer, Minard and Edens2016; Foti et al., Reference Foti, Scuderi, Stella and Timpanaro2019; A15.2) or even larger household sizes (Hoppe, Vieira and Barcellos, Reference Hoppe, Vieira and Barcellos2013). However, in a few exceptional cases, about half of the participants in the study classified themselves as single people (Karpyn et al., Reference Karpyn, Tappe, Hillier, Cannuscio, Koprak and Glanz2014; Ma and Chang, Reference Ma and Chang2022). Declining household size was also found by González (Reference González2009), who reported that household size decreased from 4.7 to 3.2 persons on average between 1999 and 2008. Research by Vasco et al. (Reference Vasco, Sánchez, Limaico and Abril2018) shows that the number of children of FM buyers is higher (0.6 children per household) than the population average (0.3 children per household). This finding is related to the average age of FM buyers, as middle-aged buyers still typically live in the same household as their young children. A related and interesting finding whose relevance extends beyond the study of FMs is that households with children have a stronger commitment to buying and consuming organic food than other households (Tung, Tsay and Lin, Reference Tung, Tsay and Lin2015). However, other studies that identify an older average age of buyers tend to emphasize the absence of minor children in households, with up to 30–50% of households no longer living with a minor child (Hoppe, Vieira and Barcellos, Reference Hoppe, Vieira and Barcellos2013; Pascucci et al., Reference Pascucci, Cicatiello, Franco, Pancino and Marino2011).
Economic factors
Frequency of visiting and shopping at FMs
There are basically two types of typical customers of FMs: those who visit such markets a few times a year (Chen, Yu and Fu, Reference Chen, Yu and Fu2021; Cicia, Furno and Del Giudice, Reference Cicia, Furno and Del Giudice2021; Conner et al., Reference Conner, Montri, Montri and Hamm2009; Curtis et al., Reference Curtis, Drugova, Knudsen, Reeve and Ward2020; Elepu and Mazzocco, Reference Elepu and Mazzocco2010; A16.1), and those who shop at one on a weekly or a fortnightly basis (Berg and Preston, Reference Berg and Preston2017; Chen, Yu and Fu, Reference Chen, Yu and Fu2021; Conner et al., Reference Conner, Colasanti, Ross and Smalley2010; Dobbelstein, Corbishley and Mason, Reference Dobbelstein, Corbishley and Mason2021; Dodds and Holmes, Reference Dodds and Holmes2017; A16.2). Three studies (Fehrenbach and Wharton, Reference Fehrenbach and Wharton2014; Ma and Chang, Reference Ma and Chang2022; Shakeel Ul and Selvaraj, Reference Shakeel Ul and Selvaraj2013) stand out in this respect as they report that 100% of respondents shop at an FM at least on a monthly basis. There is significant variation among the studies in this respect. For example, Gustafson et al. (Reference Gustafson, Christian, Lewis, Moore and Jilcott2013) determined a frequency of FM shopping of 0.27 times per week, while Pisarn, Kim and Yang (Reference Pisarn, Kim and Yang2020) determined an average of 13.15 times per six months. Furthermore, many studies (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Hollingsworth, VanZee, Coli and Rhodes1996; Åsebø et al., Reference Åsebø, Jervell, Lieblein, Svennerud and Francis2007; Dobbelstein, Corbishley and Mason, Reference Dobbelstein, Corbishley and Mason2021; Dodds and Holmes, Reference Dodds and Holmes2017; Payet, Gilles and Howat, Reference Payet, Gilles and Howat2005) identified numerous buyers who were visiting FMs for the first time. By definition, how often the latter will shop at an FM in the future is unknown.
In the United States, SNAP users attended markets more than non-SNAP users (Farmer et al., Reference Farmer, Babb, Minard and Veldman2019). However, only a small proportion of grocery shoppers reported using FMs regularly (Blanck et al., Reference Blanck, Thompson, Nebeling and Yaroch2011). Regarding the time of visits to FMs, customers were more liable to attend on weekend market days than on weekdays (Garner and Ayala, Reference Garner and Ayala2019). In research by Garner and Ayala (Reference Garner and Ayala2019), 97% of participants reported attending a Saturday market, but only 17% a weekday market. The COVID-19 outbreak triggered considerable switching behavior among consumers, with FMs losing most of their consumers (Li, Hallsworth and Coca-Stefaniak, Reference Li, Hallsworth and Coca-Stefaniak2020).
Amount of money spent at farmers' markets
Spending at FMs is determined by many factors and obviously depends on the customer's income, but similarities can be observed among the results of the studies. As mentioned in the section on income status, typical buyers of FMs are in the high-income category. In general, the amount spent in developed countries is between 20 and 30 dollars per occasion (Abelló et al., Reference Abelló, Palma, Waller and Anderson2013; Chen, Yu and Fu, Reference Chen, Yu and Fu2021; Conner et al., Reference Conner, Montri, Montri and Hamm2009; Elepu and Mazzocco, Reference Elepu and Mazzocco2010; Farmer et al., Reference Farmer, Babb, Minard and Veldman2019; A17). However, some studies (Berg and Preston, Reference Berg and Preston2017; Dodds and Holmes, Reference Dodds and Holmes2017; Foti et al., Reference Foti, Scuderi, Stella and Timpanaro2019) report a greater spend per visit. Furthermore, money spent per visit is obviously less in developing countries (e.g., Costa Rica and Taiwan) (González, Reference González2009; Ma and Chang, Reference Ma and Chang2022). In conclusion, market visitors do not seem to spend only small amounts of money per visit (Table 4).
Studies that accurately (percentage of respondents) determine the amount of money spent at an FM
a Values converted to 2022 USD to aid comparison.
Carson et al. (Reference Carson, Hamel, Giarrocco, Baylor and Mathews2016) observed a relationship between time and money spent at FMs. A clear correlation can be shown between the amount of money spent at such markets and household income (see, among others, Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth [Reference Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth2014]; Hunt [Reference Hunt2007]; or Renko and Petljak [Reference Renko and Petljak2018]).
Price premium
The majority of FM consumers are generally willing to pay more at FMs rather than shop at a nearby retail outlet or supermarket (Aguirre, Reference Aguirre2007; Berg and Preston, Reference Berg and Preston2017; Brown, Reference Brown2003; Chang et al., Reference Chang, Xu, Warmann, Lone, Munzimi and Opoku2013; Conner et al., Reference Conner, Colasanti, Ross and Smalley2010; A18). Table 5 lists the articles in which quantifiable price premium and willingness to pay (WTP) results were identified; the price premium is generally 15–25%, equivalent to 0.5–3 dollars per product or unit (e.g., per pound). Most of the studies were undertaken in the United States, and this type of research has not yet started on the European continent. Of course, a smaller proportion of consumers are not willing to pay a price premium for products, and price appears to be a limiting factor, as already mentioned. Price-sensitive consumers mainly shop in grocery stores (Su et al., Reference Su, Grashuis, Roach and Moreland2022; Wade et al., Reference Wade, Porter, Porter, Cook, Davis, Fincham and Weatherford2015).
Studies that include a quantifiable price premium and WTP outcomes
Environmental factors
How do consumers get to farmers' markets, and how far do they travel?
From the point of view of environmental sustainability, the most important indicators examined concerning FMs are food miles and the carbon footprint. For the latter, in terms of consumers, it is necessary to determine how far and how they travel to the FM. Many studies in the database address these issues. The distance between consumers' residences and the FM is a decisive factor (Shakeel Ul and Selvaraj, Reference Shakeel Ul and Selvaraj2013; Shi and Hodges, Reference Shi and Hodges2016; Wade et al., Reference Wade, Porter, Porter, Cook, Davis, Fincham and Weatherford2015); having an FM in one's neighborhood significantly increases the probability of attendance (Singleton et al., Reference Singleton, Baskin, Levitan, Sen, Affuso and Affuso2017). Figure 4 clearly shows that the number of FM visitors decreases as distance increases. The further away someone lives from a market, the less likely they are to visit it. The figure was created based on the data in Table 5 (the results are presented in miles, with some data converted from km). Figure 4 illustrates that, on average, 64% of FM consumers travel less than five miles from home to market, 25% of shoppers travel between 5 and 15 miles, and another 11% travel more than 15 miles to the FM.
Distance traveled by consumers to farmers' markets.
Source: authors' construction
Table 6 also shows that most FM consumers travel less than 15 miles to an FM. The most typical distance traveled is between one and five miles (Abelló et al., Reference Abelló, Palma, Waller and Anderson2013; Åsebø et al., Reference Åsebø, Jervell, Lieblein, Svennerud and Francis2007; Chen, Yu and Fu, Reference Chen, Yu and Fu2021; Conner et al., Reference Conner, Montri, Montri and Hamm2009; Eastwood, Reference Eastwood2001; A19). Average food miles range from 1.71 to 16.25.
Summary of main results about the distance between consumers' homes and farmers' markets
Organic FMs are an exception, as consumers are willing to travel longer distances for organic products (Polimeni, Iorgulescu and Mihnea, Reference Polimeni, Iorgulescu and Mihnea2018). In some cases, FMs are tourist destinations; therefore, tourists from outside the region also visit them (Feagan, Morris and Krug, Reference Feagan, Morris and Krug2004; Payet, Gilles and Howat, Reference Payet, Gilles and Howat2005). These visitors are more likely to be younger than local buyers (Dodds and Holmes, Reference Dodds and Holmes2017). However, the majority of consumers usually go to the FM by car or other vehicle (e.g., motorbike) (Dodds et al., Reference Dodds, Holmes, Arunsopha, Chin, Le, Maung and Shum2014; Farmer et al., Reference Farmer, Babb, Minard and Veldman2019; Mack and Tong, Reference Mack and Tong2015; Ruelas et al., Reference Ruelas, Iverson, Kiekel and Peters2012; Sadler, Reference Sadler2016). For them, an adequate amount of parking space is an important factor (Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth, Reference Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth2014; Youngs, Reference Youngs2003b).
A study from the USA looked at whether customers shop at the FM closest to their home. Sixty-five percent of consumers do not choose their nearest FM. This is mainly due to the other day-to-day activities of consumers (they do not only travel to the area to shop at the FM [Mack and Tong, Reference Mack and Tong2015]). Sometimes, because of the distance, consumers do not buy perishable products such as cheese (Teng, Wilcock and Aung, Reference Teng, Wilcock and Aung2004). In contrast, Young's research in England indicated that 66.7% of customers travel to a given area specifically because of the FM (Youngs, Reference Youngs2003a).
Environmental sustainability and ecological responsibility
Most people identify sustainability with environmental sustainability. Environmental sustainability is generally important to FM consumers (Carson et al., Reference Carson, Hamel, Giarrocco, Baylor and Mathews2016; Cicia, Furno and Del Giudice, Reference Cicia, Furno and Del Giudice2021; Curtis et al., Reference Curtis, Drugova, Knudsen, Reeve and Ward2020; Dodds et al., Reference Dodds, Holmes, Arunsopha, Chin, Le, Maung and Shum2014; Fehrenbach and Wharton, Reference Fehrenbach and Wharton2014; A20), but it is not the primary motivation for shopping at an FM (being extremely important to about 10% of consumers [Lanfranchi and Giannetto, Reference Lanfranchi and Giannetto2015; Obach and Tobin, Reference Obach and Tobin2014; Rainey et al., Reference Rainey, Crandall, O'Bryan, Ricke, Pendleton and Seideman2011; Vasco et al., Reference Vasco, Sánchez, Limaico and Abril2018]). Consumers concerned about environmental issues are more likely to consume high-quality food (Pascucci et al., Reference Pascucci, Cicatiello, Franco, Pancino and Marino2011). In one of the studies, consumers were asked about the kind of environmental protection services they would like to see at FMs. The majority said food waste diversion, the collection of recyclables, and limited/no use of plastic (Chen, Yu and Fu, Reference Chen, Yu and Fu2021). Some studies dealt with young people and students, clearly finding that environmental sustainability is important to them and influences their shopping habits (Ashtab and Campbell, Reference Ashtab and Campbell2021; Oths et al., Reference Oths, Manzella, Sheldon and Groves2016; Polimeni, Iorgulescu and Mihnea, Reference Polimeni, Iorgulescu and Mihnea2018).
FM consumers are interested in how food is produced and prefer ecologically sustainable practices (Åsebø et al., Reference Åsebø, Jervell, Lieblein, Svennerud and Francis2007; Conner et al., Reference Conner, Montri, Montri and Hamm2009; Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth, Reference Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth2014; Hunt, Reference Hunt2007; Klimek et al., Reference Klimek, Bingen, Freyer and Paxton2021; A21), and the ethical treatment of animals is important to them (Fehrenbach and Wharton, Reference Fehrenbach and Wharton2012; Fehrenbach and Wharton, Reference Fehrenbach and Wharton2014). In addition, they consider chemical-free production extremely important (Abelló et al., Reference Abelló, Palma, Waller and Anderson2013; Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Hollingsworth, VanZee, Coli and Rhodes1996; Farmer, Minard and Edens, Reference Farmer, Minard and Edens2016; Scholten, Reference Scholten2006; Spilkova, Reference Spilkova2018; A22) and show interest in organic products (Abelló et al., Reference Abelló, Palma, Waller and Anderson2013; Conner et al., Reference Conner, Montri, Montri and Hamm2009; Crandall et al., Reference Crandall, Friedly, Patton, O'Bryan, Gurubaramurugeshan, Seideman, Ricke and Rainey2010; González, Reference González2009; Joseph et al., Reference Joseph, Nink, McCarthy, Messer and Cash2017). In general, 10–50% of FM consumers prefer organic food (Curtis et al., Reference Curtis, Drugova, Knudsen, Reeve and Ward2020; Garner and Ayala, Reference Garner and Ayala2019; Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth, Reference Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth2017; Klimek et al., Reference Klimek, Bingen, Freyer and Paxton2021; Obach and Tobin, Reference Obach and Tobin2014; A23). The primary motivation for buying organic food is not necessarily protecting the environment but rather that consumers perceive it as healthier and tastier (Aguirre, Reference Aguirre2007; Dodds et al., Reference Dodds, Holmes, Arunsopha, Chin, Le, Maung and Shum2014; Hoppe, Vieira and Barcellos, Reference Hoppe, Vieira and Barcellos2013; Tung, Tsay and Lin, Reference Tung, Tsay and Lin2015). However, some research finds that organic food is preferred because of its favorable environmental impact (Aguirre, Reference Aguirre2007; Brown, Reference Brown2003).
Agrobiodiversity
Agrobiodiversity is crucial for adaptation to climate change, resilience, and human health (Ceccarelli and Grando, Reference Ceccarelli and Grando2022). Agrobiodiversity is affected by what is on our plates, how production systems work, and conservation schemes, all contributing to different food system sustainability outcomes (Jones et al., Reference Jones, Estrada-Carmona, Juventia, Dulloo, Laporte, Villani and Remans2021). Brunori et al. (Reference Brunori, Galli, Barjolle, Van Broekhuizen, Colombo, Giampietro, Kirwan, Lang, Mathijs and Maye2016) found that local food chains preserve biodiversity better than long food chains. In a consumer context, we interpreted concern about biodiversity as knowing and searching for landraces. Buying local food is important to FM consumers (Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth, Reference Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth2017; Obach and Tobin, Reference Obach and Tobin2014; Pisarn, Kim and Yang, Reference Pisarn, Kim and Yang2020; Schneider and Francis, Reference Schneider and Francis2005), but for some FM buyers, it is also important to know about and buy landraces (Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth, Reference Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth2017; Klimek et al., Reference Klimek, Bingen, Freyer and Paxton2021).
Only a few studies dealt with consumers' knowledge of and interest in landraces. These studies did not clearly reveal whether FM consumers are more familiar with landraces than consumers associated with other food chains. However, there were examples of both (Joseph et al., Reference Joseph, Nink, McCarthy, Messer and Cash2017; Telligman, Worosz and Bratcher, Reference Telligman, Worosz and Bratcher2017). Foti et al. were the only authors who specifically dealt with consumer purchasing behavior associated with ‘biodiversity-friendly’ plant products. They found that 70% of FM consumers said they started buying pro-biodiversity products at least two or three years ago to support a healthier lifestyle; 25% ate pro-biodiversity product items almost daily, and 43% at least once a week. Customers' eating habits, such as following a vegan or vegetarian diet or having health problems, greatly influenced their willingness to buy pro-biodiversity product items (Foti et al., Reference Foti, Scuderi, Stella and Timpanaro2019).
Social factors
Interactions between FM vendors and consumers
One of the primary reasons for shopping at FMs is to support local farmers, as clearly expressed in many of the studies (Bavorova, Unay-Gailhard and Lehberger, Reference Bavorova, Unay-Gailhard and Lehberger2016; Carson et al., Reference Carson, Hamel, Giarrocco, Baylor and Mathews2016; Conner et al., Reference Conner, Colasanti, Ross and Smalley2010; Dodds et al., Reference Dodds, Holmes, Arunsopha, Chin, Le, Maung and Shum2014; Dodds and Holmes, Reference Dodds and Holmes2017; A24).
The other factor often identified is a desire for direct and personal interaction between the vendor and the consumer (Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Hollingsworth, VanZee, Coli and Rhodes1996; Cruz, Puigdueta, Sanz-Cobeña, et al., Reference Cruz, Puigdueta, Sanz-Cobena and Gonzalez-Azcarate2021; Youngs, Reference Youngs2003a, Reference Youngs2003b). This connection allows for more communication and social interaction (Åsebø et al., Reference Åsebø, Jervell, Lieblein, Svennerud and Francis2007; Azavedo and Walsh, Reference Azavedo and Walsh2019; Conner et al., Reference Conner, Montri, Montri and Hamm2009; Lanfranchi and Giannetto, Reference Lanfranchi and Giannetto2015), which often encourages consumers to try new food items (Chen, Yu and Fu, Reference Chen, Yu and Fu2021) and helps guarantee the purchase of genuine (Ashtab and Campbell, Reference Ashtab and Campbell2021; Dobbelstein, Corbishley and Mason, Reference Dobbelstein, Corbishley and Mason2021; Scholten, Reference Scholten2006) and high-quality (Minaker et al., Reference Minaker, Olstad, Thompson, Raine, Fisher and Frank2016) food items directly from producers (Payet, Gilles and Howat, Reference Payet, Gilles and Howat2005; Smithers and Joseph, Reference Smithers and Joseph2010).
From the producer perspective, participating in an FM contributes to building a good reputation (Fehrenbach and Wharton, Reference Fehrenbach and Wharton2014) and is a marketing tool.
Food-related information
Among the social factors, in addition to the relationship between the buyer and the seller at the farmer's market and the related social contact, another important criterion is the role, quality, and availability of product information. This does not mean exclusive, one-way information sharing (from seller to buyer) but reciprocity between buyer and seller. FMs support direct interaction between producers and final consumers, which allows for greater information exchange (Fehrenbach and Wharton, Reference Fehrenbach and Wharton2014; Spilková, Fendrychová and Syrovátková, Reference Spilková, Fendrychová and Syrovátková2013; Tsai et al., Reference Tsai, Lee, Hsieh and Somsong2019), encouraged by a friendly atmosphere (Pitts et al., Reference Pitts, Wu, Demarest, Dixon, Dortche, Bullock, McGuirt, Ward and Ammerman2015) that is typical of FMs. More informed consumers are more liable to buy at FMs (Bir et al., Reference Bir, Lai, Widmar, Thompson, Ellett and Crosslin2019). FM consumers are usually better informed than supermarket shoppers, and FM customers usually have a strong desire to get additional information about products, their production, and usage (such as recipes or tasting) (Bottcher et al., Reference Bottcher, Marincic, Nahay, Baerlocher, Willis, Park, Gaillard and Greene2017; Hoppe, Vieira and Barcellos, Reference Hoppe, Vieira and Barcellos2013). In general, the typical consumers of FMs consider having additional information about food to be important (Carson et al., Reference Carson, Hamel, Giarrocco, Baylor and Mathews2016; Chen, Yu and Fu, Reference Chen, Yu and Fu2021; Klimek et al., Reference Klimek, Bingen, Freyer and Paxton2021; Ma and Chang, Reference Ma and Chang2022; Youngs, Reference Youngs2003a; A25).
Lifestyles
Society and social interaction are important to most FM visitors (Dodds et al., Reference Dodds, Holmes, Arunsopha, Chin, Le, Maung and Shum2014; Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth, Reference Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth2014; Hoppe, Vieira and Barcellos, Reference Hoppe, Vieira and Barcellos2013; Hunt, Reference Hunt2007; Obach and Tobin, Reference Obach and Tobin2014; A26). FM consumers are interested in special events, and some consider it important to nurture local products, culture, and traditions (Berg and Preston, Reference Berg and Preston2017; Garner and Ayala, Reference Garner and Ayala2019; Oths et al., Reference Oths, Manzella, Sheldon and Groves2016; Youngs, Reference Youngs2003b). Many people visit FMs with their families and treat such shopping excursions as family events (Dobbelstein, Corbishley and Mason, Reference Dobbelstein, Corbishley and Mason2021; Garner and Ayala, Reference Garner and Ayala2019; Hunt, Reference Hunt2007; Payet, Gilles and Howat, Reference Payet, Gilles and Howat2005; Pisarn, Kim and Yang, Reference Pisarn, Kim and Yang2020; A27). Additionally, such visits to FMs may be considered an important means of meeting new people and friends (Carson et al., Reference Carson, Hamel, Giarrocco, Baylor and Mathews2016; Pascucci et al., Reference Pascucci, Cicatiello, Franco, Pancino and Marino2011; Payet, Gilles and Howat, Reference Payet, Gilles and Howat2005; Sadler, Reference Sadler2016). Consumers like the atmosphere of such markets (Kent et al., Reference Kent, Godrich, Murray, Auckland, Blekkenhorst, Penrose, Lo and Devine2020; Khouryieh et al., Reference Khouryieh, Khouryieh, Daday and Shen2019; Marques et al., Reference Marques, Torres, Behe, Langenhoven and Boas2021; Smithers and Joseph, Reference Smithers and Joseph2010). One of the studies identified the perception of a real ‘hometown feeling’ at an FM (Smithers and Joseph, Reference Smithers and Joseph2010). However, there were exceptions where a social atmosphere and interaction were not considered important (Lanfranchi and Giannetto, Reference Lanfranchi and Giannetto2015; Mack and Tong, Reference Mack and Tong2015).
Having a healthy lifestyle and better knowledge of food are important factors for many FM consumers (Bottcher et al., Reference Bottcher, Marincic, Nahay, Baerlocher, Willis, Park, Gaillard and Greene2017; Dodds et al., Reference Dodds, Holmes, Arunsopha, Chin, Le, Maung and Shum2014; Foti et al., Reference Foti, Scuderi, Stella and Timpanaro2019; Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth, Reference Gumirakiza, Curtis and Bosworth2014). In the previous section, we also noted that organic food buyers choose products from FMs mainly because they perceive them as healthier (Aguirre, Reference Aguirre2007; Dodds et al., Reference Dodds, Holmes, Arunsopha, Chin, Le, Maung and Shum2014; Hoppe, Vieira and Barcellos, Reference Hoppe, Vieira and Barcellos2013; Tung, Tsay and Lin, Reference Tung, Tsay and Lin2015).
Health characteristics of FM consumers
Some of the studies investigated the health-related characteristics of FM consumers. There is a clear consensus that FMs give consumers access to healthier foods (Obach and Tobin, Reference Obach and Tobin2014; Rice, Reference Rice2015; Ruelas et al., Reference Ruelas, Iverson, Kiekel and Peters2012; Vasco et al., Reference Vasco, Sánchez, Limaico and Abril2018), and more health-consciousness was identified among those who shop for organic products, particularly at organic FMs (Petrescu et al., Reference Petrescu, Petrescu-Mag, Burny and Azadi2017; Polimeni, Iorgulescu and Mihnea, Reference Polimeni, Iorgulescu and Mihnea2018; Tung, Tsay and Lin, Reference Tung, Tsay and Lin2015).
The most commonly investigated health indicator in SNAP-related studies in the USA is body mass index (BMI), albeit with conflicting results. For example, some research identified a significantly lower average BMI of those who frequently shopped at FMs (e.g., Minaker et al., Reference Minaker, Olstad, Thompson, Raine, Fisher and Frank2016; Pitts et al., Reference Pitts, Wu, Demarest, Dixon, Dortche, Bullock, McGuirt, Ward and Ammerman2015), while others found no statistically significant difference (among others, Hu, Clarke and Zendehdel, Reference Hu, Clarke and Zendehdel2021; Pitts et al., Reference Pitts, Hinkley, Wu, McGuirt, Lyonnais, Rafferty, Whitt, Winterbauer and Phillips2017). An Italian study also found a link between the presence of FM and lower BMI among the adult Italian population (Bimbo et al., Reference Bimbo, Bonanno, Nardone and Viscecchia2015).
Discussion
With the increase in the number of FMs, research on the topic also began to increase. One popular focal area is the study of consumer characteristics. With the help of our database, consisting of 103 items, we have tried to identify the characteristics of the consumers of FMs as precisely as possible. Understanding consumers' intentions concerning purchasing food from SFSCs, particularly at FMs, is complex. Sustainability, convenience, and consumer gratification may be central drivers (Giampietri, Finco and Del Giudice, Reference Giampietri, Finco and Del Giudice2016). However, we have distinguished the most important and general characteristics based on four main areas: sociographic characteristics, economic-, environmental-, and social factors.
Twenty-seven characteristics were identified that are supported by multiple forms (5+) of empirical evidence based on diverse datasets in terms of spatial and temporal characteristics.
Regarding socio-econometric characteristics, the typical FM consumer is female and middle-aged or older. Young consumers are not typical. However, a few studies indicate the interest of the latter in FMs. US FM consumers tend to be Caucasian, although ethnicity has only been determined in American studies. FM consumers are well-educated and generally have a high income; however, low-income consumers are prevalent among FM customers in developing countries and American consumers targeted by specific government initiatives (SNAP, in particular). The typical FM buyer lives in an urban environment, and the FM they visit is usually located in their hometown. Regarding household size, the most common arrangement is either two people (e.g., retired couples) or 3–4 family members (e.g., parents with few children).
The examined socio-econometric characteristics can also be generalized for other types of SFSCs (Csordás, Lengyel and Füzesi, Reference Csordás, Lengyel and Füzesi2022). However, there are exceptions due to the large amount of SFSC-related literature. According to D'amico et al. (Reference D'amico, Di Vita, Chinnici, Pappalardo and Pecorino2014), who examined the direct sales of locally produced wine in Italy, the typical consumer is male with a lower income and lives in a larger-than-average household. Furthermore, it is due to SNAP that low-income consumers in the developed world participate in FMs. With other types of SFSCs, most consumers have higher-than-average incomes.
We also identified several characteristics in relation to economic factors. Regarding the frequency of shopping, there are two typical types of customers: those who only visit an FM a few times a year and others who visit one weekly or fortnightly. According to consumers, the most significant obstacles to visiting FMs are the high prices, inadequate opening hours, inappropriate location of the markets, and insufficient supply. In addition, the typical non-FM buyer lacks relevant information, either regarding fundamental data (e.g., about the location and opening hours of FMs) or the potential advantages of this food source. On average, FM customers in developed countries (USA and UK) spend 28.8 US dollars per purchase; however, in developing countries, the amount is much less. Studies show a clear correlation between money spent at such markets and household income. Research that attempted to specify a price premium has mainly been implemented in the United States. Almost half of the latter consumers are willing to pay a premium for fresh and local products at an FM compared to the cost at a supermarket. This price premium is usually 15–20%.
In most SFSC-related studies (e.g., Enthoven and Van den Broeck, Reference Enthoven and Van den Broeck2021; Hasselbach and Roosen, Reference Hasselbach and Roosen2015; Kiss et al., Reference Kiss, Ruszkai, Szűcs and Koncz2020), respondents are found to have a higher-than-average income. According to reviews by the current authors and Enthoven and Van den Broeck (Reference Enthoven and Van den Broeck2021), WTP estimates are only valid for this type of respondent and are not representative of the spending of average members of the population (mainly lower-income groups). This can be explained on the one hand by the specific shopping locations and specific consumer groups and, on the other, by self-selection bias. Therefore, assessing whether different consumer groups are willing to pay a price premium for local products is an important goal.
Regarding environmental factors, we identified the distance traveled by shoppers and characteristics related to environmental sustainability. We conclude that the probability of participating in an FM decreases as the distance between the consumer and the market increases. Consumers typically travel 1–5 miles from where they live to the FM, but despite the short distance, they usually go to market by car or motorcycle. This may be because shopping at a farmers' market is often combined with other activities. Average food miles range from 1.71 to 16.25 miles, with an average of 6.5 miles. Environmental sustainability is generally important to FM consumers but does not motivate them to shop at the latter. They are interested in ecologically sustainably produced foods and especially prefer organic and chemical-free foods, not necessarily because of their environmental impact but because they consider these products tastier and healthier. Typical FM consumers are particularly interested in obtaining additional information; first and foremost, about how the respective food has been produced.
In many cases, FMs are not particularly influenced by consumers to switch to environmentally friendly practices (e.g., pest management). Organic producers are more likely to sell their products through SFSCs, mainly FMs, than non-certified producers (Aubert and Enjolras, Reference Aubert and Enjolras2016; Mundler and Laughrea, Reference Mundler and Laughrea2016). For other customers of SFSCs, stronger motivations are animal welfare concerns and a desire to reduce food waste and emissions (Gori and Castellini, Reference Gori and Castellini2023; Vitterso et al., Reference Vitterso, Torjusen, Laitala, Tocco, Biasini, Csillag, de Labarre, Lecoeur, Maj, Majewski, Malak-Rawlikowska, Menozzi, Torok and Wavresky2019; Williams et al., Reference Williams, Germov, Fuller and Freij2015). The demand for more ethical production and consumption practices in Western society has a small but ever-increasing influence on food choice (the question is when these aspects will affect purchasing at FMs). In terms of social factors, two prominent sources of motivation are identified: consumers perceive it as essential to support local farmers and interact personally with them. Such direct connections provide opportunities for a greater flow of information, so FM customers may be better informed about the food they purchase than supermarket customers. The social benefits of FMs include more contact with producers, meeting new people and friends, and spending time with family. Many customers identified shopping at farmers' markets as a family event.
Support for local farmers and products is also associated with other types of SFSCs (Gori and Castellini, Reference Gori and Castellini2023; Vitterso et al., Reference Vitterso, Torjusen, Laitala, Tocco, Biasini, Csillag, de Labarre, Lecoeur, Maj, Majewski, Malak-Rawlikowska, Menozzi, Torok and Wavresky2019). Based on the literature, much emphasis is placed on consumer trust, consumer relations, knowledge (e.g., food origin), and information exchange in SFSCs. In general, trust is especially relevant with regard to box schemes and CSAs, but according to a Polish study (2019), trust and social relations were not relevant because CSAs quickly adopted a simple direct sales model. In this case, it is challenging to build stronger relationships due to multiple factors (e.g., cultural and historical). According to some studies (Albrecht and Smithers, Reference Albrecht and Smithers2018; Tregear and Ness, Reference Tregear and Ness2005), consumers and producers value trust and/or relationships as long as their own interests are met (e.g., obtaining healthy and affordable food). The effect on the health of members of CSA schemes has been found to be significantly greater than that of those of FMs (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Rossi, Woods and Davis2017; Berning, Reference Berning2012; Enthoven and Van den Broeck, Reference Enthoven and Van den Broeck2021). CSA members' dietary behaviors and habits change more significantly (e.g., an increase in vegetable consumption or less intake of processed foods) than those of FM consumers.
Reasons why (potential) consumers do not visit FMs are also important to consider. Our investigation relies only on research dedicated to FMs and identifies mainly convenience-related barriers (e.g., opening hours, location, and supply) and higher prices. However, other studies that do not focus solely on FMs but on SFSCs from a broader perspective identify other key barriers like food safety control (González-Azcárate, Maceín and Bardají, Reference González-Azcárate, Maceín and Bardají2021) and trust (Cruz, Puigdueta, Sanz-Cobena, et al., Reference Cruz, Puigdueta, Sanz-Cobena and Gonzalez-Azcarate2021). However, these limitations may be more relevant for other SFSCs (e.g., roadside or pick-your-own sales).
Conclusions and implications
Consumers' interest in healthier and more sustainable food has spurred the spread of SFSCs. The most widespread and popular form of these are FMs. The characteristics of consumers of FMs have been examined in numerous studies from almost all parts of the world. However, most research has been done in America and other developed countries.
Regarding the sustainability of FMs, they are often considered economically and socially more sustainable than long food supply chains. However, their environmental sustainability has not been clearly proven. Many studies compare FMs with other food markets, especially supermarkets. FM consumers often perceive prices at FMs to be higher than from other food chains, but in terms of quality, they value FM products more, so they are willing to pay more for them. Another important factor is social interaction. With the appearance of modern food supply chains, consumer trust has decreased as information asymmetry increases. FMs seem to be a solution to the latter problem.
Managerial implications
The outcomes of our systematic literature review may reassure FM managers and other parties interested in promoting and operating successful FMs.
On the one hand, the results clearly identify the most important characteristics of typical FM buyers, which seem to be consistent regardless of time and place, with a few exceptions. However, there may be differences because FMs are defined and regulated differently in each country and even at the market level. For example, only producers are allowed to sell their products in some countries; in other countries, distance is regulated (e.g., only producers from a specific region can trade at the given market), and sometimes there are no rules. However, most FMs precisely define the conditions of the participants and the products that can be sold (Polimeni, Iorgulescu and Mihnea, Reference Polimeni, Iorgulescu and Mihnea2018). It is often difficult to distinguish specific markets and to keep track of FMs since not all markets that are called FMs function as FMs, and some organizations and formats have the function and structure of FMs, but they are not called FMs (Brown, Reference Brown2001; Pyle, Reference Pyle1971). Even though the development of FMs varies regionally and from a regulatory perspective, the general profile of FM consumers is known and can be efficiently targeted.
On the other hand, key lessons may be learned from understanding why average food consumers do not attend FMs. The studies we examined investigated and identified five main factors that may lead to low involvement with FMs: high prices, inadequate opening hours, issues with location/distance, insufficient supply, and (lack of) information.
Inadequate opening hours are the easiest of the latter factors to modify based on the requirements of potential consumers. The convenience of food purchases is a decisive criterion for many consumers, thus, FMs should strive to fulfill this requirement. However, typical opening hours are not a problem for pensioners, homemakers, or people at home with children, as their schedules are more flexible. These consumer segments, therefore, could serve as a basis for FMs.
The inconvenient location of FMs and traveling distance are more challenging barriers to overcome. While early FMs were usually located at the centers of settlements, modern FMs have tended to be relegated to the periphery. This factor can be counterbalanced by good public transport connections or the provision of sufficient parking spaces. Further, since the typical shopper considers shopping at an FM a family occasion, providing accompanying events (e.g., children's activities) may be a good solution to this problem. Using reverse logic, some consumer segments may be encouraged to participate by moving the FM nearer to them: mobile or temporary markets at university campuses or in front of office buildings after working hours could increase the participation of younger and time-constrained consumers.
The lack of information regarding the location and opening hours of FMs and the advantages of buying at FMs is important, as the typical FM consumer is more open to absorbing any kind of information. Social media platforms can play a significant role in filling this gap, and word of mouth plays a significant role in SFSCs.
The insufficient supply of FMs (compared to supermarkets, first and foremost) is hard to counterbalance. As FMs provide fresh and local—therefore, mostly seasonal—food, it is not possible to provide a wide variety of products year-round. The related shortcoming might be partially overcome by highlighting the opportunities associated with the limited supply that is available.
Due to obvious disadvantages in terms of economies of scale, the cost of food sold at FMs is typically higher than for its supermarket substitute. Therefore, approaching price-sensitive consumers is not easy, but farmers and sellers can encourage the participation of this consumer group by offering discounts or purchase incentives.
Our results might help FM managers identify their target audience and increase the range of regular visitors.
Policy implications
From a policymaking perspective, our key finding is that FMs can be a solid basis for local economic development. Typical sellers at FMs are local farmers who are solidly engaged with local and fixed resources. Further, typical FM buyers also support local economic development as they (i) are typically located in the same municipality as the FM itself, (ii) travel an average of 6.5 miles to reach the FM, and (iii) are committed to supporting local farmers and willing to pay a price premium. Therefore, money spent at FMs has a clear local multiplier effect, and such markets can serve as a policy lever for local and national governments.
Furthermore, as food available at FMs can generally be considered healthier and more nutritious than industrialized food products, encouraging low-income and/or vulnerable consumers to access FMs may also be a policy tool. The vouchers provided by the US government as part of the SNAP initiative are a great example of this that could be taken up by other governments that face similar health-related challenges that exist for dietary reasons.
Our study also highlighted that in many developed countries, governments support selling food through FMs even though the latter represent only a minor part of their food supply chains. This is either for historical reasons (e.g., FMs are a traditional supply chain that remains important even in the twenty-first century) or because FMs might serve as a policy tool (e.g., by providing access to fresh and healthy food to less affluent consumers). In other countries, particularly developing ones, FMs play a more important role as a source of everyday food for consumers. These regional contrasts explain most of the differences among FM consumers, which policymakers must be aware of when promoting FMs.
Directions for future research
Although our study has identified plenty of research into FM consumers, several research gaps are recognized.
Many previous studies highlight that typical FM buyers either shop at markets on a weekly/fortnightly basis or only a few times a year. It is important to understand what makes an FM consumer a frequent buyer. In addition, the difference in the amount of money spent at FMs by a loyal buyer and a once-a-year buyer is an interesting research question.
A typical FM buyer is 35+ years old. However, little research has investigated the attitudes of younger generations to FMs. As consumers of the future, understanding their opinions might help decrease the average age of the FM consumer.
From a methodological perspective, there is a clear lack of WTP studies on FM consumers outside the USA. Although this approach is a long-standing method in consumer studies, the situation with consumers from European and developing countries should also be investigated using this approach.
In addition, only a few studies (3 out of 103) surveyed more than one country; however, data collected simultaneously using the same methodological approach would improve the quality of comparative cross-country analyses.
Limitations
The present study has some limitations that should be highlighted. First, the literature that was examined was not exhaustive, as new studies appear on a daily basis. We analyzed published materials available on or before 31 January 2023. Second, our analyses focused only on papers with empirically validated datasets that applied survey-based methodologies. However, studies that used other empirical methodologies or did not contain the term ‘survey’ either in the title, abstract, or among keywords were disregarded. Furthermore, in our systematic review, priority was given to peer-reviewed publications in English available from Scopus and WoS; therefore, non-English language publications and other databases (e.g., Google Scholar) were not included. These limitations might serve as a basis for further research.
Funding statement
The research has received funding from the National Research, Development and Innovation Office project under the grant agreement FK137602 ‘The economics of farmers' markets—economic, environmental and social sustainability’.
Competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix
General characteristics of FM consumers supported by 5 + studies
Open access
