The Affordability of Farmers’ Markets in
Low-Income Boston Neighborhoods:
Getting to the Root of Popular
Perceptions
www.thefoodproject.org
Robyn Lightner
The Food Project; http://www.mainetoday.com/blogs/inasnap/cat_farmers_market.html
Introduction
 By 2010, 21 farmers’ markets throughout the Boston
metropolitan area participated in the BBB program
and the usage of SNAP ($41,402.28) along with BBB
matches ($36,409.46) combined for a total of
$77,811.74 in sales- a 387% increase over the
previous summer.
 Representing 28.5% of total Boston sales, the ten FM
located in Dorchester and Roxbury reported a total
of $21,699.58 in combined SNAP/BBB sales (The Food
Project, preliminary report, 2011).
 BUT, there remains a widespread perception that
farmers’ market produce is more expensive than
conventional supermarket produce. This
uninformed perception is a barrier to the
attendance of price-sensitive shoppers at farmers’
markets.
Relative Cost of Direct Retail
 Problems with previous research: did not devise plan to handle multi-leveled
inconsistency of produce, combined produce into market basket, short time
frame ignored effects of seasonality and volume.
 Demonstrated need for a replicable methodology for comparing produce
prices at conventional grocery outlets with those at direct retail outlets
 Must be neighborhood-specific, include strategies that account for hard to
measure effects of seasonality and quality
Pie Chart Comparing Prices at Seattle
Farmers Markets with Prices at QFC
(SM)
Pirog and McCann, 2009; Kaemingk, 2010.
Observational Study
Objective
 Clarify perception that farmers market produce is more
expensive than conventional market produce in order to
accurately educate communities about the local affordability of
healthy food & inform the efforts of community groups, policy
advocates, farmers, etc.
o
Learn how the price of produce differs
between farmers’ markets and supermarkets
in Dorchester and Roxbury
o
Focus on specifics of a well-defined
geographic/demographic area
o
Assess relative quality between locations
Methods: Variable Selection
Neighborhoods
 North Dorchester, South Dorchester,
Roxbury
 Similar socio-economic statistics, outlet
density, momentum
Retail Outlets
 All 10 FM and 7 SM in 8 mile area
 FM implemented for variety of reasons
 All outlets accept SNAP/EBT, WIC; all FM
accept FMNP and BBB
Dorchester
Roxbury
Time Periods
 Eight 14-day periods between July 5 and
October 24, 2010
Vendor Research
 Organic certification, time between point
of harvest and sale, pricing strategies
= Farmers Market
= Supermarket
Farmers’ Market Information
Methods: Variable Selection
Produce Types
 Carrots: unpeeled, with green tops and w/o green tops
 Cucumbers: unwrapped, not English
 Onions: yellow, large, loose (not bagged)
 Tomatoes (field): about fist size, not hot house/ greenhouse, not heirloom,
no vine
 Zucchini: green summer squash
 White Potatoes: loose
 Scallions: green onions (not red bulb)
 Lettuce: green leaf, not romaine/Bibb/iceberg variety, not
bagged/washed/trimmed
 Bell Peppers (green): loose
 Green Beans: loose
Bowdoin Street Health Center; Robyn Lightner
Methods: Data Collection

All observations were taken within
the same 14-day period

Ranked overall visual quality of the
produce item using a scale of 1 to 3

Recorded price/lb. data for the
smallest, most conventional (i.e.
non-organic) unit sold

All data collectors went through
training workshop in order to ensure
consistency

If non-pound unit, recorded unit
price and took RS of unit weight to
be converted into price/lb.

Many problem-specific strategies
Description of Data
Only 45% of possible observations at FM
were actually realized and included in the
final data set, compared with 88% of possible
observations at SM.
Both location types have fairly equal
representation in the final data set
An unrealized data point most commonly
resulted from the case that a certain
produce item was not available at the time
or day of data collection, but may have also
been the consequence of misreported data,
a sold out item, or market cancellation due
to weather, among others.
The variance of mean price per pound at
FM (0.904) was significantly lower (p = .026)
than the variance for the same value at SM
(0.985), meaning that overall variation in
mean price per pound was greater at SM.
Mean quality at FM (2.74) was significantly
higher (p < 0.00) than at SM (2.46) by .27, or
about 11%.
The standard deviation of quality rating
was also lower at FM (0.47) than at SM (0.62),
indicating that SM reported greater variation
in quality.
Data Analysis
Multivariate Regression Model
Y = lnPRICE = 0 + 1 LOC + 2 TIME1 + … + 8 TIME7 +
9 PROD1 + … + 17 PROD9 + 18 QUAL1 + 19 QUAL2 + E
 “How does the mean price per pound (PRICE) change with variation in
location type (LOCATION), while produce type (PRODUCE), time period
(TIME), and quality rating (QUALITY) are held constant?”
 Results verified using log transformation to enhance normality of distribution
 Statistical analyses were performed using STATA, version 9.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, 2008).
Regression Model
Regression Summary of lnPRICE on Successive Fixed Effects
 A regression of the dependent variable lnPRICE on LOCATION controlling for PRODUCE,
TIME, and QUALITY yields an estimated coefficient of .029 and a p-value of 0.043. These
results suggest that when produce type, time period, and quality are held constant, the
price per pound is 2.9% greater at farmers’ markets. The very low p-value of .043 asserts
the statistical significance of this result.
Regression by Produce Type
Regression by Time Period
Regression by Time & Produce Type
Regression by Time & Produce Type
Time Period
Time Period
Time Period
Time Period
Time Period
Time Period
Other Discount Opportunities
 Bulk discounts
 i.e. Shaw’s loose onions were sold for $1.79/lb. compared with a 2 lb. package
of onions for $0.92/lb (about a 50% discount), and Tropical Foods sold loose
potatoes for $0.79/lb. compared with a 5 lb. bag for $0.34/lb (nearly a 60%
discount).
 Value card discounts
 i.e. “Stop and Shop Card” offered zucchini for $0.50/lb. (regular price = $1.49)
or green beans for $0.20/lb. (regular price = $1.69).
 Bounty Bucks
 Up to $10.00 in “free” produce for SNAP users
More on Quality
 Organic or IPM Growing Methods
 2 vendors certified (Langwater and Serving Ourselves), all
others practice mostly organic growing methods
 Freshness
 All produce was grown within 2 hours driving time of Boston
 Likely sold within 24-48 hours of harvest
Examples of Comments on Quality
How Much Really is 3%?
 The Economic Research Service of the USDA recently announced
that an adult on a 2,000-calorie diet could satisfy recommendations
for fruit and vegetable consumption in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines
for Americans at an average of $2 to $2.50 per day (Stewart et al.,
2008).
 Using a mean of $2.25, an increase by 3% would increase daily cost
of consuming the recommended F & V amount by about 7-cents to
$2.32.
 Over the course of the 16-week/112 day summer market season
used in this study, purchasing the recommended daily amount of
produce would increase from $252.00 to $259.84- just under $8.00
over 4 months.
 This added expense could be more than compensated for in just
one day using Bounty Bucks!
How can this information be used to
educate consumers about the
affordability of neighborhood farmers’
markets?
 Focus on the seasonal height of specific produce types and use time-sensitive
publicity to encourage purchasing when price is lowest. For example, highlight
bell peppers and cucumbers as “Top Pickings” or “Highest Seeds” during the last
two weeks of September (time period 6), and do the same for scallions and
lettuce during the first two weeks in October (time period 7).
 Create a citywide graphic that shows a visual of how much produce $20 could
get a SNAP user at farmers’ markets and how that produce translates into a few
days worth of vegetable servings.
 Create a side-by-side visual comparison of the amount of produce a shopper
could buy using $10 worth of SNAP at a supermarket, then show that same
amount doubled for farmers’ markets to demonstrate the double voucher
benefits available through Boston Bounty Bucks.
Special Thanks
 Cammy Watts, The Food Project
 Cathy Wirth, Bowdoin Street Community Health Center
 Professors Kate Sims, Jan Dizard, and Amy Wagaman, Amherst
College
 Phuong Luong and Cara Brumfeld, The Food Project
 Nebi Stephens, Cynthia Loesch, Tim Deihl, Dave Dumaresque, The
B.O.L.D. Teens of Codman Square
http://www.boldteens.org/media.html
Questions?