Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • Cheryl Brown (a1)

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.

Copyright

References

Hide All
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.
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.
Bruhn, C.M., Vossen, P.M., Chapman, E., and Vaupel, S. 1992. Consumer attitudes toward locally grown produce. California Agriculture 46:1316.
Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Eastwood, D.B. 1996. Using customer surveys to promote farmers' markets: A case study. Journal of Food Distribution Research 27:2330.
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.
Feenstra, G.W. 1997. Local food systems and sustainable communities. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 12:2836.
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.
FPC. 2001. Attracting Consumers with Locally Grown Products. Food Processing Center, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kohls, R.L. and Uhl, J.N. 2002. Marketing of Agricultural Products. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. p. 159162.
Lockeretz, W. 1986. Urban consumers' attitudes towards locally grown produce. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1:8388.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thomson, J.S. and Kelvin, R.E. 1996. Suburbanites' perceptions about agriculture: The challenge for media. Journal of Applied Communications 80:1120.
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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.

Keywords

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

  • Cheryl Brown (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed