Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:29:19.258Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Urban consumers' attitudes towards locally grown produce

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2009

William Lockeretz
Affiliation:
Research associate professor at the School of Nutrition, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155.
Get access

Abstract

In areas where farmland is under heavy development pressure but where farms are too small to compete in major marketing channels with larger farms in other regions, producers must use channels that capitalize on their proximity to consumers. This advantage is greatest for fresh fruits and vegetables, provided farmers understand their urban customers' purchasing preferences. This study interviewed more than 600 customers at farmers' markets and supermarkets in six urban and suburban communities in eastern Massachusetts and at agricultural fairs. Respondents were asked about their reasons for purchasing fruits and vegetables at various sites, about their preferences, if any, for produce grown locally, and about changes that might cause them to purchase more local produce. The results suggest that for local origin to be taken into account by consumers, the produce should be sold in a locally oriented environment, e.g., a farmers' market. Although the particular supermarkets in this study featured locally grown produce in their advertising, this seems to have had little effect on consumers' buying. Conversely, consumers' highly favorable opinion of farmers' markets involved several factors besides the localness of the produce in a purely geographic sense. These included the pleasant environment, the (presumed) short time since the produce was picked, and the opportunity to purchase directly from the producer in a face-to-face transaction.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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.)

References

1.Adrian, J. L. 1982. Fanners' markets in Alabama. Highlights of Agricultural Research 29(2):16. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn.Google Scholar
2.Collins, R. C. 1979. States' role in farmland retention. In: Farmland, Food and the Future, Schnepf, M. (ed.), pp. 165187. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, IA.Google Scholar
3.Coughlin, R. E. 1979. Agricultural land conversion on the urban fringe. In: Farmland, Food and the Future, Schnepf, M. (ed.), pp. 2948. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, IA.Google Scholar
4.Estes, E. A. 1985. Community farmers' markets in North Carolina: A survey of consumers and sellers in 1981. Bulletin 472. North Carolina Agricultural Res. Ser., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh.Google Scholar
5.Lapping, M. B. 1980. Agricultural land retention: Responses, American and foreign. In: The Farm and the City: Rivals or Allies?, Woodruff, A. M. (ed.), pp. 144178. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
6.Lapping, M. B., Penfold, G. E., and Macpherson, S.. 1983. Right-to-farm laws: Do they resolve land use conflicts? J. Soil and Water Conservation 38:465467.Google Scholar
7.Pelsue, N. H. 1984. Consumers at farmers' markets and roadside stands in Vermont. Research Report 41. Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Vermont, Burlington.Google Scholar