Consumer willingness to pay for locally grown products: the case of South Carolina

A contingent valuation framework is used to evaluate South Carolina consumers' willingness to pay for the “locally grown” characteristic (defined here as South Carolina grown) in produce and animal products and to identify the sociodemographic characteristics affecting consumer preferences for this characteristic. Findings show that South Carolina consumers are willing to pay an average premium of 27% for local produce and 23% for local animal products. Premiums for local products are influenced by age, gender, and income as well as by perceived product quality, a desire to support the local economy, patronage of farmers markets, and consumer ties to agriculture. lJEL Categories: D12, Q13r. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  David B. Eastwood,et al.  Consumer Preferences for Local Versus Out-Of-State Grown Selected Fresh Produce: The Case of Knoxville, Tennessee , 1987, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[2]  J. Lusk,et al.  Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness‐To‐Pay for Golden Rice , 2003 .

[3]  M. Loureiro,et al.  Discovering Niche Markets: A Comparison of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local (Colorado Grown), Organic, and GMO-Free Products , 2002, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[4]  Jayson L. Lusk,et al.  Willingness‐to‐Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making , 2004 .

[5]  Cheryl L. Brown,et al.  Consumers' preferences for locally produced food: A study in southeast Missouri , 2003 .

[6]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1987 .

[7]  Paul M. Patterson.  State-Grown Promotion Programs: Fresher, Better? , 2006 .

[8]  Paul M. Patterson,et al.  An empirical analysis of state agricultural product promotions: A case study on Arizona Grown , 1999 .

[9]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-market Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression' , 1988 .

[10]  Daniel R. Williams,et al.  Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Locally Produced Agricultural Products: An Analysis of an Indiana Survey , 2000, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[11]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Product‐country images and preference heterogeneity for Mediterranean food products: A discrete choice framework , 2005 .

[12]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[13]  R. Mittelhammer,et al.  Will Consumers Pay a Premium for Eco-labeled Apples? , 2002 .

[14]  C. Bond,et al.  Consumer Preferences for Locally Made Specialty Food Products Across Northern New England , 2005, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[15]  Kevin P. Sullivan,et al.  Returns to the Jersey Fresh Promotional Program: The Impacts of Promotional Expenditures on Farm Cash Receipts in New Jersey , 2004 .

[16]  R. Govindasamy,et al.  Farmers Markets: Consumer Trends, Preferences, and Characteristics , 1998 .

[17]  Brian Roe,et al.  Decomposing Local: A Conjoint Analysis of Locally Produced Foods , 2008 .

[18]  Cheryl L. Brown,et al.  Evaluating the Economic Impact of Farmers' Markets Using an Opportunity Cost Framework , 2008, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[19]  R. Nayga.  Determinants of U.S. Household Expenditures on Fruit and Vegetables: A Note and Update , 1995, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[20]  Wen S. Chern,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Oil, Cornflakes, and Salmon: Evidence from a U.S. Telephone Survey , 2005, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.