Nutrition Assistance in Farmers Markets: 

Understanding the Shopping Patterns 

of SNAP Participants

Final Report

October 2014
This page is intentionally blank. 
Non-Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all of its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex (including 

gender identity and expression), marital status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, political 

beliefs, genetic information, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Stop 9410, Washington, DC 

20250-9410; or call toll-free at (866) 632-9992 (English) or (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 

(English Federal-relay) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish Federal-relay). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer. 
This page is intentionally blank. 
October 2014 

Nutrition Assistance in Farmers Markets: 

Understanding the Shopping Patterns 

of SNAP Participants

Final Report

Authors:

Mustafa Karakus, Ph.D.

Roline Milfort, Ph.D. 

Keith MacAllum, Ph.D.

Hongsheng Hao, Ph.D. 

Submitted by:

Westat

1600 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Project Director:

Mustafa Karakus

Submitted to:

Office of Policy Support 

Food and Nutrition Service

3101 Park Center Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22302-1500 

Project Officer:

Eric Sean Williams, Ph.D. 

This study was conducted under Contract number AG-3198-B-10-0029, Task AG-3198-K-11-0059 

with the Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 

Suggested Citation: 

Karakus, Mustafa, MacAllum, Keith, Milfort, Roline and Hao, Hongsheng. Nutrition Assistance in 

Farmers Markets: Understanding the Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants. Prepared by Westat 

for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, October, 2014 

Available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/research-and-analysis
This page is intentionally blank. 
FMCS Final Report vii 

 

Acknowledgments 

 

Many organizations and individuals contributed to the USDA FNS Farmers Market Client 

Survey (FMCS) from conception and design to analyses and report production. This report was 

prepared by Westat under the direction of Dr. Mustafa Karakus who served as the Project 

Director. The project’s Program Officer at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) was Dr. Eric Sean Williams. 

The Westat team is indebted to the Agricultural Market Service (AMS) whose extensive 

reports on farmers markets in the United States provided the foundation for this study. The AMS 

also convened a meeting with the Farmers Market Coalition whose members contributed to the 

design stage of this project. This report could not have been completed without the generous 

cooperation of the State Agencies that went above and beyond the call to provide critical contact 

data that enabled the survey.

The study team is especially grateful to the many SNAP participants who took the time to 

complete the Farmers Market Client Survey or participate in one of the focus groups. It is only 

through the candid insight into their personal experience that we were able to gather the many 

findings presented in this report. 

The study team would like to acknowledge Thomas Bosworth for his leadership in complex 

study operations and Dr. Jane Schulman for her thoughtful review of early drafts and 

contributions to the final report. Cal Pierce edited the report and Laurie Tomasino-Rosales

formatted it. Finally, thank you to the many other staff at Westat who contributed to the 

completion of this work: Cecilia Avison, John Burke, Dr. David Cantor, Andrew Caporaso, 

Dr. Sujata Dixit-Joshi, Mark Friedman, Andrew Fritz, Dr. Joseph Gasper, Jennifer 

Kawata, Melissa King, Dr. Jocelyn Marrow, Dr. Cynthia Robins, Allison Roeser, Mervin 

Ruiz, David Stinchcomb, and Dr. Regina Yudd.
 

viii FMCS Final Report 

This page is intentionally blank. 
FMCS Final Report ix 

 

Contents 

Chapter Page

Executive Summary ...............................................................................................xv

I. Methodology ..............................................................................................xv

II. Results ..................................................................................................... xvii

III. Conclusion ............................................................................................... xix

1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................1

1.1 Overview ......................................................................................................1

1.2 Farmers Markets and SNAP Participants ....................................................3

1.3 Research Objectives .....................................................................................5

1.4 Report Organization .....................................................................................5

2 Methodology and Data Collection ...........................................................................7

2.1 Overview of Study Design ...........................................................................7

2.2 Farmers Market Client Survey .....................................................................8

2.3 Focus Group Samples and Data Collection ...............................................22

2.4 Other Data Sources ....................................................................................26

3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants ...............................................................27

3.1 Overview and Key Findings ......................................................................27

3.2 General Shopping Patterns .........................................................................28

3.3 Shopping Patterns at Farmers Markets in General ....................................44

3.4 Shopping Patterns at Specific Farmers Markets ........................................57

4 Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets .........................................69

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................69

4.2 Farmers Market Geographic Characteristics .............................................70

4.3 Reasons for Not Shopping at Farmers Markets .........................................88

4.4 Proximity of Farmers Markets and Other Retailers to SNAP 

Participant’s Residence ..............................................................................96

5 Role of Incentives ..................................................................................................99

5.1 Incentives at Farmers Markets .................................................................100

5.2 Nonfinancial Incentives ...........................................................................112
Contents (continued) 

 

x FMCS Final Report 

Chapter Page

6 Synthesis and Discussion .....................................................................................115

6.1 Research Questions and Key Evaluation Findings ..................................115

6.2 Study Strengths and Limitation ...............................................................121

6.3 Conclusions ..............................................................................................122

Appendixes

A Technical Appendix ............................................................................................ A-1 

B Incentive Experiment ...........................................................................................B-1 

C Cognitive Testing on Study Instrument ...............................................................C-1 

D Study Materials ................................................................................................... D-1 

E Study Instruments ................................................................................................ E-1 

F Weighting Procedures .......................................................................................... F-1 

G Summary of Findings Related to Plants and Seeds ............................................ G-1 

H Exploratory Factor Analysis ............................................................................... H-1 

Tables Page

2-1 FMCS Sample Size ................................................................................................11

2-2 Number of Farmers Markets Sampled and Study Participants Invited to 

Participate in the Survey by FNS Region (N=10,394) ......................................12

2-3 Client Survey Structure ..........................................................................................13

2-4 Case Counts at Market and Person Levels by Response Status and Level ............15

2-5 Farmers Market Client Survey Response Rates.....................................................15

2-6 Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants ............................................19

2-7 Household Characteristics of Survey Participants .................................................20

2-8 Support Received From Other Nutrition Programs ...............................................21

2-9 Focus Group Attendee Demographics, by Frequency of Shopping (N=106) ........24

2-10 Focus Group Attendee Characteristics, by Frequency of Shopping and 

Location (N=106) ..............................................................................................25
Contents (continued) 

FMCS Final Report xi 

 

Tables (continued) Page

3-1 Where SNAP Participants Shop for Groceries ......................................................29

3-2 Frequency of Shopping for Frozen/Canned Fruits and Vegetables, by 

Market Type ......................................................................................................31

3-3 Frequency of Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, by Market Type ...........32

3-4 Use of SNAP Benefits to Purchase Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, by Market 

Type...................................................................................................................33

3-5 Reasons for Shopping Where Participants Reported Shopping for Most 

Fresh Fruits and Vegetables ..............................................................................35

3-6 Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants by Farmers Market 

Shopping Status .................................................................................................36

3-7 Race and Ethnicity of Survey Participants by Farmers Market Shopping 

Status .................................................................................................................38

3-8 Household Size of Survey Participants by Farmers Market Shopping 

Status .................................................................................................................39

3-9 Support Received From Other Nutrition Programs by Farmers Market 

Shopping Status .................................................................................................41

3-10 Logistic Regression: Predictors of Shopping at Any Farmers Market ..................43

3-11 Where SNAP Participants Shop for Groceries by Farmers Market 

Shopping Status .................................................................................................44

3-12 Perceived Freshness and Purchase Quantity When Shopping at Farmers 

Market Among Shoppers ..................................................................................45

3-13 Variety and Consumption When Shopping at Farmers Markets Among 

Shoppers ............................................................................................................46

3-14 Payment Type When Shopping at Farmers Market Among Shoppers ..................47

3-15 Level of Spending When Shopping at Farmers Markets Among Shoppers ..........48

3-16 Quantity of Fruits and Vegetables Purchased From Farmers Markets 

Relative to Other Stores Among Shoppers .......................................................48

3-17 Quantity of SNAP/EBT Benefits Spent on Fruits and Vegetables at 

Farmers Markets Among Shoppers ...................................................................49

3-18 How Shoppers Knew SNAP/EBT Benefits Were Accepted at the Farmers 

Markets ..............................................................................................................49

3-19 Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants by SNAP/EBT Use at 

Farmers Markets (N=3,160) ..............................................................................51
Contents (continued) 

 

xii FMCS Final Report 

Tables (continued) Page

3-20 Race and Ethnicity of Survey Participants by SNAP/EBT Use at Farmers 

Market ...............................................................................................................52

3-21 Household Characteristics of Survey Participants by SNAP/EBT Use at 

Farmers Markets................................................................................................53

3-22 Support Received from other Food Assistance by SNAP/EBT Use at 

Farmers Markets................................................................................................55

3-23 Logistic Regression: Predictors of SNAP/EBT Use Among Farmers 

Market Shoppers ...............................................................................................56

3-24 Length of Time Shopping at Specific Farmers Market Among Shoppers at 

a Specific Market ..............................................................................................58

3-25 Shopping Frequency by Seasons Among Shoppers at a Specific Market .............59

3-26 How Shoppers Get to the Specific Farmers Market ..............................................60

3-27 Travel Time to the Farmers Market Among Shoppers at Specific Markets ..........61

3-28 Types of Products Purchased at the Farmers Market Among Shoppers at 

Specific Farmers Market ...................................................................................62

3-29 Perception of Variety and Quality of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Among 

Shoppers at a Specific Market...........................................................................64

3-30 Perception of the Prices of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables at Farmers Markets 

Relative to Other Stores or Markets Among Shoppers at Specific 

Markets ..............................................................................................................64

3-31 Method of Payment for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables in the Past Year 

Among Shoppers at Specific Markets ...............................................................65

3-32 In the Past Year, How Many Times Did Shoppers at a Specific Market 

Use SNAP/EBT Card to Buy Fresh Fruits and Vegetables ..............................66

3-33 Reasons for Not Using SNAP/EBT Card More Often (Among Shoppers at 

Specific Farmers Markets Who Did Not Use Their SNAP/EBT Card 

“Almost Every Time”) ......................................................................................66

4-1 Average Number of Retail Service Establishments Available in the FM 

Vicinity (2-mile radius) by Farmers Market Shoppers and Nonshoppers ........70

4-2 Distance Between FMs and the Nearest Food Retailer by Farmers Market 

Shoppers and Nonshoppers ...............................................................................71

4-3 Reasons for Shopping at a Specific Farmers Market Among Shoppers at a 

Specific Market .................................................................................................72
Contents (continued) 

FMCS Final Report xiii 

 

Tables (continued) Page

4-4 Top 5 Reasons for Shopping at a Specific Farmers Market Among 

Shoppers at a Specific Market...........................................................................73

4-5 Reasons that Keep Shoppers from Shopping for Fresh Fruits and 

Vegetables as Much as they Want to at Their Specific Farmers Market ..........74

4-6 Reasons Reported for Not Shopping at Farmers Markets Among 

Nonshoppers ......................................................................................................88

4-7 Distance Between the SNAP Participant and the FM by Farmers Market 

Shoppers and Nonshoppers ...............................................................................96

4-8 Average Number of Other Food Retailers Within a Two-Mile Radius of a 

SNAP Participant by Farmers Market Shoppers and Nonshoppers ..................97

5-1 Knowledge of Incentives at the Farmers Market Among Shoppers at 

Specific Markets..............................................................................................101

5-2 Impact of Incentives at Specific Farmers Markets Among Shoppers at 

Specific Markets That Offer Incentives ..........................................................102

5-3 Knowledge of Farmers Market Incentives Among Nonshoppers........................107

5-4 Likelihood to Shop at a Farmers Market for Various Incentive Schemes 

Among Nonshoppers .......................................................................................108

5-5 Likelihood of Shopping at Farmers Markets if Certain Things Were 

Offered Among Nonshoppers .........................................................................113

Figures

1-1 Number of Farmers Markets in the United States, 1994-2013 ................................4

2-1 FM Client Survey Sampling Process .......................................................................9

2-2 Location of Farmers Markets Linked to SNAP Participants .................................10

2-3 Breakdown of Survey Respondents by FM Shopper and EBT Card Use 

Status .................................................................................................................17

5-1 Importance of Incentives at the Farmers Market Among Shoppers at 

Specific Markets..............................................................................................101
 

xiv FMCS Final Report 

This page is intentionally blank. 
FMCS Final Report xv 

 

 Executive Summary 

 

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) seeks to expand 

access to fresh fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods through farmers markets (FMs) 

among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants. As such, the FNS has 

funded a portfolio of three large-scale studies regarding different aspects of how farmers markets 

function within SNAP. This report presents the findings of one of those studies—Nutrition 

Assistance in Farmers Markets: Understanding the Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants. 

The broad research objectives of the study were to: 

1. Describe the shopping patterns of SNAP participants redeeming benefits at FMs.

2. Describe why some SNAP participants do not shop at FMs. 

3. Describe the characteristics of the FMs serving the participants surveyed in 

relationship to their shopping decisions. 

I. Methodology 

The study design included representative sample of SNAP participants who shopped or lived 

near sampled FMs for the completion of the Farmers Market Client Survey (FMCS); and sample 

of SNAP participants from three cities for participation in focus groups. In addition, geographic 

information systems data were analyzed to study where participants lived and examine the 

distance and availability of other food and grocery services near the FMs. 

Sampling 

The survey used a two-stage sampling process. Stage 1 involved a nationally representative 

sample of 65 FMs with Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) transactions greater than $1,000 

during a 1-year period. The FM sample was stratified by whether the FM offered a SNAP-based 

incentive programs (SBIP). (Note: SBIPs are provided directly by FMs or indirectly by private 

organizations, not by the FNS.) 

Stage 2 involved a random sample of SNAP participants who had used their EBT card at or near 

a FM drawn in the first stage. This sample included “FM EBT users,” who were identified 
 

xvi FMCS Final Report 

Executive Summary 

through EBT transactions at one of the selected FMs, and “FM EBT nonusers,” who were 

identified through EBT transactions at any authorized retailer (other than the selected FM) within 

a catchment area around one of the selected FMs. Thus, the study included (1) SNAP 

participants who used their EBT card at the selected FMs, and (2) SNAP participants who did 

not use their EBT card at the selected FMs. A total of 4,752 respondents completed the survey. 

Later, based on survey responses, participants were grouped into 3,247 SNAP participants who 

shopped at FMs (“shoppers”) using their EBT card or another form of payment, and 1,499 SNAP 

participants who did not shop at any FMs (“nonshoppers”) in the past 12 months. 

For the focus groups, three cities (Atlanta, San Diego, and San Francisco) were selected in which 

to hold 12 focus groups that included a total of 106 participants. In each city, two of the focus 

groups were limited to SNAP participants who were frequent shoppers at a reference FM 

(defined as those who shopped more than three times in the past 12 months), while the other two 

were limited to SNAP participants who were nonfrequent shoppers at the reference FM (defined 

as those who shopped three or fewer times in the past 12 months, including a small percentage 

who did not shop at a FM in the past 12 months at all). The focus groups in Atlanta and San 

Francisco were conducted in English. The focus groups in San Diego were conducted in Spanish, 

as San Diego focus group participants were recruited based on Spanish being their preferred 

language. 

Data Collection and Analysis 

The survey included five sections (Shopping for Groceries, Shopping at Farmers Markets, 

Shopping at a Farmers Market in Your Neighborhood, Reasons for Not Shopping at a Farmers 

Market, and About You and Your Household.) In addition, within the sections, certain questions 

were targeted for specific subgroups (e.g., shoppers who use their EBT card at FMs). 

The survey data analysis included (1) univariate and bivariate statistics for describing the SNAP 

participants and their shopping patterns, (2) logistic regression models for identifying the 

determinants of shopping at FMs and the use of SNAP benefits at FMs, and (3) exploratory 

factor analysis for assessing the reasons for shopping at FMs and potential barriers to shopping at 

FMs among SNAP participants. Standard qualitative data analysis techniques were applied to 

transcribed focus group data. Finally, GIS data was used to examine distance and availability of 

services around the farmers market and SNAP participants’ residence. 
FMCS Final Report xvii 

 

Executive Summary 

II. Results 

The overall results are summarized in the following five subsections: general shopping patterns, 

shopping at FMs, use of SNAP benefits at FMs, reasons for not shopping at FMs, and role of 

incentives.

General Shopping Patterns 

SNAP participants most often shopped at large grocery stores for all of their groceries, and they 

were most likely to use their SNAP benefits at these stores. When shopping for fruits and 

vegetables, SNAP participants most often preferred fresh products, and they shopped for fresh 

fruits and vegetables more often than they shopped for frozen/canned fruits and vegetables. 

SNAP participants cited good specials and deals, low prices, high quality, and, importantly, 

acceptance of the EBT card as reasons for shopping at a particular FM. 

Shopping at Farmers Markets 

Among SNAP participants, those who were more likely to shop at FMs included women, people 

in households with no children, people in households receiving support from other nutrition 

programs, and those who were aware of incentives for EBT card use. Those less likely to report 

shopping at FMs included African Americans and other non-White race categories; participants 

who were unemployed; participants who were homemakers, students, or retired; participants who 

reported they cannot work; and participants in households with incomes below $10,000 per year. 

The majority of shoppers agreed that they could find more variety and better-quality fruits and 

vegetables at the FM than in other stores. In terms of prices, most shoppers believed that the 

prices of fresh fruits and vegetables at FMs were lower or at least the same as in other stores. 

The most commonly reported reason for shopping at a specific FM was access to high-quality 

fruits and vegetables. Other key factors that influenced shopping at the FM included activities for 

children and social services, community-related events, conducive environment, accessibility, 

and affordability. In addition, focus group participants reported increased selection, wider 

variety, and the promotion of local businesses and farmers. Notably, both the survey and the 
 

xviii FMCS Final Report 

Executive Summary 

focus groups suggested that positive social experiences offered through FMs served as important 

reasons that SNAP participants shopped there. In the focus group discussions, shopping at a FM 

was described as a social event with opportunities for fun as well as learning. Respondents 

commented that the environment made it easy and enticing for them to try fruits and vegetables 

through sampling and testing the quality of foods. Interaction with farmers and diversity of 

produce encouraged participants to purchase fruits and vegetables. Shopping at FMs was 

described as a family-friendly experience with activities and interactions unavailable through 

ordinary grocery shopping. These unique experiences distinguished shopping at FMs from 

shopping at traditional grocery stores, and motivated shoppers to return. 

Use of SNAP Benefits at Farmers Markets 

In terms of using SNAP benefits at FMs, in general gender and age did not play a significant 

role. Among those who shopped at FMs, Black or African Americans, unemployed participants, 

those who cannot work, and participants with household incomes below $10,000 were all more 

likely to use SNAP benefits at FMs if they shopped at farmers markets. Participants who were 

aware of incentives for EBT card use were more likely to use SNAP benefits when shopping at 

FMs. Among shoppers who rarely their EBT card while shopping at FMs, more than one-third 

were not aware that their benefits could be used at an FM, one in four ran out of money on their 

EBT card, and almost one in ten declined to use it in order to avoid a perceived sense of social 

stigma. 

Reasons for Not Shopping at Farmers Markets 

The top factors noted as barriers to shopping, among SNAP participants who did not shop at 

FMs, were related to convenience and prices, with the convenience of shopping for all groceries 

at one store as the most important reason. Parking and safety at the FM were reported as reasons, 

though at a lower frequency. Among focus group participants, inconvenient days or hours of 

operation were cited as barriers to shopping, with several attendees at each focus group site 

commenting critically that their target market was open for limited hours on inconvenient days. 

The overwhelming majority of survey respondents who did not shop at FMs were not aware that 

some FMs offered incentives for using EBT cards. Focus group attendees appeared not to be 

knowledgeable about specific incentive programs at their local FMs. 
FMCS Final Report xix 

 

Executive Summary 

Role of Incentives 

There was a high correlation between shopping status and awareness of the financial incentives 

for shopping at FMs that provide SBIPs. Among survey respondents who were shoppers at a 

specific market tended to be aware of the incentives, whereas nonshoppers were overwhelmingly 

unaware of the incentives. Among shoppers at a specific market, the financial incentives were 

very important for getting shoppers to shop at the FM, and they shopped more at FMs because of 

these incentives. Furthermore, they reported that their household members ate more fresh fruits 

and vegetables, which was another benefit of the incentives. However, although they shopped 

more at FMs, only half of them reported that they used their EBT card more often because of the 

incentives. In contrast, nonshoppers reported that financial incentives and availability of nutrition 

information would increase their likelihood of shopping at FMs. Hence, incentives did play a 

role in the shopping behaviors of both shoppers and nonshoppers at an FM. 

III. Conclusion 

As the number of FMs continues to increase across the country, the findings of this study 

provides valuable insights on the type of supports necessary for encouraging SNAP participants 

to shop at FMs. 
 

 FMCS Final Report 

This page is intentionally blank. 
FMCS Final Report 1 

 

1.1 Overview 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) nutrition assistance programs reach one in four 

Americans. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest of these 

programs, serving more than 47 million low-income individuals in an average month during 

fiscal year 2013.1 In January 2014, about one in seven people in the U.S. received SNAP 

benefits.2 SNAP is designed to provide better nutrition and reduce food insecurity among lowincome households, and helps prevent hunger among children and adults, playing a critical role 

in improving access to fresh, healthy foods among this population. Research indicates that 

increased consumption of fresh, healthy foods can reduce levels of cardiovascular disease,3

stroke,4 some types of cancer,5 obesity,6 and other health problems. Recently, the USDA’s Food 

and Nutrition Service (FNS) has placed added emphasis on promoting healthy eating among all 

nutrition assistance program participants including SNAP, including promoting farmers markets 

(FMs. Strengthening of local and regional food systems, such as FMs, may have a positive 

impact on the health of Americans by providing access to fresh, unprocessed fruits and 

vegetables and other healthy foods.7

 

1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing Services. (2014). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program data. Available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf. 

2 Food Research and Action Center. (2014). SNAP Caseloads Decrease in January 2014. Available at 

http://frac.org/reports-and-resources/snapfood-stamp-monthly-participation-data/ 

3 Hung HC, Joshipura KJ, Jiang R, et al. Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of major chronic disease. J Natl Cancer 

Inst. 2004; 96:1577–84.

4 He FJ, Nowson CA, MacGregor GA. Fruit and vegetable consumption and stroke: meta-analysis of cohort 

studies. Lancet. 2006; 367:320–26.

5 International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. IARC Handbooks of Cancer 

Prevention: Fruits and Vegetables. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2003.

6 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. Update with citation for 2010 DGAs and use the suggested citation in the DGAs which are a joint 

USDA and DHHS publication,

7 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Communications. (2013). Fact Sheet: Strengthening New Market 

Opportunities in Local and Regional Food Systems. USDA Release No. 0219.13. Available at 

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2013/11/0219.xml&contentidonly=true. 

1 Introduction 1 
1 Introduction 

 

2 FMCS Final Report 

The USDA is pursuing several initiatives8 to improve access to healthy foods for SNAP 

participants. One such initiative is to support the availability of FMs and direct access to farm 

products9 by working with FMs and direct marketing farmers to improve participants’ access to 

locally grown produce. The FNS funded a portfolio of three large-scale studies to identify 

strategies to increase the effectiveness of FMs in relation to SNAP, and facilitate shopping at 

FMs among SNAP participants. The first study, Nutrition Assistance in Farmers Markets: 

Understanding Current Operations, explored characteristics and logistical processes, and 

motivations for accepting SNAP benefits at FMs.10 The second study, Farmers Market Incentive 

Provider Study, assessed how organizations design, operate, and evaluate SNAP-based incentive 

programs (SBIPs), the collaborative partnerships that exist between organizations, and the 

impact of SBIPs on individual markets. The third study, Nutrition Assistance in Farmers 

Markets: Understanding the Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants, assessed the 

characteristics and motivations of those SNAP participants who use and those who do not use 

FMs, as well as the factors that facilitate and hinder SNAP participants’ shopping at FMs. 

This report presents findings from the third study. To date, no large-scale research has been 

conducted with a representative sample of SNAP participants to understand the factors that 

influence their decisions to shop at FMs. This study was conducted to provide information on the 

shopping behaviors of SNAP participants who purchase food in and around a nationally 

representative sample of FMs that redeemed at least $1,000 in SNAP benefits from June 2011 

through July 2012. The sample of FMs was drawn from the sample in the first study. A series of 

focus groups with SNAP participants augment the data from the client survey by providing rich, 

subjective insights into the use of FMs. Taken together, these findings will enable the FNS to 

develop and implement policies and practices that encourage the use of SNAP benefits at FMs. 

 

8 These include the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010; the Health Incentives Pilot; and placement of nutrition 

messages on fruits and vegetables.

9 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing Services. (2013). Farmers markets and local food 

marketing. Available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/farmersmarkets. 

10 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis. (2013). Nutrition 

assistance in farmers markets: Understanding current operations by Sujata Dixit-Joshi et al. Project Officer: Eric 

Sean Williams, Alexandria, VA: April 2013. Available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/research-and-analysis. 
FMCS Final Report 3 

 

Introduction 1 

1.2 Farmers Markets and SNAP Participants 

USDA-administered food and nutrition assistance programs are intended to reduce food 

insecurity and improve nutrition among low-income Americans. A central component of this 

effort is to improve access to and promote consumption of fruits and vegetables among SNAP 

participants. In recent years, the number of FMs that accept SNAP has been rising steadily11; 

however, SNAP redemption rates at FMs remain relatively low. 

Since 2009, the number of FMs listed in the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service directory has 

increased by 74 percent, with an increase of 3.6 percent from 2012 to 2013 (see Figure 1-1).12

Multiple factors have contributed to the apparent growth13 of FMs across the nation, including 

efforts to connect farmers to consumers. For example, in 2008, Congress targeted 10 percent of 

funds in the Farmers Market Promotion Program to increase Electronic Benefits Transaction 

(EBT) access at FMs. Since then, the USDA has awarded approximately $5 million in Farmers 

Market Promotion Program grants to electronic benefit transfer (EBT) projects. In 2011, 

Congress doubled funding for the Farmers Market Promotion Program, and gave funding priority 

to projects designed to increase access. 

 

11 Community Science. 2013. SNAP Healthy Food Incentives Cluster Evaluation. Final Report. Available at: 

http://www.fairfoodnetwork.org. 

12 USDA, Agriculture Marketing Service. (2013). National Count of Farmers Market Directory Listings Graph: 

1994-2013. Available at http://www.ams.usda.gov. 

13 The increase in FMs is based on the information available in the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service directory, 

which lists only known FMs. 
1 Introduction 

 

4 FMCS Final Report 

Figure 1-1. Number of Farmers Markets in the United States, 1994-2013

Source: USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Marketing Services Division

Farmers market information is voluntary and self-reported to the Marketing Services Division.

In addition, the FNS also simplified the SNAP authorization process and provided informational 

support on how to process EBT cards.14 Between 2011 and 2013, the number of FMs with EBT 

machines authorized to accept SNAP increased by nearly 66 percent to 4,056, and redemptions 

of SNAP benefits at FMs increased from $11.7 million to $21.1 million.15 In 2014, the FNS 

launched a website (MarketLink)16 to assist FMs and direct marketing farmers in becoming 

authorized to accept SNAP benefits, including information about and resources for obtaining the 

necessary equipment to process SNAP benefits. This initiative includes up to $4 million in 

equipment grants to provide further support as needed.17

 

14 USDA, Food and Nutrition Service. Learn About SNAP Benefits at Farmers’ Markets. Available at 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ebt/fm.htm. 

15 Hunt, A., and Blavatsky, G., 2014. SNAP Redemption at Farmers Markets Sees Rapid Growth from 2011 to 2013. 

Available at http://wholesomewave.org/snapgrowth20112013.

16 MarketLink (www.marketlink.org) had not been implemented at the time of this study. 

17 National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. New Resource Helps Farmers and Farmers Markets Accept SNAP 

Benefits. Available at http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/marketlink. 

1,755

2,410

2,746 2,863 3,137

3,706

4,385

4,685

5,274

6,132

7,175

7,864

8,144

0 

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
FMCS Final Report 5 

 

Introduction 1 

It is plausible that increased exposure to FMs among low-income populations will increase their 

purchases and consumption of fruits and vegetables, and that financial incentives will augment 

this effect. A recent study of Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children (WIC) participants found that low-income customers who purchased fruits and 

vegetables at FMs using targeted subsidies consumed more fruits and vegetables than a similar 

population that purchased fruits and vegetables at supermarkets in the same neighborhood, a 

difference that persisted even after the subsidy program ended.18 

1.3 Research Objectives 

The purpose of this study was to understand the factors that influence where and why SNAP 

participants shop for fruits and vegetables. The three broad research objectives were to: 

1. Describe the shopping patterns of SNAP participants redeeming benefits at FMs.

2. Describe why some SNAP participants do not shop at FMs. 

3. Describe the characteristics of the FMs serving the participants surveyed in 

relationship to their shopping decisions. 

1.4 Report Organization 

This report includes both quantitative findings from the client survey and qualitative findings 

from focus groups with SNAP participants. Throughout the report’s chapters, the focus group 

findings are interwoven with findings from the client survey. Chapter 2 presents an overview of 

the methodology used to conduct the study, including study design, instruments, data collection 

procedures, sampling, and analytic methods. It also presents a summary of the sociodemographic characteristics of study respondents and response rates. 

Chapters 3 through 5 present study results, key findings, and special considerations for 

understanding and interpreting the findings. Chapter 3 presents the findings related to shopping 

 

18Herman D., Harrison G., Afifi A., Jenks E. 2008. Effect of a targeted subsidy on intake of fruits and vegetables 

among low-income women in the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children. 

American Journal of Public Health. V 98:1, 98-105.
1 Introduction 

 

6 FMCS Final Report 

patterns for fruits and vegetables, shopping patterns at FMs in general, and shopping patterns at 

specific (local) FMs. Chapter 4 presents the perceived benefits and barriers to shopping at FMs 

from the perspective of SNAP participants. It includes a discussion of the characteristics of FMs 

that were frequented by SNAP participants, what they chose to purchase there and why, and 

what were the most important considerations when they made purchasing decisions. It also 

explains why most SNAP participants did not shop at FMs. Chapter 5 discusses the role of 

financial and nonfinancial incentives for shopping at FMs. Finally, Chapter 6 presents a 

summary of conclusions based on current findings. 

This report includes a number of appendices. Appendix A is a technical appendix that provides 

detail on sampling, study methodology, and data collection procedures. Appendix B describes an 

incentive experiment used as part of the survey administration to test various financial incentive 

schemes designed to improve response rates. Appendix C describes the procedures used to 

pretest the survey instrument. Appendix D contains the study materials, including 

correspondence with study participants. Appendix E contains copies of the survey and focus 

group moderator guides. Appendix F describes the weighting procedures used during analysis to 

adjust for nonresponse and variance estimation. Appendix G offers a summary of findings 

related to the purchase of plants and seeds.
FMCS Final Report 7 

 

This chapter describes the study design, instruments, data collection procedures, sampling, and 

analytic methods, as well as characteristics of the survey respondents and focus group attendees. 

This chapter provides only an overview. Appendix A provides more details about each 

component of the methodology and data collection. 

2.1 Overview of Study Design 

The study design included a survey and focus groups of SNAP participants across the United 

States. In addition, geographic information systems (GIS) data were utilized to examine distance 

and availability of other food and grocery services around the farmers markets (FMs) and study 

participants’ residences. 

The FMs selected for the study were a nationally representative sample of FMs that redeemed at 

least $1,000 in SNAP benefits from June 2011 through July 2012, via Electronic Benefit 

Transfer (EBT) transactions. For sampling purposes, the survey participants included SNAP 

participants who used their EBT card at the selected FM (FM EBT users) during the past 12 

months, and those who did not use their EBT card at the selected FM during the past 12 months 

but who did use it at any authorized retailer in the catchment area of the FM (FM EBT 

nonusers).19 Furthermore, the client survey asked respondents if they shopped at a FM in the past 

12 months. Based on their responses, survey respondents were coded as SNAP participants who 

shopped at FMs (shoppers, including SNAP participants who did not use their EBT card for 

payment) and those who did not shop at FMs (nonshoppers). Appendix A provides a more 

detailed description of the sample of survey respondents. Survey data collection, which took 

place in a 12-week period between July 29, 2013 and October 21, 2013, was implemented via a 

mail survey and a follow-up telephone interview for nonresponders. 

 

19 FM EBT user and FM EBT nonuser status at the time of sampling may or may not match with FM EBT user and

FM EBT nonuser status at the time of survey completion. 

2 Methodology and Data Collection 2 
2 Methodology and Data Collection 

 

8 FMCS Final Report 

Twelve focus groups were held with SNAP participants in three major cities between September 

23, 2013, and October 2, 2013. The focus group sample was divided into two groups of SNAP 

participants, based on how often they shopped at their specific local FM: frequent FM shoppers 

and nonfrequent FM shoppers. All four groups in one city (San Diego) were conducted in 

Spanish to explore if certain perspectives applied specifically to SNAP participants for which 

Spanish is their primary or preferred language. The other eight focus groups were conducted in 

English. 

In discussing the study findings, all information was integrated using a combination of 

quantitative data (from the client survey and GIS data) and qualitative data (from the focus 

groups) to form a more complete understanding of the shopping behavior of SNAP participants. 

2.2 Farmers Market Client Survey 

Study Design 

This study implemented a two-stage sampling process based on sampling of FMs and sampling 

of SNAP participants. Appendix A provides further details regarding the sampling method of 

FMs and SNAP participants for the study. 

Stage 1 involved a nationally representative sample of FMs. The sample was selected from FMs 

that participated in the Nutrition Assistance in Farmers Markets: Understanding Current 

Operations 20 as depicted in Figure 2-1. Data for this study were collected from a national survey 

of 1,682 FMs and 570 direct marketing farmers between January and May 2012. The sample 

included FMs with EBT transactions greater than $1,000 between June 2011 and July 2012. The 

FM sample was stratified by whether the FM offered a SNAP-based incentive programs (SBIP).

A total of 65 markets were selected for this study.

Stage 2 involved a random sample of SNAP participants. The sample included two groups of 

SNAP participants: those who used their EBT card at one of the sampled FMs during the past 12 

months (FM EBT users), and those who did not use their EBT card at a sampled FM, but used it 

at any authorized retailer within a predefined area surrounding the sampled FM (FM EBT 

nonusers). 

 

20 This report is available on the Food and Nutrition Service website: http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora
FMCS Final Report 9 

 

Methodology and Data Collection 2 

Figure 2-1. FM Client Survey Sampling Process21

Stage 1

USE FM OPS sample 

of FM authorized to redeem 

SNAP benefits in 2011 

market season

Stage 1

Request STARS Extract 

that contains FM with $1K 

in SNAP benefits in 

2011 market season

Stage 2

Request ALERT Extract 

that contains user EBT IDs 

for all catchment areas

Stage 2

Randomly select 

FM users and FM nonusers

Stage 2

Create Sampling Frame 

for SNAP participants 

(FM users and FM nonusers) 

from state & local agency lists

Stage 2

Request contact information 

from case files from state 

office/agency for each EBT ID

Survey Sampling Frame 

Data Sources for the Frame 

The sampling frame was constructed from two sources: (1) an extract file from the FNS Store 

Tracking and Redemption System II (STARS II) database, and (2) an extract file from the FNS 

Anti-fraud Locator using EBT Retailer Transactions (ALERT) database:

 The STARS II database includes a record for each retailer authorized to accept 

SNAP benefits; the record includes information about the location, business type, 

total annual eligible food sales, etc. STARS II is used to monitor the retail 

organizations that redeem the benefits and assess ongoing participation, withdrawal, 

and disqualification of retailers.

 The ALERT database includes all EBT transaction records and contains the 

following data items: Store ID (FNS number), Store State, Terminal ID, Card 

Account Number, Transaction Date, Transaction Time, Transaction Amount, 

Transaction Sign, Transaction Type, Response Code, Available Balance Prior to 

Transaction, and Amount (the latter if the response code indicates that the transaction 

was accepted). The FNS uses the ALERT system to search for signs of fraud, waste, 

and abuse within the program, by tracking SNAP participants’ EBT transactions. 

 

21 The STARS II database includes a record for each retailer authorized to accept SNAP benefits. The ALERT 

database includes all EBT transaction records. Refer to the section on data sources for the sampling frame for more 

details.
2 Methodology and Data Collection 

 

10 FMCS Final Report 

Survey Sample 

Farmers Markets 

The sample included 65 FMs from 23 states: Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, 

Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, 

New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, 

Washington, and West Virginia. Figure 2-2 provides a map of the location of the FMs. 

Figure 2-2. Location of Farmers Markets Linked to SNAP Participants
FMCS Final Report 11 

 

Methodology and Data Collection 2 

SNAP Participants 

Once the Stage-2 sampling frame was created, a systematic sample of SNAP participants was 

selected for the client survey. The sample of FM EBT users was selected by the target or

reference FM. The sample of FM EBT nonusers was selected by catchment area (within a 2-mile 

radius of the sampled FM). 

Based on the precision requirements, the targeted number of completed surveys was 3,700, 

including 1,700 FM EBT users and 2,000 FM EBT nonusers (see Table 2-1). This included FMs 

with and without SBIPs. Assuming an 80 percent response rate, the initial sample included 4,626 

SNAP participants. A second assumption was a 3-month attrition rate of 11 percent for SNAP 

participants. Thus, the final sample size to draw from the sampling frame was 5,197 SNAP 

participants.

Table 2-1. FMCS Sample Size

 

FM EBT Users 

(1,700 Completes) 

FM EBT Nonusers 

(2,000 Completes) Total 

With SNAP-Based 

Incentive Programs 

W/o SNAP-Based 

Incentive Programs 

Sample draw 1,194 1,194 2,809 5,197

Attrition (11%) 131 131 309 571

Sample 1,063 1,063 2,500 4,626

Completes (80%) 850 850 2,000 3,700

In many cases, contact information provided by state agencies was incomplete, missing, or 

incorrect, which contributed to difficulty reaching SNAP participants within the sample. It is 

likely that many SNAP participants use temporary (prepaid) cellular telephones or change 

telephone numbers often. Given the potential challenges in reaching participants, a reserve 

sample of 5,197 SNAP participants was also drawn. Thus, the total sample size drawn was 

10,394 SNAP participants. 

Table 2-2 provides a breakdown of the FMs and SNAP participants recruited by FNS region. 

About 40 percent of SNAP participants invited to participate in FMCS were from the Western 

region, followed by 21 percent from the Northeast region and 19 percent from the Midwest 

region.
2 Methodology and Data Collection 

 

12 FMCS Final Report 

Table 2-2. Number of Farmers Markets Sampled and Study Participants Invited to Participate 

in the Survey by FNS Region (N=10,394)

FNS Regions 

Number of 

Farmers Markets 

Number of 

SNAP Participants 

Mid-Atlantic region 3 274

Midwest region 13 1,927

Mountain Plains region 5 720

Northeast region 13 2,195

Southeast region 3 742

Southwest region 2 241

Western region 26 4,295

Total 65 10,394

Data Source: FMCS sample file.

Note: These 65 farmers markets were a subsample of the 579 farmers markets that responded to the Farmers Market Operations 

Survey.

Survey Instrument 

The survey identified two types of shoppers based on their self-reported shopping habits: (1) 

SNAP participants who shop at FMs (shoppers) and (2) SNAP participants who did not shop at 

FMs (nonshoppers). The shoppers category was further divided into (a) shoppers who used their 

EBT cards at FMs in the past 12 months (FM EBT users) and (b) shoppers who did not use their 

EBT cards at FMs in the past 12 months (FM EBT nonusers). Both shopper status and FM EBT 

use status were coded based on the responses of SNAP participants who completed the survey. 

This supplanted the status that was derived from the anti-fraud location using EBT retailer 

transactions (ALERT) data for sampling purposes. The five sections of the survey instrument, 

the targeted group, and types of questions are summarized in Table 2-3. 

Before the survey was finalized for data collection, the survey instrument underwent cognitive 

testing with a small number of SNAP participants. Appendix C provides more information on the 

cognitive testing and the results.
FMCS Final Report 13 

 

Methodology and Data Collection 2 

Table 2-3. Client Survey Structure

Section Targeted Group Question Type/Category 

A: Shopping for 

groceries

All  Type of stores for grocery shopping

 Fruit and vegetable purchases (frozen/canned and fresh)

 SNAP/EBT card use for fresh fruits and vegetables, and 

plant seeds

 Reasons for shopping where most fruits and vegetables 

are purchased

B. Shopping at FMs Shoppers at FMs  Fresh fruit and vegetable purchases at FMs

 Payment methods at FMs

 Spending patterns at FMs

C: Shopping at a FM 

in your 

neighborhood 

Shoppers at a 

specific (local) FM

 Shopping patterns and history 

 Transportation to FMs

 Reasons for shopping at the specific (local) FMs

 Payment methods and SNAP/EBT use at FMs

D: Reasons for not 

shopping at a FM

Nonshoppers  Reasons for not shopping at FMs

 Potential reasons to start shopping at FMs

E: About you and 

your household

All  Household composition 

 Other types of assistance received

 Demographics

Survey Data Collection 

The client survey was designed, tested, and administered in two formats: hardcopy and 

telephone. Completed hardcopy surveys were scanned and stored in electronic form for later 

retrieval. The computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATIs)were conducted using Voxco, a 

system package that provided the CATI system.

All study materials were reviewed by FNS, translated into Spanish, and approved by the Office 

of Management and Budget. Appendix D includes a copy of the introductory letter, reminder 

letter (i.e. follow up request to complete the survey), thank you letter (with incentive payment), 

and the cover letter that accompanied a re-mail of the survey upon request (i.e. survey was lost or 

misplaced). The introductory letters and reminder letters sent to participants included a survey. 

Appendix E includes a copy of the English and Spanish versions of the client survey. 

The study included incentives for sampled SNAP participants to complete the client survey. The 

survey completion incentive was provided in two parts: an initial payment sent with the 

invitation mailing, and a thank you payment sent after survey completion. In order to test the 

effect level on response rate, there were four incentive groups: Group 1 = $5 initial and $10 
2 Methodology and Data Collection 

 

14 FMCS Final Report 

thank you; Group 2 = $5 initial and $20 thank you; Group 3 = $10 initial and $10 thank you; and 

Group 4 = $10 initial and $20 thank you. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the 

four groups. Appendix B presents a summary of the incentive experiment. 

Response Rates 

Response rates were calculated at both market and participant levels (referred to as person level). 

The overall response rate was the combination of the market-level response rate22 and the 

person-level response rate (where the person-level response is conditional upon the market-level 

response). Table 2-4 presents unweighted and weighted case counts by response status at the 

market and person levels. (See the next section for a summary of the methodology used to apply 

weighting to adjust for differences in sampling and response rates). Table 2-5 presents weighted 

response rate by type of SNAP participants and survey completion incentive group. For the 

weighted counts and weighted response rates, market- and person-level base weights were used 

at the market and person levels, respectively. Note that the market-level base weight was 

somewhat different for FM EBT users and FM EBT nonusers.23 For FM EBT users, the marketlevel base weight included a measure of size that reflects the size of the market, while for FM 

EBT nonusers, the market-level base weight did not include such a measure of size because it 

was not available due to data limitation.24

 

22 In the two-stage sample design, market-level units (FMs or EBT-authorized stores within a 2-mile radius of 

eligible FMs, i.e., within the catchment areas) were the first-stage sampling unit through which the SNAP 

participant-level frame was constructed and participants were sampled. When a state did not provide any SNAP 

participant names or contact information, SNAP participants associated with sampled markets in that state would 

have had no opportunity to be included in the second-stage frame. Although the decision to not provide the 

information was by the state, this situation is functionally equivalent to losing market-level units to nonresponse, 

and the response rate at the market level is an essential component in the correct calculation of the overall response 

rate.

23 EBT user or EBT nonuser at a sampled FM at the time of sampling.

24 For nonusers the calculation of a market-level size measure in a similar fashion would have required 12 months of 

transaction records for more than 70,000 EBT-authorized stores located within a 2-mile radius of each of the 591 

eligible FMs, and an extract of that magnitude from the ALERT database would have been prohibitively large. To 

limit the size of the data request, we restricted the data extract to SNAP-authorized stores from a much smaller 

subset of catchment areas. This subset included 1) the catchment areas of the 70 sample FMs, and 2) the catchment 

areas of additional eligible FMs located near any of the 70 sample markets. After an investigation of various 

alternatives, a decision was made that when an eligible FM was located within 10 miles of any sampled FM, the 

SNAP-authorized stores in its catchment area would also be included in the ALERT data extract request. The 

number of SNAP-authorized stores for which ALERT data extract were requested was reduced to about 15,000, 

but at the cost of not having the full set of EBT transaction data needed for calculating the size measure.
FMCS Final Report 15 

 

Methodology and Data Collection 2 

Overall, the response rate was higher among FM EBT users (50 %) than among FM EBT 

nonusers (37 %). The response rate tended to increase with the amount of the survey completion 

incentive payments: Group 2 ($25 total) and Group 4 ($30 total) had higher response rates than 

Group 1 ($15 total) and Group 3 ($20 total). FM EBT users who received the largest surveyrelated incentive payment had the highest overall response rate (55 % weighted). 

Table 2-4. Case Counts at Market and Person Levels by Response Status and Level

Number of Cases 

by Response Status 

and Level of Unit 

FM EBT Users FM EBT Nonusers 

Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted 

Market

Complete 65 114,999.6 65 522.9

Nonresponse 3 3,556.9 3 51.8

Ineligible a 2 5,252.4 2 9.1

Total 70 123,808.9 70 583.8

SNAP participant

Complete 2,465 54,377.6 2,287 5,337,623.7

Nonresponse 2,284 52,135.7 3,293 7,687,136.7

Ineligible 27 633.3 38 93,309.4

Total 4,776 107,146.6 5,618 13,118,069.8

a Refers to two markets that were later found not to be FMs based on USDA requirements. 

Table 2-5. Farmers Market Client Survey Response Rates

 

FM EBT Users FM EBT Nonuser 

Level of Unit Weighted Percent Weighted Percent 

Market 97.0 91.0

SNAP participant 51.1 41.0

Overall 49.5 37.3

Incentive payment Group 1:

$5 initial / $10 thank you

SNAP participant 46.4 36.1

Overall 45.0 32.9

Incentive payment Group 2:

$5 initial / $20 thank you

SNAP participant 53.1 43.8

Overall 51.5 39.8

Incentive payment Group 3:

$10 initial / $10 thank you

SNAP participant 47.9 39.4

Overall 46.4 35.9

Incentive payment Group 4:

$10 initial / $20 thank you

SNAP participant 56.7 44.6

Overall 55.0 40.6
2 Methodology and Data Collection 

 

16 FMCS Final Report 

Weighting, Nonresponse Adjustment, and Variance Estimation 

This section provides a brief summary of weighting, nonresponse adjustment, and variance 

estimation. Appendix F provides a more detailed description of the methodology for calculating 

base weights, nonresponse adjustments, and replicate weights. 

Sampling weights are required to produce unbiased estimates from the survey data. Each 

sampled SNAP participant is assigned a sampling weight, which reflects his or her chance of 

selection to this study. Consequently, when sampling weights are applied, the estimates would be 

generalizable to the entire study population. In addition, since not all SNAP participants who 

received the survey responded, nonresponse adjustments are needed to produce unbiased 

estimates. Nonresponse adjustment allows us to use data from responding SNAP participants to 

make appropriate inferences to the universe of all SNAP participants. Finally, replicate weights 

are calculated by dividing the sample into subgroups. These replicate weights enable us to 

compute standard errors for the estimates that can be used in statistical significance tests.

Survey Data Analysis 

The initial analyses were descriptive statistics of the SNAP participants who responded to the 

survey. Second, the general shopping patterns of SNAP participants were summarized, including 

where they shop for groceries, frequency, and the reasons. This included shopping for 

frozen/canned and fresh fruit and vegetables as well as EBT use at various types of stores. 

Bivariate tables were used to examine shopping patterns by FM shopping status. The tables 

included weighted percentages and unweighted number of responses. Next, the shopping patterns 

at FMs in general and at a specific FM were examined. Findings on the main reasons for 

shopping as well as factors perceived as barriers to shopping at FMs were tabulated. Subgroup 

analyses between the FM EBT users and FM EBT nonusers were conducted.25 

Multivariate logistic regression models26 were used to examine the dichotomous outcome 

(yes/no) of shopping at FM among all participants, and of using SNAP benefits among shoppers. 

Multivariate analysis included variables such as demographics characteristics (e.g., age, gender, 

 

25 FM EBT user and FM EBT nonuser at the time of survey completion. 

26 Logistic regression is the appropriate regression analysis to conduct when the dependent variable is dichotomous 

(binary) and it predicts the probability that the outcome variable takes on a value of 1. 
FMCS Final Report 17 

 

Methodology and Data Collection 2 

race), work status, income, immigration status, having children in the house, receipt of support 

from other nutrition programs, and awareness of SBIPs at FMs. Findings were presented 

regarding the main reasons for shopping at FMs, as well as factors perceived as barriers to 

shopping at FMs. Exploratory factor analyses27 were conducted to identify primary reasons 

SNAP participants shop at FMs. Finally, the role of financial and nonfinancial incentives for 

shopping at FMs was examined. 

Characteristics of Survey Respondents 

The survey identified SNAP participants who shopped at a FM (shoppers) and those who did not 

(nonshoppers). Among shoppers, the survey identified shoppers who used their EBT card at FMs 

(FM EBT users) and those who did not (FM EBT nonusers). These characteristics are based on 

survey responses (not from status at the time of sampling). Figure 2-3 presents the breakdown of 

FM shoppers vs. nonshoppers, and of FM EBT users vs. FM EBT nonusers. The survey also 

identified a group of SNAP participants who shopped at a specific local FM. 

Figure 2-3. Breakdown of Survey Respondents by FM Shopper and EBT Card Use Status

Among the survey respondents, 68 percent (n=3,247) were FM shoppers and 32 percent 

(n=1,499) were FM nonshoppers. Among the shoppers, 70 percent (n=2,287) were FM EBT 

users and 27 percent (n=873) were not. Also among the shoppers, 75 percent (n=2,443) were 

shoppers at a local FM. 

 

27 Factor analysis is a statistical technique that allows the researcher to “group” individual survey items into general 

categories based on their co-occurrence. See Appendix H for the results of exploratory factor analysis.
2 Methodology and Data Collection 

 

18 FMCS Final Report 

Table 2-6 summarizes the demographics of survey respondents. As shown, women were 

overrepresented as survey respondents (73% of survey respondents were female, vs. 62% of the 

adult SNAP population in 201228). The largest age groups represented by survey respondents 

were ages 30-39 and 40-49 (both 24%). The largest race/ethnic group represented was White 

(48%), followed by Black or African-American (34.9%) and Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish 

ethnicity (26.5%). Overall, 35 percent of respondents were employed, while 24 percent reported 

that they were unable to work. More than half (55%) of survey respondents reported their 

household income at less than $10,000. 

Survey respondents’ households were more likely to include children (60%, vs. 45% for the 

general SNAP population in 2012) and less likely to be single-person households (34%, vs. 50% 

for the general SNAP population in 2012). 

As shown in Table 2-7, the majority of respondents (66%) reported having at least one additional 

person in the household. Nearly 80 percent reported having no one in the household over the age 

of 60. Roughly 28 percent reported having at least one child under the age of 5 in the household. 

Nearly half (47%) of respondents reported having at least one child between the ages of 5 and 17 

in the household. Overall, 39 percent of respondents were born outside the United States; among 

those, 88 percent had been U.S. residents for 10 years or more. This percentage is higher than the 

percentage of the general SNAP population in 2012 born outside of the United States, (7%). This 

may in part be due to limiting the sampling of SNAP participants to those who resided within the 

catchment area of selected FMs. There was also significant number of markets in the sample 

from California where more than one-fourth of the total foreign born population in the US 

resides29. 

 

28 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, Characteristics of 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2012, by Kelsey Farson Gray and Esa 

Eslami. Project Officer, Jenny Genser. Alexandria, VA: 2014.

29 The US Census Website. http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acs-19.pdf
FMCS Final Report 19 

 

Methodology and Data Collection 2 

Table 2-6. Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants

Characteristics 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Gender 

Male 26.9 (1.5) 1,137

Female 73.1 (1.5) 3,540

Age groups 

18-29 years old 20.1 (1.1) 977

30-39 years old 23.5 (1.8) 1,264

40-49 years old 23.4 (1.2) 894

50-59 years old 16.5 (0.6) 782

60 or older 16.5 (1.9) 773

Hispanic, Spanish, Latino origin

Yes 26.4 (4.8) 838

No 73.6 (4.8) 3,705

Race

Black or African American 35.0 (3.7) 885

White 47.8 (3.4) 2,525

Asian 6.3 (1.1) 179

American Indian or Alaska Native 5.6 (0.8) 303

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 1.3 (0.3) 28

Other or multi-racial 3.9 (0.8) 250

Work status 

Employed 35.0 (1.2) 1,627

Unemployed 23.9 (1.0) 1,005

Homemaker/student/retired 17.5 (0.9) 841

Can’t work 23.6 (1.0) 1,083

Household income 

Under $10,000 54.6 (1.8) 2,377

$10,000 - $19,999 30.0 (1.3) 1,285

$20,000 - $29,999 9.7 (0.4) 476

$30,000 or more 5.7 (0.5) 241

Language spoken at home 

English only 75.6 (3.8) 3,715

Spanish only 9.7 (2.2) 292

English and Spanish only 9.7 (1.5) 279

Other languages 5.0 (0.7) 202

Note: There were 4,752 survey respondents who received these questions. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages. Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Section E.
2 Methodology and Data Collection 

 

20 FMCS Final Report 

Table 2-7. Household Characteristics of Survey Participants

Characteristics 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Number of people in the household 

One a 34.4 (1.9) 1,634

Two 20.9 (1.3) 891

Three 16.0 (0.8) 691

Four or five 21.1 (1.8) 959

More than five 7.6 (1.5) 363

Number of people over 60 years old 

Zero 77.8 (2.2) 3,465

One 16.8 (1.9) 729

Two 4.4 (0.6) 138

Three 0.3 (0.1) 8

More than three 0.7 (0.1) 26

Number of people with and without children

With 60.0 (2.3) 2,653

Without 40.0 (2.3) 2,055

Number of children under 5 years old 

Zero 71.8 (1.8) 3,097

One 20.0 (1.2) 822

Two 6.6 (1.0) 303

Three 1.2 (0.4) 52

More than three 0.5 (0.1) 14

Number of children 5 to 17 years old 

Zero 52.9 (2.7) 2,339

One 19.9 (0.9) 819

Two 14.6 (1.3) 612

Three 7.2 (1.1) 315

More than three 5.5 (1.1) 236

Born outside the U.S. 38.7 (2.5) 1,397

How long in the U.S.?

Less than 1 year 1.2 (0.5) 10

1 year to 5 years 3.7 (0.6) 49

5 years to 10 years 7.0 (1.3) 80

10 years or more 88.1 (1.1) 1,233

a Number includes 202 respondents who reported zero as the number of people in household.

Note: There were 4,752 survey respondents who received these questions. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages. Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Section E.
FMCS Final Report 21 

 

Methodology and Data Collection 2 

Table 2-8 shows the type of nutrition support that survey respondents receive. More than half of 

survey respondents had children (60%), and 72 percent of these children received free or reduced 

meals at school. Most respondents reported that they did not receive assistance from other 

nutrition programs such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children (WIC), the Senior FM Nutrition Program, or Meals on Wheels, which is not an FNS 

program. Select characteristics of the survey respondents were compared with the latest data 

available on the characteristics of general SNAP population.30

Table 2-8. Support Received From Other Nutrition Programs

Characteristics 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Have children living in the household 60.0 (2.3) 2,653

Child receives free/reduced price school lunch

Yes 72.4 (1.5) 1,833

No 27.6 (1.5) 705

Child in Head Start 

Yes 28.5 (1.3) 686

No 71.5 (1.3) 1,843

WIC benefits

Yes 26.2 (1.7) 1,142

No 73.8 (1.7) 3,527

WIC FM Nutrition Program coupons

Yes 10.8 (1.6) 614

No 89.2 (1.6) 4,047

Senior FM Nutrition Program coupons 

Yes 4.0 (0.4) 273

No 96.0 (0.4) 4,410

Meals on Wheels or Senior Nutrition Programa

Yes 3.5 (0.5) 173

No 96.5 (0.5) 4,522

Some other type of food assistance 

Yes 31.0 (1.5) 1,801

No 69.0 (1.5) 2,881

a This question was asked of all survey respondents regardless of age of household members. 

Note: There were 4,752 survey respondents who received these questions. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Section E.

 

30 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, Characteristics of 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011, by Mark Strayer, Esa Eslami, and 

Joshua Leftin. Project Officer, Jenny Genser. Alexandria, VA: 2012.
2 Methodology and Data Collection 

 

22 FMCS Final Report 

2.3 Focus Group Samples and Data Collection 

The intent of the focus groups was to gather insights into issues that affect SNAP participants’ 

FM shopping decisions. With assistance from the FNS, three focus group sites were selected 

based on geographic, cultural, and linguistic diversity and the presence of a FM that offered 

SBIPs (referred to here as the target market). The selected locations were Atlanta, San Diego, 

and San Francisco. Georgia and California happen to be the two states with the highest amount 

of SNAP redemption at FMs and other farm-to-retail venues.31

Focus group attendees were recruited from among SNAP participants within targeted zip codes 

in each of the respective study sites, based on proximity to the target market. All recruiters 

followed a detailed recruitment protocol and screening protocol to ensure that the recruited 

individuals were eligible. After participant eligibility was confirmed, each individual was 

scheduled to attend one of the four focus groups conducted in the city. Each focus group lasted 

approximately 60 minutes. To ensure attendance of 8 to 10 attendees per group, a total of 13 

individuals were recruited per group to account for attrition, and each attendee received $60 for 

his or her time and participation. The focus groups were conducted by a moderator and comoderator using a focus group moderator guide (see Appendix E)32. 

Eligible attendees were assigned to one of two focus group categories. Those indicating that they 

shopped three or more times in the past 12 months at the target market were assigned to the 

“frequent shoppers” group. Those who shopped fewer than three times (including never) within 

the past 12 months at the target market were assigned to the “nonfrequent shoppers” group. Two 

focus groups of each type were conducted in each city, for a total of 12 groups. 

It is important to underscore that “frequency of shopping” refers explicitly to shopping at a 

specific FM, and not at FMs in general. During the focus groups, attendees in both groups 

reported shopping at other FMs in addition to the target market. Thus, the nonfrequent shoppers 

groups contained attendees who might be considered frequent FM shoppers when taking into 

consideration all the FMs they may have shopped at in the past 12 months. However, screening 

in this manner afforded the opportunity to compare and contrast attendees’ perspectives with 

regard to their shopping behavior at a specific market known to offer a specific type of SNAP 

 

31 Hunt, A., and Blavatsky, G., 2014. SNAP Redemption at Farmers Markets Sees Rapid Growth from 2011 to 2013. 

Available at http://wholesomewave.org/snapgrowth20112013. 

32 Note that focus groups in San Diego were conducted in Spanish. 
FMCS Final Report 23 

 

Methodology and Data Collection 2 

Based Incentive Programs (SBIP). For these reasons, the groupings among focus group attendees 

were different than the groupings among survey respondents. Survey respondents were grouped 

based on whether or not they shopped at any FM in the past 12 months, while focus group 

attendees were grouped based on their frequency of shopping at a specific FM in the past 12 

months. 

All focus groups were audiotaped, and the recordings were transcribed by a professional 

transcription service. At the conclusion of each group, the research team conducted a preliminary 

analysis to inform subsequent focus group protocols. Following the completion of all 12 focus 

groups, a senior research analyst compiled and analyzed all of the qualitative data. 

Focus Group Attendees 

This section presents the demographics of focus group attendees, broken down by frequency of 

shopping at the target FM and by focus group location. Table 2-9 summarizes the demographics 

of focus group attendees who were frequent vs. nonfrequent shoppers at the target FM. Across 

all 12 groups, 70 percent of attendees were female. In order to examine potential perspectives 

that may be unique to Hispanic SNAP participants, eligible attendees in San Diego were limited 

to Hispanics whose primary language was Spanish. No such criteria for eligibility were applied 

at the other study sites. Overall, most attendees identified as Black or African American (38%) 

or Hispanic (36%).33 The majority of focus group attendees (64%) were between 30 and 50 years 

old, and the majority (53%) had a high school education or less. 

 

33 The sample in San Diego was intentionally 100 percent Hispanic to ensure representation. The high percentage of 

Black or African American focus group participants is likely due to location (i.e., Atlanta, GA). 
2 Methodology and Data Collection 

 

24 FMCS Final Report 

Table 2-9. Focus Group Attendee Demographics, by Frequency of Shopping (N=106)

 Percent 

Number of 

Attendees 

(N=106) 

Number of 

Frequent 

Shoppers 

(N=52) 

Number of 

Nonfrequent 

Shoppers 

(N=54) 

Gender

Male 30.2 32 9 23

Female 69.8 74 43 31

Race/ethnicity

White 17.0 18 6 12

Black or African American 37.7 40 23 17

Hispanic 35.8 38 18 20

Asian 3.8 4 2 2

Other or multiracial 5.7 6 3 3

Age

Less than 30 years old 15.1 16 11 5

Between 30 and 50 years old 64.1 68 33 35

Greater than 50 years old 20.8 22 8 14

Education

Less than high school 16.0 17 8 9

High school 36.8 39 16 23

Some college 25.5 27 17 10

College degree 21.7 23 11 12

Note: Frequent shoppers are SNAP participants who shopped at the target FM three or more times in the past 12 months. Nonfrequent 

shoppers shopped at the target FM less than three times in the past 12 months, including those who did not shop at the FM at all.

Data Source: FMCS Focus Groups Screener Data.

Table 2-10 shows focus group attendee characteristics by shopping frequency, compared across 

the three sites. Overall, at all sites the majority of frequent shoppers were female. The majority 

of nonfrequent shoppers were likewise female except in San Francisco, where there were more 

male attendees (12 males and 7 females). Blacks or African Americans represented the highest 

number of frequent and nonfrequent shoppers in Atlanta. All attendees in San Diego were 

Hispanic in both the frequent and nonfrequent shoppers groups. The San Francisco site was 

evenly split between Blacks or African Americans and Whites, and both shopping groups had a 

similar distribution of attendees from the remaining race/ethnicity categories. San Diego had the 

highest proportion of attendees with a high school education or less. 
FMCS Final Report 25 

 

Methodology and Data Collection 2 

Table 2-10. Focus Group Attendee Characteristics, by Frequency of Shopping and Location 

(N=106)

Characteristic Percent 

Number of 

Participants 

Number of 

Frequent Shoppers 

(N=52) 

Number of 

Nonfrequent Shoppers 

(N=54) 

ATL SF San D ATL SF San D 

Total 100.0 106 20 17 15 19 19 16

Gender

Male 30.2 32 7 2 0 8 12 3

Female 69.8 74 13 15 15 11 7 13

Race/ethnicity

White 17.0 18 3 3 0 5 7 0

Black or African American 37.7 40 17 6 0 12 5 0

Hispanic 35.8 38 0 3 15 1 3 16

Asian 3.8 4 0 2 0 0 2 0

Mixed/other 5.7 6 0 3 0 1 2 0

Age

Less than 30 years old 15.1 16 8 2 1 1 0 4

Between 30 and 50 years old 64.1 68 9 11 13 13 12 10

Greater than 50 years old 20.8 22 3 4 1 5 7 2

Education

Less than high school 16.0 17 0 2 6 1 2 6

High school 36.8 39 7 2 7 11 5 7

Some college 25.5 27 8 7 2 2 5 3

College degree 21.7 23 5 6 0 5 7 0

Note: Frequent shoppers are SNAP participants who shopped at the target FM three or more times in the past 12 months. Nonfrequent 

shoppers shopped at the target FM less than three times in the past 12 months, including those who did not shop at the FM at all.

Data Source: FMCS Focus Groups Screener Data.

Focus Group Data Analysis 

Themes from the focus group data were identified following the first set of focus groups in 

Atlanta. Those themes were used to tailor and refine the protocols for subsequent focus groups 

conducted in other locations. This iterative analytic process continued throughout collection of 

the qualitative data. 

Coding and analysis began after the first focus group summary was completed. All subsequent 

focus group summaries were compared with the previous focus groups’ themes to further 

develop and refine the coding process. This process is called the constant comparison method.34

All focus group summaries underwent this level of coding and analysis. Topline summary 

 

34Glaser, Barney G & Strauss, Anselm L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative 

Research. Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company.
2 Methodology and Data Collection 

 

26 FMCS Final Report 

reports were prepared for each study city highlighting themes and findings. These were then 

synthesized into a single summative write-up with a focus on distinguishing differences and 

commonalities among the six frequent shopper groups and the six nonfrequent shopper groups. 

When presenting focus group data in this report, the number of supporting and illustrative quotes 

accompanying the interpretive findings is limited to improve readability. Attendees provided 

varying amounts of responses to the questions, with varying degrees of enthusiasm and 

emphasis. Thus, the number of quotes presented in this report does not indicate the frequency or 

importance of the theme as expressed by the focus group participants. 

2.4 Other Data Sources 

In addition to the client survey and focus group data, GIS data were examined to explore the 

distance and availability of services around the FMs and respondents’ residences. To accomplish 

this, the distance between SNAP participants’ home addresses and the target FM was tabulated. 

Next, the presence of other food retailers within a 2-mile radius of the SNAP participant was 

tabulated by shopping status at FMs. Computation of distances between the home of the SNAP 

participant and other vendors helped in the estimation of the distance between the FM and the 

nearest retailer. GIS data were used to identify food retail services available in the FM vicinity 

for FM shoppers and nonshoppers. In addition, the distance between the target FM and the 

nearest food retailer (a supermarket or any food retailer) was calculated also by participant 

shopping status. 
FMCS Final Report 27 

 

3.1 Overview and Key Findings 

Farmers markets (FMs) play an important role in providing access to locally produced farm-fresh 

foods among supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) participants. This chapter 

describes the shopping patterns for fruits and vegetables among SNAP participants, including 

their frequency of shopping, effects of seasonality, preferred payment method, level of spending, 

and perceptions of price. Preferred locations for purchasing fruits and vegetables are 

summarized, including preferences for the use of FMs. Differences between FM shoppers and 

nonshoppers in terms of overall characteristics of households and general shopping patterns are 

presented.35 Finally, this chapter presents findings regarding shopping patterns at a specific FM, 

including history of shopping, transportation, distance, items bought, and the use of SNAP 

benefits. Although this chapter reports on both survey and focus group data, the data tables are 

based only on data reported by survey respondents. 

Key Findings 

Key findings reported in this chapter include the following: 

1. General Shopping Location 

– SNAP participants most often shopped at large grocery stores for all their 

groceries and were most likely to use their electronic benefit transfer (EBT) 

cards at these stores.

– SNAP participants looked for good specials and deals, low prices, and high 

quality. 

– Acceptance of the EBT card was among the top reasons for shopping at a 

particular store.

 

35 Unless specifically noted, tests for statistical significance were not conducted.

3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

28 FMCS Final Report 

2. Shopping for Fruits and Vegetables 

– When shopping for fruits and vegetables, SNAP participants purchased fresh 

products more often than frozen/canned products. 

3. Shopping at FMs 

– Among SNAP participants, those who were more likely to shop at FMs 

included women, people in households with no children, people in households 

receiving support from other nutrition programs, and those who were aware of 

incentives for EBT card use. 

– Among SNAP participants, those who were less likely to report shopping at 

FMs included African Americans and other non-White race categories, 

participants who were unemployed, homemakers, students, those who reported 

that they could not work, and people in households with income below 

$10,000 per year. 

– The majority of shoppers agreed that they found more variety and better 

quality fruits and vegetables at the FM than in other stores. 

– Most shoppers believed that the prices of fresh fruits and vegetables at FMs 

were lower or at least the same as in other stores. 

4. EBT Card Usage

– In terms of EBT card use at FMs, gender and age did not play a significant role 

in general. Black or African Americans, unemployed SNAP participants, those 

who cannot work, and SNAP participants with a household income below 

$10,000 were all more likely to use SNAP benefits at FMs. 

– SNAP participants who were aware of financial incentives for EBT card use 

were more likely to use SNAP benefits when shopping at FMs. 

– Among those who did not use their EBT card almost every time they shopped 

at FMs, more than one-third were not aware that the card could be used at a 

FM, one in four ran out of money on their EBT card, and almost one in ten 

declined to use it in order to avoid social stigma. 

3.2 General Shopping Patterns 

In describing SNAP participants’ general shopping patterns, it is critical to understand where 

they regularly purchase groceries, how often they shop, the factors that affect where they shop, 

and whether they use SNAP benefits each time they shop. 
FMCS Final Report 29 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

Venues for Grocery Shopping 

When considering the types of stores at which SNAP participants shop for groceries, it should be 

noted that in responding to these survey questions, SNAP participants could select more than one 

type of store, and the types of stores are not mutually exclusive of each other, as listed in Table 

3-1. For example, a particular store might be considered an ethnic market as well as a small 

grocery store. Thus, respondents were free to categorize stores as they saw fit. Survey 

respondents identified large grocery stores as the type of store that they most frequently shopped 

for groceries. Indeed, all but three percent of the sample indicated that they shop at large grocery 

stores. Small grocery stores were the second most common response. Slightly more than onethird of survey respondents selected other kinds of stores. The other kinds of stores reported 

included discount stores (e.g., Big Lots, Family Dollar, Save-a-lot), wholesale stores (e.g., 

Costco), pharmacies, and Target or Walmart. Additionally, more than 50 percent of survey 

respondents reported a garden (grown by themselves, a family member, or friend) as a source for 

fresh fruits and vegetables. 

Table 3-1. Where SNAP Participants Shop for Groceries

Markets 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Large grocery stores 96.8 (0.8) 4,541

Small grocery stores 69.2 (1.8) 3,229

Convenience stores 30.7 (1.5) 1,326

Ethnic markets 30.0 (3.7) 1,255

Natural organic stores 28.9 (1.4) 1,894

Other kinds of stores 35.5 (1.8) 1,588

Note: There were 4,752 survey respondents who received this question. Respondents could select as many types of markets as 

applicable. Also, market types are not mutually exclusive from each other, therefore, any individual store could fit into more than one 

category.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey Questions A1, A5, A9, A13, A17, and A21.

This overall shopping pattern was corroborated in the focus group findings.36 When asked to 

identify where they typically shop for groceries, most focus group attendees mentioned big name 

grocery stores.. It was not uncommon for focus group attendees to also include “big box” 

chains.. Medium to large regional chains were also frequently mentioned.. To a lesser degree, 

focus group attendees also mentioned discount grocers. Only rarely did focus group attendees 

indicate that they shopped at local non-name-brand organic or ethnic markets, but among the 

three study sites, this occurred more commonly in San Francisco. Focus group attendees in San 

 

36 Four focus groups were conducted in each of three cities: Atlanta, San Diego, and San Francisco. Refer to 

Chapter 2 for more details on focus group data collection. 
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

30 FMCS Final Report 

Francisco cited local specialty markets, which offer larger selections of organically produced 

products. In San Diego, several attendees mentioned an ethnic market specializing in Mexican 

and Central American products. It was extremely rare for focus group attendees to identify 

convenience stores. Because the focus group question was asked in an open-ended fashion, a 

small proportion of attendees indicated at the start of the session that they also shopped at FMs. 

Again, this occurred most commonly in San Francisco, where one-third of the attendees included 

FMs among the types of locations where they regularly shop. 

In summary, both the survey data and the focus group data revealed that most SNAP participants 

shop at large grocery stores. 

Frequency of Purchasing Fruits and Vegetables by Type of Store 

Next, the frequency of shopping for frozen/canned and fresh fruits and vegetables by type of 

store among SNAP participants was examined, as shown in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. 

Overall, the majority of SNAP participants claimed that they rarely shopped for frozen/canned 

fruits and vegetables. For example, almost 64 percent of participants shopped for frozen/canned 

fruits and vegetables every other week or less often. However, among those who did report 

shopping for frozen/canned fruits and vegetables, the most common place for purchasing these 

products was again large grocery stores. 

As seen in Table 3-3, more than 61 percent of participants shopped for fresh fruits and 

vegetables at large grocery stores once a week or more often. While participants appear to 

purchase fresh products more frequently than frozen/canned fruits and vegetables, this does not 

necessarily indicate that they prefer fresh fruits and vegetables since frozen and canned products 

are less perishable and need not be purchased as frequently. 
FMCS Final Report 31 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

Table 3-2. Frequency of Shopping for Frozen/Canned Fruits and Vegetables, by Market Type 

Markets 

Once a Week 

or More Often 

Every Other 

Week 

Once a Month 

or Less Often Never 

Large grocery stores

Weighted percent (std. error) 26.6 (0.8) 22.6 (0.9) 42.4 (1.2) 8.4 (0.9)

Unweighted N 1,120 907 2,080 397

Small grocery stores

Weighted percent (std. error) 19.2 (1.5) 16.4 (1.3) 45.8 (2.6) 18.6 (0.9)

Unweighted N 505 402 1,589 683

Natural organic stores 

Weighted percent (std. error) 15.0 (1.4) 10.4 (0.5) 48.2 (1.8) 26.4 (1.4)

Unweighted N 209 157 856 612

Convenience stores 

Weighted percent (std. error) 10.9 (1.4) 7.1 (0.6) 40.0 (2.4) 42.0 (1.9)

Unweighted N 102 77 463 652

Ethnic markets 

Weighted percent (std. error) 20.5 (1.7) 14.5 (1.6) 38.1 (1.0) 26.9 (3.1)

Unweighted N 157 92 512 460

Other kind of stores

Weighted percent (std. error) 18.8 (1.7) 13.6 (0.8) 50.4 (2.2) 17.1 (1.7)

Unweighted N 245 169 612 504

Any of these stores/markets

Weighted percent (std. error) 35.7 (1.6) 23.6 (0.9) 40.7 (1.6) 0

Unweighted N 1,553 1,032 2,151 0

Note: There were 4,752 survey respondents who received this question. The denominator for each market type is the number of 

participants who shop at that store (see Table 3-1) excluding the number of missing for this particular question.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Questions A2, A6, A10, A14, A18, and A22.
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

32 FMCS Final Report 

Table 3-3. Frequency of Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, by Market Type 

Markets 

Once a Week 

or More Often 

Every Other 

Week 

Once a Month 

or Less Often Never 

Large grocery stores

Weighted percent (std. error) 53.5 (1.3) 23.9 (0.7) 20.9 (1.2) 1.7 (0.2)

Unweighted N 2,487 1,013 914 72

Small grocery stores

Weighted percent (std. error) 36.9 (3.3) 15.9 (0.6) 40.5 (2.6) 6.6 (1.0)

Unweighted N 1,123 539 1,256 255

Convenience stores 

Weighted percent (std. error) 15.7 (1.7) 6.1 (0.7) 43.9 (1.6) 34.3 (1.9)

Unweighted N 161 93 543 502

Natural organic stores 

Weighted percent (std. error) 27.2 (2.4) 13.0 (1.4) 53.1 (1.5) 6.7 (1.5)

Unweighted N 623 313 849 65

Ethnic markets 

Weighted percent (std. error) 34.1 (1.7) 17.8 (1.5) 40.5 (2.2) 7.7 (1.5)

Unweighted N 290 163 628 145

Other kind of stores

Weighted percent (std. error) 26.6 (4.4) 21.3 (1.9) 43.9 (3.6) 8.2 (1.7)

Unweighted N 479 295 586 178

Any of these stores/markets

Weighted percent (std. error) 61.4 (2.5) 20.7 (1.1) 17.9 (1.6) 0

Unweighted N 3,082 971 675 0

Note: There were 4,752 survey respondents who received this question. The denominator for each market type is the number of 

participants who shop at that store (see Table 3-1) excluding the number of missing for this particular question.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Questions A3, A7, A11, A15, A19, and A23.
FMCS Final Report 33 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

The focus groups captured typology data from attendees with respect to where they tended to 

shop for fresh fruits and vegetables. As did the survey respondents, focus group attendees 

mentioned large grocery stores most often. However, relative to survey responses, greater 

mention of shopping at the small, organic, ethnic, and specialty stores was made in the focus 

groups when specifically discussing shopping for fresh fruits and vegetables. In addition, a few 

focus group attendees mentioned that they shopped for fresh fruits and vegetables at FMs 

without direct prompting. As likewise reflected in the survey data, this suggests that although 

SNAP participants tended to concentrate their general grocery shopping on large and regional 

grocery chains, they have access to a wider array of options when shopping more specifically for 

fresh produce. 

As seen in Table 3-4, when shopping for fresh fruits and vegetables, more than two-thirds of 

participants reported using SNAP benefits for their purchases. The rate of using SNAP benefits 

for fresh fruits and vegetables is highest (89%) at large grocery stores and lowest (73%) at 

natural organic stores. 

Table 3-4. Use of SNAP Benefits to Purchase Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, by Market Type

Markets 

Grocery Shoppers Who Use SNAP Benefits for 

Fresh Fruits and Vegetables 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Large grocery stores 88.6 (0.9) 3,904

Small grocery stores 83.3 (0.5) 2,419

Convenience stores 74.2 (1.8) 584

Natural organic stores 72.8 (2.3) 1,417

Ethnic markets 81.9 (1.7) 832

Other kind of stores 81.6 (1.1) 1,083

Note: There were 4,752 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages. Missing excludes valid skips. 

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Questions A4, A8, A12, A16, A20, and A24.

When asked where they redeemed most of their SNAP benefits, the majority of focus group 

attendees who responded to this question said that they redeemed the bulk of their SNAP 

benefits at store locations other than FMs. Attendees often commented that they tended to spend 

most of their benefits at the grocery store that was most conveniently located to them, and by 

extension, where they tended to shop most regularly. In many cases, these were large or discount 

grocery chains, such as FoodCo, Trader Joe’s, or Safeway. 
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

34 FMCS Final Report 

Bulk of SNAP Benefit Redemption 

Safeway is the closest location to where I live at, so most of mine goes to Safeway. [San Francisco]

FoodCo. It’s right down the street, right around the corner from my house. [San Francisco]

Survey respondents were asked the reasons for shopping at the particular retail store where they 

buy most of their fruits and vegetables (Table 3-5). Survey respondents selected from a list of 

hypothetical reasons. This provides valuable information regarding the factors that affect 

people’s decisions about where to shop for fresh fruits and vegetables. The most common reason 

for shopping at a particular store was the availability of “good specials and deals.” The second 

most common reason was “low prices.” This is consistent with the theory of shopping, which 

assumes that the household is a rational decision-making unit that attempts to procure and stock 

the product it needs at the minimum cost.37 In essence, rational decision-makers like good deals. 

Additionally, the store’s acceptance of the EBT card, a reason that is relevant only to SNAP 

participants, ranks very high as well. More than 83 percent of participants stated this was a 

reason for shopping at a particular store. The other reasons included availability of high-quality 

fruits and vegetables, proximity to residence, easy to get to, and convenient store hours. 

Among the focus group attendees, convenience was commonly mentioned as the main reason for 

shopping where they did. These responses correspond to the “easy to get to” and “close to where 

I live” items in the survey. Focus group attendees also referenced the convenient advantages of 

buying their fruit and vegetables as part of a “one-stop shopping” preference. This general 

preference for convenience was followed closely by references to quality and freshness. 

Although focus group attendees spoke about price and cost, references to “good specials and 

deals” were not among the top reasons focus group attendees gave for deciding to shop at FMs, 

in contrast to the survey respondents. Relatively speaking, references to price and cost appeared 

to be more common in San Diego than in the other focus group locations.38 Interestingly, the 

focus group discussions surfaced an important distinction between actual price and perceived 

value (discussed further in Chapter 4), suggesting that perceived value might be a more critical 

determinant than unit price. 

 

37 Blattberg, R., Buesing, T., Peacock, P., and Sen, S. (1978). Identifying the deal prone segment. J Mark Res, 

15:369–377.

38 This may be due to potentially higher levels of chronic poverty among the San Diego respondents. Compared with 

focus group attendees at other locations, San Diego attendees tended to have lower levels of education and greater 

participation in WIC, and alluded to longer periods of receiving SNAP benefits. In contrast, several attendees in 

Atlanta and San Francisco stated that their eligibility for SNAP was more recent and due to a recent job loss or 

health issue.
Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

F FMCS Final Report 35 

 

Table 3-5. Reasons for Shopping Where Participants Reported Shopping for Most Fresh Fruits and Vegetables

Reason 

Weighted Percent 

Said Yes 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

How Important 

is That Reason? 

Weighted Percent 

Said Yes 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Good specials and deals 88.5 (0.7) 3,898 Very important 82.8 (0.6) 3,026

Somewhat important 15.1 (0.5) 646

Only a little important 1.8 (0.3) 110

Not at all important 0.3 (0.1) 23

Low prices on the products I buy 88.0 (0.7) 3,872 Very important 86.3 (0.8) 3,126

Somewhat important 11.6 (0.7) 572

Only a little important 1.8 (0.3) 70

Not at all important 0.3 (0.2) 24

Low prices on fresh fruits and 

vegetables

83.6 (1.5) 3,607 Very important 84.1 (1.3) 2,813

Somewhat important 12.5 (1.0) 590

Only a little important 2.7 (0.3) 98

Not at all important 0.7 (0.3) 39

They take my SNAP/EBT card 83.3 (0.8) 3,833 Very important 80.8 (0.7) 2,998

Somewhat important 13.3 (0.4) 487

Only a little important 3.6 (0.4) 130

Not at all important 2.2 (0.4) 103

High quality fruits and 

vegetables

78.5 (1.4) 3,738 Very important 83.4 (0.7) 3,073

Somewhat important 13.4 (0.5) 504

Only a little important 2.1 (0.3) 58

Not at all important 1.1 (0.1) 31

Close to where I live 75.8 (0.9) 3,543 Very important 57.9 (1.3) 1,872

Somewhat important 31.6 (1.1) 1,242

Only a little important 7.3 (0.5) 265

Not at all important 3.1 (0.6) 111

Easy to get to 74.3 (0.8) 3,430 Very important 60.2 (1.3) 1,853

Somewhat important 30.2 (1.4) 1,154

Only a little important 7.5 (0.5) 264

Not at all important 2.1 (0.3) 88

Open at convenient times 66.1 (1.0) 3,021 Very important 60.4 (1.1) 1,652

Somewhat important 28.1 (1.0) 928

Only a little important 8.2 (0.6) 267

Not at all important 3.3 (0.5) 101

Note: There were 4,752 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for calculating percentages. Missing excludes valid skips. 

Numbers of missing observations excluded in the denominator for calculating percentages are 71, 117, 57, 59, 58, 72, 63, 68 in the order of reasons listed in the table.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Questions: A30 through A46.
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

36 FMCS Final Report 

Characteristics of Farmers Market Shoppers and Nonshoppers 

Next, the general characteristics of FM shoppers and nonshoppers are described and compared. 

As seen in Table 3-6, gender and age distribution do not appear to differ between the two groups 

among survey participants. However, a greater proportion of nonshoppers reported an annual 

income less than $10,000, or work status as unemployed. 

Table 3-6. Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants by Farmers Market Shopping 

Status

 Shoppers (N=3,247) Nonshoppers (N=1,499) 

Characteristics 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Gender

Male 26.7 (1.7) 738 27.0 (1.5) 396

Female 73.3 (1.7) 2,456 73.0 (1.5) 1,082

Age groups

18-29 years old 20.1 (1.3) 637 20.2 (1.6) 340

30-39 years old 22.2 (2.0) 864 24.5 (1.9) 400

40-49 years old 25.7 (2.4) 598 21.8 (0.9) 295

50-59 years old 16.0 (1.3) 537 17.0 (1.1) 244

60 or older 16.0 (1.6) 565 16.6 (2.3) 206

Work status

Employed 35.4 (1.7) 1,150 34.8 (1.1) 476

Unemployed 21.4 (1.3) 639 25.9 (1.4) 365

Homemaker/student/retired 20.8 (2.0) 598 15.1 (1.1) 242

Cannot work 22.5 (1.4) 725 24.2 (1.4) 357

Household income 

Under $10,000 52.5 (2.4) 1,574 56.0 (1.7) 801

$10,000-$19,999 27.9 (1.2) 902 31.8 (1.7) 383

$20,000-$29,999 11.4 (0.8) 355 8.4 (0.5) 120

$30,000 or more 8.2 (1.5) 173 3.8 (0.7) 68

Note: There were 4,746 survey respondents who received these questions. Table 3-6 excludes six participants out of 4,752 because of 

missing shopping status. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for calculating percentages. Percentages may not add 

up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Questions E9, E14, E11, and E12.

The focus groups provide only limited insight into what types of individuals tend to shop at FMs. 

Moreover, it is important to note that the survey respondents and focus group attendees cannot be 

directly compared due to differences in sampling method and recruitment strategy. 39 However, 

 

39 Survey respondents were grouped as shoppers vs. nonshoppers based on whether or not they shopped at any FM 

in the past 12 months, while focus group attendees were grouped as frequent vs nonfrequent shoppers based on 

how often they shopped at a target FM in the past 12 months. As explained in Chapter 2, some focus group 

attendees in the nonfrequent FM shoppers group could actually be considered frequent shoppers if measured by the 

frequency of their shopping at any FM.
FMCS Final Report 37 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

with this caveat in mind, it should be noted that among focus group attendees, a higher 

proportion of females tended to be in the frequent shoppers groups, and this tracks with the 

higher proportion of female shoppers among the survey respondents. However, with respect to 

age, a higher proportion of younger focus group attendees (less than 30 years old) tended to be in 

the frequent shoppers groups. Likewise, older focus group attendees (those over 50 years of age) 

tended to be in the nonfrequent shopper groups. This stands in contrast to the higher proportion 

of older survey respondents claiming shopper status in the survey. The focus group recruitment 

method did not capture data on work status or household income, but did collect data on 

education. A higher proportion of those with less than a high school education were in the 

nonfrequent shoppers groups. Assuming a correlation between education and income, this also 

tracks with the survey data findings. 

As demonstrated in Table 3-7, a greater proportion of survey respondents who were born outside 

the United States reported shopping at FMs, compared with those born in the United States. This 

may be consistent with the fact that in developing regions of the world, consumers most often 

shop at local markets such as village markets and FMs, as opposed to larger, centralized 

wholesale markets. Thus, the respondents who were born outside the United States could have 

had more opportunities to experience shopping at venues that resemble American FMs.40 The 

majority of survey respondents who were not born in the United States have been in the country 

for more than 10 years, and the length of time in the United States was not associated with FM 

shopping status. Similarly, households speaking languages other than English and/or Spanish at 

home are more likely to be shoppers than nonshoppers. We did not observe any statistical 

difference between shoppers and nonshoppers based on race and Hispanic/Latino origin. 

As seen in Table 3-8, households that have more than one person and households with children 

are less likely to shop at FMs than households with no children. Moreover, households with at 

least one member over 60 years ago are more likely to shop at FMs. 

 

40 Reardon T., Timmer C., Barrett C. Berdegue J. 2003. The rise of supermarkets in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. 

Amer J. Agr. Economics. 85:5;1140-46.
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

38 FMCS Final Report 

Table 3-7. Race and Ethnicity of Survey Participants by Farmers Market Shopping Status 

 Shoppers (N=3,247) Nonshoppers (N=1,499) 

Characteristics 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Born outside the U.S.

Yes 45.6 (2.8) 995 33.4 (2.6) 400

How long in the U.S.?a

Less than 1 year 2.2 (0.8) 9 0.2 (0.2) 1

1 year to 5 years 3.0 (0.9) 39 4.3 (0.6) 10

5 years to 10 years 7.7 (1.3) 56 6.4 (1.8) 24

10 years or more 87.1 (1.5) 875 89.1 (1.6) 356

Language spoken at home 

English only 73.6 (4.4) 2,541 77.3 (3.7) 1,170

Spanish only 8.8 (2.8) 182 10.4 (1.8) 110

English and Spanish only 10.2 (1.7) 183 9.3 (1.5) 96

Other languages 7.3 (1.4) 149 2.9 (1.1) 52

Hispanic, Spanish, Latino origin

Yes 25.2 (5.2) 550 27.5 (4.6) 288

No 74.8 (5.2) 2,552 72.5 (4.6) 1,150

Race 

Black or African American 34.4 (4.0) 556 35.2 (3.9) 327

White 46.1 (3.9) 1,774 49.3 (3.3) 749

Asian 7.3 (2.3) 110 5.6 (1.0) 68

American Indian or Alaska Native 6.2 (0.6) 225 5.2 (1.1) 78

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1.0 (0.4) 19 1.6 (0.4) 9

Other or multi-racial 5.0 (0.9) 184 3.1 (0.8) 66

a Among those born outside of the U.S.

Note: There were 4,746 survey respondents who received these questions. Table 3-7 excludes six participants out of 4,752 because of 

missing shopping status. For each variable, missing observations are excluded in the denominator for calculating percentages.

Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey Questions E15, E16, E17, and E13.
FMCS Final Report 39 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

Table 3-8. Household Size of Survey Participants by Farmers Market Shopping Status 

 Shoppers (N=3,247) Nonshoppers (N=1,499) 

 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Number of people in the household

Onea 30.8 (2.2) 1,115 37.2 (2.8) 518

Two 23.8 (2.2) 626 18.3 (0.8) 264

Three 15.0 (1.0) 450 16.8 (1.0) 241

Four or five 20.2 (2.2) 646 22.0 (1.5) 313

More than five 10.2 (1.5) 266 5.7 (1.7) 97

Number of people over 

60 years old 

Zero 75.3 (2.2) 2,329 80.0 (2.3) 1,136

One 19.0 (1.7) 545 15.1 (2.4) 184

Two 4.7 (0.9) 94 3.8 (0.4) 43

Three 0.2 (0.2) 6 0.3 (0.2) 2

More than three 0.8 (0.2) 18 0.7 (0.3) 7

Number of children under 

5 years old 

Zero 68.5 (2.0) 2,094 74.2 (2.4) 1,002

One 22.0 (1.8) 566 18.6 (1.6) 256

Two 6.6 (1.1) 216 6.6 (1.1) 87

Three 1.8 (0.4) 39 0.7 (0.4) 13

More than three 1.1 (0.2) 12 0.0 (0.0) 2

Number of children 5 to 17 

years old 

Zero 50.0 (3.0) 1,613 54.8 (3.2) 725

One 21.6 (1.9) 550 18.7 (0.9) 268

Two 13.4 (1.6) 398 15.5 (1.2) 214

Three 8.1 (1.3) 221 6.6 (1.2) 94

More than three 6.9 (1.5) 164 4.4 (1.2) 72

Number of children under 

18 years old 

Zero 42.0 (3.1) 1,354 45.3 (3.4) 612

One 19.0 (0.9) 541 19.5 (1.1) 255

Two 15.6 (1.4) 440 18.6 (0.7) 256

Three 10.4 (1.1) 310 7.7 (1.5) 129

More than three 13.1 (1.7) 318 8.8 (1.8) 130

a This includes 202 respondents who indicated zero as the number of people in the household.

Note: There were 4,746 survey respondents who received these questions. Table 3-8 excludes six participants out of 4,752 because of 

missing shopping status. For each variable, missing observations are excluded in the denominator for calculating percentages. 

Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey Questions E18, E19, E21, and E20.
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

40 FMCS Final Report 

Table 3-9 presents a summary of nutrition support from other a number of programs by FM 

shopping status. These other programs include the Nation School Lunch Program free/reduced 

price lunch and Head Start programs for those with children, assistance from the Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), WIC and Senior FM 

nutrition program coupons, Meals on Wheels or Senior Nutrition Program, and other type of 

assistance including support from local county and nonprofits. The National School Lunch 

Program provides free and reduced price lunches to low-income children. Head Start is a 

program of the Department of Health and Human Services that also provides nutrition and other 

services to low-income children and their families. WIC provides Federal grants to States for 

supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, 

breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age 5 

who are at nutritional risk. WIC and Senior FM coupons are funded by USDA grants to States 

that allow the purchase of a variety of fresh, locally grown fruits, vegetables, and herbs with 

coupons. 

The findings in Table 3-9 indicate that participants who reported receiving support from other 

nutrition programs were more likely to shop at FMs, with the exception of having a child 

receiving free/reduced price lunch. As expected, there was a large difference in rates among 

SNAP participants who received WIC or Senior FM Nutrition Program coupons. Among 

shoppers, 16 percent and 8 percent reported receiving WIC and Senior FM coupons, 

respectively; among nonshoppers, the respective rates were 6.5 and 0.4 percent. This suggests 

that there might be a positive correlation between shopping at a FM and receipt of support from 

these nutrition programs. 
FMCS Final Report 41 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

Table 3-9. Support Received From Other Nutrition Programs by Farmers Market Shopping 

Status 

 Shoppers (N=3,247) Nonshoppers (N=1,499) 

Characteristics 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Have children living in the household

Yes 64.0 (3.1) 1,795 57.1 (3.0) 856

No 36.0 (3.1) 1,417 42.9 (3.0) 636

Child receives free/reduced price 

school lunch 

Yes 71.4 (1.6) 1,236 73.3 (1.8) 596

No 28.6 (1.6) 493 26.7 (1.8) 212

Child in Head Start (among respondents 

with children in household) 

Yes 30.5 (1.9) 496 26.7 (1.2) 190

No 69.5 (1.9) 1,224 73.3 (1.2) 618

WIC benefits 

Yes 30.4 (2.0) 802 23.1 (1.9) 339

No 69.6 (2.0) 2,387 76.9 (1.9) 1,137

WIC FM Nutrition Program coupons 

Yes 16.5 (2.6) 509 6.5 (1.0) 105

No 83.5 (2.6) 2,673 93.5 (1.0) 1,370

Senior FM Nutrition Program coupons

Yes 8.6 (1.1) 256 0.4 (0.2) 17

No 91.4 (1.1) 2,947 99.6 (0.2) 1,459

Meals on Wheels or Senior Nutrition 

Program 

Yes 5.2 (0.7) 134 2.3 (0.5) 39

No 94.8 (0.7) 3,073 97.7 (0.5) 1,445

Some other type of nutrition 

assistance

Yes 33.1 (2.2) 1,317 29.4 (1.4) 483

No 66.9 (2.2) 1,879 70.6 (1.4) 999

Note: There were 4,746 survey respondents who received these questions. Table 3-9 excludes six participants out of 4,752 because of 

missing shopping status. For each variable, missing observations are excluded in the denominator for calculating percentages.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey Questions, E1 through E6 and E8. 

Focus group attendees were not directly asked about receipt of other supplemental nutrition 

programs, but attendees occasionally mentioned receipt of WIC benefits. This predominately 

occurred in San Diego. While this may simply be due to happenstance, the vast majority of the 

San Diego attendees in both groups were female and reported that they are, or used to be, WIC 

clients. Many stated that they shop at the FM because of a WIC benefit, or that they were 

introduced to the FM as a result of being enrolled in WIC. The relationship between participation 

in WIC and use of SNAP benefits at FMs is examined in greater detail in Section 4.2.2. 
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

42 FMCS Final Report 

The decision to shop at a FM also was examined by using a multivariate logistic regression 

analysis. The regression estimate controlled for gender, age group, race, Hispanic/Latino origin, 

work status, household income, born outside the United States, having children in the household, 

receipt of support from other nutrition programs, and awareness of incentives for EBT card use. 

Odds ratios, 95 percent lower and upper bounds for odds ratios, and statistical significance 

values for each covariate were calculated. The results presented in Table 3-10 indicate that 

females were 1.3 times more likely than males to report shopping at FMs. Significant differences 

by age group or Hispanic/Latino origin were not observed. However, Black or African 

Americans and other non-White race categories were more than 30 percent less likely to report 

shopping at FMs relative to Whites. 

Work status also was a significant predictor of shopping decision. SNAP participants who were 

unemployed, homemaker/student, or those who reported that they cannot work were all less 

likely to report shopping at FMs, compared with SNAP participants who were employed. 

Similarly, higher household income was associated with higher probability of shopping at FMs. 

SNAP participants with household income greater than $10,000 per year were 1.16 times more 

likely to shop at a FM than those with incomes less than $10,000 per year. 

There was some indication that individuals born outside the United States were more likely to 

shop at FMs, but this was only marginally significant at the 10 percent level. Households with no 

children were 1.34 times more likely than those with children to shop at a FM. The findings 

indicate that SNAP participants who received support from other nutrition programs were 1.4 

times more likely to report shopping at FMs. 

The variable that was most strongly associated with shopping behavior seems to be awareness of 

incentives for EBT card use. SNAP participants who were aware of such incentives were more 

than 40 times more likely to shop at FMs. This signifies the importance of incentives in 

promoting SNAP participants’ use of FMs. 
FMCS Final Report 43 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

Table 3-10. Logistic Regression: Predictors of Shopping at Any Farmers Market 

Predictor Odds Ratio 

95% Lower CI 

Odds Ratio 

95% Upper CI 

Odds Ratio 

Females** 1.30 1.05 1.60

Males (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

Age 18 to 29 1.07 0.82 1.40

Age 30 to 39 1.07 0.83 1.38

Age 40 to 49 (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

Age 50 to 59 1.23 0.92 1.66

Age 60 or greater 1.28 0.92 1.78

Black or African American*** 0.66 0.52 0.85

Other non-White*** 0.64 0.50 0.82

White (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

Hispanic/Latino origin 0.82 0.62 1.10

Not Hispanic/Latino origin (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

Unemployed* 0.75 0.59 0.95

Homemaker/student* 0.76 0.58 0.99

Cannot work*** 0.68 0.53 0.88

Employed (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

Income $10,000 or more*** 1.16 1.05 1.27

Income less than $10,000 (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

Born outside the U.S. 1.20 0.98 1.46

Born in the U.S. (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

No child in the household** 1.34 1.08 1.66

Have children in the household (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

Receives support from other nutrition programs*** 1.42 1.19 1.69

No support from other nutrition programs (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

Aware of incentives for SNAP/EBT use*** 41.48 32.91 52.29

Not aware of incentives for SNAP/EBT use (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

*=p value ≤0.05; ** =p value ≤0.01; ***=p value ≤0.001; Ref=reference category

Note: There were 4,746 survey respondents who received these questions. 

Next, potential differences in shopping at other markets by FM shopping status were explored. 

Table 3-11 shows that, compared with FM nonshoppers, FM shoppers reported shopping more 

often at other markets, including smaller grocery stores, natural organic stores, and ethnic 

markets. 
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

44 FMCS Final Report 

Table 3-11. Where SNAP Participants Shop for Groceries by Farmers Market Shopping Status

 Shoppers Nonshoppers 

Market 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) 

Unweighted 

N 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) 

Unweighted 

N 

Large grocery stores 96.9 (0.9) 3,101 96.6 (1.0) 1,434

Smaller grocery stores 78.5 (1.9) 2,351 62.2 (2.3) 875

Convenience stores 38.0 (2.0) 942 25.2 (1.6) 382

Natural organic stores 43.5 (2.3) 1,658 17.5 (1.8) 234

Ethnic markets 35.1 (3.6) 997 26.0 (4.0) 256

Other kinds of stores 42.4 (2.7) 1,226 30.0 (2.5) 360

Note: There were 4,746 survey respondents who received this question. Table 3-11 excludes six participants out of 4,752 because of 

missing shopping status. 

Percentages based on N=3,247 for shoppers and N=1,499 for nonshoppers.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Questions A1, A5, A9, A13, A17, A21, and C1.

3.3 Shopping Patterns at Farmers Markets in General 

The survey data afford the opportunity to examine shopping patterns at FMs in general as well as 

shopping experiences at a specific FM linked to the participant.41 This section analyzes data 

involving the perceptions of FM shoppers in terms of freshness of fruits and vegetables, quantity 

purchased and consumed, variety of fruits and vegetables at FMs, preferred payment type, and 

amount of spending when shopping at FMs. In addition, bivariate analyses were conducted of 

EBT card use at FMs by demographic characteristics, household characteristics, and support 

received from other food assistance programs. Finally, logistic regression estimation was used to 

study predictors of EBT card use at FMs. 

Table 3-12 presents the perceived freshness and quantity of fruits and vegetables purchased 

relative to other stores. Almost two-thirds of FM shoppers thought that the fruits and vegetables 

at FMs were fresher than those in other stores. Only 4 percent of participants believed that FMs 

have fruits and vegetables that are less fresh than in other stores, and almost 31 percent reported 

that the freshness at FMs is the same as in other stores. This finding indicates that freshness of 

fruits and vegetables may be an important factor in shopping at FMs, but not the sole reason. 

 

41 During sampling, each SNAP participant was linked to a FM in close proximity to his or her residence.
FMCS Final Report 45 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

Table 3-12. Perceived Freshness and Purchase Quantity When Shopping at Farmers Market 

Among Shoppers

 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Perceived freshness of fruits and vegetables at farmers 

markets relative to other stores

More fresh 65.0 (1.8) 2,313

Less fresh 4.1 (0.5) 90

Just as fresh 30.9 (1.8) 624

Quantity of fruits and vegetables purchased at farmers 

markets relative to other stores

Buys more fresh fruits and vegetables 48.1 (1.1) 1,723

Buys fewer fresh fruits and vegetables 23.5 (1.4) 565

Buys about the same amount 28.4 (1.4) 773

Note: There were 3,247 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Question B2 and B4.

Another question that was explored was whether simply shopping at FMs has an effect on the 

quantity of fruits and vegetables purchased. Since FMs have a concentration of fruits and 

vegetables in one place, it may be possible that SNAP participants purchase more produce at 

FMs. Almost half of survey respondents who shopped at FMs (48%) stated that they bought 

more fresh fruits and vegetables at FMs relative to other stores. However, almost one in four 

shoppers (24%) stated that they bought fewer fresh fruits and vegetables at FMs relative to other 

stores. The latter shoppers may be looking for specific fruits and vegetables that they cannot find 

at their usual store, and/or they may have other reasons to come to FMs. 

Focus group attendees often referenced noticeable differences with respect to observed freshness 

at FMs versus traditional grocery stores. In short, focus group attendees reported experiencing 

higher levels of freshness and quality with fruits and vegetables available at the FMs. (As 

discussed in Chapter 4, freshness was one of the most commonly mentioned reasons for 

shopping at FMs). 

Table 3-13 presents information on the variety of fruits and vegetables at FMs relative to other 

stores. Almost two-thirds of shoppers stated that they buy more variety of fruits and vegetables at 

FMs relative to other stores.. In addition, 60 percent of shoppers indicated that they eat more 

fresh fruits and vegetables when they shop at FMs. The findings suggest that improving access to 

FMs would result in the introduction of a wider variety of fruits and vegetables to the shoppers, 

and may lead to higher consumption of fruits and vegetables. 
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

46 FMCS Final Report 

Table 3-13. Variety and Consumption When Shopping at Farmers Markets Among Shoppers 

 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

We buy different fruits and vegetables at farmers markets

Yes 64.4 (1.5) 2,048

No 35.6 (1.5) 993

We eat more fresh fruits and vegetables when we shop at 

farmers markets 

Yes 59.9 (1.7) 1,983

No 40.1 (1.7) 1,023

Note: There were 3,247 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages. 

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Question B3 and B5.

Focus group attendees often underscored how the wide variety of items for sale at FMs 

influenced their purchasing patterns. Focus group attendees in all three sites commented both on 

the diversity of items overall, as well as variety within a certain food category. As one San 

Francisco attendee stated, “some vendors have like five different types of oranges.” Such variety 

often encouraged shoppers to purchase different items during different trips to the market. 

Another factor that influenced purchases was the ability to sample the food before purchasing it. 

As one San Diego attendee put it, “they are always giving you samples, and once you taste you 

realize that the flavor is much better than what is offered in the stores.” They described the 

“sampling” as an important motivator to go to the FM. Such sampling makes shopping at the FM 

“a fun activity” and they often end up buying something they were not planning to buy. Ethnic 

foods from other cultures were often cited as examples. Many of the shoppers in the focus 

groups explained that they wait to see what is offered at the market before deciding what to buy, 

suggesting an element of spontaneous purchase decision-making, rather than planned shopping 

based on a prepared shopping list. For example, some San Diego attendees indicated that they 

love to make vegetable soups, and if the market happens to have the vegetables they like to use 

to make their soups, they will buy them. 

Table 3-14 presents the payment type that is most commonly used at FMs among survey 

respondents. More than two-thirds of shoppers used cash at FMs, though almost half the survey 

respondents used their EBT card. In addition, nearly one in ten indicated using a WIC Cash 

Value Voucher or WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program coupons.42 When examined 

specifically among households with children under 5 years old, more than one in five 

 

42 Note that the WIC Cash Value Voucher and the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program Coupons are 

supplemental to WIC. Regular WIC benefits cannot be used at FMs. 
FMCS Final Report 47 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

respondents stated using WIC cash vouchers (23%) or WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program 

coupons (22%) when shopping at FMs. Similarly, in households with an adult over 60 years old, 

21 percent used Senior FM Nutrition Program coupons. These are important tools to improve 

access to FMs among SNAP participants.

Table 3-14. Payment Type When Shopping at Farmers Market Among Shoppers 

Type of Payment 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

SNAP/EBT card 50.9 (2.7) 2,245

Cash 67.8 (1.7) 2,156

Personal check 2.3 (0.3) 69

WIC cash value voucher 23.4 (4.2) 232

WIC FM Nutrition Program coupon 22.4 (4.3) 192

Senior FM Nutrition Program coupon 20.7 (3.6) 117

Some other way 2.2 (0.3) 131

Note: There were 3,247 survey respondents who received this question. Methods of payments are not exclusive from each other since a 

participant could choose more than one method of payment. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for calculating 

percentages.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Question B7. 

Focus group attendees were asked where they redeemed most of their SNAP benefits and to 

estimate the proportion of their benefits that they redeem at FMs. The proportion of SNAP 

benefits that focus group attendees estimated they spend at the FMs varied dramatically. This 

was especially true in San Francisco and Atlanta, where estimates ranged from 10 percent up to 

80 percent. However, the majority of those providing an estimate reported that they spend 30 

percent or less of their benefits at FMs. Focus group attendees were not asked to reveal the size 

of their monthly benefit. 

Table 3-15 presents the average spending per FM trip among shoppers. More than one in three 

shoppers reported spending more than $20 at each visit to a FM. More than 40 percent of 

shoppers spent between $10 and $20, and 5 percent spent less than $10 during one trip to the 

FM. Interestingly, one third of shoppers stated that all of the money they spent at FMs is used for 

purchasing fruits and vegetables. Since FMs offer other types of products (e.g., honey, meat, 

seeds), it is striking, but not surprising, that a sizable group came to FMs specifically to shop for 

fruits and vegetables. 
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

48 FMCS Final Report 

Table 3-15. Level of Spending When Shopping at Farmers Markets Among Shoppers 

 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Average spending per trip

Less than $5 5.4 (0.5) 98

$5 to $10 19.3 (1.3) 579

$11 to $15 19.2 (1.3) 557

$16 to $20 21.8 (2.5) 795

More than $20 34.4 (1.2) 1,025

How much of the total money spent on fruits and 

vegetables?

None of it 3.3 (0.5) 52

A little of it 10.0 (1.4) 160

Some of it 23.0 (2.2) 409

Most of it 28.4 (1.2) 1,105

All of it 35.3 (3.0) 1,349

Note: There were 3,247 survey respondents who received these questions. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages. Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Questions B8 and B9. 

Table 3-16 presents the quantity of fruits and vegetables purchased from FMs relative to other 

stores. Notably, almost one in 10 shoppers (8 %) reported buying all their fruits and vegetables at 

FMs. Among the shoppers who did not report buying all of their fruits and vegetables from FMs, 

56 percent reported buying the same amount or more of their fruits and vegetables at FMs 

relative to other stores. 

Table 3-16. Quantity of Fruits and Vegetables Purchased From Farmers Markets Relative to 

Other Stores Among Shoppers

 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

I buy all my fruits and vegetables at the FMs 8.1 (0.9) 204

I buy....

More fruits and vegetables at FMs than other stores 30.5 (1.4) 886

Fewer fruits and vegetables at FMs than other stores 44.2 (1.2) 1,129

Same amount fruits and vegetables at FMs and other stores 25.3 (1.4) 671

Note: There were 3,247 survey respondents who received these questions. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages. Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Questions B10 and B11.

In terms of using SNAP benefits for fresh fruits and vegetables, as shown in Table 3-17, 39 

percent of shoppers stated that they do not use SNAP benefits and 52 percent stated that they use 

a little or some of their SNAP benefits to purchase fruits and vegetables at FMs. This is 

consistent with shoppers’ awareness of SNAP benefit acceptance at FMs (Table 3-18). Among 

FM shoppers, 40 percent stated that prior to taking the survey, they did not know that the target 
FMCS Final Report 49 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

FM accepted SNAP benefits. Among those who were aware of acceptance of SNAP benefits, 34 

percent learned it from signs posted at FMs and 26 percent learned through word of mouth. 

These findings indicate that posted signs and talking about acceptance of SNAP benefits at the 

FMs are two common ways to publicize the information, but may not be effective in reaching the 

entire population of SNAP participants in an area. 

Table 3-17. Quantity of SNAP/EBT Benefits Spent on Fruits and Vegetables at Farmers Markets 

Among Shoppers 

 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

None of SNAP/EBT benefits 38.9 (2.3) 614

A little of it 16.2 (1.6) 707

Some of it 36.2 (1.9) 1,364

Most of it 7.5 (0.8) 279

All of it 1.3 (0.4) 91

Note: There were 3,247 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages. Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Question B12.

Table 3-18. How Shoppers Knew SNAP/EBT Benefits Were Accepted at the Farmers Markets 

 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Did not know 40.1 (2.1) 531

Signs posted at the FMs 34.1 (1.5) 1,622

Word of mouth 26.0 (1.8) 1,083

Signs posted somewhere other than FMs 6.7 (0.9) 306

Flyer in the mail 4.1 (0.7) 245

Some other way 6.8 (0.5) 359

Note: There were 3,247 survey respondents who received this question. Sources of information are not exclusive from each other since a 

participant could obtain this information from more than one source. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for

calculating percentages.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Question B13. 

Focus group attendees described a handful of ways that they learned that SNAP benefits were 

accepted at the FM, mainly via word of mouth or by receiving a flyer in the mail. Smaller 

numbers reported that their social worker told them, or that they saw a sign, either at the local 

SNAP office or at the market itself, indicating that EBT was accepted.43

 

43 The report Nutrition Assistance at Farmers Markets: Understanding Current Operations included focus group 

research that was formative for this study. When attendees were asked what strategies would be useful for 

publicizing that SNAP benefits were accepted at FMs, several stated that posting flyers at health care clinics and 

elementary schools would be useful in publicizing markets to SNAP clients with children (p. B-7). 
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

50 FMCS Final Report 

Still, during the focus groups, a substantial number of frequent and nonfrequent shoppers 

expressed a lack of awareness that FMs accepted SNAP benefits. Only a few focus group 

attendees reported seeing a sign stating that the FM accepted EBT use. A much larger number of 

focus group attendees commented that they did not see such signs at FMs as often as in other 

types of retailers. These discussions lead several attendees, especially in San Diego, to comment 

that the FMs do not advertise that they accept SNAP benefits nearly enough to encourage 

widespread use, as the following comments illustrate.

Lack of Awareness that Farmers Markets Accept EBT 

Man 2: Some folks don’t know that markets accept EBT

Woman 4: That’s a very good point.

Man 3: That’s not widely known.

Woman 4: I think that more people, if they expressed that they do accept it, more people would go. 

[Atlanta]

They did not put a sign. A lot of people don’t know. [San Diego]

I thought [farmers markets] didn’t take them [EBT cards]. That’s why I have never tried to buy because 

I thought it was with cash. [San Diego]

I knew about the WIC vouchers, but didn’t know about the EBT card. [San Diego]

Next, characteristics of FM shoppers by EBT card use were examined to understand whether 

there are significant differences between the two groups. As shown in Table 3-19, no significant 

difference by gender or age group was observed. Survey respondents who were FM shoppers 

over the age of 60 were less likely to be EBT card users. Among EBT card users, 28 percent 

were over the age of 50, compared with 37 percent of nonusers. Work status and household 

income seem to be important indicators of EBT card use at FMs. Among shoppers who used 

their SNAP benefits, only 28 percent indicated that they were currently employed. However, 

among those who did not use SNAP benefits, 43 percent were currently working. Similarly, 

households with an annual income under $10,000 were more likely to use their SNAP benefits 

while shopping at FMs. The results are consistent with the expectations that SNAP participants 

who are not employed and those with lower household income are more likely to use resources 

from an assistance program, such as SNAP benefits, while shopping for fruits and vegetables, 

possibly because they receive larger monthly benefits. This points to the importance of SNAP 

benefits in improving access to fruits and vegetables in vulnerable populations. 
FMCS Final Report 51 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

Table 3-19. Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants by SNAP/EBT Use at Farmers 

Markets (N=3,160)

 SNAP/EBT User (N=2,287) SNAP/EBT Nonuser (N= 873) 

Characteristics 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) 

Unweighted 

N 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) 

Unweighted 

N 

Gender 

Male 26.4 (1.2) 520 27.5 (2.8) 195

Female 73.6 (1.2) 1,736 72.5 (2.8) 666

Age groups

18-29 years old 22.4 (1.5) 461 18.5 (1.8) 163

30-39 years old 19.6 (2.7) 636 25.3 (2.2) 215

40-49 years old 30.4 (3.1) 433 19.6 (1.9) 155

50-59 years old 16.7 (1.6) 385 14.9 (1.5) 133

60 or older 10.9 (1.1) 349 21.7 (3.0) 192

Work status 

Employed 27.7 (1.8) 778 42.5 (2.0) 351

Unemployed 25.6 (2.4) 501 18.3 (1.7) 128

Homemaker/student/retired 20.1 (2.5) 408 22.7 (3.3) 174

Cannot work 26.6 (1.3) 528 16.6 (1.9) 170

Household income 

Under $10,000 62.7 (3.1) 1,203 41.1 (2.1) 328

$10,000 - $19,999 27.4 (2.0) 654 29.6 (1.4) 227

$20,000 - $29,999 4.1 (1.0) 207 19.7 (1.2) 144

$30,000 or more 5.9 (1.9) 84 9.5 (1.3) 87

Note: There were 3,160 survey respondents who received these questions. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages. User/nonuser status is missing for 87 shoppers. Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Questions E9, E14, E11, and E12.

Table 3-20 presents a summary of demographic characteristics among shoppers who use their 

EBT card at FMs and those who do not. A greater percentage of Black or African American 

shoppers used their EBT card at FMs (42%) than did not (24%). Among White shoppers, a 

greater percent used their EBT card at FMs (55%) than did not (38%). In addition, those who 

were born outside the United States, those who reported speaking languages other than English 

at home, and shoppers of Hispanic, Spanish, or Latino origin reported higher use of SNAP 

benefits at FMs.
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

52 FMCS Final Report 

Table 3-20. Race and Ethnicity of Survey Participants by SNAP/EBT Use at Farmers Market 

 SNAP/EBT User (N=2,287) SNAP/EBT Nonuser (N= 873) 

Characteristics 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Born outside the U.S. 46.6 (3.0) 696 42.4 (3.9) 268

How long in the U.S.?*

Less than 1 year 2.3 (1.2) 7 2.4 (1.1) 2

1 Year to 5 years 3.7 (1.3) 27 2.3 (1.1) 11

5 Years to 10 years 3.9 (1.1) 38 13.1 (2.6) 16

10 years or more 90.1 (1.9) 617 82.2 (2.5) 232

Language spoken at home

English only 70.6 (5.4) 1,799 76.5 (3.9) 680

Spanish only 10.9 (3.3) 131 7.3 (2.8) 50

English and Spanish only 11.7 (2.2) 138 7.9 (1.5) 38

Other languages 6.7 (1.4) 106 8.3 (1.9) 40

Hispanic, Spanish, Latino origin

Yes 29.5 (6.1) 401 21.0 (5.5) 140

No 70.5 (6.1) 1,812 79.0 (5.5) 679

Race 

Black or African American 42.2 (5.6) 414 24.3 (3.1) 124

White 38.4 (5.1) 1,232 54.9 (3.7) 499

Asian 8.6 (3.3) 78 6.5 (1.9) 30

American Indian or Alaska Native 4.2 (1.1) 155 8.9 (1.1) 70

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1.7 (0.7) 15 0.3 (0.3) 3

Other or multi-racial 4.8 (1.0) 140 5.2 (1.3) 39

* Among those born outside of the U.S.

Note: There were 3,160 survey respondents who received these questions. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages. User/nonuser status is missing for 87 shoppers. Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey Questions E13 and E15 through E17.

Household composition also may play an important role in deciding whether to use SNAP 

benefits when shopping at FMs. As demonstrated in Table 3-21, there is some indication that 

households with children are more likely to use SNAP benefits at FMs. Among EBT card users, 

88 percent had at least one child (35% had at least one child under 5 years old and 53% had at 

least one child between 5 to 17 years old). Among nonusers, the total percentage with at least 

one child was 74 percent (28% and 46%, respectively). Although the number of people in the 

household does not seem to be associated with the use of the EBT card at FMs, those households 

with at least one member over 60 years old less frequently reported using EBT benefits at FMs. 
FMCS Final Report 53 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

Table 3-21. Household Characteristics of Survey Participants by SNAP/EBT Use at Farmers 

Markets 

 SNAP/EBT User (N=2,287) SNAP/EBT Nonuser (N=873) 

Characteristics 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) 

Unweighted 

N 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) 

Unweighted 

N 

Number of people in the household 

One* 30.5 (3.2) 804 31.1 (2.7) 284

Two 22.1 (2.3) 422 26.1 (3.1) 182

Three 19.5 (1.4) 335 10.1 (1.3) 108

Four or five 18.0 (2.6) 457 21.7 (2.6) 180

More than five 9.9 (1.1) 195 10.9 (2.7) 66

Number of people over 60 years old

Zero 77.0 (2.3) 1,712 72.8 (2.9) 573

One 16.1 (1.6) 341 22.3 (2.3) 188

Two 5.5 (1.0) 61 4.3 (1.1) 28

Three 0.0 (0.0) 1 0.5 (0.3) 4

More than three 1.5 (0.5) 14 0.1 (0.1) 4

Number of children under 5 years old 

Zero 64.6 (2.7) 1,466 72.2 (3.5) 578

One 25.1 (2.3) 422 18.5 (1.9) 134

Two 7.5 (1.3) 165 6.0 (1.6) 50

Three 1.1 (0.5) 27 2.8 (0.8) 12

More than three 1.7 (0.5) 7 0.5 (0.3) 4

Number of children 5 to 17 years old 

Zero 46.6 (3.8) 1,124 53.8 (3.9) 449

One 25.7 (3.0) 412 17.0 (1.8) 124

Two 13.1 (1.6) 272 12.9 (2.9) 121

Three 9.1 (1.3) 174 7.4 (1.6) 46

More than three 5.5 (0.6) 116 8.9 (3.1) 44

Number of children under 18 years old 

Zero 18.0 (2.4) 938 24.2 (2.7) 379

One 11.4 (1.5) 391 7.4 (1.0) 138

Two 7.7 (1.5) 313 7.0 (0.5) 117

Three 6.9 (0.8) 229 3.7 (1.0) 79

More than three 5.8 (0.6) 238 7.9 (1.9) 76

* Number includes 202 respondents who reported zero as the number of people in the household.

Note: There were 3,160 survey respondents who received these questions. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages. User/nonuser status is missing for 87 shoppers. Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey Questions E18, E19, E21 and E20.

Focus group attendees with children in San Diego often cited the needs of their children as a 

powerful reason to shop at FMs. However, the affect of children on FM shopping was rarely 

discussed in the other cities. It is important to bear in mind that San Diego attendees were almost 

all women with families (and most of them reported also receiving WIC benefits). Focus group 

attendees in San Diego expressed a personal desire to eat more healthfully and serve more 

healthy foods to their family, but they reported just as often that the motivation to eat fresh, 

healthy, and/or organic foods emanated from their children. As one attendee explained, she buys 
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

54 FMCS Final Report 

certain items at the FM because her children “only eat fruits and vegetables” if they are fresh and 

organic. Her children “know the difference” and this is the only way she can ensure that they 

will eat their fruits and vegetables, “It is my obligation to buy from there so that they can eat.” 

Another attendee said, “My daughter does not eat meat, she eats certain vegetables only.” This 

attendee went to the FM with the daughter so that the daughter can select the fruits and 

vegetables she wishes to eat.

Next, bivariate associations between EBT use at FMs and support received from other food 

assistance programs were examined (Table 3-22). Households receiving benefits through the 

National School Lunch Program, Head Start, and WIC reported using SNAP benefits at FMs 

more frequently than those not receiving such benefits. Households with a member receiving 

Senior FM Nutrition Program coupons or Meals on Wheels reported using SNAP benefits at 

FMs less frequently than those without these benefits. Households receiving benefits that may be

redeemed at FMs using coupons instead of SNAP benefits might be saving their SNAP benefits 

to purchase items at other food stores.

Table 3-23 shows associations between participant and household characteristics and use of 

SNAP benefits, using a multivariate estimation. The table presents odds ratios for possible 

predictors with lower and upper bounds, as well as the statistical significance of each covariate. 

The evidence suggests that awareness of incentives for EBT use is a very strong predictor. 

Survey respondents who are aware of such incentives are 2.9 times more likely to use SNAP 

benefits when shopping at FMs. Unemployed participants and those who cannot work are 

respectively 1.7 and 1.5 times more likely to be using SNAP benefits at FMs, compared with 

employed FM shoppers. Participants with household incomes greater than $10,000 are 21 

percent less likely to use SNAP benefits while shopping at FMs. Black or African Americans are 

1.6 times more likely to use SNAP benefits at an FM compared with Whites. Hispanic/Latino 

origin does not seem to be a significant predictor, however, those who were born outside the 

United States are 22 percent less likely to use SNAP benefits while shopping at FMs. 

In general, age does not seem to be associated with the use of SNAP benefits, except that those 

who are age 60 or older are significantly less likely to use SNAP benefits at FMs. Neither 

gender, having children in the household, nor receiving support from other nutrition programs 

appear to be significant predictors of SNAP use. 
FMCS Final Report 55 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

Table 3-22. Support Received from other Food Assistance by SNAP/EBT Use at Farmers 

Markets 

 SNAP/EBT User (N=2,287) SNAP/EBT Nonuser (N=873) 

Characteristics 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Have children living in the household 65.6 (3.5) 1,284 61.4 (3.7) 478

Child on free/reduced price lunch 

Yes 75.5 (1.0) 906 66.9 (4.0) 308

No 24.5 (1.0) 329 33.1 (4.0) 154

Child in Head Start 

Yes 35.0 (2.1) 376 26.8 (2.5) 109

No 65.0 (2.1) 854 73.2 (2.5) 349

WIC benefits 

Yes 32.2 (2.8) 584 28.1 (3.1) 203

No 67.8 (2.8) 1,667 71.9 (3.1) 654

WIC FM Nutrition Program coupons 

Yes 17.3 (2.5) 376 16.3 (4.3) 126

No 82.7 (2.5) 1,874 83.7 (4.3) 726

Senior FM Nutrition Program coupons 

Yes 6.2 (0.7) 164 11.7 (2.1) 81

No 93.8 (0.7) 2,098 88.3 (2.1) 779

Meals on Wheels or Senior Nutrition

Program

Yes 3.9 (1.0) 87 6.3 (0.7) 41

No 96.1 (1.0) 2,176 93.7 (0.7) 822

Some other type of food assistance 

Yes 34.8 (2.5) 959 31.7 (2.3) 320

No 65.2 (2.5) 1,297 68.3 (2.3) 541

Note: There were 3,160 survey respondents who received these questions. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages. User/nonuser status is missing for 87 shoppers. Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey Questions E1 through E6 and E8. 
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

56 FMCS Final Report 

Table 3-23. Logistic Regression: Predictors of SNAP/EBT Use Among Farmers Market Shoppers 

Predictor Odds Ratio 

95% Lower CI 

Odds Ratio 

95% Upper CI 

Odds Ratio 

Females 0.96 0.78 1.19

Males (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

Age 18 to 29 1.10 0.83 1.45

Age 30 to 39 1.08 0.83 1.40

Age 40 to 49 (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

Age 50 to 59 0.91 0.68 1.23

Age 60 or greater *** 0.54 0.40 0.74

Black or African American *** 1.56 1.19 2.04

Other non-White 1.11 0.87 1.40

White (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

Hispanic/Latino origin 1.19 0.90 1.58

Not Hispanic/Latino origin (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

Unemployed *** 1.70 1.32 2.19

Homemaker/student 1.27 0.98 1.63

Cannot work *** 1.51 1.17 1.95

Employed (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

Income $10,000 or more *** 0.79 0.72 0.87

Income less than $10,000 (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

Born outside the U.S.* 0.79 0.64 0.96

Born in the U.S. (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

No child in the household 1.04 0.84 1.28

Have children in the household (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

Receives support from other nutrition programs 1.14 0.95 1.35

No support from other nutrition programs (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

Aware of incentives for SNAP/EBT use *** 2.92 2.34 3.63

Not aware of incentives for SNAP/EBT use (Ref) 1.00 --- ---

*=p value ≤0.05; ** =p value ≤0.01; ***=p value ≤0.001; Ref=reference category

Note: N = 3,160 survey respondents who received these questions.
FMCS Final Report 57 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

3.4 Shopping Patterns at Specific Farmers Markets 

This section examines the shopping patterns of SNAP participants at a target FM and their 

experiences associated with that market. To provide some context for the survey findings, this 

section begins with a review of focus group data. 

In all three focus group study sites, the target market was well established. In San Francisco and 

San Diego, however, the market was described by frequent shoppers as part of the local social 

fabric, “a fixture of the community.” This may be due to the prevalence of FMs throughout these 

cities. Some focus group attendees had been shopping there for years. As a result, many 

attendees could not pinpoint how they first learned about the target market. Those who learned 

about the markets more recently tended to cite word of mouth as the primary mechanism. Those 

in San Diego also cited knowing someone who works or used to work at the market. 

Some focus group attendees recalled receiving information mailers. Only a few cited signs or 

advertisements in the community or on buses, and only one cited seeing a sign at the local 

Department of Family and Child Services office. Unlike the other two locations, in San Diego, 

the second most commonly cited way that attendees learned about the market was through 

participation in WIC, which had promoted the local FM incentive program.44 In contrast, few 

attendees in San Francisco or Atlanta mentioned participation in WIC, and only one attendee in 

San Francisco learned about the local FM by proactively searching out markets that accepted 

SNAP benefits. 

Attendees in the nonfrequent shoppers group also tended to be aware of the target FM, and if 

they were not aware of the target market, they were aware of one or more other FMs in their 

area. This was especially true in San Francisco and San Diego, where all and 13 of 16 

nonfrequent shoppers, respectively, were aware of the target market. In both of those locations, 

well over half of these nonfrequent shoppers reported that they had considered shopping there, 

although only a few of these stated that they actually did. Given the number of FMs in the focus 

group cities, combined with the fact that most attendees had shopped at one or more of these 

markets, it is conceivable that attendees may have had difficulty recalling shopping trips to 

specific markets. As one San Francisco attendee said, “I think I did, a long time ago.” 

 

44 All but 3 of the 31 San Diego participants were female.
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

58 FMCS Final Report 

A small number of frequent shoppers in the focus groups claimed to have shopped at their 

respective markets for decades, but the typical response was much more recent. On average,

focus group attendees stated “within the last few years,” or more specifically, within the last 2 to 

3 years. However, half of the frequent shoppers in San Diego who provided a response to this 

question stated that they had been shopping at the target market between 5 and 7 years. 

With respect to frequency of shopping, focus group attendees in the frequent shoppers group 

gave answers that ranged from weekly (which was common in San Diego) to “only a few times 

per year.” Focus group attendees were specifically asked how often they shopped at the target 

market during the last season. Their responses were fairly evenly distributed across three ranges 

(2-3 times, 4-6 times, and 7 or more), with the San Diego groups being slightly more frequent 

shoppers. Some of the variation in shopping frequency appeared to be related to how often the 

individual was in the neighborhood where the market was located, suggesting that for some 

shoppers, the market was not the primary destination. It is also important to note the overlap 

between frequent and nonfrequent shoppers in this regard. For example, in Atlanta, almost half 

of the 19 nonfrequent shoppers indicated that they had shopped at the target market “once or 

twice” in the past 12 months. 

Table 3-24 presents the length of time that survey respondents had shopped at a specific FM. 

More than 35 percent of shoppers have been going to the same FM for at least 3 years. This 

indicates a certain level of satisfaction and customer loyalty, and is consistent with the 

community-building aspect of FMs in many neighborhoods around the country. 

Table 3-24. Length of Time Shopping at Specific Farmers Market Among Shoppers at a Specific 

Market 

 Weighted Percent (Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Less than 1 year 39.3 (4.6) 342

1 to 2 years 25.5 (2.9) 798

3 to 4 years 11.7 (2.0) 545

More than 4 years 23.5 (4.7) 631

Note: There were 2,443 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded from the denominator for 

calculating percentages. Missing excludes valid skips.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Question C2.
FMCS Final Report 59 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

Frequency of Shopping at Targeted Farmers Market 

I get to go at least three times a month. My brother lives right there, and I visit him quite a bit. [Atlanta]

I go every week because everything is always fresh, the seasonal fruits or the vegetables. That’s why I 

like to go every eight days. [San Diego]

Table 3-25 presents the frequency of shopping by season among shoppers, where the majority of 

the survey respondents shopped at FMs during the summer. Almost 70 percent of shoppers went 

to the FM during the summer, while 62 percent also shopped at the FM in the spring and/or fall. 

Only 42 percent of shoppers went to the FM in the winter. This is consistent with the fact that 

many FMs close in the winter months. Most shoppers indicated that they shopped once a month 

or less often at the specific FM. However, during the summer, more than one in ten shoppers 

shopped at FMs once a week or more often. This is consistent with expectations regarding the 

typically increased variety in fruits and vegetables during the summer months. 

Table 3-25. Shopping Frequency by Seasons Among Shoppers at a Specific Market 

Seasons 

Once a week 

or more often 

Every other 

week 

Once a month 

or less often Never 

Spring

Weighted percent (std. error) 7.1 (1.4) 9.4 (1.8) 45.5 (2.3) 38.0 (4.0)

Unweighted N 380 345 993 526

Summer

Weighted percent (std. error) 12.1 (1.6) 15.4 (2.4) 42.3 (2.5) 30.2 (4.5)

Unweighted N 668 527 923 199

Fall

Weighted percent (std. error) 8.0 (1.6) 9.9 (1.5) 44.3 (2.9) 37.8 (4.2)

Unweighted N 433 393 946 464

Winter

Weighted percent (std. error) 5.8 (1.3) 4.7 (1.4) 31.0 (3.6) 58.5 (5.3)

Unweighted N 144 125 573 1,318

Note: There were 2,443 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded from the denominator for 

calculating percentages. Missing excludes valid skips.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Questions C3.

Some focus group attendees also reported effects on their shopping patterns due to seasonality 

(i.e., shopping for items that are in season) given the relationship between seasonality and 

freshness, flavor, availability, and price. Shopping related to seasonality was mentioned in all 

cities, but was mentioned more often in the California sites than in Atlanta, perhaps because the 

California markets were open across more seasons than those in Atlanta. Still, some Atlanta 

focus group attendees said they would go to a particular FM for a specific product when they 

knew it was coming into season: 
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

60 FMCS Final Report 

Seasonality and Shopping at Farmers Markets 

The drive would be out of my way, but sometimes especially in the summertime they have really good 

sweet corn. [Atlanta]

I went there when blueberry season came out. They had a real good price on blueberries when they 

first came out. I like to get summer fruits from there. [Atlanta]

As indicated in Table 3-26, almost two-thirds of shoppers indicated that they used their car to get 

to the specific FM. One in five used public transportation. Similarly, one in five walked to the 

FM, which indicates how a specific FM can pull customers from the neighborhood around that 

area. While 6 percent used their bikes, only 2 percent took a taxi to get to the specific FM.

Table 3-26. How Shoppers Get to the Specific Farmers Market 

Method Weighted Percent (Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Car 64.8 (2.5) 1,620

Public transportation 21.8 (4.0) 389

Walk 21.6 (2.5) 667

Bike 5.5 (1.5) 253

Taxi 2.4 (0.9) 24

Some other way 6.9 (1.3) 115

Note: Categories are not mutually exclusive. There were 2,443 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are 

excluded from the denominator for calculating percentages. Missing excludes valid skips.

Data Source: Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Survey, Question C4.

Focus group attendee responses paralleled the survey findings, with most using a personal car to 

get to their local market, although use of a personal car was mentioned the least in San 

Francisco. The second most common method was public transportation. Focus group attendees 

shared frustrations with both of these methods, typically citing too much traffic, especially 

during market hours in Atlanta, and inadequate public transportation options between their home 

and the market location. Smaller numbers of participants reported walking or riding their bike. 

No focus group attendees mentioned taking a taxi. 

Table 3-27 shows the time required to go to the FM. The majority of shoppers live or work near 

the FM where they shop, requiring less than 20 minutes to travel to the FM. However, nearly 

one-fourth of shoppers travelled for more than 30 minutes to get to the FM. 
FMCS Final Report 61 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

Table 3-27. Travel Time to the Farmers Market Among Shoppers at Specific Markets 

Travel Time Weighted Percent (Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Less than 10 minutes 23.5 (2.8) 695

10 to 20 minutes 36.6 (2.5) 897

21 to 30 minutes 15.7 (2.3) 419

More than 30 minutes 24.3 (4.9) 300

Note: There were 2,443 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded from the denominator for 

calculating percentages. Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Source: Shopping for Fruits and Vegetable Survey, Question C5

In keeping with the survey results, frequent shoppers in the focus groups typically reported that it 

took less than 30 minutes to get to their local market. Those who reported being more than 30 

minutes away by car, public transportation, bicycle, or on foot tended to report that the market 

was located too far away to shop at on a regular basis. This was especially true of the 

nonfrequent shoppers. As described above, several focus group attendees stated that they 

shopped at the market only if they were in the area, on another errand, or visiting a friend, 

essentially indicating that the FM was located too far away to justify a trip specifically to that 

market.

Table 3-28 presents the types of products that shoppers purchase at FMs. The results suggest that 

most shoppers shopped at FMs primarily for fruits and vegetables. More than 75 percent 

purchased fruits and vegetables frequently (almost every time, or some of the time) when 

shopping at FMs. Additionally, at least one-third reported purchasing meats or baked good 

frequently (almost every time, or some of the time). Shoppers also purchased other food items 

while shopping at FMs, although not as frequently.45

 

45 Appendix G presents a summary of findings related to survey respondents purchase of plants and seeds.
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

62 FMCS Final Report 

Table 3-28. Types of Products Purchased at the Farmers Market Among Shoppers at Specific 

Farmers Market 

Product 

Almost Every 

Time 

Some of the 

Time Rarely Never 

Not Sold at 

This Farmers 

Market 

Fruits

Weighted percent (std. error) 57.7 (4.1) 22.9 (2.4) 3.8 (0.9) 14.4 (2.3) 1.3 (0.8)

Unweighted N 1,547 584 110 88 4

Vegetables

Weighted percent (std. error) 55.4 (4.3) 23.8 (2.3) 4.1 (0.9) 15.4 (2.7) 1.3 (0.8)

Unweighted N 1,741 399 73 86 5

Meat like beef or chicken or fish 

Weighted percent (std. error) 20.0 (6.2) 13.4 (1.7) 10.8 (1.2) 50.9 (5.4) 4.9 (1.1)

Unweighted N 203 273 376 1,081 231

Eggs

Weighted percent (std. error) 17.3 (2.5) 15.7 (1.8) 13.6 (1.9) 49.6 (2.5) 3.8 (1.2)

Unweighted N 196 335 352 1,142 156

Dairy products like milk, yogurt, 

cheese

Weighted percent (std. error) 15.5 (3.2) 14.5 (2.3) 11.0 (2.2) 55.0 (2.9) 4.1 (1.0)

Unweighted N 138 294 387 1,129 226

Baked goods like bread, pie, or 

cake

Weighted percent (std. error) 18.9 (1.9) 19.0 (2.0) 16.0 (1.8) 43.3 (2.1) 2.8 (0.8)

Unweighted N 270 547 531 766 86

Honey

Weighted percent (std. error) 11.5 (1.3) 18.7 (1.7) 17.7 (1.8) 49.8 (2.3) 2.4 (0.9)

Unweighted N 165 504 477 1,005 47

Fruit juice or fruit drinks

Weighted percent (std. error) 14.0 (1.8) 15.2 (2.3) 11.6 (2.5) 55.0 (2.2) 4.1 (1.1)

Unweighted N 127 198 293 1,351 182

Food in cans or jars like jam, 

jelly, pickles

Weighted percent (std. error) 16.3 (1.7) 20.0 (1.8) 12.7 (1.8) 48.6 (2.5) 2.4 (0.8)

Unweighted N 119 343 460 1,171 86

Some other kind of food

Weighted percent (std. error) 12.8 (4.2) 15.7 (2.7) 4.8 (1.3) 60.0 (3.7) 6.7 (1.7)

Unweighted N 118 189 77 485 48

Note: Products are not exclusive from each other since a participant could select more than one product. There were 2,443 survey 

respondents who received this question. Numbers of missing observations excluded in the denominator for calculating percentages are 

110, 139, 279, 262, 269, 243, 245, 292, 264, 1,526 in the order of products listed in the table. Missing excludes valid skips.

Data Source: Shopping for Fruits and Vegetable Survey, Question C6.
FMCS Final Report 63 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

The focus group attendees provided great detail with respect to the types of products they 

purchased at their respective FMs, and the purchases reflect the full assortment of items for sale 

at their market. Participants described a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, and other items. 

“Watermelon, honey and above all, the oranges...I also get a little bit of tomatoes, cucumbers, 

lemons that come [conveniently] in small packages...and you also have options to choose 

strawberries... I also [buy] popcorn...caramel and salty...that is like a craving...that is the 

craving that makes you go to the market.” [San Diego]

Although focus group attendees referenced specific items when asked what they typically 

purchased, most indicated that their purchases tended to vary. Attendees mentioned making 

spontaneous decisions based on what looked good or, 

on occasion, the recommendation of a farmer or 

vendor. However, for the frequent shoppers, the 

reasons given for varying their purchases tended to 

fall into one or more of the following broad 

categories: what is available (due to season or what is 

offered that day), an interest in trying new foods, the 

needs of the family (what the children will eat), and 

price.

Table 3-29 suggests that the variety of products, and 

the freshness of fruits and vegetables, are important 

factors for shoppers. In terms of variety, 65 percent 

agreed that there are more kinds of fresh fruits and 

vegetables at the FM than in other stores. Similarly, 

more than 70 percent of shoppers agreed that the 

quality of fresh fruits and vegetables at FMs is better 

than other stores. 

Fruits and vegetables specifically 

mentioned in each focus group site 

Atlanta: Cherries, corn, vine-ripened 

tomatoes, okra, purple hull peas, 

blueberries, collard greens, meats, 

seafood, tea, honey, cheese, bread, 

pastries, and “a variety of seasonings.”

San Francisco: Eggs, bread, juices, 

strawberries, blueberries, bananas, 

apricots, nectarines, cherries, and 

honey, as well as snack items and 

flowers.

San Diego: Cucumbers, tomatoes, 

avocados, lettuces, oranges, lemons, 

grapes, watermelon, and honey, as 

well as prepared food such as 

pupusas,

1 chicharon,2 and kettle corn.

1 Handmade tortilla usually filled with 

cheese and/or cooked ground meat.

2 Fried meat (usually pork rind).
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

64 FMCS Final Report 

Table 3-29. Perception of Variety and Quality of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Among Shoppers at 

a Specific Market 

Product 

Strongly 

Agree 

Somewhat 

Agree 

Neither 

Agree nor 

Disagree 

Somewhat 

Disagree 

Strongly 

Disagree 

There are more kinds of fresh fruits 

and vegetables at this FM than in 

other stores I shop at

Weighted percent (std. error) 33.0 (3.1) 31.5 (2.6) 18.6 (1.8) 11.3 (1.9) 5.6 (1.1)

Unweighted N 686 717 475 317 166

The quality of the fresh fruits and 

vegetables at this FM is better 

than in the other stores I shop at

Weighted percent (std. error) 37.9 (1.5) 33.2 (2.2) 18.7 (1.7) 5.9 (1.0) 4.3 (1.3)

Unweighted N 1,088 673 407 117 51

Note: There were 2,443 survey respondents who received these questions. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages. Valid skips are excluded from missing. 

Data Source: Shopping for Fruits and Vegetable Survey, Question C7. 

Perception of relative prices is an important factor in any shopping decision. Among survey 

respondents who were shoppers, 34 percent stated that the prices of fresh fruits and vegetables 

were higher in FMs than in other stores, as shown in Table 3-30. More than one in four shoppers 

(27%) said that the prices are about the same. Finally, 39 percent of shoppers stated that the 

prices of fresh fruits and vegetables were lower in FMs than in other stores. 

Table 3-30. Perception of the Prices of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables at Farmers Markets Relative 

to Other Stores or Markets Among Shoppers at Specific Markets 

Perception 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

A lot higher in farmers markets 10.2 (2.0) 249

A little higher in farmers markets 24.3 (3.0) 730

About the same 26.5 (2.3) 579

A little lower in farmers markets 25.7 (3.4) 525

A lot lower in farmers markets 13.3 (2.8) 223

Note: There were 2,443 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages.

Data Source: Shopping for Fruits and Vegetable Survey, Question C8.

Price alone tended not to be a driving factor for the shopping behaviors described by the focus 

group attendees, but the ability to find good deals related either to seasonality or time of day, did 

appear to influence purchases. For example, it was reported that vendors were more likely to 

mark down the cost of produce toward the end of the market day. As discussed in Chapter 4 (see 

Price and Value), SNAP participants engaged in calculated budgeting to maximize their benefits. 

For example, they may buy more vegetables one week because they are cheaper that week, but 

next week they will stock up on fruit. As one San Diego attendee put it, “I buy only what is in 
FMCS Final Report 65 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

season. Sometimes I would like to buy other things, but if it is not available ... or it is too 

expensive I don’t buy it.” To this comment, another attendee added that if something is more 

expensive one week, she will wait to buy it the following week when the price may have come 

down. 

Like most shoppers, SNAP participants also indicated that they use cash most often at FMs when 

purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables. However, as shown in Table 3-31, almost half of the 

survey respondents stated that they used their EBT card as a method of payment at FMs. The use 

of WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program coupons, Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program

coupons, and a credit or debit card was less common (approximately 8% for each). 

Table 3-31. Method of Payment for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables in the Past Year Among 

Shoppers at Specific Markets 

Method of Payment 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Cash 60.9 (2.3) 1,678

SNAP/EBT card 46.7 (5.3) 1,793

WIC FM Nutrition Program coupon 9.2 (1.8) 189

Senior FM Nutrition Program coupon 8.3 (2.2) 146

WIC cash value (fruit and vegetable) voucher 8.1 (1.8) 192

Credit card or debit card 7.6 (1.3) 207

Personal check 1.7 (0.5) 43

Some other way 6.5 (1.2) 71

Note: Methods of payments are not exclusive from each other since a participant could choose more than one method of payment.

There were 2,443 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for calculating 

percentages.

Data Source: Shopping for Fruits and Vegetable Survey, Question C71.

Table 3-32 shows that 28 percent of shoppers who used their EBT card to buy fresh fruits and 

vegetables at FMs used this method of payment almost every time. Although 38 percent of 

shoppers rarely or never used their EBT card, another 15 percent of shoppers stated that they did 

not know that FMs accepted the EBT card.
3 Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

 

66 FMCS Final Report 

Table 3-32. In the Past Year, How Many Times Did Shoppers at a Specific Market Use SNAP/EBT 

Card to Buy Fresh Fruits and Vegetables 

Frequency 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Almost every time 28.4 (4.0) 1,149

Some of the time 19.0 (1.6) 625

Rarely 4.5 (0.9) 134

Never 33.1 (3.6) 331

Did not know market accepts SNAP/EBT card 15.0 (3.3) 117

Note: There were 2,443 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded from the denominator for 

calculating percentages.

Data Source: Shopping for Fruits and Vegetable Survey, Question C72.

Table 3-33 shows that among survey respondents who did not use their EBT card almost every 

time while shopping at FMs, 38 percent stated that they did not know they could use their SNAP 

benefits at FMs. Among these shoppers, 24 percent stated that they used all their SNAP benefits 

while shopping at grocery stores. Almost one in four of these survey respondents (22%) 

indicated that they ran out of money on their EBT card. Finally, 8 percent of these respondents 

did not use their SNAP benefits at FMs because they did not want anyone to see them using 

SNAP benefits. 

Table 3-33. Reasons for Not Using SNAP/EBT Card More Often (Among Shoppers at Specific 

Farmers Markets Who Did Not Use Their SNAP/EBT Card “Almost Every Time”) 

Reason 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

I didn’t know I could use my card here 37.9 (3.5) 197

I do all my SNAP/EBT shopping at the grocery store 24.4 (2.9) 243

I run out of money on my card 22.3 (2.9) 472

There are no signs posted that says this market takes SNAP/EBT 19.4 (2.6) 120

I don’t want anyone to see me use my SNAP/EBT card 8.1 (2.1) 93

It takes long to process the card 2.3 (0.7) 62

Some other reason 16.7 (2.3) 270

Note: Reasons are not exclusive from each other since participants can select more than one option. There were 1,207 survey 

respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded from the denominator for calculating percentages. 

Data Source: Shopping for Fruits and Vegetable Survey, Question C73. 

Focus group attendees cited two main reasons for not using SNAP benefits while shopping at the 

market. As previously discussed, nonfrequent shoppers in the focus groups, and to a lesser extent 

some frequent shoppers, reported being unaware that the EBT card was accepted at FMs. Thus, 

the main reason was lack of awareness. Among those who knew that the EBT card was accepted, 

focus group attendees in both categories mentioned situations when they used cash instead. This 
FMCS Final Report 67 

 

Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 3 

was typically due to a lack of remaining funds on their EBT card. Hence, focus group attendees 

tended to say that they used their EBT cards with greater frequency during the first half of the 

benefits month. 

Focus group attendees were specifically asked if their purchases at FMs depended on when they 

received their SNAP benefits each month. In general, the answer was affirmative in San 

Francisco and San Diego, with most attendees tending to purchase more at the beginning of their 

benefit month, when more money was on their EBT card. 

Period in EBT Benefits Month and Shopping at Farmers Markets 

If we are on the third week of the month, I buy less [at the farmers market]. For example, if I got five 

tomatoes before, now I get three because you need to pay attention that you have less benefits and 

you always need milk so you have to buy a little less. [San Diego]

I’m like her, it’s like it lasts me the first few weeks. I go every week, I budget my money. Sometimes, 

occasionally, the last weekend I don’t go. I’m out of money. [San Francisco]

This tendency to maximize purchases toward the beginning of the benefits month also held 

among nonfrequent shoppers. This pattern was most prominent in San Diego, where most focus 

group attendees indicated that they often spend a considerable percentage of their SNAP benefits 

on the day they receive it. A few attendees tempered that by stating they will delay shopping 

until a preferred store has special offers; for example, one attendee cited a neighborhood store 

that has fruits on sale on Wednesdays. 

Period in EBT Benefits Month and Shopping at Farmers Markets Among Nonfrequent Shoppers 

I buy on the 8th...that’s the day when I receive [the SNAP benefits]...I’ll spend 70 percent [on that day] 

[San Diego] 

[I buy] on the day I receive my Food Stamps. On the card it’s the 5th. That’s the day we wait all month 

to go shopping. We buy most of the things and whatever money is left, we save it until mid-month [San 

Diego]
 

68 FMCS Final Report 

This page is intentionally blank. 
FMCS Final Report 69 

 

4.1 Introduction 

The previous chapter described the general shopping patterns of SNAP participants to inform 

strategies to encourage shopping at farmers markets (FMs). This chapter furthers the discussion 

by examining perceived and/or potential benefits and barriers to shopping at FMs. This includes 

a review of the characteristics of FMs and how they may be related to shopping status and a 

discussion of the reasons supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) participants do or 

do not shop at FMs. 

Key findings reported in this chapter include the following: 

 The most commonly reported reason for shopping at a specific FM is access to highquality fruits and vegetables. 

 Other key factors that influenced shopping at FMs include activities and services, 

community-related factors, environment, accessibility, and affordability. 

 In addition, focus group attendees reported product variety and selection, promotion 

of local businesses/farmers, and the social experience as important reasons that they 

shop at a FM. 

 Characteristics of the FM, including location and cleanliness, were also reported as 

important reasons for shopping at a specific FM. 

 In general, nonfrequent shoppers tended to say they perceived prices at FMs to be 

higher than at the local grocery store. However, frequent shoppers tended to report 

that they perceived FM prices to be lower.

 Frequent shoppers at FMs valued quality and freshness more than lower prices. 

 Nearly 60 percent of shoppers reported that there are reasons they do not shop at 

FMs as much as they want to. The most commonly reported reasons were related to 

convenience. 

 Among those who do not shop at FMs, the most commonly reported reasons were 

related to inconvenience and perceived higher prices. 

 Focus group attendees identified lack of awareness that the electronic benefit transfer 

(EBT) card was accepted at FMs as a major barrier for shopping at FMs. 

4 Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at 

Farmers Markets 4 
4 Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 

 

70 FMCS Final Report 

4.2 Farmers Market Geographic Characteristics 

This section describes some of the basic geographic attributes of the FMs in the survey and how 

these attributes vary between survey respondents who shopped at FMs (shoppers) and those who 

did not (nonshoppers). Table 4-1 shows the average number of retail services within a 2-mile 

radius of each FM, reported separately for shoppers and nonshoppers46. In general, nonshoppers 

have slightly more retail services near their FMs, compared with shoppers. This suggests that 

other nearby retail services represent competition to FMs, rather than a mechanism for drawing 

more shoppers to FMs. 

Table 4-1. Average Number of Retail Service Establishments Available in the FM Vicinity (2-

mile radius) by Farmers Market Shoppers and Nonshoppers 

Food Retailers Within a 2-Mile 

Radius of a SNAP Participant FM Shoppers (Std. Error) FM Nonshoppers (Std. Error) 

Stores

Supermarket 5.8 (0.9) 6.2 (0.9)

Other grocery 30.0 (5.7) 32.3 (6.0)

Convenience 23.1 (4.4) 25.0 (4.7)

Dollar and variety 7.9 (0.9) 8.0 (1.0)

Drug and pharmacy 22.4 (4.8) 24.6 (5.2)

Specialty 35.5 (5.6) 37.5 (5.9)

Restaurants

Full service 215.6 (54.2) 239.3 (58.5)

Franchised limited-service 51.2 (8.3) 55.4 (8.8)

Non-franchised limited service 30.6 (6.2) 33.5 (6.5)

Note: The number of full-service restaurants within 2 miles of the FMs varied from 0 to 964, with an average of 126 full-service 

restaurants within 2 miles of the FM. The FMs with hundreds of nearby restaurants were in dense urban areas. There were more SNAP 

participants residing in these areas, so they have more impact on the final weighted value. 

Data Source: GIS analysis of Farmers Market addresses and NAVTEQ retail store data.

Table 4-2 shows the distribution of average distances between FMs and the nearest food retailer, 

presented separately for shoppers and nonshoppers, and for the nearest supermarket versus the 

nearest food retailer of any type (including convenience stores and restaurants). Both shoppers 

and nonshoppers had a supermarket within half a mile around their FMs (61% among shoppers, 

and 66% among nonshoppers). Similarly, all respondents had some type of food retailer within 

half a mile of their FMs (82% among shoppers and 80% among nonshoppers). Thus, FMs tend to 

have a substantial number of food retailers competing for the business of SNAP participants. 

 

46 The analyses were conducted at the survey respondent level, separately for shoppers and nonshoppers. While both 

shoppers and nonshoppers were associated with a given FM, these analyses compute average number of food 

retailers around the given FM weighted by shoppers and nonshoppers. 
FMCS Final Report 71 

 

Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 4 

Table 4-2. Distance Between FMs and the Nearest Food Retailer by Farmers Market Shoppers 

and Nonshoppers

Distance Between FMs and the 

Nearest Food Retailer 

FM Shoppers FM Nonshoppers 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) 

Unweighted 

N 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) 

Unweighted 

N 

Supermarket

Less than 1⁄2 mile 61.0 (9.3) 1,205 65.7 (10.1) 642

1⁄2 to 1 mile 26.8 (8.2) 1,077 21.5 (8.0) 467

1 to 2 miles 9.6 (4.9) 610 11.2 (5.5) 262

More than 2 miles 2.5 (1.2) 355 1.6 (0.9) 128

Any food retailer

Less than 1⁄2 mile 82.1 (8.7) 2,690 80.2 (9.8) 1,289

1⁄2 to 1 mile 17.4 (8.7) 408 19.5 (9.8) 163

1 to 2 miles 0.5 (0.4) 120 0.3 (0.3) 47

More than 2 miles 0.0 (0.0) 29 0.0 (0.0) 0

Data Source: GIS analysis of Farmers Market addresses and NAVTEQ retail store data.

4.2.1 Importance of Certain Factors for Shopping at Farmers Markets 

Among Survey Participants 

One key objective of the study was to learn why SNAP participants shop at their respective FMs. 

Among those shoppers who indicated they shop at a specific FM, the survey asked about their 

reasons for shopping at that market. The survey listed reasons related to price, quality, and 

convenience. As a follow-up question, the survey asked respondents to indicate the importance 

of each reason.

Tables 4-3 presents the percentage of respondents who checked “yes” for each type of reason, 

and 4-4 presents the top five “very important” reasons. The most commonly reported reason for 

shopping at their specific FM was high-quality fruits and vegetables (82%). As Table 4-3 shows, 

additional common reasons (reported by 69% or more) were related to the variety and type of 

vegetables, characteristics of the market and the people there, and location convenience. On the 

other hand, the least common reasons (reported by less than 50%) were related to other resources 

available at the market, special health needs, and acceptance of Senior FM coupons. The high 

percentage of survey respondents (72%) describing FMs as a “fun place to be” is an important 

finding that also emerged during the focus groups. The dimensions of FMs that account for this 

are examined in detail in the section below on the social experience.
4 Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 

 

72 FMCS Final Report 

Table 4-3. Reasons for Shopping at a Specific Farmers Market Among Shoppers at a Specific 

Market

Reasons 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) 

Unweighted 

N 

High-quality fruits and vegetables 79.7 (2.1) 2,049

They sell fruits and vegetables that are locally grown 78.4 (1.5) 2,115

They sell many different kinds of fresh fruits and vegetables 75.0 (2.0) 1,913

It is a fun place to be 72.0 (1.7) 1,784

Farmers market staff and sellers are helpful 69.9 (2.1) 1,625

Close to where I live 69.0 (2.1) 1,486

Easy to get to 68.8 (2.3) 1,513

I can talk with people who grow the fruits and vegetables 68.2 (1.6) 1,736

Farmers market is clean 67.3 (2.3) 1,477

Good specials or deals 67.2 (3.3) 1,182

Accepts SNAP/EBT card 66.9 (3.0) 1,839

Low prices on fresh fruits and vegetables 66.3 (2.9) 1,288

Farmers market is in a safe area 66.1 (2.4) 1,466

I can meet people from my community there 60.4 (2.3) 1,296

There is parking nearby 59.0 (2.2) 1,225

They sell fruits and vegetables I can’t find anywhere else 58.2 (2.7) 1,132

It sells plants and seeds 57.1 (2.3) 1,116

Open at convenient times 56.7 (2.2) 1,075

There is entertainment or cultural activities 56.5 (2.2) 1,159

It sells more than just food, like jewelry, art work, and clothes 56.2 (2.9) 1,017

I can use WIC FM coupons 51.8 (2.8) 786

I can get nutrition information 51.6 (3.0) 799

I can get prepared foods and meals there 49.5 (2.1) 750

I have special health and diet issues 47.2 (2.5) 765

I can use Senior FM coupons 46.7 (3.6) 577

I can get health information, screening tests or exams, or vaccines 46.6 (3.1) 572

There are cooking demonstrations 46.5 (2.6) 642

A social worker is there 44.9 (3.3) 535

Some other reason 47.1 (2.2) 872

Note: Reasons are not exclusive from each other since participants can select more than one option. There were 2,443 survey 

respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded from the denominator for calculating percentages.

Data Source: Shopping for Fruits and Vegetable Survey, Questions C9 through C65.
FMCS Final Report 73 

 

Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 4 

While Table 4-3 ranks all of the reasons for shopping at the specific market, Table 4-4 shows the 

top five reasons based on rating of reasons as “very important.” Analyses of these data indicate 

that the most commonly reported reasons (in general) were not necessarily the most important 

reasons. Three of the five reasons rated as very important were related to characteristics of the 

FM, specifically its cleanliness, safety, and staff/sellers. Nonetheless, “high-quality fruits and 

vegetables” was both the most commonly reported reason (79%) and the top reason in terms of 

importance (71%). Low prices on fruits and vegetables was also a Top 5 Reason, though it was 

not among the most commonly reported reason in the overall ranking. 

Table 4-4. Top 5 Reasons for Shopping at a Specific Farmers Market Among Shoppers at a 

Specific Market 

Reason 

Yes, Reason for 

Shopping 

“Very Important” 

Reason 

Unweighted N 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

High-quality fruits and vegetables 2,049 71.3 (2.4) 1,661

Farmers market is clean 1,477 69.0 (2.9) 1,029

Farmers market is in a safe area 1,466 66.9 (2.0) 993

Staff and sellers that are helpful 1,625 63.2 (3.4) 966

Low prices on fresh fruits and vegetables 1,288 62.9 (3.0) 875

Note: Based on the reasons with the highest percentage indicated as “very important” reason. There were 2,443 survey respondents who 

received this question. 

Data Source: Shopping for Fruits and Vegetable Survey, Questions C10 through C66.

The survey also sought to understand factors that may increase shopping at FMs among the 

shoppers. Nearly 60 percent of the shoppers indicated that there was something that kept them 

from shopping for fresh fruits and vegetables at their specific FM as often as they wanted. Table 

4-5 summarizes the reasons reported among these shoppers. The two most common reasons were 

related to convenience (i.e., easier to shop at one store, and the market location was not close to 

their home). More than one-fourth reported that it was due to the higher prices. One-fifth 

reported that the day/hours of operation were not convenient. Approximately 15 percent reported 

they did not want to be seen using their EBT card at the market. Other reasons were related to 

convenience and the type and quality of fruits and vegetables. 
4 Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 

 

74 FMCS Final Report 

Table 4-5. Reasons that Keep Shoppers from Shopping for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables as 

Much as they Want to at Their Specific Farmers Market 

Reason Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error)

Unweighted N 

It’s easier to buy all my groceries at one store 41.8 (3.3) 473

It’s not close to where I live 35.3 (5.1) 384

The prices are too high 24.3 (2.2) 461

It’s not open on days or times that are convenient to me 20.3 (3.4) 524

I don’t want anyone to see me use my SNAP/EBT card 14.6 (2.4) 115

It’s not easy to get to 14.4 (1.9) 133

There aren’t enough kinds of fresh fruits and vegetables available 11.9 (2.4) 200

It is hard to park nearby 7.1 (1.7) 146

It is not in a safe area 6.8 (2.1) 44

It is not close to public transportation 6.7 (1.3) 47

The fresh fruits and vegetables look like they are in bad condition 6.2 (2.1) 68

The staff and sellers don’t speak my language 5.2 (1.4) 46

Note: There were 1,377 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded from the denominator for 

calculating percentages.

Data Source: Shopping for Fruits and Vegetable Survey, Questions C67 through C70.

4.2.2 Importance of Certain Factors for Shopping at Farmers Markets 

Among Focus Group Attendees 

Focus group attendees expressed a wide array of reasons for shopping at FMs. Generally, these 

corresponded to several of the top reasons revealed by the survey, namely high-quality, locally 

grown, and diverse produce; helpful staff and sellers; the community-related nature of the 

shopping experience; and low prices. The focus group data also help to understand the complex 

picture revealed by the survey findings and factor analysis. Interestingly, focus group attendees 

made few comments about the markets’ cleanliness or safe location and when they did, they 

tended to point out how a particular market lacked one of these qualities rather than how the 

market embodied the dimension. 

The main reasons for shopping at FMs identified from the focus groups revolved around quality 

and freshness, organic and healthier options, wide selection of products and variety of vendors, 

interest in buying local foods, and the unique social experience offered by FMs. After an 

examination of these reasons in turn, this section closes with an examination of price and value 

as factors that can both promote and discourage shopping at FMs. 
FMCS Final Report 75 

 

Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 4 

Quality and Freshness 

One of the most commonly mentioned benefits of shopping at a FM was the perceived quality of 

the items available, compared with local grocery stores. “Quality” was exemplified by such 

characteristics as freshness, taste, and appearance. Respondents in all three study sites made 

numerous comments about how the quality of produce at FMs stood in contrast to those found in 

traditional grocery stores. The following quotes are illustrative of the many comments about 

quality and freshness made by participants: 

Quality and Freshness 

It’s gotten so bad now at some of the grocery stores that [the items]...they just don’t look good. Then 

they want to charge you an arm and a leg for stuff that’s just not good. Some of the fruits and stuff 

may be rotten, not ripening yet. [Atlanta]

Because when you go to supermarket, you don’t know how long they’ve been holding it around before 

you see it. [San Francisco]

[Farmers market] fruit is harvested at the right time, when it’s ripe and ready to eat. The fruit that one 

buys at the grocery stores has been harvested before they are ready and then refrigerated, so they do 

not have any flavor at all. The fruit at the FM is juicier and flavorful. [San Diego]

Like the coriander. It’s long. It smells better. It’s not like the ones sold at the supermarkets that don’t 

smell like coriander. I don’t know if it’s because it’s more natural...but the vegetables and fruits...the 

smell of the apples seemed like if it were from my town. I don’t know if it’s cut when it’s time...I think 

the ones at the supermarkets are cut before time, and it loses the flavor. [San Diego]

Organic and Healthy 

Along with quality and freshness, focus group attendees often discussed the benefits associated 

with purchasing organic food. Organic produce, which was perceived to be more readily 

available at FMs, was described as being healthier and more natural. Organic food was perceived 

to be free of pesticides, preservatives, and genetically modified crops. Respondents often 

referenced a desire to eat more healthy, and on occasion invoked their children or other family 

members for whom they were responsible. For example, when referencing the value of organic 

produce, one San Francisco respondent adamantly stated that not “even rain, sleet or snow” 

would stop her from shopping at the FM for her family. 

As one San Diego respondent explained, she buys certain items at the FM because her children 

will eat fruits and vegetables only if they are fresh and organic. “It is my obligation to buy from 

there so that they can eat,” she emphasized. She stated her family can tell the difference, and this 
4 Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 

 

76 FMCS Final Report 

is the only way she can ensure that they eat their fruits and vegetables. However, as with quality 

and freshness, better taste also was associated with organic produce. Below are a few quotes 

from focus group attendees highlighting this theme: 

Organic Nature of Products 

Then of course, as someone else said that they can be organic, and I tasted the difference between 

organic fruit and regular farm-grown fruit. There is a very big difference. They’re juicy, they’re crunchy. 

They’re more fresh tasting. [San Francisco]

I feel like the food at the farmers’ market can be more nutritious, because it’s grown organically 

versus produce at Safeway or another grocery store. [San Francisco]

They have good stuff. It’s not hot-house tomatoes. It’s actually vine-ripened tomatoes. It’s not sprayed 

down with chemicals to supplement the growth or to speed up growth or whatever. It’s not mass 

produced. It’s regular, like the garden we grew up on, so I can go out get your fresh stuff out in the 

garden. [Atlanta]

Nonfrequent shoppers also tended to reference the quality and organic nature of products 

available at FMs when asked to identify benefits of shopping at a FM: 

Quality and Organic Nature of Products 

It’s cheaper and better quality. [San Francisco]

I would say it’s fresher and it’s reliable and in season. [San Francisco]

I agree, and it’s supporting local farmers. It’s generally organic and healthier for you. [San Francisco]

When we say high-quality vegetables, those are organic and better for you. [San Diego]

Independent of whether the produce is organic, most of the frequent shoppers in San Francisco 

and elsewhere felt that the products purchased from the FM were healthier. At least one 

contrarian harbored concerns that FMs were not as carefully regulated as traditional grocery 

stores, questioning how one knows with certainty that an item is truly organic. “I have stigma for 

a long time where I thought like, OK, farmers markets, like there’s no regulation. Anybody can 

just drive up there, and what they spray their plants with whatever, and there’s no real way of 

checking them.” [San Francisco] 

However, when asked, no other respondents shared this apprehension. 
FMCS Final Report 77 

 

Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 4 

Selection and Variety of Vendors 

There was strong agreement within the groups on the benefit of variety, even among those who 

were less confident about quality. Of particular value to focus group attendees was the 

opportunity to be introduced to new or unique products not typically found in a traditional 

grocery store. Variety was highlighted both in terms of the variety of products available 

throughout the market, and in regard to a certain type of product, as illustrated in the quote below 

about different types of peaches. 

Selection and Variety 

Some [farmers] have very good variety and food samples, like you get samples to different kinds of 

peaches from one grower. That’s interesting. You can find the one you really like. [San Francisco]

Yeah, in terms of the different things, especially like seasonings, spices. You can get some really cool 

things at farmers markets that you wouldn’t be able to get in a Lucky or Safeway. [San Francisco]

I was just going to say that oftentimes you’re exposed to things you wouldn’t be able to see in a regular 

grocery store. You’re being more likely to try something new. Then you can actually have a 

conversation with a person directly about, “How do you prepare this?” Or, “What is this?” It creates 

dialog and then you’re inspired, and you feel like there’s a story behind it. Then you can share that with 

other people. [San Francisco]

Another commonly mentioned benefit included the variety and uniqueness of the products. Many 

respondents commented on the ability to purchase items at the FM that simply were not available 

at the big chain grocery.

Uniqueness of Products 

One of the things I also like about the farmers market is there’s a great variety of things, as opposed to 

Lucky or Safeway or Trader Joe’s, or just they don’t have as much. [San Francisco]

You may find that they have four different types of collards, or kales. There’s also someone there that 

may be preparing them in a way that you never had before. You can only maybe get one variety in a 

grocery store, as opposed to there’s several varieties of the same food at a farmers market. The 

variety is definitely a plus. [Atlanta]

When I go to the farmers market, it’s like an experience. I don’t know if anybody has been to the 

DeKalb one, but it’s crazy. It’s interesting because there are fruits and vegetables and everything from 

any part of the world. It tells you when you’re looking at them whether they’re organic or not, what 

region of the United States or the world they come from. You can educate yourself a little bit about 

food too, which I think is interesting. [Atlanta]
4 Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 

 

78 FMCS Final Report 

Buying Local and Supporting Local Growers 

Although respondents commented on their preference to support local growers, respondents 

more frequently commented on how buying local offered a direct benefit to themselves. 

Advantages included the ability to interact directly with farmer vendors and obtain more 

information about one’s food purchases: 

Locally Grown Products 

You can ask the questions of the person behind the counter, how was this grown? Where did this come 

from? You get real answers. [San Francisco]

I like it because I like to ask the people selling it where it was grown, to know that it was local, and to 

actually know where it came from. [San Francisco]

I like that they provide samples for people to taste, and my daughters love that. They have to be at the 

farmers market every Saturday tasting fruits. Sometimes I don’t go to buy, but I end up buying some 

fruit for them. [San Diego]

Another benefit of buying local produce is the ability to buy foods with maximum ripeness and 

freshness. Respondents appreciated their proximity to where the produce was grown. 

Locally Grown Products and Freshness 

You don’t have to wait for it to come from California, or places like that. You’re getting it right here, 

locally. [Atlanta]

At a farmers market, those are picked closer to their ripeness age. As opposed to if you’re trucking 

something across the country, you’re going to pick it five days early. It’s not going to taste as fresh. It’s 

not going to taste as good. [Atlanta]

If you go to a farmers market, you know what you’re buying wasn’t too long ago in the field. [Atlanta]

Also along these lines, respondents commented on the benefit FMs offer to make connections 

with the growers themselves, and not just those selling the products. Such comments were made 

most frequently in San Diego, where the respondents seemed to express a cultural, familial, and 

sometimes personal empathy with those who make their living off the land. These connections 

promote feelings of trust, community, and good will, as these comments illuminate.
FMCS Final Report 79 

 

Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 4 

Making Connections With Growers 

I really appreciate being able to buy foods from people that I know. I can trust the source. [Atlanta]

I don’t care about the price. I work at a ranch and I go buy at so many farms, there are a lot of humble 

people cutting strawberries. It’s a work they can’t stand up. I say it is worthy to buy, to help them. [San 

Diego]

I also appreciate the interaction that I have at the farmers market, getting to see the same people, the 

farmers, who grow the fruits and vegetables. So that’s a bonus. [San Francisco]

Supporting Local Farmers 

Supporting local farmers for economic reasons was mentioned frequently in San Diego (even 

among the nonfrequent shoppers) but rarely came up spontaneously as a benefit elsewhere. In 

San Francisco, supporting farmers for economic reasons was mentioned only in response to a 

specific probe. Indeed, when asked directly about it through a prompt, nearly all of the frequent 

shoppers in all three sites were in favor of supporting local farmers by shopping at FMs. Though 

perhaps not always primarily interested in supporting farmers economically, shoppers often cited 

benefits from having access to local farmers and their products. 

Supporting Local Farmers 

It helps them because they are small farmers. They bring us delicious fruits and fresh vegetables and 

then they get the benefits instead of the big businesses. These are different, richer and more 

commercial, and here we cooperate with them and they also cooperate with us. [San Diego]

It’s a good balance to support the farmers because most of the time the octopuses [referring to big 

businesses] take away the economy, leaving the farmers a little bit unprotected. It’s good to support 

them. [San Diego]

If we weren’t supporting them and if they weren’t there, we wouldn’t have fresh fruits and vegetables 

and eggs to choose from. We’d be stuck at Safeway or FoodCo, and having to get stuff that’s coming 

from other states, and other cities, and it’s not as fresh. [San Francisco]

The Social Experience 

Discussion regarding the social experience of farmers markets was lively and infused with a 

sense of excitement. Shopping at a FM was described as a social event where there are 

opportunities for fun and learning. Many respondents commented that the environment makes it 

easy and enticing for them to consume fruits and vegetables (e.g., through sampling and testing 

the quality of the foods). Some focused on the family-friendly environment, while others 
4 Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 

 

80 FMCS Final Report 

commented that the market was a unique destination and viewed the opportunity to walk to and 

around the FM as a welcome exercise. Overall, respondents tended to display genuine pleasure 

and a good feeling for the FM when they were telling their stories. These experiences distinguish 

shopping at FMs from shopping at grocery stores, and motivate shoppers to return. 

Positive Social Experience 

Any chance I can get to a farmers market, it’s like heaven. I just spend hours in there, shopping and 

browsing. I went to one, by Grady’s there’s a place called Municipal Market. They say that’s a farmers 

market. They sell their vegetables, and people selling fish, and meat, and pastries. It was such a nice 

experience. [Atlanta]

Just the informality of it, going down there. ... There’s something about the outdoors, out in the open. 

There are different people there you know. There’s music usually. [San Francisco]

Vendors are nice, encourage patrons to try the food, and do not make them feel that they are obligated 

to buy. [San Diego].

The social experience has several interrelated facets, and respondents tended to share more than 

one of these influential experiences. Many tried to describe the unique atmosphere that prevails 

at their local FM. For example, in the following exchange between respondents, the “homey” 

atmosphere of the market is contrasted with the “antiseptic” experience at a big chain grocery 

store.

“Homey” Atmosphere 

Man 3: Yeah, I think it’s a homey type of atmosphere. I don’t know, [at a chain grocery store] you 

just feel like you’re being watched over. It’s so antiseptic. You see the cameras all on you 

and all that stuff. I mean, it’s just more family-oriented and homey, more welcoming. The 

hospitality, I think, farmers markets than a lot of these big supermarkets chains.

Woman 2: You’re not just a number.

Man 3: You wouldn’t just be hanging out at Kroger’s. [Atlanta]

In San Francisco, there was wide agreement that FMs are uniquely different and enjoyable. They 

stand apart from the anonymous routine of shopping at a supermarket and engage all members of 

the family, especially children, in ways that traditional grocery stores do not. 
FMCS Final Report 81 

 

Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 4 

Engaging and Inclusive 

It is just a very fun place to go, because I have two kids. They just love to hang around and run around 

at the market. I like to take pictures of things that I see and my kids. It’s just a fun day and there’s so 

many things that are different. It’s for the whole family. It’s like they are looking forward to that day, 

even if we don’t buy anything, we just buy a little bit but it is a day that we always look forward to 

going. [San Francisco]

I was just immersed in the, I don’t know, just the festive activity around. [San Francisco]

Yeah. I was going to say the diversity, the different ethnicities that frequent it is also special. It’s a 

really great way to have your kid learn about and appreciate different cultures. So it’s a little more 

immersive. [San Francisco]

Participants also discussed the importance of shopping in an environment that was less anomic 

and isolating than large-chain grocery stores. FMs tend to be characterized as being more social 

and interactive. Specific comments pointing to the market as an alternative to otherwise 

alienating environments include the following about personalized interaction. 

Personalized Interaction 

If you make a good friend at the farmers market, you always get the best stuff because ... when you go 

to the farmers market, he knows you by name. “Hey, [name], I’ve got something for you. You’re going 

to like this.” [Atlanta]

I feel like I’m doing something special. That might be psychological again. I just feel like I’m doing 

something good for me. [Atlanta]

Another major component of the homey non-alienating atmosphere appears to be associated with 

a deeper and seemingly more naturalistic commitment to customer service by vendors and 

farmers.

Personalized Customer Service 

All vendors have a smile for you! ... They understand the value of customer service. [San Diego]

People [the farmers] are generous. They get what you’re looking for. [Atlanta]

I think they’ve got good customer service. They ask me if I need help. [Atlanta]

Family-Friendly Activities and Connection With Kinfolk 

Some respondents talked about the visit to the FM as an opportunity to have a family outing, 

especially with the children. They like to look at market items, even if they do not intend to buy 

them. In San Francisco, they referenced enjoyment of events: “There is music, dance, and 
4 Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 

 

82 FMCS Final Report 

contests for the children.” Respondents talked about other activities as well, such as arts and 

crafts for the children, free-of-charge bicycle repairs, and music and singers. One San Diego 

respondent shared a story about a contest on cooking “calabazitas” (small squash). She entered 

the contest, did not win, but enjoyed great pleasure by just being involved in the activity. 

Family-Friendly Activities 

That’s what I was going to say, there are usually some fun activities. I like to go shopping with my 

daughter.... Some of them are really fun for kids. [San Francisco]

Sometimes they have activities. They have Zumba classes, they dance and put on music. They are 

other activities; occasionally, they have parties for kids. They do contests, they give them things. Kids 

like to go. [San Diego]

Sometimes they have free screenings, like for diabetes. Even the blood bank bus is sometimes there. 

[San Diego]

A San Diego respondent described how FMs helped families connect with the culture back in the 

homeland. She said that the “vendors tell the children stories that sometimes [the parents] forget 

to teach them.” Respondents also talked about how the FM experience teaches their children 

about the “value of community, life and harmony.” Connecting with cultural heritage was a 

theme particularly prominent among the Hispanic attendees in San Diego, as illustrated in the 

following quote: “Kids learn. I come from Mexico, and where I grew up, people cultivated and 

helped each other. Then, I feel like I’m in family; it’s like remembering your childhood.... The 

kids see and ask questions to the farmers and they start learning another history that sometimes 

we forget to teach them.” [San Diego]

Respondents enjoy running into people they know and spending time with the vendors. They feel 

that being at the FM “takes you to back to your roots, your people” [San Diego]. One San Diego 

respondent said that she used to do farm work in her country of birth; people in her hometown 

have a culture of helping each other. The atmosphere at the FM reminds her of her hometown 

and makes her feel like she is with her family. Another San Diego respondent who was herself a 

farmworker said, “we feel like our ‘raza’ [i.e., our race, our people] we feel like we know them.” 

A Learning Experience and Positive Influence for Adults 

The FM can have a positive effect on respondents’ food choices and the awareness of the 

importance of including fruits and vegetables in their diet. As one San Diego respondent said, 

“you see so much vegetable, you remember that you have to eat and cook healthy.” Another 
FMCS Final Report 83 

 

Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 4 

respondent from San Diego explained how the FM helped her change her eating habits, “I would 

never have salads before.” “Sometimes there are people giving small notebooks with 

information on how you can cook without a lot of fat, healthy food.” [San Diego]

The sampling of food is both fun and has practical advantages. It introduces shoppers to new and 

healthy food options. This makes the FM a fun place to be; children and adults alike look 

forward to trying old-time favorites or new foods. Sampling also encourages comparative 

shopping. Importantly, parents see this as an opportunity to expand their cultural horizons by 

learning about the ethnic cuisine of other cultures (Chinese, Ethiopian, etc.). They get to try these 

foods and learn how to prepare them. 

Sampling Food Products 

Some [farmers] have like very good variety and food samples, like you get to sample different kinds of 

peaches from one grower. That’s interesting. You can find the one you really like. [San Francisco]

They cut watermelon and they give you samples of watermelon and other things. They also have other 

things that you say that’s rare and they explain it to you. [San Diego]

They always put samples so you can taste. That’s what I like because sometimes you see and say “that 

is good,” but when you try it you know that is really good. And you notice the flavor compared with 

those at the stores. [San Diego]

There is widespread agreement on what might be referred to as the general fun factor among 

those who have shopped at the FM, with one exception—that is, if the market is too crowded. “It 

is absolutely not fun when it’s super crowded. Again, it can be a complete drag if you’ve got 

children with you.” [San Francisco]

Price Considerations 

The perceived cost of items can serve as either as a benefit or a barrier to shopping at the FM 

among SNAP participants. Yet, as discussed in this section, price is not the primary factor 

driving the shopping decision for most respondents. Focus group attendees’ views varied 

considerably as to whether they believed fruits and vegetables were more or less expensive at 

FMs than at grocery stores and other shopping options. In general, nonfrequent shoppers tended 

to view the prices to be higher than at the local grocery store, but frequent shoppers said they 

perceived prices to be lower. This was especially true for respondents who lived in 

neighborhoods where their shopping alternatives were dominated by convenience stores. 
4 Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 

 

84 FMCS Final Report 

Perceived Price 

Some neighborhoods might not have a traditional grocery store. You might have this corner store that 

might be twice what you pay in a normal grocery store. Those are pushing into the neighborhoods, and 

the big grocery stores are going out of the neighborhoods. So it’s pricy for a lot of people. I pay twice 

for something. [Atlanta]

I find [Whole Foods] to be more expensive, and I also appreciate the interaction that I have at the 

Farmers Market. [San Francisco]

Alemany [Farmers] Market is toward the cheaper side. [San Francisco]

However, with respect to relative cost, the most common reply across both groups was that “it 

depends.” Some things cost more and some things cost less, and variations in price depend on the 

item and the vendor, on sales and promotions, and what is in season. Hence, respondents 

underscored the need to do comparison shopping. 

Variation in Price 

There are some places that do have higher prices, like some of the organic stuff will be higher than 

some of the regular stuff. But I find that the farmers markets that I visit usually the produce that I find 

is at a good price, for a dollar a bundle or maybe, two dollars a bundle. [San Francisco]

People automatically assume that the farmers grow it, so it’s going to be more, anyway. People 

assume things like that. [Atlanta] 

I try to vary different things or vegetables so my kids won’t get bored of the same fruits. Sometimes 

one fruit is more expensive than others and if it’s less expensive the following week, then I will get it. 

[San Diego]

Respondents in San Diego expressed concerns with price more explicitly, but even for these 

respondents, price alone was not the driving determinant of their shopping behavior. In all study 

locations, respondents referenced calculated budgeting and comparison shopping to maximize 

their benefits. For example, they may buy more vegetables one week because they are cheaper 

that week, but next week they will stock up on fruit. Other respondents described buying fruits 

and vegetables at the FM, nonperishables at a different market where prices are discounted, and 

meat at a different market where, as one San Diego respondent put it, she knows that “the meat is 

good.” 

Another aspect of shopping at the FMs that respondents said they liked was the opportunity to 

negotiate the price with the seller. Although the opportunity to negotiate price was mentioned as 

a benefit, not all respondents said they were aware that price negotiation was an option, or felt 

comfortable haggling with vendors if they did. Interestingly, none of the San Diego participants 

who were most concerned about price brought up price negotiations. 
FMCS Final Report 85 

 

Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 4 

Negotiating Price 

The thing is, you can haggle. If they have a price and you’re like, “Well, you know, I don’t know. It’s late 

in the day. Do you really want to bring this home?” They go down sometimes on the price. The best 

time to go is in the evening. [Atlanta]

I didn’t know you could do that. [Atlanta]

Respondents sometimes said that the rationale for item prices, either low or high, were more 

transparent at the FM since the produce was locally grown and the vagaries of the growing 

season were more known to area residents. This stood in contrast to prices at large grocery 

chains that import produce from far and wide. As one Atlanta respondent explained: 

Transparency of Farmers Market Prices 

With a farmers market, when you see price increases, for me personally, I’m able to understand 

because I know exactly why when their prices are raised. I would have already seen that it was a bad 

crop coming. ... The peach [price] this year was higher than normal, because there was too much rain 

and the peaches were coming out and getting mealy and what have you. You just know that ... crops 

didn’t come in, and that increases the price, whereas you don’t know if that’s just price gouging at [a 

local retailer] if they decide to make the price of produce sky high. With a farmers market you know 

why. It’s directly to what happened out there, on how the crop comes out. [Atlanta]

Others in the group echoed this perspective, with one participant adding, “I don’t resent giving 

[the farmers] more [money], even if it is more.” [Atlanta]

Price vs. Value 

The focus group respondents made an important distinction between unit price and overall value. 

In short, there was general consensus about the perceived value of the purchases. The prices at 

the markets were seen as reasonable because the quality of the product was perceived to be 

superior to what one typically finds at the local grocery store. The tendency for items purchased 

at FMs to last longer was often invoked as a critical factor with respect to value. In this regard, 

respondents differentiated between quality and quantity and commented on how it makes more 

financial sense to buy certain items at the FM than at the regular store, even when the unit price 

appears to be more expensive. 
4 Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 

 

86 FMCS Final Report 

Price vs. Value 

You’re getting your money’s worth versus, like I said, a grocery store. Even [large retailers], I’ve done a 

comparison. [San Francisco]

One would rather buy one good mango that will get eaten than three mangoes that will get thrown 

away because they have no flavor. [San Diego]

That’s why I’m driving so far, because it’s worth it, because it’s better quality and I want the best. 

[Atlanta]

When asked if she thought the prices were uniformly higher than at the grocery stores, this latter 

respondent stated, “I’m not saying that either.” She wanted to point out that one cannot make 

purchasing decisions based on price alone. Quality and value must be taken into consideration on 

a case-by-case basis. Other participants offered similar comments, such as:

Price and Value Determined on Case-by-Case Basis 

Some [items] are more expensive, but then you pay for what you get. [Atlanta]

I don’t cut corners on food ... quality, things like that. That’s something I would spend more on. 

[Atlanta]

Respondents in San Diego were especially adamant about their refusal to buy food that may be 

of lower quality just because it is there or it is cheap. As some respondents put it: 

Willingness to Pay More for Quality 

We are intelligent, even if they [the grocery store] are running a special on something, we can still see 

that the tomatoes are of poor quality and we go elsewhere. [San Diego]

As a [SNAP] recipient, I am of low income, I would shop at stores where prices are cheaper, but they 

sell you food of such a low quality, that the food is useless. [The FM] is 1000 times better option to go 

to. In these stores you end up spending money that does not buy you quality food. [San Diego]

In this way, frequent FM shoppers appeared to be rather sophisticated in their assessment that 

lower prices do not always equal higher value. Respondents clearly placed a financial and 

practical value on the freshness and quality of fruits and vegetables. One such comment was 

made by a respondent in San Diego, who described trying to educate a cousin who does not shop 

at FMs because of her impression that “everything is more expensive there.” The respondent 

argued that while the unit prices may be somewhat higher, the quality is better, and one saves 

money in the long run because the produce lasts longer. In this regard, several respondents 

referenced family and acquaintances who choose not to shop at FMs due to their presumably 

naive belief that “everything is more expensive” at the FM. 

 
FMCS Final Report 87 

 

Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 4 

Incentives 

Financial incentives were not a top reason that emerged as to why a respondent shops at the FM. 

Only rarely did respondents spontaneously mention a SNAP-based incentive program (SBIP). In 

San Diego this happened only once, when a respondent mentioned “a program through Food 

Stamps” that she used at the target FM. However, she did not remember the name of the program 

nor use the program recently, since she was not sure if it was still running. How focus group 

attendees felt about financial incentive programs is discussed in Chapter 5. 

Acceptance of WIC and SNAP Benefits 

WIC benefits were occasionally mentioned by attendees in relation to FMs, although this 

predominately occurred in San Diego, where most of the respondents in both groups reported 

that they are, or used to be, WIC clients. Although standard WIC benefits themselves cannot be 

used at FMs, WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) and Cash Value Vouchers can be. 

Hence, many FM shoppers reported that it was through participation in WIC that they were 

introduced to the FM. Referring to her WIC FMNP benefits, a respondent talked about receiving 

$20 each year in May, in addition to her WIC benefits, which was meant to be spent at a FM. To 

this, another respondent added that when her WIC benefits were adjusted, the WIC office made 

her aware of other benefits (i.e., a SBIP) that could be used at the FM. These comments about 

WIC were met by a general nodding of heads, demonstrating a common experience. 

Connection Between WIC and Farmers Markets 

[I learned about the farmers market] through the WIC Program. They encourage us to go more often to 

get fruits and vegetables that are fresh and organic. [San Diego]

I started going to the [farmers market] because of WIC. WIC gave me coupons worth $20 in addition to 

the milk gallons. WIC gave me that check every year in May, and that’s how I knew. [San Diego]

Respondents did not specifically state that they go to the FM because it accepts SNAP benefits, 

except for one San Diego respondent who takes a long bus ride to the target FM because the 

market closest to her home does not accept EBT cards. Throughout the discussion, it was not 

uncommon for respondents to express a wish that more FMs accepted EBT cards. 
4 Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 

 

88 FMCS Final Report 

Even though most of the San Diego focus group attendees who were nonshoppers (14/16) had 

not shopped at FMs, they expressed positive views about the benefits of buying at FMs. They 

mentioned benefits such as supporting local farmers, the local economy, and the community; 

access to a good learning environment for children; and the high quality of fruits and vegetables. 

4.3 Reasons for Not Shopping at Farmers Markets 

This section focuses on reasons some SNAP participants do not shop at FMs. Nearly 32 percent 

of the survey respondents indicated they did not shop at a FM. Table 4-6 presents a summary of 

their reasons. The seven most commonly reported reasons were related to convenience and 

prices, with an overwhelming majority (73%) citing the convenience of shopping for all 

groceries at one store. Though not most commonly reported, the type and quality of fruits and 

vegetables were reported as reasons for not shopping at a FM (10% and 8%, respectively). 

Parking and safety at the FM were reported as reasons, though at lower frequency (10% and 6%, 

respectively). One-fifth reported that they did not shop at FMs for some other reason. 

Table 4-6. Reasons Reported for Not Shopping at Farmers Markets Among Nonshoppers 

Reasons Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) 

Unweighted N 

It is easier to buy all my groceries at one store 73.1 (1.7) 1,039

It is not easy to get to 42.1 (1.9) 524

The prices are too high 33.1 (2.2) 412

It is hard to find deals or get a good value for my money 26.5 (2.5) 314

It is not open on days that are convenient to me 26.0 (1.0) 413

It is not open at times that are convenient to me 24.8 (1.2) 412

It is not close to public transportation 12.3 (1.2) 129

There aren’t enough kinds of fresh fruits and vegetables 

available 10.1 (0.7) 165

It is hard to park nearby 9.6 (0.7) 157

The fresh fruits and vegetables look like they are in bad 

condition 8.2 (1.2) 134

The staff and sellers don’t speak my language 7.5 (0.9) 80

It’s not in a safe area 6.0 (0.8) 76

Some other reason 21.7 (1.3) 321

Note: There were 1,499 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded from the denominator for 

calculating percentages.

Data Source: Shopping for Fruits and Vegetable Survey, Questions D1 through D3. 
FMCS Final Report 89 

 

Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 4 

4.3.1 Reasons for Not Shopping at Farmers Markets Among Focus Group 

Attendees 

The focus groups also collected data from frequent and nonfrequent shoppers on the factors that 

may inhibit them from shopping at FMs. The most commonly mentioned factors included 

inconvenience, a preference for one-stop shopping, and unawareness that their EBT card was 

accepted at their local FM. 

Inconvenience 

Respondents identified several dimensions of inconvenience. These included difficulty 

associated with getting to the FM due to its physical location or lack of accessibility. 

Respondents also referred to inconvenient days and times when the market was open for business 

as barriers to shopping there more often. 

Accessibility to the Farmers Market 

The physical location of the market was of greatest concern to the Atlanta groups. The Atlanta 

participants often indicated that most of the markets with which they are familiar, including the 

target market, are located on the “outskirts of the city.” There was a consensus that the locations, 

combined with the limited hours, were a major challenge. The San Diego respondents 

occasionally mentioned distance to the target market.

Inconvenient Location 

Look at the locations they’re at, I know there’s not one near me, and it sounds like at this table, there 

is not one near no one. So, low-income families again, gas, that’s gas money, you’ve got to factor in 

everything. By the time you get done, you’ve spent cash. [Atlanta]

For me it depends on where it is. I’m way out in McDonough. I think everybody here is out here 

somewhere. I certainly would not drive an hour and a half just to go buy fruits and vegetables. [Atlanta]

It [the target market] is too far from my house. I go to buy fruits at the farmers market that is closer to 

my house. [San Diego]

It is important to note that none of the frequent shoppers in Atlanta claimed to shop at their target 

FM because it is conveniently located to them. Instead, most reported that they pass other places 

to shop to get there (see Section 4-2 above for discussion of the geographic information systems 
4 Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 

 

90 FMCS Final Report 

[GIS] data about nearby food retailers). These respondents shop at the FM despite the fact that it 

is not the most convenient. For them, there is value that trumps inconvenience, as this respondent 

stated. “I’d rather just go the extra 15 minutes, spend the extra 30 minutes getting there, and buy 

something that once I take it home, the next day it isn’t wilted all to you know what and it looks 

terrible when you go to traditional supermarkets or some of those mom and pop stores.” 

[Atlanta]

Most San Diego and San Francisco frequent shoppers said that location or access to the FM was 

not a major issue. This was because most of the respondents live within walking distance or have 

access to a bus that takes them “within a block of the farmers market.” For example, in San 

Francisco, only a couple of the respondents indicated that complications related to “getting 

there” prevented them from going more often. Another explicitly claimed that she would shop at 

the target FM more often if it were more conveniently located. Most others indicated that 

location or difficulty due to distance or transportation was a minor inconvenience. Interestingly, 

in all three study sites, at least a couple of the respondents indicated that they shop at the target 

FM only when they are in the neighborhood for something else (e.g., visiting a friend). Some 

shoppers combine their FM shopping with other errands, suggesting that location may present a 

challenge to shopping more often at the market. 

Inconvenient Days or Hours of Operation 

The second dimension of inconvenience was inconvenient days or hours of operation. At least 

several respondents in each study site critically commented that their target market was open for 

limited hours on inconvenient days. Even the frequent shoppers sometimes expressed displeasure 

that their FMs were not open more regularly. Indeed, a majority of the frequent shoppers in 

Atlanta agreed that their target market was not open at the most convenient times or days 

(Thursday), and hence shopped at other markets. Most expressed a preference for weekends. 

However, in San Francisco, where the target market was open on Saturdays, respondents 

commented that Saturdays were often hectic with family or other obligations, so a weekday 

would be preferable. Participants in Atlanta were the most outspoken in this regard, especially 

with respect to the limited hours. Respondents noted that many of the Atlanta markets are open 

only one day a week and not always at convenient times. The target market, for example, is only 

open from 4-8p.m. on Thursdays. 
FMCS Final Report 91 

 

Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 4 

Inconvenient Hours or Days of Operation 

I think more people would do it if it were more convenient. They’re only open certain times on certain 

days for a certain number of hours. It’s convenient for them, because they probably all work daytime 

jobs and that’s just a side thing for them. [Atlanta]

I went one time and it wasn’t open, that was maddening. [Atlanta]

Better hours. I mean come on, one day a week? Please. And four to eight? Have you been in traffic in 

this town at five to eight? [Atlanta]

Most San Diego respondents said that the day that their target FM was open (Saturday) was 

relatively convenient for them, with a few exceptions. For example, a couple of the respondents 

stated that “Saturday is a time to spend with the family and friends. One would rather go to the 

beach instead of going to the market.” Another agreed and added, “it is the only time one has to 

sleep in a little bit.” 

However, none of the frequent shoppers stated that inconvenient days or times prevented them 

from shopping at the FM, but rather spoke of this as a minor inconvenience. Bad weather is the 

only factor that prevents them from shopping, either because the market remains closed or 

because people who walk or feel uncomfortable driving in the rain are discouraged from going to 

the FM. One respondent in San Diego commented, “they [the FM] do not open on rainy days, 

and it is an inconvenience because one has planned the menu, has a list of things that one needs 

to get for the week, and the place is closed.” 

Preference for One-Stop Shopping 

Despite the variety offered by FMs, and the fact that some of the largest FMs also offer meats, 

poultry, and spices, most FMs concentrate on selling fruits and vegetables. Therefore, FMs 

generally do not offer the convenience of completing one’s shopping in one location. Frequent 

shoppers in Atlanta understood this sentiment and tended to agree that one-stop shopping was 

easier. One respondent stated that they would do more shopping at the FM if the selection was 

broad enough to enable one-stop shopping. Many in San Francisco also appreciated the 

sentiment that it is easier to do one-stop shopping. For example, one respondent stated: “I think 

that it makes sense that people would say that, because these days people are so busy working, 

and taking care of kids. There’s usually no stay-at-home person in the house, so time is always a 

factor in a lot of people’s families. It doesn’t surprise me that that’s one of the main reasons.” 

[San Francisco]
4 Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 

 

92 FMCS Final Report 

At least two other respondents reported that one-stop shopping was their normal shopping 

behavior. Yet few frequent shoppers seemed to think that not being able to do one-stop shopping 

was a strong discouragement to FM shopping. A couple of San Francisco respondents said they 

could see that one-stop shopping is more convenient; one indicated that making special trips to 

the FM is usually worth it, but added: “There are times when I’m just too busy. I will skip going 

on a weekend occasionally, because I have to be somewhere else. Because the farmers market I 

plan a certain time or else if I have too much work that weekend.” [San Francisco] 

San Diego respondents unanimously stated that “no,” they do not shop for all their groceries at 

one store. They feel that “people [who] buy all their groceries in the same store ... do not have 

time to shop around and do not care about the prices.” For these respondents, comparison 

shopping for the best product is a priority. They look for the “specials” at grocery stores, but 

before they buy anything, they make sure it is of “good quality.” They will not buy food just 

because it is there or is cheap, and are aware that stores offer just one special to get the customer 

into the door, but the cost of other items remains pricey. However, one respondent did bring up 

the fact that sometimes “one has to do all the grocery shopping at one store, if one is there to get 

the milk and other essentials and one needs vegetables and the FM is not open, such as in the 

middle of the week.” To this comment another San Diego respondent added, “sometimes I have 

to buy fruit that is not organic so that I can bring more food to my house.” The overall theme 

appears to be that striking the right balance between quality and quantity requires shopping at a 

variety of locations. 

Lack of Marketing that EBT Cards are Accepted at Farmers Markets 

As discussed above, nonfrequent shoppers often said they were unaware that EBT cards were 

accepted at FMs and this discourages SNAP participants to shop there. Several respondents 

attributed this unawareness to the perception that the FMs do not adequately advertise that they 

accept SNAP benefits. Indeed, several frequent shoppers expressed the same unawareness, as the 

following exchange and quotes illustrate:
FMCS Final Report 93 

 

Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 4 

Unaware that EBT is Accepted 

Man 2: Some folks don’t know that markets accept EBT.

Woman 4: That’s a very good point.

Man 3: That’s not widely known.

Woman 4: I think that more people, if they expressed that they do accept it, more people would go. 

[Atlanta] 

I knew about the WIC vouchers, but [didn’t know] about the EBT card. With the WIC voucher, if you 

spent $20 they give $40, but didn’t know about the EBT card. [San Diego]

I thought [farmers markets] didn’t take [EBT cards]. That’s why I have never tried to buy because I 

thought it was with cash. [San Diego]

They did not put a sign. A lot of people don’t know. [San Diego]

If they would advertise more ... I didn’t think they accepted EBT ... that’s a novelty. [San Diego]

The lack of marketing and advertising with respect to accepting EBT cards was a common 

concern raised by focus group attendees. They indicated that this sometimes discouraged them 

from shopping at a FM (or at the most convenient FM), and were quite sure that this had a 

similar effect on other SNAP participants. Only a few respondents reported seeing a sign stating 

“EBT card accepted here” as they have seen in other stores.

Need for Signage and Advertising 

I would not have thought that many people had [favorable views] about the farmers markets. ... A lot of 

people don’t know how to read, so the information is word of mouth ... since they [farmers markets] 

don’t advertise, it’s not very common people know. [San Diego]

It would be ideal that they make flyers with information and the events they have every week.

[San Diego]

They should put a sign outside that says we accept EBT. [San Diego]

Reasons for Not Shopping at Farmers Markets Among Nonshoppers 

As mentioned previously, the focus groups were comprised predominately of those who 

shopped, at least in-frequently, at FMs. Respondents may not have shopped at the target market, 

but they commonly had shopped at one or more FMs in their community. However, a small 

number of respondents had never been to a FM at all (nonshoppers). When the focus group 

moderators probed these individuals, far and away the most common reason revolved around 

convenience, specifically location, transportation, or other difficulties in getting there.
4 Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 

 

94 FMCS Final Report 

Inconvenience Is a Barrier 

I think it’s probably a little bit inaccessible to a large percentage of people. Just getting there, the 

transit, that can be kind of a barrier. [San Francisco]

I never shop at a farmers market just because it’s not convenient for me. [San Francisco]

Among the nonfrequent shoppers, a few self-identified themselves as not having returned to a 

FM for an extended period. These individuals were asked why they did not return. These 

respondents tended to refer to a negative aspect of the experience. In contrast to the positive 

attribution most respondents placed on the social experience, a few respondents reported that 

they found the FM to be too crowded, too high energy, or a place with “too much commotion.” 

Poor customer service was rarely mentioned, but two nonfrequent shoppers in San Francisco did 

mention that it caused them to not return. Their comments reflected a sense that SNAP 

participants do not receive the same attention from vendors or staff. To explore this possibility, 

all respondents were asked if they ever felt unwelcome at the FM because of their status as 

SNAP participants or their EBT card use. In San Diego, no respondents reported anything about 

feeling unwelcome or out of place. Indeed, as described previously, they often commented on the 

social bond they felt with farmers and those working at the market. 

In the other study sites, the general consensus was that it was rare to experience a sense of 

feeling unwelcome or being treated inequitably, and for those who were veteran shoppers, this 

occurred perceptibly less frequently than in the past. For example, in one Atlanta frequent 

shoppers group, virtually all agreed with the man who stated: “That used to happen, but that’s 

not anymore. Now, they are welcoming you with open arms.” Others commented on the 

changing demographics of SNAP participants, and virtually all agreed that the move from paper 

Food Stamps to the EBT card had a very positive effect. 

Sense of Feeling Unwelcome 

It used to be a stigma, but with this recession you have white people that are getting SNAP benefits, 

families, white families, black, Asian, whatever, Slavic.. It’s just not a stigma. I think that in this 

economy we’re all in it together, and retailers realize that. [Atlanta]

There were retailers that used to decline being able to accept SNAP benefits when the government 

gave them the application to receive SNAP customers. That’s gone away now because not only is it bad 

business because it’s saying no to money, but the stigma is gone. Everyone is feeling the pinch so to 

speak. [Atlanta]

I think that it’s changed a lot. I was just having this conversation with somebody the other day, about 

how different it is now that you have the EBT card. When you’re standing in line it looks like you’re just 

using your ATM. Remember how it used to be so different, where you’d have the coupons. [San 

Francisco]
FMCS Final Report 95 

 

Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 4 

Some San Francisco respondents admitted to a residual sense of shame associated with using the 

EBT card, although most reported that the card is better than the old paper Food Stamps. Others 

stated that most FM cashiers “have been cool about it” and suspected that most of the cashiers 

themselves are probably on SNAP. Still, as one mother explained, “my daughter doesn’t want 

everybody knowing.” 

Among the few who expressed concerns related to shame or self-consciousness about using the 

EBT card at FMs, it was interesting to hear respondents indicate that these feelings emanated not 

only from the vendors but also fellow customers. In fact, some feel the sense of shame is greater 

among fellow shoppers, since the vendors are just doing their job. Again, this was never raised as 

an issue among the San Diego respondents. 

Sense of Shame When Using EBT Cards 

The vendors are just there to do their job. It’s the people around. They might look at it different. The 

vendors don’t say nothing. But the people are nosey and they want to see what you’re doing or see if 

you’ve got cash or if you’re using a credit card or anything. I think it’s just better with the vendors. [San 

Francisco]

I think to the vendor, cash is cash. They don’t care how they get it just as long as they get it. [San 

Francisco]

[Others agree, and one woman comments on the double-edged sword of EBT use in public:] I’m 

opposed to somebody behind me who’s possibly judging me like, “Oh, OK, so you’re on Food Stamps or 

you’ve got the EBT card. But you don’t look like you’re poor or you don’t fit my perceived demographic 

that’s someone who’s on Food Stamps.” On the other hand, if you do fit that stereotype of Food 

Stamps they’re like, “There you go.” [San Francisco]

Finally, a couple of the respondents in Atlanta went on to observe that in general, vendors at 

FMs tend to prefer cash. Although this preference probably applies to all socio-economic strata 

of shoppers, it may be perceived differentially among those using their EBT card. “But they are 

more grateful for cash. I pay them with cash for some stuff, and they are more grateful for cash, 

trust me. I get the better handshake, the better smile, the better eye contact, because that’s 

completely cash.” [Atlanta]
4 Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 

 

96 FMCS Final Report 

4.4 Proximity of Farmers Markets and Other Retailers to SNAP 

Participant’s Residence 

To supplement the survey and focus group results, we evaluated the distance from each of the 

survey participant’s residence location to their local FM, as well as the distance from the 

residence to other food retailers. Table 4-7 presents the average distance among shoppers and 

nonshoppers. There do not appear to be differences between these two groups. Most of the 

participants live more than 2 miles from the FM (78% for shoppers and 77% for nonshoppers). 

There are slightly more shoppers within 1 mile of the FM, and slightly more nonshoppers 

between 1 and 2 miles. Overall, the distance to the market does not seem to be a significant 

predictor of shopper status. 

Table 4-7. Distance Between the SNAP Participant and the FM by Farmers Market Shoppers 

and Nonshoppers

Distance Between the SNAP 

Participant and the FM 

FM Shoppers FM Nonshoppers 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) 

Unweighted 

N 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) 

Unweighted 

N 

Less than 1 mile 10.1 (2.1) 710 8.9 (1.1) 181

1 to 2 miles 12.1 (1.2) 508 14.9 (1.7) 220

2 to 5 miles 29.6 (2.7) 859 31.5 (2.4) 454

More than 5 miles 48.2 (3.9) 1,170 44.6 (3.1) 644

Data Source: GIS analysis of Shopping for Fruits and Vegetable Survey respondent addresses.

Focus group comments about distance to the FM were made more frequently in terms of the time 

it took to get there. Frequent shoppers tended to say that it took 30 minutes or less to get there. 

Respondents gave the impression that a conveniently located market was 30 minutes or less 

away from their house. If it took longer than that, they would shop there less frequently or only 

go for specialty items, or when they were in the vicinity while on another errand. 

Table 4-8 presents the average number of food retailers within 2 miles of the survey participant’s 

residence location. For both shoppers and nonshoppers, there are many other food retailers 

nearby, including multiple supermarkets and an abundance of convenience stores and other 

grocery stores. The results show that, in general, nonshoppers have more food options within 2 

miles of their home than do shoppers. 
FMCS Final Report 97 

 

Benefits and Barriers to Shopping at Farmers Markets 4 

Table 4-8. Average Number of Other Food Retailers Within a Two-Mile Radius of a SNAP 

Participant by Farmers Market Shoppers and Nonshoppers

Average Number of Food Retailers 

Within a 2-Mile Radius of a SNAP 

Participant FM Shoppers (Std. Error) FM Nonshoppers (Std. Error) 

Supermarket 4.1 (0.4) 4.9 (0.5)

Other grocery 19.1 (3.1) 21.9 (3.8)

Convenience store 14.1 (1.5) 16.9 (2.3)

Data Source: GIS analysis of Shopping for Fruits and Vegetable Survey respondent addresses and NAVTEQ retail store data.
 

98 FMCS Final Report 

This page is intentionally blank. 
FMCS Final Report 99 

 

This chapter examines the impact of financial and nonfinancial incentives on the shopping 

patterns of supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) participants. First, SNAP 

participants’ awareness of incentives for shopping at farmers markets (FMs) is presented. Next, 

the impact of this knowledge on their shopping behaviors is reviewed. Finally, the potential 

impact of incentives (and other offerings) among nonshoppers on their future shopping behaviors 

are examined. 

In general, incentives provide SNAP participants with an inducement to shop at FMs, try a new 

product, and/or change their shopping behavior. Earlier studies on incentives suggest that a 

repetitive action-reward combination can cause an action such as FM shopping to become a 

habit.47 Incentives at FMs can be financial (increasing purchasing power by providing additional 

funds for use only at FMs) or nonfinancial (providing health and nutrition information, or free 

entertainment and cultural activities). 

A nationwide cluster evaluation study commissioned by four nonprofit organizations48

concluded that programs designed to incentivize the use of SNAP benefits at FMs significantly 

boost purchases and consumption of fruits and vegetables in underserved communities.49 From 

the farmers’ point of view, such incentives offer the potential for access to new customers, 

increased customer loyalty, and the ability to provide value to the community. Indeed, a recent 

evaluation of incentives at FMs in Michigan found that financial incentives brought to the market 

a more diversified customer base, including younger families and lower-income individuals.50

Similarly, from a customers’ point of view, incentives can increase purchasing power, create a 

sense of community participation, and promote closer relationships with producers. 

 

47 Charness G. and Gneezy U. (2009). Incentives to Exercise. Econometrica, 77(3):909-931. Becker G.S., Murphy 

K.M. 1988. A Theory of Rational Addiction. Journal of Political Economy. V. 96:4;675-700.

48 Fair Food Network, Market Umbrella, Roots of Change, and Wholesome Wave.

49 Community Science. (2013). SNAP Healthy Food Incentives Cluster Evaluation. Gaithersburg, MD.

50 Fair Food Network. (2012). Double Up Food Bucks 2012 Evaluation Report. Ann Arbor, MI.

5 Role of Incentives 5 
5 Role of Incentives 

 

100 FMCS Final Report 

This study provided a unique opportunity to further examine the role of incentives on shoppers’ 

behaviors. The key findings in this chapter include the following: 

 There is a strong association between shopping status and awareness of incentives at 

FMs. Specifically, shoppers at a specific market are very much aware of the 

incentives, while nonshoppers are overwhelmingly unaware of financial incentives at 

FMs.

 Among shoppers at a specific market, financial incentives are very important for 

getting them to shop at the FM, and they shop more at FMs because of these 

incentives. 

 Although they shop more at FMs because of incentives, only half of shoppers 

reported that they use their electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards more because of 

the same incentives.

 Among shoppers at a specific market, the incentives to shop at FMs result in their 

household eating more fresh fruits and vegetables. 

 Among nonshoppers, it seems that providing financial incentives or promoting 

awareness of financial incentives would increase their likelihood of shopping at 

FMs. 

 Among nonshoppers, the availability of nutrition information at the FM is the 

nonfinancial incentive most likely to encourage them to shop at FMs. 

5.1 Incentives at Farmers Markets 

In the client survey, shoppers were asked about incentives for using their EBT card at their 

specific (local) FM (see Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1). Nearly 77 percent of shoppers reported that 

their local FM offers incentives of some type in the form of deals, coupons, or other promotions 

to use their EBT card. 51

Among shoppers who reported that their market offers incentives, 60 percent indicated that these 

incentives were “very important” in getting them to shop at the FM. Along the same lines, nearly 

57 percent of shoppers who were aware of incentives reported that they did more shopping at 

FMs because of the incentives. However, nearly 20 percent reported that these incentives were 

not important in getting them to shop at the FM, and another 20 percent reported it was only “a 

little important.” 

 

51 The official status of incentives at these FMs at the time of survey completion was not verified. 
FMCS Final Report 101 

 

Role on Incentives 5 

Table 5-1. Knowledge of Incentives at the Farmers Market Among Shoppers at Specific 

Markets

Incentive Knowledge 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Farmers market offers incentives 

(e.g., deals, coupons, promotions) to use SNAP/EBT card 76.9 (3.3) 1,135

Importance of incentives for shopping at farmers market?

Very important 60.1 (3.2) 744

A little important 20.1 (2.7) 217

Not very important 9.0 (2.0) 97

Not important at all 10.8 (1.5) 46

Note: There were 2,381 survey respondents who received this question. There are 629 missing observations for knowledge of incentive 

out of 2,381 shoppers at a specific market. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for calculating percentages.

Data Source: Shopping for Fruits and Vegetable Survey, Questions C75 and C77. 

Figure 5-1. Importance of Incentives at the Farmers Market Among Shoppers at 

Specific Markets 

Note: There were 2,381 1,104 survey respondents who received this question. 

Survey respondents who reported that their FM offered incentives were asked if the incentives 

encouraged them to use more of their SNAP benefits and/or eat more fruits and vegetables. As 

demonstrated in Table 5-2, slightly more than 50 percent indicated that the incentives did not 

influence their use of SNAP benefits at the FM. However, 58 percent reported that their 

household ate more fresh fruits and vegetables than if they did not get deals for using SNAP 

benefits at their local FM. 

60%

80%

89% Percent of FM shoppers who said incentives were "not important at all" 

in their decision to shop at the market (n=46) 

Percent of FM shoppers who said incentives were "not very important" 

in their decision to shop at the market (n=97) 

Percent of FM shoppers who said incentives were a "little important" 

reason for visiting the market (n=217) 

Percent of FM shoppers who said incentives were one of the "very important" 

reasons for visiting the market (n=744) 

100%
5 Role of Incentives 

 

102 FMCS Final Report 

Table 5-2. Impact of Incentives at Specific Farmers Markets Among Shoppers at Specific 

Markets That Offer Incentives 

Impact of Incentive 

Yes No 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) 

Unweighted 

N 

Weighted 

Percent 

(Std. Error) 

Unweighted 

N 

I shop more at farmers markets 

because of the incentives. 56.6 (2.5) 673 43.4 (2.5) 418

I use more of my SNAP/EBT benefits at 

farmers markets because of the 

incentives. 46.7 (4.6) 676 53.3 (4.6) 410

We eat more fresh fruits and vegetables 

because of the incentives at farmers 

markets. 58.0 (4.3) 731 42.0 (4.3) 358

Note: There were 1,135 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages. Numbers of missing observations excluded in the denominator for calculating percentages are 44, 49, 46 in 

the order of statements listed in the table.

Data Source: Shopping for Fruits and Vegetable Survey, Questions C78 through C80.

Unlike the client surveys, which asked about awareness of incentives in general, the focus group 

attendees were asked about their awareness of a specific financial incentive program available to 

SNAP participants at their target market.52 Focus group attendees who self-identified as frequent 

shoppers expressed greater awareness of their local incentive program. When interpreting these 

findings in relationship to the survey findings, there are two important caveats. First, focus group 

attendees were asked about a specific incentive program, and second, many focus group 

attendees patronized FMs in their communities other than and/or in addition to the target FM. It 

is unknown if these markets offered incentive programs. 

Awareness also varied considerably by focus group city. San Francisco attendees expressed the 

broadest level of awareness of the Bonus Bucks incentive program. Among the frequent 

shoppers, all but two were aware of the incentive program, and almost all of them participated in 

it at the target FM. In addition, most also took advantage of the Bonus Bucks program that was 

offered at another FM. At least one attendee spontaneously referenced the program early in the 

session while discussing location and transportation barriers in response to the question about 

where they tend to shop: “Like CalFresh EBT, they’ll give out the coupons for promotions, and I 

always thought that sounded so great. Then actually making it there just never happened. That 

 

52 For each study site, the moderator’s guide was customized to reference the local incentive program that was 

currently in operation at the target market, namely Bonus Bucks in San Francisco, Double Your Dollars in Atlanta, 

and Fresh Fund in San Diego.
FMCS Final Report 103 

 

Role on Incentives 5 

seemed like an incentive, but I think it’s probably a little bit inaccessible to a large percentage of 

people. Just getting there, the transit, that can be kind of a barrier.” [San Francisco]

Among nonfrequent shoppers in San Francisco, the picture was quite different. Less than half (8 

out of 19) were aware of the Bonus Bucks incentive program. 

Awareness of the Double Your Dollars incentive program in Atlanta was quite limited, with only 

seven of the total 39 Atlanta participants indicating they had heard about the program. Six of 

these seven attendees were frequent shoppers, but further probing revealed that not all seven had 

actually taken advantage of the incentive program. 

In San Diego, awareness of the Fresh Fund incentive program was ascertained in the two 

nonfrequent shopper groups. In one group, none of the attendees were aware of the Fresh Fund 

incentive program. In the other, less than half of the attendees (three out of seven) expressed 

awareness of the Fresh Fund program being offered at their target FM. Of these three, two 

attendees had used it in prior seasons but thought the program was no longer in effect. One 

respondent reported not using it at all. In fact, the Fresh Fund program had been scaled back, 

cutting enrollment by nearly 75 percent in the summer months preceding the focus groups.53 

The focus groups also explored how attendees became aware of their respective incentive 

program. Responses varied widely, although the most common mechanism was by word of 

mouth, typically from friends but sometimes from social workers. Word of mouth also included 

an instance involving an Atlanta participant, who observed a fellow shopper ahead of him using 

a voucher and used this as an opportunity to ask and learn about it. Similarly, a San Francisco 

participant was informed by a vendor when she was using her EBT card to make a purchase. 

Interestingly, an Atlanta participant stated that “It’s not something that the vendors will readily 

tell you.” Another added, “No one’s ever told me.” Comments such as these may help shed light 

on the lower level of awareness observed in Atlanta. 

Other mechanisms included advertising, signs at the EBT office, direct mailers, pamphlets from 

the market itself, and stories about the program in the media. A large proportion of Atlanta 

 

53 This resulted in noticeable uncertainty among these respondents as to the details of how Fresh Fund works or if it 

works at all. Another respondent talked about an incentive program that was offered for two years. She did not 

remember its name, but described it as a dollar-for-dollar match up to $40 in which they would receive wooden 

tokens that worked as currency. She might have been referencing the Fresh Fund, though that program matched up 

to $20 a month. The special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC) Program was 

a more frequently referenced financial incentive program mentioned in San Diego.
5 Role of Incentives 

 

104 FMCS Final Report 

attendees and some in San Francisco learned about their local program from a television news 

story. One of the most knowledgeable individuals in Atlanta had seen a news story about Double 

Your Dollars on a local television station and had followed up by going online for more 

information. 

Awareness Through Media 

I knew to already get the tokens, because I watched the news and they were ringing up the tokens. At 

first I thought it was at this one particular farmers market. When I went there they said, “No, we have 

these tokens for here. You [can] go there to get them. [San Francisco]

A couple years ago I remember hearing on the news that’s what they do with most Food Stamp cards. 

They give the tokens out at most of the Farmers Market. [San Francisco]

There was considerable disagreement regarding how well the programs were advertised, with 

slightly more commenting that they had never seen any signs advertising the incentive. In San 

Francisco, however, many individuals reported learning about the incentive program through 

advertising, often on public buses but also through mailers. These individuals also claimed to 

have seen “signs everywhere.” Others reported seeing signs about the incentive program at the 

SNAP office (known as CalFresh in California) when they initially signed up for benefits. 

Awareness Through SNAP Office 

My social worker gave them to me when I first signed up, and then there are signs up at the CalFresh 

location where you go if you have to go in. [San Francisco]

Same thing. When I signed up, I saw the posters all over on the wall. [San Francisco]

These statements were countered by individuals who claimed to have never seen any public 

advertisement. Of particular concern was the lack of signage at the FM itself. Disagreement 

about signage was greatest in San Francisco, with many saying they never saw signs and others 

saying they had. This discrepancy may be explained by the fact that the signs that were up appear 

to have been removed, perhaps to downplay participation in Bonus Bucks. Moreover, shoppers 

were frustrated that their FM often lacked an obvious centralized location where one can go for 

information. 
FMCS Final Report 105 

 

Role on Incentives 5 

Inadequate Signage at the Farmers Market 

It [the sign] has been at the info booth at the entrance and they will have matching, but eventually they 

took it down, so you have to actually ask questions. [San Francisco]

I don’t even know where the information is. And if there was an information booth, I don’t necessarily 

know. I probably have passed it because it says information or something on it. But I’ve never seen 

“Here’s EBT” and “Here’s the incentive program” or that sort of thing. [San Francisco]

Focus group attendees were asked how important financial incentive programs were in their 

decision to purchase fruits and vegetables from their respective FMs. Responses to this question 

were mixed. As in the survey, there was a general consensus that the incentives were important, 

and in many cases very important, yet many frequent shoppers said that they will continue to 

shop at their FM with or without the incentive. As reported in an earlier study,54 it may be that 

once a person forms the habit of shopping at FMs, the value of the incentive becomes less 

critical. On the other hand, as discussed in the following section, nonfrequent shoppers appeared 

to be much more interested in shopping at FMs after becoming aware of the incentive. 

Among frequent shoppers in San Francisco, where the cost of living may be especially high, the 

general consensus was that the financial incentive was very important, as the following quotes 

illustrate: 

Importance of the Financial Incentive 

It’s decisive for me because I tend to spend a lot of money when it comes to farmers market. I buy and 

overbuy. But when I had that little benefit, I had to really be careful with my money. I’ve got some extra 

money, I’m going to spend it wise, but somehow it’s an incentive to spend carefully. [San Francisco]

It’s very important because it extended my budget for the food, because I always buy vegetables and 

fruits. I want my money to be worth it. I really extend my budget on that one. [San Francisco]

Especially when you’re depending on that EBT card to survive with the kids. You have to limit 

everything. I shop by the week every Saturday. [San Francisco]

Others concurred, stating that “it is very important,” “it helps, definitely,” and that it increases

their motivation to shop at FMs versus other venues. However, alternative opinions were voiced. 

At least two frequent shoppers candidly stated that the incentive is not important to them and that 

they would shop at the market anyway because of the other benefits of shopping there. Both 

admitted, however, that the incentive helps. Nonfrequent shoppers who were aware of the 

incentive tended to claim that the incentives had a marginal effect that had to be tempered by 

other considerations, namely convenience: “For me it’s an incentive, but it’s not a huge one, 

 

54 Charness G. and Gneezy U. 2009. Incentives to Exercise. Econometrica, 77(3):909-931.
5 Role of Incentives 

 

106 FMCS Final Report 

because it takes time to go there and to walk around. It ends up being a half-day thing. On my 

weekends I like to have quality time with my child and do fun activities. It can be fun to go to the 

farmers market. But I like to keep my shopping time shorter than it would take me to drive there, 

and spend the day there, and drive home. It’s an incentive to save money, but it’s not a huge 

incentive because of the time.” [San Francisco] 

The frequent Atlanta shoppers who used the incentive described it as “pretty important.” Among 

those who learned about the incentive during the focus group, there was an increased interest in 

shopping at the target market more often in the future. Still, most indicated a willingness to shop 

there without the incentive, citing the many nonfinancial incentives discussed in Section 5-2. As 

the discussion in the next section reveals, the nonfrequent shopper group appeared to be 

especially interested in shopping at the FM more often after learning about the incentive 

program. 

Knowledge about the Fresh Fund program in San Diego was comparatively limited among the 

nonfrequent shoppers, and clarity about how the program worked or if it even was still available 

was compromised by the recent contraction of the Fresh Fund program. When the question 

concerning the importance of having access to the incentive was posed in San Diego, it generated 

an almost universal response from attendees who formerly had received some form of benefit 

that yes, the incentive did encourage them to go more often and/or buy more products at the FM: 

Effect of Losing Access to Incentive 

When the incentive was available I would go every week, now I have to think twice before going 

because the prices are high and $20 does not get you much. [San Diego]

When the incentive started, I was going [to the farmers market] every week, but when they took Fresh 

Funds away I went every two weeks. Since the prices vary, you don’t have enough to spend. [San 

Diego]

I think it is important because we buy things and we know they are good and sometimes we don’t have 

the money, but still we try to buy a little bit. With this program, it makes you to go. If you have $20 you 

know they will give you $40. [San Diego]

In San Diego, there was a prevailing sense of regret that the benefits were no longer offered; 

participants stated that “it was a great help to families to purchase more fruits and vegetables.” 

Attendees commented on the increase of patrons at the FM when the incentive was offered: 

“whenever this incentive is offered, I saw more people in the farmers market because 

information is passed through word of mouth between families.” Yet, although having access to 
FMCS Final Report 107 

 

Role on Incentives 5 

an incentive was important for these attendees, its absence is not a complete deterrent to 

shopping at the FM among the frequent shoppers. 

Table 5-3 presents a summary of knowledge of FM incentives among nonshopper survey 

respondents. The majority (97%) were not aware that some FMs offer incentives for using EBT 

cards. 

Table 5-3. Knowledge of Farmers Market Incentives Among Nonshoppers 

 Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Aware that some farmers markets offer incentives to 

use SNAP/EBT card 2.8 (0.7) 101

Not aware that some farmers markets offer incentives 

to use SNAP/EBT card 97.2 (0.7) 1,347

Note: There were 1,499 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages.

Nonshoppers were also asked about their tendency to shop at FMs under three different incentive 

scenarios. Each nonshopper was asked one of three questions that included a different incentive 

scheme, as shown in Table 5-4. In all three incentive schemes, 40 to 50 percent of nonshoppers 

said that they were very likely to shop at a FM if offered the incentive scheme. Only one in five 

nonshoppers reported being “not very likely” or “not at all likely” to shop at a FM for a given 

incentive scheme (between 19% to 23%). In short, the financial incentives would increase the 

likelihood of shopping at a FM, regardless of the incentive scheme. Specifically, the structure of 

the incentive scheme did not appear to affect the likelihood of shopping at a FM. 
5 Role of Incentives 

 

108 FMCS Final Report 

Table 5-4. Likelihood to Shop at a Farmers Market for Various Incentive Schemes Among 

Nonshoppers

 

Weighted Percent 

(Std. Error) Unweighted N 

Likelihood to shop at a farmers market that gives you a 

$1 coupon for every $1 you spend with your SNAP/EBT 

card up to $5

Very likely 50.6 (2.8) 220

Somewhat likely 30.9 (2.3) 154

Not very likely 10.1 (1.7) 44

Not at all likely 8.4 (1.2) 42

Likelihood to shop at a farmers market that gives you a 

$1 coupon for every $1 you spend with your SNAP/EBT 

card up to $10

Very likely 45.7 (2.0) 222

Somewhat likely 33.4 (2.4) 147

Not very likely 9.4 (2.0) 57

Not at all likely 11.6 (1.3) 59

Likelihood to shop at a farmers market that gives you a 

$2 coupon for every $5 you spend with your SNAP/EBT

Very likely 43.4 (2.0) 210

Somewhat likely 33.5 (2.6) 173

Not very likely 12.6 (1.4) 49

Not at all likely 10.5 (1.5) 53

Note: There were 1,499 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages. Survey participants were randomly assigned to one of the three versions of the likelihood questions.

Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Data Source: Shopping for Fruits and Vegetable Survey, Questions D6 and D7.

The focus groups did not invite participants to reflect on varying incentive schemes but did 

gather reflections from participants who learned about their respective local incentive programs 

for the first time while participating in the focus groups. Thus, the focus group data provides a 

window into the degree to which SNAP participants respond to the incentive scheme that 

pertains to their target FM and how it would influence future purchasing at the FM. Since 

reactions varied considerably by study site, these are discussed in turn below. 

Only two frequent shoppers in San Francisco learned about the program as a result of the focus 

group. Both stated that the incentive would encourage them to shop at the FM: 

Reaction to Incentive – San Francisco 

I’m definitely going to get back there. I was already planning for October. I’m definitely going to check 

it out. [San Francisco]

I think mine will go up. I think I need to make it a point to get there more often. [San Francisco]
FMCS Final Report 109 

 

Role on Incentives 5 

Nonfrequent San Francisco shoppers were much less consistent in their reactions, with 

approximately equal numbers indicating that it would and would not increase their likelihood of 

shopping at the FM. Those in the second category tended to offer a rational explanation as to 

why the incentive would not serve as a motivating factor, and that explanation was almost 

always related to the inconvenience associated with getting to that market. In short, distance is 

hard to overcome even with money: 

Nonfrequent Shopper Reaction to Incentive and Distance to Farmers Market – San Francisco 

That place is really far. I’m talking about maybe 30 minutes of bus. I wouldn’t go there even there’s an 

incentive, yeah, because it’s not really worth that time. [San Francisco]

If I was doing something in that area or in that vicinity and I was already there, I would do it. But just 

going there, I think it would ... between getting there, the hassle, transportation cost getting there, it 

might not be worth it. [San Francisco]

With respect to how often they would shop at the FM given hypothetical access to this new 

incentive, estimates range from two to three times a month. “It would go way up” exclaimed one 

nonfrequent shopper who stated that toward the end of the benefits month, his family is down to 

eating “peanut butter and jelly.” The incentive would allow him to “purchase better food for the 

family.” Other attendees took this opportunity to reiterate the challenge of distance and the 

inconvenience of the market only being open on Saturday. “It takes planning,” as one respondent 

succinctly put it. In contrast to San Francisco, virtually all of the Atlanta participants said they 

were more likely to shop at FMs – even those located further away from their homes – now that 

they were aware of the incentive program. After they learned about the incentive, there was 

almost universal agreement that they were “more likely to get over there to go more often.” 

Reaction to Incentive – Atlanta 

I would probably try to make my way over there more often, because I think that is a great deal. 

[Atlanta]

I would definitely go back. I had no idea about that at all. [Atlanta]

In another contrast to San Francisco, the Atlanta attendees saw the financial incentive, which 

doubled their dollars, as sufficient for them to make an extra effort to visit that specific target 

market despite the distance:
5 Role of Incentives 

 

110 FMCS Final Report 

Reaction to Incentive and Distance to Farmers Market – Atlanta 

If I’m going to save on my grocery bill, I will go ahead and break down and pay somebody to take me 

out of the way to get that extra, definitely. [Atlanta]

I’m thinking if you’ve got a voucher for $10, and you make a trip special to go there, even though one 

or two things might be a little bit higher in price, you just saved your gas money. [Atlanta]

A significant portion of the San Diego nonfrequent shoppers (13 out of 16) indicated that they 

were unaware of the Fresh Fund incentive program prior to the focus group. Most of these 

shoppers indicated that they would be very likely to shop at the target FM if they had access to 

the incentive, with some participants stating that they would visit or shop at the market at least 

twice a month. Included in this group was one respondent who claimed she would be motivated 

to drive the 40 miles between her house and the location of the target market, splitting her 

purchases between the target and her local FM. As in Atlanta, the perceived value of the 

incentive appeared to overcome the perceived additional inconvenience and cost of getting there: 

Reaction to Incentive – San Diego 

That [incentive amount] could be the gas I’d spent driving to City Height. [San Diego]

If they would offer that incentive again, I would be more motivated to go. [San Diego]

However, several attendees in San Diego candidly expressed that they did not know with 

certainty if the incentive program would influence their decision to shop at the FM. Such 

statements were discussed above, following Table 5-2. As one respondent put it, “whether or not 

this incentive program exists, I will go.” Another respondent shared: “In certain ways, it is 

important, but in certain ways no, because we still go there because we know that the items are 

good. So even if we cannot afford a lot we try to buy some.” [San Diego]

The discussion about incentive use raised related issues with respect to whether the incentive 

would increase fruit and vegetable consumption or simply be a cost saver for the same amount of 

consumption. Also, those who live by themselves and shop only for themselves commented that 

they would not likely buy more, for fear of produce spoiling and going to waste: 
FMCS Final Report 111 

 

Role on Incentives 5 

Concerns About Spoilage and Waste 

I would definitely be more apt to go there for that [incentive], but what I’ve found also is, not 

necessarily a drawback, but ... because I am a single family household, I wouldn’t be able to use it all. 

So I think just learning how to balance that a little bit more because it seems like you’re getting more. 

You are, but not being wasteful with it. [San Francisco]

I like to buy on a weekly basis in small quantities but fresh. [San Francisco]

Attendees in San Diego reported that if they had access to the Fresh Fund program, they would 

buy and consume more fruits and vegetables. In addition, three nonfrequent shoppers who 

reported personally experiencing health conditions or having a relative with health conditions 

(e.g., diabetes and cancer) felt that the incentive would help them eat healthier.

Effect on Eating More Healthy Food 

For example, my husband was told he’s on the early stages of diabetes ... he can’t eat [tortilla} or 

bread ... instead of [tortillas], I make salad. My daughter likes it a lot. I’d buy more vegetables and 

fruits. [San Diego]

Since I’m diabetic, I need to eat more vegetables and fruits. I need lots of green smoothies. I know that 

I will get a lot of nopales [cactuses] ... a lot of things that will benefit me ... that [the incentive] will 

duplicate [the amount of] vegetables. Another thing, I have five relatives who have EBT and will tell 

them to go [to the farmers market to inquire about the incentive]. [San Diego]

When the Atlanta frequent shoppers group were asked if the incentive program was likely to 

increase the proportion of their SNAP benefits that they would spend at a FM, most said yes, but 

one woman did a quick calculation and indicated it would not: “I’m extremely frugal, so I think 

about dollars. Why would I spend [more], if I’m already spending, let’s say I get $150 in benefits 

and I spent $75 there. Then, why would I spend an extra $100 or $110 when I’m already 

doubling my dollar? That’s a waste of money.” [Atlanta]

In short, according to her calculation, the incentive program would allow her to spend half as 

much in benefits to get the same amount of produce. The extent to which the incentive programs 

allow SNAP participants to “splurge” on items they might not otherwise purchase (as some 

Atlanta participants said they would) – or, conversely, save and redirect their benefits elsewhere 

– is a question that merits further research. 
5 Role of Incentives 

 

112 FMCS Final Report 

5.2 Nonfinancial Incentives 

In addition to financial incentives, nonshoppers were asked in the survey about the potential 

impact of nonfinancial incentives/offerings at FMs on their shopping behavior. These offerings 

were related to information, activities, and resources that may be desirable for some shoppers. 

The findings are reported in Table 5-5. The availability of nutrition information at the FM was 

the most commonly reported resource that would “very likely” increase the likelihood of 

shopping at FMs (28%). For each of the other items, less than 25 percent reported they would be 

“very likely” to shop at FMs if the items were offered. 

However, 41 percent of nonshoppers reported that something else (not listed among the response 

options) would “very likely” result in their shopping at FMs. Although the other factors varied 

on an individual level, a common theme was the personal atmosphere and sense of community at 

the FM, such as how the shoppers were treated in general, and as SNAP participants. Other 

dominant themes were related to the hours/days of operation; location, transportation, and 

parking; pricing; free samples; and the physical environment/condition. One additional common 

theme was related information on how to navigate and/or shop at a FM. 

Virtually all of these themes emerged from the focus group discussions as well. For example, the 

sense of how SNAP participants were treated by vendors (e.g., receiving a warm welcome) was 

cited as an encouraging reason to shop. Alternatively, when the perceived treatment was 

negative, it was cited as a discouragement. Likewise, limited hours and days of operation were 

interpreted as a factor discouraging shopping at FMs. The focus groups revealed that the festive 

atmosphere and sense of community that FMs engender was a clearly dominant factor that 

encouraged shopping. 

The availability of jewelry, artwork, or clothing (43%); a social worker (32%); and entertainment 

and cultural activities (29%) were among the offerings reported the most as “not at all likely” to 

encourage shopping at FMs. In short, nonfinancial incentives seem to influence less than 25 

percent of the nonshoppers to shop more at FMs. 

As discussed earlier, focus group attendees valued entertainment and cultural activities. 

Moreover, embedding health and nutrition education within entertaining social activities was 

offered as a recommendation to encourage more SNAP participants to shop at FMs. These data 

suggest that the social and interpersonal dimensions of FMs, when properly constructed, offer 
FMCS Final Report 113 

 

Role on Incentives 5 

nonfinancial incentives for visiting and shopping. Unlike the survey data, however, the focus 

group data cannot be used to quantify the degree of influence of each of these dimensions. 

Table 5-5. Likelihood of Shopping at Farmers Markets if Certain Things Were Offered Among 

Nonshoppers

How Likely Are You To Shop at a 

Farmers Market If... 

Very 

Likely 

Somewhat 

Likely 

Only a Little 

Likely 

Not At All 

Likely Not Sure 

Nutrition information was available

Weighted percent (std. error) 27.5 (1.3) 24.8 (1.2) 18.1 (1.4) 19.6 (2.2) 9.9 (0.6)

Unweighted N 351 321 255 341 145

There were activities for children 

Weighted percent (std. error) 24.8 (1.8) 21.3 (1.1) 14.4 (2.0) 26.8 (2.0) 12.8 (1.0)

Unweighted N 360 295 165 429 161

Health information, screening tests 

or exams, or vaccinations were 

available

Weighted percent (std. error) 23.6 (1.2) 21.5 (1.5) 15.7 (0.7) 27.4 (2.3) 11.7 (1.0)

Unweighted N 291 280 211 455 170

There were cooking demonstrations

Weighted percent (std. error) 22.4 (1.5) 19.9 (0.9) 17.9 (1.0) 22.3 (2.0) 17.5 (1.4)

Unweighted N 265 291 258 394 215

There was entertainment or cultural 

activities like live music or other 

events

Weighted percent (std. error) 20.2 (1.3) 19.0 (1.5) 17.9 (1.1) 29.1 (1.9) 13.9 (0.7)

Unweighted N 268 327 216 425 176

They sold prepared foods or meals

Weighted percent (std. error) 19.2 (1.3) 23.6 (1.2) 18.4 (0.9) 25.7 (2.2) 13.1 (1.0)

Unweighted N 234 325 251 429 176

They sold plants and seeds

Weighted percent (std. error) 18.4 (1.1) 23.1 (0.8) 18.5 (0.7) 27.6 (1.3) 12.4 (0.8)

Unweighted N 274 350 254 378 152

A social worker was available

Weighted percent (std. error) 17.3 (1.5) 16.7(1.2) 16.6 (1.2) 32.4 (2.6) 16.9 (0.7)

Unweighted N 199 201 230 539 231

They sold jewelry, art work, or 

clothes

Weighted percent (std. error) 8.2 (1.1) 14.4 (0.9) 17.5 (0.9) 42.7 (1.5) 17.2 (1.3)

Unweighted N 116 220 234 625 205

Something else

Weighted percent (std. error) 40.5 (2.7) 5.6 (1.7) 4.6 (0.8) 13.2 (2.4) 36.2 (2.4)

Unweighted N 148 32 12 60 135

Note: There were 1,499 survey respondents who received this question. Missing observations are excluded in the denominator for 

calculating percentages. Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
 

114 FMCS Final Report 

This page is intentionally blank. 
FMCS Final Report 115 

 

Farmers markets (FMs) across the country can play an important role in promoting healthy 

eating in their communities by offering local residents, including many supplemental nutrition 

assistance program (SNAP) participants, access to locally grown fruits and vegetables, as well as 

education about nutrition, obesity, and diabetes. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has 

supported and encouraged this type of community action during the past five years by 

simplifying the SNAP authorization process for FMs, and providing informational support on 

how to process Electronic Benefits Transaction (EBT) cards, and making EBT equipment 

available – free of charge – to farmers’ markets that become SNAP-authorized.55 Increasing 

SNAP participants’ patronage at FMs promises not only to promote access to fresh fruits and 

vegetables in low-income households, but also to help create a stronger community and support 

local farmers and the local economy. 

This chapter summarizes the key findings of the study with regard to the overarching research 

objectives posed in Chapter 1. For each of the three research objectives, the findings are 

organized by specific research questions that were addressed through the preceding analyses. 

The chapter also outlines the important strengths and limitations of this study, and presents some 

conclusions. 

6.1 Research Questions and Key Evaluation Findings 

6.1.1 Describe the Shopping Patterns of SNAP Participants 

Question 1: Where do SNAP participants shop for groceries? Where do they redeem 

most of their benefits, and why? 

SNAP participants most often shop at large grocery stores for all their groceries, and they are 

most likely to use their SNAP benefits at these stores. Indeed, all but 3 percent of the sample 

indicated that they shop at large grocery stores. Small grocery stores are listed as the second 

most common place for groceries. More than one-third of survey respondents selected natural 

 

55 USDA, Food and Nutrition Service. EBT: Learn About SNAP Benefits at Farmers’ Markets. Available at: 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ebt/fm.htm.

6 Synthesis and Discussion 6 
6 Synthesis and Discussion 

 

116 FMCS Final Report 

organic stores and other kinds of stores, but less than one-third selected convenience stores and 

ethnic markets for grocery shopping. When shopping for fresh fruits and vegetables, SNAP 

participants most often preferred fresh products, and they shopped for such products more often 

than they shop for frozen/canned fruits and vegetables. Survey respondents reported that they 

look for good specials and deals, low prices and high quality, and acceptance of the EBT card as 

the top reasons for shopping at a particular market. Focus group respondents also commented 

that they tended to spend most of their benefits at the grocery store that was most conveniently 

located to them, and by extension, where they tended to shop most regularly. In many cases, 

these tended to be large or discount grocery chains. 

Question 2: What are the top reasons SNAP 

participants shop at farmers markets? 

The most commonly reported reason for shopping at a 

specific FM was access to high-quality fruits and 

vegetables. Additional commonly reported reasons were 

related to the quality and variety of vegetables, 

characteristics of the market and the people there, and 

location convenience. Focus group attendees reported 

selection, variety, and promoting local businesses and 

farmers as important reasons they shop at a FM. 

Characteristics of the FM, including location and 

cleanliness, were also commonly reported reasons for shopping at a specific FM. Noteably, both 

the survey and the focus groups revealed that positive social experiences offered through FMs 

serve as important reasons that SNAP participants shop there. In the focus group discussions 

especially, shopping at a FM was described as a social event with opportunities for fun as well as 

learning. Shopping at FMs was further described as a family-friendly experience with activities 

and interactions unavailable through ordinary grocery shopping. For many, the FM represented a 

unique destination. These experiences distinguish shopping at FMs from shopping at traditional 

grocery stores and motivate shoppers to return. 

Top reasons SNAP 

participants shop at FMs 

 High-quality fruits and 

vegetables

 Locally grown fruits and 

vegetables

 Variety in fresh fruits and 

vegetables

 Fun place to be

 Farmers market staff are 

helpful
FMCS Final Report 117 

 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

Question 3: How do the characteristics of households who shop at FMs compare with 

households who do not shop there? 

Among survey respondents, females, households with no children, households who receive 

support from other nutrition programs, and those who are aware of incentives for EBT use are 

more likely to shop at FMs. In addition, African Americans and other non-White race categories, 

participants who are unemployed, 

homemaker/student, or those who report that 

they cannot work, and households with income 

below $10,000 per year are all less likely to 

report shopping at FMs. 

Question 4: What types of foods do SNAP 

participants purchase, with 

what frequency, and when in 

the farmers market season? 

Almost 70 percent of survey respondents who 

reported shopping at a FM in the past 12 

months do so during summer, and 62 percent 

shop at a FM in spring and/or fall as well. 

Only 42 percent of shoppers go to the FM in 

winter, which is consistent with the fact that many FMs close in winter months. Most shoppers 

indicate that they shop once a month or less often at a specific FM. However, when considering 

the summer months alone, more than one in ten shoppers go to the FM once a week or more 

often. Most shoppers purchase fruits and vegetables at the FMs. While it is clear that there is 

interest in other products, more than 75 percent of shoppers purchase fruits and vegetables 

almost every time or some of the time that they go to the FM. Nearly half of shoppers reported 

shopping for meat, eggs, honey, and food in cans; more than half buy baked foods such as bread, 

pie, or cake.

Question 5: What would it take to increase SNAP participants’ patronage of farmers 

markets? 

In addition to incentives (discussed in Question 12), convenience-related concerns were the 

most-often-cited barriers to increasing patronage of FMs among SNAP participants. The two 

most common reasons that kept participants from shopping at FMs as much as they would like 

Characteristics Associated with 

Shopping at FMs 

• Females

• Households with no children

• Households who receive supports 

from other nutrition support 

programs

• Participants who are aware of 

incentives for SNAP/EBT use at FMs

• Whites

• Participants who are employed 

(relative to unemployed, 

student/homemaker, and those who 

cannot work)

• Household income greater than 

$10,000 per year
6 Synthesis and Discussion 

 

118 FMCS Final Report 

were that it was easier to shop at one store, and the location of the market was not close to their 

home. Nearly one-fourth of respondents raised concerns about higher prices. In addition, one out 

of five survey respondents reported that the day/hours of operation were not convenient. It is 

important to note that social stigma-related concern was one of the important factors affecting 

patronage of SNAP participants at FMs; approximately 15 percent reported they didn’t want to 

be seen using their EBT card at the market. 

Question 6: What proportion of their benefits is redeemed at farmers markets? 

In regards to using SNAP benefits on fresh fruits and vegetables, 52 percent of shoppers indicate 

using “a little” or “some” of their SNAP benefits on purchasing fruits and vegetables at FMs. 

Almost 9 percent of shoppers use “most” or “all” of their SNAP benefits on purchasing fruits and 

vegetables at FMs. This shows that acceptance of the EBT card is vital for shopping at FMs for 

many SNAP participants. Focus group attendees were asked where they redeemed most of their 

SNAP benefits, and to estimate the proportion of their benefits that are redeemed at FMs. The 

proportion of SNAP benefits that focus group attendees estimated they spend at the FMs varied 

from 10 percent up to 80 percent, with the majority of those providing an estimate saying that 

they spend 30 percent or less of their benefits at FMs. 

Question 7: What factors are correlated with using SNAP benefits at farmers markets? 

The findings indicate that Black or African Americans are 1.6 times more likely than Whites to 

use SNAP benefits at a FM. Unemployed participants and those who cannot work are 

significantly more likely to use SNAP benefits at FMs, compared with FM shoppers who are 

employed. Consistent with the unemployment finding, participants with household incomes less 

than $10,000 are more likely to use SNAP benefits while shopping at FMs. The results also 

suggest that awareness of incentives for EBT use is a very strong predictor. Survey respondents 

who are aware of such incentives are 2.9 times more likely to use SNAP benefits when shopping 

at FMs. 

Question 8: How do perceptions of price, variety, and freshness of fruits and vegetables 

sold at farmers markets compare with the characteristics of similar foods at 

other food retailers among SNAP participants? 

Among survey respondents who were shoppers, more than one in three report that the prices of 

fresh fruits and vegetables are higher in FMs than in other stores. More than one in four shoppers 
FMCS Final Report 119 

 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

(27%) believe that the prices are about the same. Yet 39 percent of shoppers state that the prices 

of fresh fruits and vegetables are lower in FMs relative to other stores. 

Almost two-thirds of shoppers state that they find more variety in fruits and vegetables at FMs 

than in other stores, and they are able to purchase different fruits and vegetables at FMs. Focus 

group attendees often underscored how the wide variety of items for sale at FMs influenced their 

shopping decisions. Focus group attendees in all three study sites commented both on the 

diversity of items overall, as well as the variety within a certain food category. Such variety often 

encouraged shoppers to purchase different items during different trips to the market. 

Regarding the freshness of fruits and vegetables, almost two-thirds of FM shoppers believe that 

the fruits and vegetables at FMs are more fresh than in other stores. While 31 percent report that 

the freshness at FMs is the same as in other stores, only 4 percent of participants believe that 

FMs have fruits and vegetables that are less fresh than in other stores.

Question 9: What do SNAP participants who shop at farmers markets think about the 

incentives for EBT use at farmers markets? 

More than two-thirds of shoppers reported that their local FM offers incentives of some type in 

the form of deals, coupons, or other promotions to use their EBT card. Among these, 60 percent 

indicated that these incentives were “very important” in getting them to shop at the FM. Along 

the same lines, nearly 57 percent of shoppers who were aware of incentives reported that they 

shop more at FMs because of the incentives. However, nearly 20 percent reported that these 

incentives were not important in getting them to shop at the FM. Nearly 60 percent of 

respondents who were aware of incentives at FMs reported that their household ate more fresh 

fruits and vegetables than if they did not get deals for using SNAP benefits at their local FM. 

Focus group respondents were asked how important FM financial incentive programs were in 

their decision to purchase fruits and vegetables from their respective FMs. Responses to this 

question were mixed. As in the survey, there was a general consensus that the incentives were 

important, and in many cases very important, yet many focus group attendees who were frequent 

shoppers expressed the opinion that they will continue to shop at their FM with or without the 

incentive. It may be that once a person forms the habit of shopping at FMs, the value of the 

incentive becomes less critical. On the other hand, as discussed in the following section, 

nonfrequent shoppers appear to be much more interested in shopping at FMs once becoming 

aware of the incentive.
6 Synthesis and Discussion 

 

120 FMCS Final Report 

6.1.2 Describe Why SNAP Households Do Not Shop at Farmers Markets 

Question 10: What are the perceived barriers to shopping among SNAP participants who 

do not shop at farmers markets? 

The top seven factors noted as barriers to shopping among SNAP participants who do not shop at 

FMs were related to convenience and prices. The convenience of shopping for all groceries at 

one store was the most important reason. Parking and safety at FMs were reported as reasons, 

though at a lower frequency. Among focus group attendees, inconvenient days or hours of 

operation were cited as barriers to shopping. At least several respondents in each study site 

critically commented that their target market was open for limited hours on inconvenient days.

Question 11: Are the SNAP participants who do not shop at farmers markets aware of 

incentives for EBT use? 

The overwhelming majority of survey respondents who do not shop at FMs (97%) were not 

aware that some FMs offer incentives for using EBT cards. Overall, focus group attendees 

appeared to be less knowledgeable about specific incentive programs at their local FMs. 

However, those who self-identified as a frequent shopper expressed greater awareness of their 

local incentive program than did nonfrequent shoppers. 

Question 12: How would financial and nonfinancial incentives affect shopping decisions 

among SNAP participants who do not shop at FMs? 

Nonshoppers were asked their tendency to shop at FMs under three different incentive scenarios. 

When asked about their tendency to shop, 40 to 50 percent of nonshoppers said that they were 

very likely to shop at FMs if offered a financial incentive scheme. Only one in five nonshoppers 

reported being “not very likely” or “not at all likely” to shop at a FM for a given incentive 

scheme. The financial incentives increase the likelihood of shopping at a FM, regardless of the 

incentive scheme/amount. In addition to financial incentives, nonshoppers were asked in the 

survey about the potential impact of nonfinancial incentives/offerings at FMs on their shopping 

behavior. The availability of nutrition information at the FM was the listed resource with the 

highest percentage of survey respondents indicating it is “very likely” they would shop at a FM if 

this were available. Among focus group attendees, embedding education about health and food, 

and nutrition education within entertaining social activities was offered as a recommendation to 

encourage more SNAP participants to shop at FMs. 
FMCS Final Report 121 

 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

6.1.3 Describe the Characteristics of Farmers Markets Serving the 

Participants Surveyed With Regard to Shopping Behavior 

Question 13: What services are offered/available in the vicinity of farmers markets? What 

is the distance between the farmers market and the nearest retailer? 

In general, nonshoppers have slightly more nearby retail services around their FMs, suggesting 

that other nearby retail services might act as a competing factor than as an attracting factor. Most 

respondents had a supermarket within half a mile of their FMs (61% among shoppers and 66% 

for among nonshoppers). Similarly, most respondents had some type of food retailer within half 

a mile of their FMs (82% among shoppers and 80% among nonshoppers). 

Question 14: Are there differences in the distance from each of the survey participant’s 

residence location to their local farmers market, or in the distance from the 

residence to other food retailers, by farmers market shopping status? What 

food retailers are within a two-mile radius of the market? 

In terms of average distance to the local FM among shoppers and nonshoppers, there do not 

appear to be significant differences between these two groups. Most of the participants live more 

than two miles from the FM (78% for shoppers and 77% for nonshoppers). There are slightly 

more shoppers within one mile of the FM, and slightly more nonshoppers between one and two 

miles. Overall, the distance to the market does not seem to be a significant predictor of shopper 

status. For both shoppers and nonshoppers, there are many other food retailers nearby, including 

multiple supermarkets and an abundance of convenience stores and other groceries. The results 

show that, in general, nonshoppers have more food options within two miles of their home than 

do shoppers. 

6.2 Study Strengths and Limitation 

This is the first nationwide study to examine the FM shopping patterns of SNAP participants. 

The sample size allowed for sufficient analytic power to implement analysis by several 

subgroups, including FM shoppers vs. nonshoppers and EBT users vs. EBT nonusers. The study 

strengths include a mixed-method research design comprised of using a household survey, focus 

group interviews, and a geographic information systems (GIS) data analysis to address the FNS 

goals of understanding SNAP participants’ shopping decisions at FMs. A mixed-method research 

design also enabled the researchers to confirm and explain the results obtained from one method 
6 Synthesis and Discussion 

 

122 FMCS Final Report 

with the results coming from a different method of data collection. Thus, not only did the focus 

group interviews provide additional contextual information in addressing the research questions, 

but they tended to confirm some of the information reported by SNAP participants in the 

household survey. 

Other strengths of this study include the ability to document the demographic profiles of a 

nationwide representative sample of SNAP participants who are shoppers and nonshoppers at 

FMs. In addition, the study was able to assess the effect of incentives (SNAP-based incentive 

programs [SBIP] offered at FMs) on shopping behavior among SNAP participant, as well as 

their perceptions about the price, quality, variety, and freshness of fruits and vegetables at FMs. 

In terms of study limitations, first, while the sample size is representative of SNAP participants 

within the catchment areas of selected FMs, the sample size was a small percent of the 22 million 

households that received SNAP benefits in 2012. Second, the demographics of the sample was 

limited to SNAP participants within the catchment area of specific FMs. Further, it is important 

to note that the sample was selected from an anti-fraud location using EBT retailer transactions 

(ALERT) dataset that includes pertinent information for a 1-year period ending 12 months prior 

to the start of data collection. Although it is known that all the survey respondents were SNAP 

participants at the time of sampling, the survey did not ask respondents whether they were still 

receiving SNAP benefits. Thus, some of the survey respondents may not have been SNAP 

participants at the time of survey completion. In addition, focus group respondents were 

identified as frequent and infrequent shoppers based on their shopping frequency at a target FM. 

A focus group attendee who is identified as an infrequent shopper at the target FM could be a 

frequent shopper at one or more other FMs. However, this sampling method ensured that the 

focus groups provided data about shopping behaviors at a FM that offered a known incentive 

program, and about the effects that such incentives have on shoppers. 

6.3 Conclusions 

This study provided descriptive findings about SNAP participants’ shopping behavior at FMs. In 

general, findings indicate that SNAP participants use information on the quality, freshness, price, 

and variety of fruits and vegetables available at FMs in making food shopping decisions. When 

deciding whether to shop at FMs, SNAP participants also take into consideration the 

convenience of shopping, and examine whether they can shop within their budget. Just like any 
FMCS Final Report 123 

 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

other consumer, SNAP participants look for the right balance between quality and quantity, 

while shopping at a variety of locations. Price alone tends not to be the sole driving factor for the 

shopping behaviors. However, the ability to find good deals did appear to influence shopping 

decisions, and SNAP participants appear to engage in calculated budgeting to maximize their 

benefits. The focus groups revealed an important distinction that attendees made between unit 

price and overall value. In short, there was a general consensus about the perceived value of the 

purchases: Prices at FMs were seen as reasonable because the quality was perceived to be 

superior to what one might find at the local grocery store. The tendency for items purchased at 

FMs to last longer was often invoked as a critical factor with respect to value. In this regard, 

respondents differentiated between quality and quantity, and commented on how it makes more 

financial sense to buy certain items at the FM than at the regular store, even when the unit price 

appears to be higher.

Those who do not shop at FMs generally stress the convenience of completing all shopping 

under one roof, such as in supermarkets. In addition, nonshoppers were most often unaware that 

FMs accepted the EBT card. Among those who were aware, the lack of funds available on their 

EBT card and the perceived social stigma associated with EBT use were the main reasons not to 

use SNAP benefits at FMs. 

The most frequently cited recommendation from focus group attendees was to do a better job 

informing the community (and especially SNAP participants) about FMs, including what FMs 

have to offer, the ability to use the EBT card if it is accepted, and any incentive programs that are 

offered. Multiple mechanisms and venues can be used for advertising, marketing, and 

community outreach, including direct mailings, billboards, signs on mass transit, schools, and the 

SNAP office itself. Finally, FMs can be used to disseminate information about healthy eating and 

nutrition. To draw more members from the community to FMs, especially those receiving SNAP 

benefits, participants suggested embedding such educational information in fun, family-friendly 

activities, such as cooking demonstrations and food tastings where farmers have the opportunity 

to explain the product and how to prepare it. 

These findings provide valuable insights that the FNS can use to guide ongoing initiatives to 

improve access to healthy foods for SNAP participants, particularly the effort to work with FMs 

and direct marketing farmers to improve participants’ access to locally grown produce. SNAP 

participants value high quality fruits and vegetables, and most recognize the need to eat healthy 

foods. They tend to believe that FMs offer high quality produce in addition to other advantages 

not offered by traditional grocery stores. Many are inclined to pay more to purchase high quality 
6 Synthesis and Discussion 

 

124 FMCS Final Report 

food for themselves and their families perceiving that the value for such quality justifies the cost 

and often the inconvenience of shopping at a FM.. SNAP participants report that greater 

awareness that EBT is accepted at FMs combined with financial incentives would encourage 

many more participants to do so. There is some evidence in this report to suggest that those who 

develop habits of shopping at FMs are inclined to continue shopping at FMs with or without the 

benefit of financial incentives.