From insight to impact: segmenting consumers by their regenerative agriculture priorities

Summary

This consumer segmentation study challenges the assumption of a homogeneous 'sustainable consumer' by identifying three distinct segments with differing priorities for regenerative agriculture attributes. Economically oriented consumers (Practical Supporters, 43%) outnumber environmentally oriented ones (Principled Supporters, 30%), with 27% showing balanced priorities across environmental and economic dimensions. The resulting classification model and segment profiles have direct applicability for product positioning, labeling strategies, and farmer incentive programme design across regenerative value chains.

Regional applicability

The study focuses on U.S. consumer preferences and may have limited direct applicability to United Kingdom consumer contexts, which differ in food system structures, retail channels, and cultural attitudes towards farming and sustainability. However, the methodological approach to consumer segmentation by attribute prioritization could inform UK market research on regenerative agriculture adoption and labelling strategies, particularly given the growing interest in regenerative practices within UK food retail.

Key measures

Forced-ranking of seven regenerative agriculture attributes; consumer segment membership (Practical Supporters, Principled Supporters, Balanced Supporters); multinomial logistic regression classification accuracy (McFadden's ρ²)

Outcomes reported

The study identified three distinct consumer segments based on priorities for regenerative agriculture attributes (soil health, biodiversity, emissions, water use, price, yield, farmer profitability) using forced-ranking data from 1231 nationally representative U.S. consumers. A multinomial logistic regression model achieved 99% classification accuracy, providing a replicable segmentation tool.

Supporting research

Consumer segmentation of regenerative agriculture priorities links explicitly to agrifood prices, soil health and farmer incentives.

Limits: Survey/clustering of 1231 US consumers; attitudes and model classification are not causal soil or nutritional outcomes.

Topic tags