Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:54:37.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common support for local agriculture in two contrasting Oregon communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Garry Stephenson  and
Larry Lev
Garry Stephenson*
Affiliation:
Extension Small Farm Program and Department of Anthropology, 1849 NW 9th Street, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA.
Larry Lev
Affiliation:
Extension Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One increasingly successful approach to enhancing small farm viability is for farmers to market their products directly to consumers and food-oriented businesses and institutions within their local area. This localized approach to food production and distribution is based on theoretical concepts often articulated as community, local or regional food systems. But is there sufficient consumer support to make local food systems viable? Do communities differ in their potential for developing a local food system based on their dominant socio-economic and/or political characteristics? This study reports on the results of a random mail survey of households in two Oregon communities. Although the two communities contrast socio-economically and politically, they show common but somewhat different support for local agriculture. The results demonstrate the potential for the development of more localized food systems in both communities. However, the type of products, their method of delivery and pricing will likely need to be tailored to fit each community.

Keywords

local food systemsfarm direct marketingconsumer preferences
Type
Review Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 210 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

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

1Heffernan, W.Hendrickson, M. and Gronski, R. 1999. Consolidation in the Food and Agriculture System. Department of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri Columbia. Available at Web site <http://nfu.org/images/heffernan_1999.pdf> (verified 9 April 2004).+(verified+9+April+2004).>Google Scholar
2USDA. 1998. A Time to Act: A Report of the USDA National Commission on Small Farms. USDA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
3American Farmland Trust. 2001. Summary of Findings from a Nationwide Survey. Available at Web site <http://www. farmland.org/news_2001/survey_summary_statistics.pdfm> (verified 17 May 2004).+(verified+17+May+2004).>Google Scholar
4Stephenson, G. 1997. Summary of a Needs Assessment of Southern Willamette Valley Small Farmers. Oregon State University Extension Service, Benton County.Google Scholar
5Feenstra, G.W. 1997. Local food systems and sustainable communities. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 12:28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Feenstra, G.W. 2002. Creating space for sustainable food systems: lessons from the field. Agriculture and Human Values 19:99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Kloppenburg, J.J.Hendrickson, J. and Stevenson, G.W. 1996. Coming in to the foodshed. Agriculture and Human Values 13:33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on Earth. New Society Publishers, Gabrioloa Island.Google Scholar
9Bruhn, C.Chapman, E.Vaupel, S. and Vossen, P. 1992. Consumer attitudes toward locally grown produce. California Agriculture 46:13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Eastwood, 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 19:183–194.Google Scholar
11Gallons, J.Toensmeyer, U.Bacon, R.J. 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 28:98–106.Google Scholar
12Jekanowski, M.D.Williams, D.R. II,Schiek, W.A. 2000. Customers’ willingness to purchase locally produced agricultural products: an analysis of an Indiana survey. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 29:43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13North Central Initiative for Small Farm Profitability. 2001. Attracting Consumers with Locally Grown Products. University of Nebraska (Food Processing Center and Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources), Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
14Govindasamy, R. and Nayga, R.M. Jr. 1996. Characteristics of farmer-to-consumer direct market customers: an overview. Journal of Extension 34(4). Available at Web site <http://www.joe.org> (verified 9 April 2004).Google Scholar
15Rhodus, T.Schwartz, J. and Hopkins, J. 1994. Ohio Consumer Opinions of Roadside Markets and Farmers’ Markets. Report of the Ohio Rural Rehabilitation Program. Ohio Department of Agriculture, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
16Lehman, J.Bacon, J.R.Toensmeyer, U.Pesek, J. and German, C. 1998. An analysis of consumer preferences for Delaware farmer direct markets. Journal of Food Distribution Research 29:84–90.Google Scholar
17Lockeretz, W. 1986. Urban consumers’ attitudes toward locally grown produce. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1:83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18van de Fliert, E. and Braun, A.R. 2002. Conceptualizing integrative, farmer participatory research for sustainable agriculture: from opportunities to impact. Agriculture and Human Values 19:25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys—The Total Design Method. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
20Salant, P. and Dillman, D.A. 1994. How to Conduct Your Own Survey. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
21International Fund for Agricultural Development. 2004. Managing for Impact in Rural Development, A Guide for Project Monitoring and Evaluation—Glossary. United Nations. Available at Web site <http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/guide/annexa/a.htm#c> (verified 25 May 2004).+(verified+25+May+2004).>Google Scholar
22Gudeman, S. 2001. The Anthropology of Economy, Community, Market, and Culture. Blackwell Publishers, Inc., Malden, MA.Google Scholar
23US Census Bureau. 2000. 2000 Census Profiles for Oregon. Available at Web site <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServletm> (verified 9 April 2004).+(verified+9+April+2004).>Google Scholar
24State of Oregon Elections Division. 2000. 2000 General Election Statistical Summary. Oregon Secretary of State Office. Available at Web site <http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/elechp.htm> (verified 17 May 2004).+(verified+17+May+2004).>Google Scholar
25Govindasamy, R.Italia, J. and Thatch, D. 1999. Consumer Attitudes and Response Toward State-Sponsored Agriculture Promotion: An Evaluation of the Jersey Fresh Program. Journal of Extension 37(3). Available at Web site <http://www.joe.orgm> (verified 9 April 2004).Google Scholar
26Kezis, A.King, R.Toensmeyer, U.Jack, R. and Kerr, H. 1984. Consumer acceptance and preference for direct marketing in the Northeast. Journal of Food Distribution Research 15:38–46.Google Scholar
27Hartman Group. 1996. Food and the Environment: A Consumer's Perspective. Phase I. The Hartman Group, Bellevue, WA.Google Scholar