eaf presentation

7/28/2019 EAF Presentation

1/24

CONSUMER

PREFERENCES FORGREEN RESTAURANT

PRACTICES


2/24

Environment Agriculture Food (EAF) Group atthe University of Chicago

Consumer Research Team

Green Restaurant Research Team Program on Global Environment at University

of Chicago

WHO ARE WE


3/24

The most important claims to impact willingness to pay are:

1. Local and Organic

2. Fair Trade

3. Carbon Reduction

Onozaka, Yuko Et. Al., Defining Sustainable Food Market Segments: Do Motivations and Values

Vary by Shopping Locale, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, January 2011

Summary of Others Findings


4/24

Opportunities to drive demand are:

Recycling

Use of double door

Local sourced menu options

Ray Wang, Investigations of Important and Effective Effects of Green Practices in Restaurants,Procedia : Social and Behavioral Sciences 40 94-98, 2012.



5/24

About 85% of Americans are willing to pay something forgreen practices (Our survey confirms this for Chicagoans)

Schubert, Kandampully, Solnet, Kralj Exploring Consumer Perceptions of Green Restaurants in the

US, School of Tourism, University of Queensland, 2010



6/24

Survey of 321 patrons from Chicago Area viaSurveymonkey

General dining characteristics

Consumer environmental concerns

Willingness to pay for green practices

General demographics

OUR SURVEY


7/24

KEY QUESTIONS

In the past MONTH, how many times have youpurchased food from any of the following types ofrestaurants?

Restaurant Purchases Monthly

Restaurant Type Mean SD

WTP

Corr

Fast Food 5.07 3.99 0.095

Fast Casual 2.21 1.87 0.157

Pizza 2.56 1.46

-

0.035

Casual Sit Down 1.83 1.25

-

0.030

Fine Sit Down 2.69 1.31

-

0.018


8/24

KEY QUESTIONS

On AVERAGE, how much doyou spend when you eat out?

Amount Paid

Meal Amount

Breakfast $7.97Lunch $10.93

Dinner $21.28


9/24

KEY QUESTIONS

On a scale of 1-10,when choosing tovisit a restaurant for

DINNER, howimportant are thefollowingcharacteristics aboutthe restaurant?

Restaurant CharacteristicsCharacteristic Score

Menu 8.4

Value for Money 8.2

Convenient Location 7.5

Informed Staff 7.0

Ambiance 6.8

Local Food Choices 5.7

Energy/Water Conservation 3.8

Recycling/Composting 3.8

Organic Food Choices 3.6


10/24

KEY QUESTIONS

What characteristics doyou expect green

restaurants to exhibit?

From most to least common:

Tasty

Modern

Vegetarian FriendlyIndependent

New

Artisanal

Expensive


11/24

KEY QUESTIONS

How do you usually findout that a restaurant is

engaged inenvironmentally friendlypractices?

From Most to Least Common

While Dining

Restaurant WebsitePublicityFriends/Family

Social Media

Another WebsiteCommunity Outreach


12/24

Who are you serving?

We divided patrons into three clusters- different

groupings based on data analysis

We segmented these clusters even more to determinetheir preferences with regards to certain environmental

factors

CONSUMER SEGMENTATION


13/24

CLUSTER DESCRIPTIONS

1: Not Engagednot engaged with environmental issues;the food factor is ambiguous

2: Highly Engagedpeople who are highly engaged inthe environment and food issues

3: Eco-Consciouspeople who are engaged in the

environment but not food


14/24

DEMOGRAPHICS

Clusters Count Average

Income

Average

Age

Percent

Female

NotEngaged

78 $85,576 47 27

HighlyEngaged

173 $97,398 49 42

Eco-Conscious

45 $64,444 41 58

Full Sample 296 $89,272 47 40


15/24

AVERAGE SPENDING EATING OUT

Clusters Breakfast Lunch Dinner

Not Engaged $8.42 $10.85 $20.85

HighlyEngaged

$7.86 $10.99 $21.76

Eco-Conscious

$7.65 $10.80 $20.05

Average $7.94 $10.93 $21.28


16/24

On a scale of 1-10, how does the fact that a food itemis USDA Certified Organic affect your decision to buythe item?

On a scale of 1-10, how much do you trust claims fromrestaurants about environmentally friendly practices?

CONSUMER TRUST SURVEYQUESTIONS


17/24

CONSUMER TRUST

Clusters USDA

Certification

Trusting

Restaurants

Not Engaged 3.58 4.17

Highly Engaged 5.47 5.07

Eco-Conscious 5.00 5.36

Average 4.90 4.87


18/24

Conjoint analysis for entrees between $15 - $19

Tested willingness to pay for: 80% of ingredients organic, 50% or no organic.

Locally sourced ingredients v.s Not local

CONJOINT INTRODUCTION


19/24

CONJOINT DATA RESULTS

Price Premiums

Feature All Male Female

Not

Engaged

Highly

Engaged

Eco-

Conscious

50% Organic $1.58 $1.31 $2.14 $0 $2.07 $2.79

80% Organic 2.52 1.94 3.77 0 3.93 4.47

Local 5.24 4.47 7.16 3.31 7.43 3.54


20/24

Price Premiums

Feature

0

25,000

25,000

50,000

50,000

75,000

75,000

100,000

100,000 or

more

50% Organic $1.31 $1.13 $1.87 $1.72 $1.87

80% Organic 1.94 2.19 2.03 3.44 3.21

Local 2.72 1.95 4.46 10.56 7.73

CONJOINT INCOME


21/24

CONJOINT AGE

Price Premiums

Feature 18 -29 30 44 45 - 60 >60

50% Organic $2.20 $2.00 $1.30 $1.40

80% Organic 4.19 4.51 1.44 1.75

Local 2.51 7.63 4.64 7.32


22/24

While Chicago ranks 8 for frequency for carryout lunch, it is not in the top 20 for dine in lunch

Chicagoans tend to describe themselves as

Foodies more often then other Americans In terms of WTP for green practices Chicagoansare not different with the exception of highlyeducated consumers have higher WTP in

Chicago then elsewhere

CHICAGO VS USA

Source: Dinning Out, Living Social, Washington, September 15, 2011.


23/24

Chicagoans are willing to pay a premium!

Communicate: website draws consumers, during diningrepeat business

Consumers are more likely to believe green claims when

they are specific and what they can relate to

Eco-conscious consumers care more about greenpractices than foodies, but foodies care too

Affluent women age 30-44: highest demand for greenpractices

Consumers care most about local food and recycling

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS


24/24

Green Chicago Restaurant Coalition Green Seal Public Policy Department at the University of Chicago

Pam Cohen Nancy Himmelfarb Sabina Shaikh

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

eaf presentation

Documents