Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kl59c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T11:21:01.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Locally Produced Agricultural Products: An Analysis of an Indiana Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Mark D. Jekanowski ,
Daniel R. Williams II  and
William A. Schiek
Mark D. Jekanowski
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service, USDA
Daniel R. Williams II
Affiliation:
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA
William A. Schiek
Affiliation:
Dairy Institute of California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using a survey of over 320 consumers from across the state of Indiana, we estimate an ordered probit model to determine the demographic and attitudinal factors which are most important in predicting the likelihood of consumers to purchase products that are produced within the state. Our results indicate that the willingness to purchase locally produced agricultural products increases with time of residency in the state, and we find a greater tendency for female consumers to purchase such products. We also find that quality perceptions play a critical role in these food purchase decisions. We underscore the importance of maintaining minimum quality standards to maximize the effectiveness of state level agricultural promotion programs.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , April 2000 , pp. 43 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adelaja, A.O., Brumfield, R.G., and Lininger, K. 1996. “Product Differentiation and State Promotion of Farm Produce: An Analysis of the Jersey Fresh Tomato” Journal of Food Distribution Research 21(3): 73–85.Google Scholar
Ben-Akiva, M., and Lerman, S.R. 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Brown, A.R. 1988. “‘Jersey Fresh’: A Fresh Idea in Farm Products Marketing” In 1988 Yearbook of U.S. Agricultural Marketing, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington DC, 256–260.Google Scholar
Halloran, J.M. and Martin, M.V. 1989. “Should States be in the Agricultural Promotion Business?” Agribusiness 5(1): 65–75.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. 1996. Econometric Software Incorporated. LIMDEP Version 7.0.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. 1991. Econometric Analysis Second Edition, Macmillan Publishing, New York.Google Scholar
Long, J.S. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables Series 7 of Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences. Sage Publications, London.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 on Arizona Grown” Agribusiness 15(2): 179–196.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, R.C. 1991. “Pricing and Promotion in Asymmetric Duopolies” Marketing Science 10(2): 131–144.Google Scholar
Ward, R.W., Chang, J., and Thompson, S. 1985. “Commodity Advertising: Theoretical Issues Relating to Generic and Brand Promotions.” Agribusiness 1(4): 269–276.3.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waugh, F.V. 1959. “Needed Research on the Effectiveness of Farm Products Promotions.” Journal of Farm Economics 41: 364–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D.R. II 1995. “Feasibility of a Statewide Branding Program for Indiana-Sourced Food and Agricultural Products.” Unpublished Masters Thesis. Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.Google Scholar
Wohlgenant, M.K. 1993. “Distribution of Gains from Research and Promotion in Multi-Stage Production Systems: The Case of the U.S. Beef and Pork Industries” American Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 75(4): 642–651.Google Scholar