DETERMINANTS OF APPLE PURCHASES FOR OHIO CONSUMERS: IMPLICATIONS FOR OTHER STATES

Many states are attempting to increase their respect to education, just 21.7 percent of the reproduction and marketing of fruits and vegetaspondents to this survey had not received at least bles. Ohio is no exception! Currently the state is some college education. By contrast, when the exploring opportunities for increasing its producstate's population is limited to the 25 and above tion and marketing of Ohio-grown apples. Apples age group, 60.6 percent of the state's residents are perceived to offer expansion opportunities had received no college education. because of the state's production potential, conWith respect to income, 12.3 percent of the sumers' positive perceptions of the quality of respondents to this survey had household incomes Ohio apples, the state's large population, and its above $90,000. For the county and state, these proximity to other large population centers. percentages are 6 percent and 5 percent respecSince Ohio consumers represent the primary tively. In short, demographic and socioeconomic buyers of Ohio-grown apples, a general premise comparisons show major differences among surof this paper is that any planned expansion of apvey respondents, and residents of the county and pie production and marketing must emanate from state. Of interest to Ohio apple producers and a clear understanding of consumers' buying and marketers, of course, is whether these differences consumption habits. To gain this understanding, a are significant enough to invalidate inferences random sample of 500 consumers were surveyed. from the sample to the larger population. Of these 500 consumers surveyed, 191 responded Careful analysis of the results reported by and 161 of these returned surveys were complete the respondents would suggest it is quite approand usable (Jones, 1995). This paper reports many priate to draw inferences from the sample to the of the findings from these 161 surveys. larger population. For example, results from this survey show little correlation between apple purDemographic and Socioeconomic chases and income, or apple purchases and eduCharacteristics cation. Moreover, a factor with which apple consumption is most highly correlated, age, has a Even though consumers across the entire distribution in the sample which more closely state of Ohio represent the primary interest group approximate that for the state. As examples, limitfor this study, available research funds limited the ing the relevant populations to those 20 and consumer survey to registered voters in Franklin above, 24.6 percent of the residents in the state county, the capital seat for the state. To evaluate are 60 or older and 22.6 percent of the responthe validity of this localized or cluster-type dents to this survey are 60 or older. Also, 23.9 sampling, it seems appropriate to compare demopercent of the respondents to this survey are begraphic and socioeconomic characteristics for the tween the ages of 31-40, whereas 23.2 percent of county, state and the respondents to this survey. those 20 and older in the state are between the Comparisons between the state and county show ages of 31-40. These comparable figures across Franklin county to have a younger age distribuage groups suggest that the sample is quite repretion, higher levels of education, and higher insentative of the larger population with respect to comes (Bureau of the Census). Likewise, responan important factor which is highly correlated dents to the survey had higher levels of education with apple consumption. and income than residents across the state. With