Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6f6fcd54b-n4hhg Total loading time: 0.385 Render date: 2021-05-10T23:16:04.425Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: {}

Determinants of Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Market Visits by Type of Facility: A Logit Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Ramu Govindasamy
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing at Rutgers—the State University of New Jersey
Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing at Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey
Get access

Abstract

This study identifies several socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of individuals who visited farmer-to-consumer direct markets in New Jersey. The analysis was performed for each type of direct marketing facility: pick-your-own farms, roadside stands, farmers’ markets, and direct farm markets. Logit analysis results indicate that various factors affect visitation to each type of facility. Factors examined include consumer's consumption and variety of fruits and vegetables, price expectation, purpose of buying, age, sex, education, race, income, urbanization, and presence of home garden.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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.

References

Amemiya, T. 1983. Advanced Econometrics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Beierlien, J.G., and Connell, C.M. 1986. Managing for Success: A Manual for Roadside Markets. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University. May.Google Scholar
Beierlien, J.G., Vroomen, H., and Connell, C.M. 1986. Pennsylvania Roadside Market Survey. Pennsylvania State University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 182.Google Scholar
Connell, C.M., Beierlein, J.G., and Vroomen, H.L. 1986. Consumer Preferences and Attitudes Regarding Fruit and Vegetable Purchases from Direct Market Outlets. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Bulletin 185. May.Google Scholar
Cartier, K. 1994. “Direct Marketing of Produce: A Study of Farmers’ Markets in Jackson, Knoxville, and Memphis Tennessee.” M.S. thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Tennessee.Google Scholar
Eastwood, D., Orr, R., and Brookers, J. 1986. Consumer Stated Preferences for Selected Fresh Produce and Vegetables. University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Tennessee, Research Report 86-06.Google Scholar
Eastwood, D., Brooker, J.R., and Gray, M.D. 1995. An Intrastate Comparison of Consumers’ Patronage of Farmers’ Markets in Knox, Madison, and Shelby Counties. Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing Research Report 95-03. February.Google Scholar
Govindasamy, R. 1996a, “Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing: Characteristics of New Jersey Operations.” Paper presented at the 1996 Pennsylvania Vegetable Conference and Trade show, 30 January-1 February, Hershey, Pa.Google Scholar
Govindasamy, R. 1996b. “Direct Marketing Operations in New Jersey: The Past and the Present.” Paper presented at the 1996 Mid-Atlantic Direct Marketing Conference and Trade Show, 7-10 February, Fredericksburg, Va.Google Scholar
Govindasamy, R., and Nayga, R. 1996. “Characteristics of Roadside Stand Operations in New Jersey and a Profile of the Customers Who Frequent Them.” Paper presented at the 1996 North American Farmers’ Direct Marketing Conference, 22-24 February, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.Google Scholar
Henderson, P.L., and Linstrom, H.R. 1982. Farmer to Consumer Direct Marketing: Selected States, 1979–80. ERS-USDA. Statistical Bulletin no. 681. February.Google Scholar
Linstrom, H.R. 1978. Farmer to Consumer Marketing. ESCS01. Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. February.Google Scholar
Maddala, G. 1983. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nayga, R.M. Jr., Fabian, M.S., Thatch, D.W., and Wanzala, M.N. 1994. Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing: Characteristics of New Jersey Operations. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Publication no. P-02453-1-94. Rutgers University. March.Google Scholar
Nayga, R.M. Jr., Govindasamy, R., Wall, T., and Thatch, D. 1995. Characteristics of Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Market Customers in New Jersey. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Publication no. P-02136-3-95. Rutgers University. June.Google Scholar
Rhodus, T., Schwartz, J., and Hoskins, J. 1994. Ohio Consumer Opinions of Roadside Markets and Farmers’ Markets. Ohio State University Department of Horticulture.Google Scholar
Schooley, R.E., Bascom, P.F., Conners, D., and Lewis, R. 1989. New York Direct Marketing Survey 1988. New York Agricultural Statistics Service. Albany, N.Y. Google Scholar

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.

Determinants of Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Market Visits by Type of Facility: A Logit Analysis
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.

Determinants of Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Market Visits by Type of Facility: A Logit Analysis
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.

Determinants of Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Market Visits by Type of Facility: A Logit Analysis
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *