Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Consumers' preferences for locally produced food: A study in southeast Missouri

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Cheryl Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Division of Resource Management, West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6108, Morgantown, West Virginia, 26506 (cheryl.brown@mail.wvu.edu).
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

A mail survey was used to gather information from the main food buyer in random households in southeast Missouri to analyze consumer preferences for locally grown food. A majority of shoppers in the region were not aware of the state's AgriMissouri promotion program. Consumers defined locally grown not as a statewide concept but as a narrower regional concept that could cross state boundaries. Most important when purchasing produce were quality and freshness, and most consumers perceived local produce at farmers' markets to be of higher quality and lower price. Farm households were not significantly different from other households in the region and did not show a preference or willingness to pay a price premium for local food products. Food buyers who were members of an environmental group had higher education and income and were more likely to purchase organic food and more willing to pay a higher price for local produce. Households in which someone was raised on a farm, or had parents who were raised on a farm, had a preference for locally grown food and were willing to pay a price premium for it. Marketing local products should stress quality, freshness, and price competitiveness, and appeal to environmentalists and those with a favorable attitude towards family farms.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Adelaja, A.O., Brumfield, R.G., and Lininger, K. 1990. Product differentiation and state promotion of farm produce: An analysis of the Jersey Fresh tomato. Journal of Food Distribution Research 21:7385.Google Scholar
Brooker, J.R., Eastwood, D.B., and Orr, R.H. 1987. Consumers' perceptions of locally grown produce at retail outlets. Journal of Food Distribution Research 18:99107.Google Scholar
Bruhn, C.M., Vossen, P.M., Chapman, E., and Vaupel, S. 1992. Consumer attitudes toward locally grown produce. California Agriculture 46:1316.Google Scholar
Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Eastwood, D.B. 1996. Using customer surveys to promote farmers' markets: A case study. Journal of Food Distribution Research 27:2330.Google Scholar
Eastwood, D.B., Brooker, J.R., and Orr, R.H. 1987. Consumer preferences for local versus out-of-state grown selected fresh produce: the case of Knoxville, Tennessee. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 19:193194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feenstra, G.W. 1997. Local food systems and sustainable communities. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 12:2836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feenstra, G. and Campbell, D. 1998. Placer GROWN; Select Sonoma County. Community Food Systems in California: Profiles of 13 Collaborations. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, University of California, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
FPC. 2001. Attracting Consumers with Locally Grown Products. Food Processing Center, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
Gallons, J., Toensmeyer, U.C., Bacon, J.R., and German, C.L. 1997. An analysis of consumer characteristics concerning direct marketing of fresh produce in Delaware: A case study. Journal of Food Distribution Research 28:98106.Google Scholar
Harris, B., Burress, D., and Eicher, S. 2000. Demands for Local and Organic Produce: A Brief Review of the Literature. Institute for Public Policy and Business Research, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.Google Scholar
Jack, R.L. and Blackburn, K.L. 1984. Effect of Place of Residence on Consumer Attitudes Concerning Fresh Produce Marketed Through Direct Farm Markets in West Virginia. WV University Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station Bulletin 685.Google Scholar
Jekanowski, M., Williams, D. II, and Schiek, W. 2000. Consumers' willingness to purchase locally produced agricultural products: An analysis of an Indiana survey. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 29:4353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kezis, A., King, F.R., Toensmeyer, U.C., Jack, R., and Kerr, H.W. 1984. Consumer acceptance and preference for direct marketing in the Northeast. Journal of Food Distribution Research 15:3846.Google Scholar
Kezis, A., Gwebu, T., Peavey, S., and Cheng, H.T. 1998. A study of consumers at a small farmers' market in Maine: Results from a 1995 survey. Journal of Food Distribution Research 29:9199.Google Scholar
Kohls, R.L. and Uhl, J.N. 2002. Marketing of Agricultural Products. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. p. 159162.Google Scholar
Lockeretz, W. 1986. Urban consumers' attitudes towards locally grown produce. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1:8388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohr, L. 2001. Factors affecting international demand and trade in organic food products. In Regmi, A. (ed.). Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
MCDC. 2002. Demographic Profile 3 Trend Report for Counties 1990–2000, Missouri Census Data Center, Jefferson City, MO. Available at Web site http://mcdc2.missouri.edu/websas/dp3_2ktmenus/mo/Counties.html (verified December 18, 2002).Google Scholar
MDA. 2002. Farmers' Market Directory: Numbers of Missouri Farmers' Markets. Missouri Depart. of Agriculture, Jefferson City, MO. Available at Web site http://agebb.missouri.edu/fmktdir/numberof.htm (verified June 27, 2002).Google Scholar
Nayga, R.M. Jr., Govindasamy, R., Wall, T.C., and Thatch, D.W. 1995. Characteristics of farmer-to-consumer direct market customers in New Jersey. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station P-02136-3-95, Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Rutgers University Cooperative Extension, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Patterson, P.M., Olofsson, H., Richards, T.J., and Sass, S. 1999. An empirical analysis of state agricultural product promotions: A case study of Arizona Crown. Agribusiness 15:179196.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, N.J., Anderson, M.D., Goldberg, J.P., Houser, R., and Rogers, B.L. 1999. Trying and buying locally grown produce at the workplace: Results of a marketing intervention. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 14:171179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stringer, S.B. and Thomson, J.S. 1998. Demographic data and fresh fruit and vegetable purchasing preferences of minority consumers in southeastern Pennsylvania. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 90:1822.Google Scholar
Thomson, J.S. and Kelvin, R.E. 1996. Suburbanites' perceptions about agriculture: The challenge for media. Journal of Applied Communications 80:1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USBC. 2002a. US Bureau of the Census, Census 2000, Table DP-1 for each county. Profile of general demographic characteristics: 2000. Available at Web site http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29000.html (verified January 23, 2003).Google Scholar
USBC. 2002b. US Bureau of the Census, Census 2000, Table DP-2 for each county. Profile of selected social characteristics: 2000. Available at Web site http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29000.html (verified January 23, 2003).Google Scholar
USBC. 2002c. US Bureau of the Census, Census 2000, Table DP-3 for each county. Profile of selected economic characteristics: 2000. Available at Web site http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29000.html (verified January 23, 2003).Google Scholar
USBC. 2002d. US Bureau of the Census, Census 2000, Urban and Rural Classification. Available at Web site http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html (viewed January 23, 2003).Google Scholar
Wilkins, J.L. and Gussow, J.D. 1997. Regional dietary guidance: Is the Northeast nutritionally complete? Proceedings of the International Conference on Agricultural Production and Nutrition. Available at Web site http://www.cals.comell.edu/agfoodcommunity/afs_temp3.cfm?topicID=204 (verified December 8, 2002).Google Scholar
Winter, M. 1996. Buying locally benefits more than just consumers. Cornell Cooperative Extension Food and Nutrition. Available at Web site http://www.cce.cornell.edu/programs/food/staff/news/0596/local.html (verified December 10, 2002).Google Scholar
Wolf, M.M. 1997. A target consumer profile and positioning for promotion of the direct marketing of fresh produce: A case study. Journal of Food Distribution Research 28:1117.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 311 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 27th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-2qp9q Total loading time: 0.491 Render date: 2021-01-27T20:50:29.009Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Consumers' preferences for locally produced food: A study in southeast Missouri
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Consumers' preferences for locally produced food: A study in southeast Missouri
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Consumers' preferences for locally produced food: A study in southeast Missouri
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *