Journal of Consumer Marketing

Who are the locavores?

John L. Stanton James B. Wiley Ferdinand F. Wirth
Article information:
To cite this document:
John L. Stanton James B. Wiley Ferdinand F. Wirth, (2012),"Who are the locavores?", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29
Iss 4 pp. 248 - 261
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761211237326
Downloaded on: 30 January 2016, At: 07:14 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 44 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1363 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 07:14 30 January 2016 (PT)

Susan Cholette, Özgür Özlük, Leyla Öz#en, Gerardo R. Ungson, (2013),"Exploring purchasing preferences: local
and ecologically labelled foods", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 30 Iss 7 pp. 563-572 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
JCM-04-2013-0544
Mark Lang, John Stanton, Yingdao Qu, (2014),"Consumers’ evolving definition and expectations for local foods", British Food
Journal, Vol. 116 Iss 11 pp. 1808-1820 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2014-0117
Miranda Mirosa, Rob Lawson, (2012),"Revealing the lifestyles of local food consumers", British Food Journal, Vol. 114 Iss 6 pp.
816-825 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070701211234345

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:382916 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Who are the locavores?
John L. Stanton
Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
James B. Wiley
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA and University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia, and
Ferdinand F. Wirth
Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This research aims to develop a behaviorally based definition of “locavores”, i.e. a segment of a population that purchases locally grown
produce. It describes the locavore segment on a set of attributes representative of those typically used for market segmentation and contrasts the
locavore segment with a non-locavore segment to estimate the impact value of local production over organic production. This paper operationalizes the
concept in terms of reported buying behavior for fresh produce. A questionnaire administered to adult primary household food shoppers and residents
of a US state included attribute, trial and usage (AT&U) questions focusing on a specific target product, i.e. apples. The paper profiles the segment in
terms of marketing relevant criteria and discusses implications of the segment for the marketing of fresh produce.
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 07:14 30 January 2016 (PT)

Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative online survey of 1,218 Pennsylvania residents was conducted. The survey included a conjoint
experiment where respondents rated their preference for various apples consisting of different levels of key apple characteristics, including physical
apple attributes (sweetness, blemishes, size, crispness), credence attributes (conventional versus organic production method, local origin versus product
of USA versus imported) and purchase price when buying apples. The data were used to quantify how much consumers are willing to give up in terms of
product appearance, price, value of locally produced or other variables. Traditional attribute, trial and usage data were also collected.
Findings – The key finding was that the attribute “local” was significantly more impactful in changing preference for apples than “organic”. It was
also found that there were three segments of apple consumers: those that most valued the quality of the apple, a second that was most interested in
price, and a third most interested in the health and/or life style attributes such as local and organic attributes. Large differences were found between
locavores and non-locavores on marketing relevant criteria, such as price sensitivity, outlet preferences, and media characteristics.
Research limitations/implications – The major limitation was the use of only Pennsylvania residents in the study and produce other than apples
might have been used as well. Additionally it would have been more effective if the actual apples could have been available to taste and inspect. A
valuable finding is that there is a local segment that values and is willing to pay for a locally produced product. However, that is the smallest segment
and must be carefully targeted as most consumers are interested in either taste or price.
Practical implications – USA food retailers that use local supply can tell their customers “that purchasing from local farmers helps the economy in the
communities we serve. Local produce can be delivered to your store very quickly and faster shipping means even fresher produce for you. Items can be
picked and packed at a more mature stage. This can really bring out the taste of the product. Eating locally grown food also means less fossil fuel
burned in preparation and transport – and less energy needed to refrigerate during transportation”. Farmers may wish to promote their local crops and
not spend the additional money on organic farming.
Originality/value – The article appears to be the first research paper to tease apart the impact of local from organic via a conjoint analysis.

Keywords Locavores, Apples, Local production, Consumer behaviour, Market segmentation

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive .

readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
Consumers increasingly have had to rely on credence
attributes in responding to diverse concerns regarding the
food system. Sources of concern include:
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
Journal of Consumer Marketing
29/4 (2012) 248– 261
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]
[DOI 10.1108/07363761211237326]
increased nationalization, internationalization, and
industrialization of the agri-food business;
.
environmental factors associated with pesticide use,
treatment of animals, wasteful packaging, “carbon
footprints” of production and transportation;
.
the sustainability of food production systems; and
.
desire to support local enterprise.
Credence attributes are ones that cannot be ascertained by
direct experience (e.g. dolphin-safe, free-range, fair trade,
organic, place of origin, and locally grown). In contrast,
search attributes refer to visual attributes of products (such as
size, color, and blemishes), while experience attributes (such
as taste) are ones that are ascertained on the basis of
consuming the product (see Darby and Karni, 1973; Nelson,
1970, 1974). Many studies have shown that credence
attributes influence consumers’ buying intentions (Dentoni

248
 Who are the locavores?
John L. Stanton, James B. Wiley and Ferdinand F. Wirth
et al., 2009; Gao et al., 2010; Wirth et al., 2007). For
example, it has been shown that “local” or “locally grown”
attribution affects consumers’ willingness-to-pay for food
products (Darby et al., 2008; Froelich et al., 2009). Certain
segments of the population also are willing to pay more for
food products carrying a label identifying organic production,
(Mabiso et al., 2005).
Two significant food trends that rely on credence attributes
have been developing over the past few years are consumer
preferences for organically grown foods and for locally
produced foods. Many of the factors leading to interest in
organic foods undoubtedly also encourage consumption of
local produce, e.g. concern for health, erosion of confidence
in the conventional industry, concern with chemicals and
pesticides in commercial food, and desire for increased taste
and flavor. Concern for environment and a belief that local
consumption minimizes the “carbon footprint” of
consumption also favors buying locally.
No area has been more affected by these trends than fresh
fruits and vegetables. Although organically grown foods have
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 07:14 30 January 2016 (PT)
received attention because of fast growth rates, the growth has
been from a very low base and the absolute amount is still
quite low. According to a Nielsen Report (2008), organic sales
of fresh produce were only 6 percent of the total fresh produce
sales and only about 1 percent of total supermarket sales were
organic. Additionally the current economic crisis has made
the price differential more of a barrier to purchase.
In contrast to organically grown foods, buying locally grown
foods has become increasingly in vogue. Consumers see
buying local fresh products as safer and providing insurance
against food borne illness. Because of the lack of transit,
locally grown produce is perceived to be fresher and tastier.
Supermarkets are identifying the farmers and producers in
advertising, in-store promotional material and on their web
site. Some stores are listing how far their food travels to the
store.
This research develops a behaviorally based definition of
“Locavores,” i.e. a segment of a population that purchases
locally grown produce. It describes the Locavore segment on a
set of attributes representative of those typically used for
market segmentation and contrasts the Locavore segment
with a non-Locavore segment. The Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB) is used as a theoretical framework for
discussing segmentation strategies that might be used in
targeting the Locavore segment (Ajzen, 1991). TPB has been
applied to the study of food choice by a number of authors
(Beale and Manstead, 1991; Lloyd et al., 1993; Sparks et al.,
1992; Sparks and Shepherd, 1992; Towler and Shepherd,
1992).
Background
There have been numerous articles in the lay press on the
consumer trend to buy local food products. In contrast to
certified organic foods, no standards exist for “local” foods in
the US. The boundary for defining foods as local can include
food grown within a county, within neighboring counties,
within a state, and within neighboring states (Zepeda and
Leviten-Reid, 2004). Wal-Mart, the largest food retailer in the
US, considers anything local if it is grown in the same state in
which it is sold. Wal-Mart states that 20 percent of the fresh
produce in its supercenters is local, making Wal-Mart the
nation’s largest purchaser of local produce (Warner, 2006).
249
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2012 · 248 –261
Whole Foods, the biggest retailer of natural and organic
foods, considers local anything produced within seven hours
of one of its stores (Schmitt, 2008). The people who value
and buy locally produced food are called Locavores. While
there is no official definition of Locavore, it is accepted that
they are people who buy food in supermarkets that are
designated as locally produced, from farmers markets, or even
produce their own food. The Oxford University Press
recognized “Locavore” as the word of the year in 2007
(Oxford University Press, 2007). Locavores have received
increasing attention in the popular press, attention not
matched in academic research. This is somewhat surprising
given that major retailers and manufacturers of food are
devoting resources to what they presumably believe is an
important segment.
Advertising Age claims that the Locavore movement is part
of several disparate movements united in a common theme
“local consumption” (Frazier, 2007). The Western Farm Press
(October 4, 2008) introduced the concept to its readers in
their issue by the author describing himself as a Locavore.
Even the magazine Lifestyle and Leisure (October 17, 2008)
discussed Locavores. The main stream food magazine Modern
Baking (October 1, 2009) provided insight into the impact of
Locavore on the baking industry and Advertising Age (June 4,
2007) had a similar theme. Restaurants are given advice how
to “cultivate new Locavore fans with farm fresh dinners” in
Nation’s Restaurant News (Parseghian, 2009). Even the more
technical magazine such as Logistic and Transport Focus
(August 2008) has discussed Locavores.
Retailers and food manufacturers have recognized this
trend and have promoted locally produced foods with in-store
advertising, online advertising and even conventional mass
media advertising. For example, Wegmans, a northeastern US
food retailer, have been a vanguard in local promotion
including both in-store and online identification of the
farmers who produce the products being sold. Whole Foods
another major food retailer has the following information on
their web site, “We are permanently committed to buying
from local producers whose fruits and vegetables meet our
high quality standards, particularly those who farm
organically and are themselves dedicated to environmentally
friendly, sustainable agriculture. We are greatly increasing our
efforts in this regard by further empowering our individual
store and regional buyers to seek out locally grown produce”
(Whole Foods, 2010). Restaurants offer special menus
offering all local foods, including for example a consortium
of New Jersey restaurants that all offer a special local menu
during the summer months (Rutgers, 2010).
Not every article sings the praises of the trend toward eating
local. There are critics of the Locavore trend. In a Wall Street
Journal article reviewing a book by James McWilliams Just
Food, an agricultural historian at Texas State University,
concluded that the author is more interested in challenging
“Locavores” and other “ethical eaters” to rethink some of
their most treasured assumptions (Sullum, 2009).
Academic research
While there has been much research on consumer preferences
for organic foods, less research has been published on
consumer interest in locally grown food, despite the
increasing demand and availability. Zepeda and Leviten-
Reid (2004) reported that some consumers define local foods
in terms of distance, rather than political boundaries, often
 Who are the locavores?
John L. Stanton, James B. Wiley and Ferdinand F. Wirth
using driving time as a measure, with one day’s drive being a
frequent distance boundary. A Hartman Group (2008)
nationwide consumer survey indicated that consumer
interest in locally produced foods is driven by the belief that
local foods are healthier than non-locally grown foods. Half
the responding consumers defined local as within 100 miles,
while 37 percent said within the same state. The places where
consumers most frequently shopped for local products
included the grocery store, named by 62 percent of
respondents, and farmers’ markets, listed by 61 percent of
respondents. The survey also showed that 52 percent of
consumers said it was important to buy local goods whenever
possible, versus only 23 percent who said the same thing for
organic (Schmitt, 2008).
Zepeda and Li (2006) reviewed consumers’ motivations to
purchase locally produced foods. They suggested that
proximity is a cue associated with freshness and improved
quality. Proximity also means that food travels less distance,
implying lower fuel costs, a potentially important motivator
for consumers with environmental concerns. Other attitudes
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 07:14 30 January 2016 (PT)
associated with buying local include the desire to support
local farmers and the local economy. Monetary costs for local
foods and indirect search costs may also affect demand for
local foods. If local foods are available at a consumer’s regular
shopping venue, search costs are minimal.
Darby et al. (2008) surveyed 530 Ohio shoppers and used
stated preference data from a choice-based conjoint analysis
experiment to examine issues surrounding consumer demand
for locally produced fresh strawberries. The results failed to
show any significant difference between “grown nearby”
versus “grown in Ohio.” The authors did demonstrate that
consumer demand exists for locally produced foods and that
this demand is independent of other attributes, such as
freshness and anti-corporate images.
Dentoni et al. (2009) used structural equation modeling to
demonstrate that the ‘locally grown’ credence attribute has
both direct and indirect effects on consumers’ attitudes
toward fresh apples. The direct effect was the impact of
locally grown on consumers’ attitudes, without any
mediation. Indirect effects were the impacts of locally grown
on attitudes mediated by consumers’ inference that other
desirable product attributes, such as freshness, were present
in the locally grown product. The researchers concluded that
some consumers value locally grown as a cue for freshness, an
experience attribute, or as a cue for environmental
friendliness, another credence attribute.
Theory
The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) aims to explain
volitional choice; that is, actions that the individual intends to
make (Ajzen, 1988). TPB is an extension of The Theory of
Reasoned Action (TRA), proposed by (Fishbein and Ajzen,
1975). Both TRB and TRA posit that behavioral intentions
are the outcome of individuals’ cognitive processing of beliefs
about the behaviors under consideration, such as purchase of
locally grown produce. Both theories conceive intention as a
motivational construct indicating the amount of effort the
individual is willing to expend to complete an action (see
Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1990). Figure 1 depicts TRB.
TPB is intended to apply to situations where decision
makers do not have complete volitional control of their
actions, i.e. situations where they may not be able to complete
an action (such as purchase locally grown food) even though
250
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2012 · 248 –261
they may be motivated to do so. The theory recognizes that in
order for behavior to occur, the individual must have both
motivation (intention) and ability (behavioral control). For
example, an individual may intend to purchase locally grown
apples, but be unable to because they are not grown locally,
they are not in season, they are not sold in a locally available
outlet, or because the person lacks transportation. These
examples refer to actual behavioral control. Clearly, behaviors
over which people lack actual control will not be observed,
regardless of intention.
The behavioral control construct in TRB, however, refers to
perceived behavioral control. Perceived behavioral control
refers to people’s perception of the ease or difficulty of
performing a behavior in a specific time and context.
Perceived behavioral control can influence behavioral
outcomes in at least two ways. First, they may influence an
individual’s perseverance. People are more likely to persevere
in their search for locally grown food if they believe they will
succeed at the task. Second, perceived behavioral control
perceptions can serve as surrogates for actual control. Their
effectiveness as surrogates will depend on the accuracy of the
perceptions. For example, if a person incorrectly perceives the
availability of a locally grown produce, he or she may intend
to purchase it, even though it is in fact unavailable and
purchase will not be observed.
Aside from perceived behavioral control, TRB postulates
two additional determinants of intention: attitude and social
norms. Attitude refers to the individual’s favorable or
unfavorable evaluation of the behavior in question, i.e. the
purchase of locally grown food. Social norm refers to
perceived social pressure to perform or not perform the
behavior.
Our objective in introducing theory in the present paper is
to provide a framework for discussion in the concluding
section of the paper of strategies for targeting the Locavore
segment. In order to be useful for this purpose, it is necessary
to understand the sources of the respective components of the
framework, e.g. attitude, social norm, and perceived
behavioral control.
The sources of the respective components are individuals’
beliefs: behavioral beliefs, social beliefs, and control beliefs.
Not all of an individual’s beliefs in each category will
influence choice of action at in a specific context and time.
Those beliefs that are activated in a specific context and time
are referred to as salient beliefs. TPB proposes that only
salient beliefs are the antecedents of behavior.
Attitude is postulated to be related to behavioral beliefs, the
degree to which the individual believes a behavior will lead to
desirable or undesirable outcomes. Behavioral beliefs may be
either evaluative or affective. Evaluative beliefs are those
about the benefits or costs of an action, e.g. the cost or effort
to purchase locally grown food, health benefits, lack of
blemishes, or nutritional value from consuming the produce.
Affective beliefs are ones about positive or negative feelings
that stem from an activity, e.g. visiting farmers’ markets to
purchase locally grown produce, or the anticipated superior
taste or freshness experienced when consuming locally grown
produce. Evaluative beliefs generally coincide with search
attributes, affective attributes with experience attributes.
The impact of a specific behavioral belief is postulated to be
a function of the product of a) the evaluation of the outcome
(positive or negative), if it occurs, and b) the likelihood that
the outcome will occur. That is:
 Who are the locavores? Journal of Consumer Marketing
John L. Stanton, James B. Wiley and Ferdinand F. Wirth Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2012 · 248 –261

Figure 1 Theory of planned behavior

Downloaded by University of Queensland At 07:14 30 January 2016 (PT)

perform the act, and mj refers to the person’s motivation to

Xn
Aact a bi ei ; comply with the perceived wishes the jth referent person.
i¼1 Perceived behavioral control is postulated to be related to a
set of control beliefs. The impact control belief is a function
where Aact refers to the attitude toward the act, ei refers to the of:
value or affect associated with the ith outcome should it occur,
.
perceived presence or absence of salient resources or
and bi refers to the respondent’s belief regarding the likelihood impediments; and
that the act will lead to the outcome. The overall attitude
. the perceived power of the factor to impact performance
toward the behavior is proportional (to the sum of these of the act.
products over a set of n salient beliefs. That is:
Social norm is postulated to be related to a set of normative
beliefs. The impact of a normative belief is a function of: Xo
PBCact a ck pk ;
.
the strength of the belief (the degree to which the person
k¼1
believes another feels he or she should comply with the
behavioral norm); and where PBCact refers to the perception of behavioral control
.
the individual’s motivation to comply with the wishes of regarding the act, ck refers to the individual’s belief whether
the other. the kth salient control factor (resource or impediment is
That is: present), and pk refers to the impact of the kth salient factor
when present.
Xm
SN act a nj m j ;
j¼1
Methodology
The product
where SNact refers to the overall social pressure to to (or not The category of fresh produce was chosen for this research.
to) perform the act, nj refers to the strength of the individual’s Focus groups with consumers indicated that when
belief that the jth referent person believes he or she should considering buying local, fresh produce is one of the first

251
 Who are the locavores?
John L. Stanton, James B. Wiley and Ferdinand F. Wirth
categories considered. Additionally most localities have access
to some form of fresh produce. However when doing research
on specific attributes of “fresh produce” it can only be
meaningful to have consumers evaluate or consider a specific
product and not “in general” or “all produce.” In this study
we chose apples as the target product. Apples are one of the
most frequently purchased produce items in the supermarket
and very often have local production. Apples are grown in
every state in the continental United States, and are grown
commercially in 36 states (US Apple Association, 2006).
However they also are imported from numerous countries.
For example, apples are imported to the USA from China,
South America, New Zealand, and South Africa (USDA,
2009).
The data
The data for this study was taken from a larger, multi-stage
study. The larger study included the following steps:
1 Two preliminary focus groups with Pennsylvania residents
were undertaken to identify key attitudes, perceptions,
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 07:14 30 January 2016 (PT)
and concerns over purchasing of Pennsylvania apples and
organic fruits and vegetables, and to insure that the
researchers were using the most pertinent terminology
and have identified issues that may be specific to the PA
apple consumer. Focus groups are a useful research tool
to:
.
clarify a research problem area and more fully develop
the context and nature of a perceived problem or
research topic; and
. serve as a framework to lead stakeholder discussions
(Sterns and Ricks, 1999).
2 Quantitative online survey of PA residents. An Internet-
based survey was developed and administered to an
eRewards panel of 1,218 Pennsylvania residents who are:
.
primary household food shoppers;
.
over the age of 18; and
.
who had purchased fresh produce during the past six
months.
The survey instrument was comprised of three primary
aspects:
1 Traditional attribute, trial and usage (AT&U) data as well
as demographics were collected and analyzed using
traditional methods and/or replicating the work of other
organic fruits.
2 The survey also included a conjoint or trade-off analytic
experiment where respondents were asked to rate their
preference for various apple products consisting of
different levels of key apple characteristics. The
conjoint experiment quantified the relative importance
of, and tradeoffs between, physical apple attributes
(sweetness, blemishes, size, crispness), credence
attributes (conventional vs. organic production method,
local origin vs. product of USA vs. imported) and
purchase price when buying apples. The data were used
to quantify how much consumers are willing to give up in
terms of product appearance, price, value of locally
produced or other variables which may be obtained from
steps 1 and 2.
A total of 15,991 invitations were sent to eRewards panel
members. e-Rewards Inc., a Dallas-based online sample
provider, was selected to perform the e-mail broadcast of the
questionnaire, including links to the online questionnaire
252
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2012 · 248 –261
located at SurveyMonkey.com. The e-Rewards’ North
American Market Research Consumer Panel currently
consists of more than 2.5 million individuals. Approximately
100,800 (4.0 percent) of eRewards consumer panel members
are Pennsylvania residents.
e-Rewards was the first “by-invitation-only” e-mail-based
rewards program to serve the market research industry. The e-
Rewardsw Market Research panel recruitment methodology
uses a controlled mix of both online methods (e.g. solo e-mail
invitations and other targeted online modes) and offline
methods (e.g. physical post-card invitations, direct mail
inserts, etc.) to recruit from a diverse set of consumer sources
while controlling and managing the demographic make-up of
the consumer panel. All e-Rewards panel establishment
methodologies are fully compliant with CASRO guidelines,
and are designed to:
.
achieve higher levels of panel normalization; and
.
effectively avoid the “professional survey takers” that can
plague online research panels (www.erewardsresearch.
com).
An individual who responds to an invitation and joins an e-
Rewards panel completes a 300 þ item member profile,
which collects information about demographics, interests, life
events, health ailments, and various product purchase intent
data. On enrollment, panelists earn reward currency for
participating in online research surveys, then redeem currency
for rewards from leading companies like Delta Air Linesw,
Hiltonw, BLOCKBUSTERw, eBagsw, FTD.COMw,
Omaha Steaksw, and Sony among others.
Internet-based surveys are increasingly used and becoming
an accepted mode. Gian Fulgoni, co-founder of comScore
Networks, Inc., one of the largest Internet research firms in
the world, estimates that about one-third of all surveys in the
USA are conducted online (Enright, 2006, p. 20). In
addition, according to the global organization for market
research ESOMAR, online studies now represent 20 percent
of all expenditures on data collection (Hernandez, 2007). A
common way to administer an Internet-based survey is to
send an invitation by e-mail to individuals inviting them to
take the survey. A link to the web address containing the
survey is included in the e-mail invitation for the respondent
to access the survey.
Compared to surface mail, e-mail survey results are
comparable in the data gathered and response rate obtained.
It has also been shown that respondents are more willing to
respond to open-ended questions with Internet-based surveys.
Shortcomings in internet/e-mail surveys come in the form of
potential coverage errors, sampling errors, non-response
errors, and measurement errors (Champ et al., 2003;
Bachmann et al., 1996).
In the Berrens et al. (2003) study comparing telephone and
internet samples, two methods of obtaining mailing lists were
used, large panel and random panel assembly. Both methods
employed the use of e-mail recipients who had expressed a
willingness to respond to surveys. The recipients had the
ability to exit the survey and reenter until the survey was
complete. Recipients also had the ability to opt out of any
survey they did not wish to take. However, large panels may
not provide samples that are sufficiently representative to
support social science research (Berrens et al., 2003; Couper,
2000).
 Who are the locavores?
John L. Stanton, James B. Wiley and Ferdinand F. Wirth
Knapton and Myers (2005) reviewed the literature
evaluating response rates for online survey-based research
because the level of error and studies’ findings are linked to
the response rates. Providing financial incentives is a viable
and effective technique for increasing response rates. They
also reviewed studies comparing patterns of non-response
between online research and traditional survey research
techniques, such as mail and telephone. They concluded that
demographic categories of non-respondents in an online panel
mirror those of traditional research modes, with non-
responders more likely to be less educated, older and less
affluent than responders. These same demographic categories
are also known to be underrepresented on the Internet versus
the general US population. African-Americans, Hispanics and
Native Americans had lower response rates, while Asian-
Americans respond at a rate higher than average.
Results
Although the study was limited to Pennsylvania shoppers, it
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 07:14 30 January 2016 (PT)
covered the entire state which included urban, suburban and
rural households. Pennsylvania is recognized as having a good
representation of urban, suburban and rural settings and of
industrial and agricultural commerce (US Census, 1995).
The state also is a major producer and consumer of apples
and ranks 4th among all US states in apple production
(Pennsylvania Apple Board, 2009).
Of the 15,991 e-mail invitations sent to eRewards panel
members, 1957 members clicked-through to the survey web
site, giving a click rate of 12 percent (Calculated – 1957/
15,991). The click rate for a standard/similar online survey
research project is 15 to 20 percent. The slightly less than
normal click rate of the present survey is attributable to the
time frame for the survey, the middle of June 2009, a time
when prospective respondents are busy with school closing
and vacations.
Of the 1957 people clicking through to the survey web site,
504 were terminated in the screening process and 229
dropped out before completing the survey. The number of
submissions was 1224, giving a submission rate of 63 percent
(Calculated as 1224/1957). The overall response rate for the
survey is given as the product of click rate (12 percent) times
submission rate (63 percent). The overall response rate for
the survey was 7.6 percent, which is typical for Internet
surveys. The average time for completing the survey was 26.5
minutes.
Of the 1,224 respondents 15 percent described their
neighborhood as urban, 64 percent as suburban, and 21
percent as rural. Of the respondents 41 percent were male and
59 percent female. Only two respondents were under the age
of 20, 31 percent were 21-35, 13 percent were 36-40, 26
percent were 41-50, and 26 percent were 51-65 and 4 percent
were over the age of 65. Of respondents 20 percent were
single, 67 percent were married, 7 percent were divorced, and
6.5 percent were separated, widowed, or other.
In order to identify the Locavore segment a two-step
clustering of five questions relating to stated shopping
behavior, shown in Table I, was performed. Looking at the
“Number in Category” section of the table, it can be seen
388 respondents (32 percent) fall into the Locavore segment
and 836 (68 percent) fall into the non-Locavore segment.
This result is consistent with Bond et al. (2006), who (based
on an Internet based survey of a representative sample of the
253
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2012 · 248 –261
US population) classified 30 percent of their sample as
supporters of local food systems. Of the Locavore segment
67 percent (123 respondents) has visited a pick-your-own
farm in the past year. None of the Non-Locavore
respondents visited a pick-your-own farm in the past year.
In total, 836 respondents did not visit a pick-your-own farm.
The difference between the groups on this question is highly
significant: x2 ¼ 714. Similar interpretations apply to the
remaining four variables.
Locavore households tend to have higher incomes
Of Locavore households 76 percent have household income
higher than $60,000 compared to 64 percent on Non-
Locavore households (see Table II). As shown in Figure 2,
however, the probability of Locavore group membership is
non-linear. Respondents having below $60,000 income are
equally likely to be Locavore and respondents above $60,000
income are equally likely to be Locavore. The higher income
group is more likely to be Locavore than the lower income
group.
Locavore households tend to be larger
As shown in Table III, 62 percent of Locavore households
have three or more members compared to 46 percent of Non-
Locavore households. Only 7 percent on Locavore households
have a single member versus 17 percent of Non-Locavore
households. The difference in the distribution of household
sizes is statistically significant.
Separate analysis indicates that although the household sizes
differ between the segments, the segments do not differ in the
number of people below 17 years of age
(x2 ¼ 7:6; d:f : ¼ 6; p ¼ 0:26), nor do they differ in the number
of children 12 years or younger (x2 ¼ 0:39; d:f : ¼ 1; p ¼ 0:53).
Locavores consider themselves knowledgeable about
food quality and safety issues
Two-thirds (66.6 percent) of Locavores considers themselves
to be more than moderately knowledgeable (5, 6, or 7) about
the quality of fresh fruits and vegetables compared to 49.7
percent of Non-Locavores (see Table III). Of Locavores 59.8
percent consider themselves to be knowledgeable about safety
issues (see Table IV).
Locavores also differ from Non-Locavores in their concern
about food safety (see Table V). More than three-fourths
(80.9 percent) of Locavores are more than moderately
concerned with food safety, compared to 76 percent of
Non-Locavores.
Differences in the importance of product attributes
Do Locavores attach different importance to product
attributes than non-Locavores? Consumers were asked to
rank the importance of 12 attributes of apples, the target
product, when buying for home use. The 12 attributes were:
color, country of origin, flavor, nutritional value, organic,
Pennsylvania Grown, price, quality, ripeness, size and texture.
The two segments, Locavores and non-Locavores, agree on
three of their five most important attributes: quality, flavor,
and ripeness as shown in Table VI. The two remaining
attributes in Locavores’ top five are texture and variety, while
for non-Locavores they are price and nutritional value. It is
clear that all apple buyers wanted a tasty apple. This is
supported by most all research that says, food is about taste
for most consumers. However Locavores seem less concerned
 Who are the locavores? Journal of Consumer Marketing
John L. Stanton, James B. Wiley and Ferdinand F. Wirth Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2012 · 248 –261

Table I Cluster analysis results for five shopping behavior questions, by segment for Locavores and Non-Locavores
Locavore Non-Locavore Chi-square
Number in category n ¼ 388 (%) n ¼ 836 (%) d.f. ¼ 1
Have visited a pick-your-own farm in the past year: Yes 67 0 714
In the past year have you made any food purchases in community farmer’s markets? Yes 80 36 246
You grow fruits and vegetables at home for consumption at your home: Yes 74 28 229
In the past year have you made any food purchases in roadside stand? Yes 62 28 131
A key reason affecting where do most shopping is availability where do most shopping: Yes 46 25 54
Note: 95 percent confidence level with 1 d.f. ¼ 3.8

Table II Household income by segment for Locavores and Non- Table IV Knowledge of quality and safety of fresh fruits and vegetables
Locavores by segment for Locavores and Non-Locavores
Household income Locavore (%) Non-Locavore (%) Locavore (%) Non-Lacavore (%)

Less than $20,000 2.3 3.5 How knowledgeable are you about the quality of fresh fruit and
$20,000 to $39,000 8.2 13.5 vegetables?a
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 07:14 30 January 2016 (PT)

$40,000 to $59,999 13.4 19.4 Not at all 1 0.30 0.8

$60,000 to $79,999 24.2 19.1 2 0.5 2.6
$80,000 to $99,000 21.1 17.3 3 1.8 7.7
$100,000 or more 30.7 27.2 Moderately 4 26.8 42.2
Notes: Chi-square ¼ 19.3, d.f. ¼ 5, p ¼ 0.002 5 31.7 25.4
6 27.6 16.6
Extremely 7 11.3 4.7
Figure 2 Probability of Locavore group membership by income level
How knowledgeable are you about fresh fruit and vegetable safety
issues?b
Not at all 1 0.3 1.8
2 1.0 5.5
3 8.0 13.6
Moderately 4 30.9 37.3
5 28.9 23.3
6 24.2 14.6
Extremely 7 6.7 3.8
Notes: ax2 ¼ 77.1, d.f. ¼ 6, p ¼ 0.000; bx2 ¼ 49.7, d.f. ¼ 6, p ¼ 0.000

Table V Level of concern about food safety issues by segment for

Locavores and Non-Locavores
Table III Household size by segment for Locavores and Non-Locavores Locavore (%) Non-Lacavore (%)
Household Size Locavore (%) Non-Locavore (%) Not at all 1 0.8 0.7
1 7.20 17.20 2 1.3 2.0
2 30.90 37.00 3 3.6 5.1
3 27.60 19.40 Moderately 4 13.4 16.1
4 20.60 18.30 5 18.0 20.7
5 10.80 6.10 6 28.6 26.2
61 2.80 2.00 Extremely 7 34.3 29.1
Notes: Chi-square ¼ 39, d.f. ¼ 5, p , 0.000 Notes: x2 ¼ 7.3, d.f. ¼ 6, p ¼ 0.000

about price. Oddly, the non-Locavores seem more concerned Locavore households eat healthy
about nutrition when examining the individual attribute Locavore households are 15 percent more likely to say they
values. This may be that the Locavores simply assume the consciously eat healthy than Non-Locavore households; 89.2
nutritional value of local produced apples. percent versus 77.8 percent (see Table VII).

254
 Who are the locavores? Journal of Consumer Marketing
John L. Stanton, James B. Wiley and Ferdinand F. Wirth Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2012 · 248 –261

Table VI Five most important apple attributes when purchasing apples Table VIII Effects of household size and segment membership on
for home use, by segment for Locavores and Non-Locavores monthly fruit and vegetable expenditure, by segment for Locavores and
Non-Locavores
Attribute ranking Locavores Non-Locavores
Source Df Mean square F Sig.
First Quality Flavor
Second Flavor Quality Household size 5 58024.32 9.90 0.00
Third Ripeness Price Locavore 1 95207.25 16.24 0.00
Fourth Texture Ripeness Error 1217 5860.97 0.00 0.00
Fifth Variety Nutritional value

consume more fruits and vegetables than Non-Locavore

Table VII Percentage of respondents indicating that family consciously households (F ¼ 16:24; d:f : ¼ 1; 1217; p ¼ 0:00). The average
eats healthy, by segment for Locavores and Non-Locavores Locavore household expenditure is $108 dollars compared to
the average Non-Locavore expenditure of $89 dollars.
Locavore (%) Non-Locavore (%)
Yes 89.2 77.8 Locavores are more willing to pay more for organic
No 10.8 22.2 fruits and vegetables
Consistent with previous research, Locavores’ willingness to
Notes: x2 ¼ 22.8, d.f. ¼ 1, p ¼ 0.000 pay more for organic fruits and vegetables is higher than Non-
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 07:14 30 January 2016 (PT)

Locavores’ willingness. Figure 4 presents the cumulative

Locavores spend more on fruits and vegetables
regardless of household size
Figure 3 shows the mean household expenditure of fruits and
vegetables in the two segments across household sizes. Table
VIII shows that larger households consume significantly more
fruits and vegetables (F ¼ 9:9; d:f : ¼ 1; 1217; p ¼ 0:00).
However, regardless of household size, Locavore households
proportions of respondents in the respective groups willing to
pay more than a specified amount per pound to purchase
certified organic fruits and vegetables. For example, 78.9
percent of Locavores are willing to pay 1 to 5 cents more per
pound for certified organic produce compared to 69.3 percent
of Non-Locavores. Of Locavores 23 percent are willing to pay
16 to 20 cents more for organic produce compared to 14.3
percent of Non-Locavores, a 60 percent difference. The

Figure 3 Average household monthly expenditure ($) on fruits and vegetables by household size for Locavores and Non-Locavores

255
 Who are the locavores? Journal of Consumer Marketing
John L. Stanton, James B. Wiley and Ferdinand F. Wirth Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2012 · 248 –261

Figure 4 Percentage of respondents expressing willingness to pay
more (cents/lb) for certified organic fruits and vegetables, by segment
for Locavores and Non-Locavores
However, neither Locavores nor Non-Locavores believe food
advertisements in newspapers help them decide on what food
items to purchase (see Table X). Only 16.5 percent of
Locavores and 16.1 percent of Non-Locavores believe
newspaper advertisements are useful. The two groups do
not differ significantly in their beliefs.

Locavores are shoppers

As shown in Table XI, Locavores tend to shop at more types
of outlets than Non-Locavores. For example, 31 percent of
Locavores shop at health food stores compared to 16 percent
of Non-Locavores. The chi-square value for the difference is
37, which is significant at well beyond the 95 percent
confidence level. Similar interpretation applies to the
remaining outlets. The segments do not differ in the
frequency of shopping at supermarkets, with both groups
shopping at this category virtually 100 percent of the time.
This is a particularly important finding, for the food retail
business is justified using the strategies promoting local foods.
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 07:14 30 January 2016 (PT)

Locavores are just as likely to shop in supermarkets and

Supercenters as the non-locavores. These shoppers are not
just health food store shoppers.
difference between the percent of Locavores’ and Non-
Locavores also shop more frequently than do Non-
Locavores’ willingness-to-pay is significant: Chi-square
Locavores (see Table XII). Of Locavores 40 percent shop at
¼ 23:5; d:f : ¼ 6; p ¼ 0:001. A larger proportion of Locavores
least once a day or several times a week compared to about 32
also say they would switch supermarkets to purchase organic
percent of Non-Locavores. The difference is statistically
fruits and vegetables (data not shown).
significant.
Although Locavores do not believe newspaper advertising
Locavore sources and uses of information helps them decide on which foods to purchase, advertised
Locavores are more likely to rely on “objective” sources of specials do influence they decision on where to shop.
information than Non-Locavores. Locavores are more likely Advertising influences Locavore shopping with 46 percent
to read ingredients on food they purchase (see Table IX). Of saying they shop at more than one store to purchase
Locavores 63.6 percent Usually or Always read ingredients advertised specials compared to 21 percent for Non-
compared to 43.6 percent of Non-Locavores, a 28 percent Locavores (see Table XIII). This difference is significant.
difference. Articles/radio/television reports also are more
likely to influence purchase of Locavores than Non-Locavores Are Locavores just “organic shoppers”?
(see Table IX). Of Locavores 22.7 percent say they are To answer this question, an initial step in the analysis was to
Usually or Always helped by such information, a 12 percent demonstrate that consumers in general view the attributes of
difference. The difference between the groups is statistically local and organic differently. The conjoint experiment
significant. quantified the relative importance of physical apple
attributes (sweetness, blemishes, size, crispness), credence
attributes (conventional vs. organic production method, local
Table IX Frequency of use of product information from food ingredient origin vs. product of USA vs. imported) and purchase price
labels and media articles and reports, by segment for Locavores and when buying apples. Figure 5 shows that consumers reported
Non-Locavores that local production had a much greater importance value
Lacavore (%) Non-lacavore (%) than organic. One would expect that if these two variables
were interchangeable the levels of importance would similarly
How frequently do you check the ingredients label on the good you be the same. If each attribute is at its highest level, the level of
purchase?a preference would be much higher for local production (would
Never 1.80 5.30 increase the importance by 15 percent versus only 0.3 percent
Occasionally 34.50 45.20
Usually 43.80 37.60
Always 19.80 12.00
Table X Reported usefulness of advertisements in newspapers in
helping decide which food items to purchase, by segment for Locavores
How often articles/television/radio reports help you decide food and Non-Locavores
items for purchase?b
Locavore (%) Non-Locavore (%)
Never 5.70 11.40
Occasionally 71.60 68.40 Very useful 16.50 16.10
Usually 20.60 16.70 Somewhat useful 56.40 51.80
Always 2.10 3.50 Not very useful 27.10 32.10
Notes: ax2 ¼ 28.83, d.f. ¼ 3, p ¼ 0.000; bx2 ¼ 13/3, d.f. ¼ 3, p ¼ 0.004 Notes: x2 ¼ 3.3, d.f. ¼ 2, p ¼ 0.195

256
 Who are the locavores? Journal of Consumer Marketing
John L. Stanton, James B. Wiley and Ferdinand F. Wirth Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2012 · 248 –261

Table XI Types of stores in which food purchases have been made in the past year, by segment for Locavores and Non-Locavores
Type of store Locavore (%) Non-Locavore (%) Chi-square
Health food store 31 16 37
Small grocery store or neighborhood market 67 52 26
Super Center (Wal-Mart, Target, etc.) 77 70 6
Supermarket 96 96 0
Notes: 95 percent confidence level with 1 d.f. ¼ 3.8

Table XII Frequency of visiting primary food store to purchase food more for the product and less likely to buy on special. They
products, by segment for Locavores and Non-Locavores believe that they are more informed about the products. They
shop at supermarkets and supercenter stores, as do non-
Locavore Non-Locavore Locavores, but also shop at non-traditional outlets that non-
n 5 388 n 5 836 Locavores do not frequent: they represent a potentially
Frequency (%) (%) profitable segment for the traditional supermarket and
supercenter markets as well as more non-traditional outlets.
At least once a day 3.6 1.0
The existence of Locavore segments serves to divide
Several times a week 37.4 31.3
suppliers of food products into the locally advantaged (e.g.
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 07:14 30 January 2016 (PT)

Once a week 46.4 50.4

local producers) and the locally disadvantaged (e.g. exporting
Once every two weeks 10.6 14.7
states and countries). The paper provides some proposals for
Less than a month 2.1 2.3 possible segmentation strategies for suppliers in these
Once a month 0.0 0.4 respective categories.
Notes: Chi-square =19, d.f. =5, p , 0.002 Locally advantaged suppliers will want to consider targeting
the Locavore segment and the segment has characteristics that
facilitate targeting. As mentioned previously, Locavores are
willing to pay for credence attributes, such as organic. The
Table XIII Percentage of respondents who regularly shop at more than
segment does a significantly larger percent of it shopping in
one store to purchase advertised specials, by segment for Locavores
outlets such as health food stores and small grocery stores
and Non-Locavores
where local producers may have advantaged access. Locavores
Locavore Non-Locavore rely on local media for information about advertised specials
n 5 388 n 5 836 and food safety. As to attributes of the target product, the two
(%) (%) segments agree on three of their five most important
attributes: quality, flavor, and ripeness. The two remaining
Yes 46 21 attributes in Locavores’ top five are texture and variety, while
Occasionally 51 63 for non-Locavores they are price and nutritional value.
No 2 11 How should locally advantaged suppliers of produce target
Notes: Chi-square ¼ 68, d.f. ¼ 2, p , 0.0000 the segment? The Theory of Planned Behavior discussed
previously suggests numerous strategies for targeting the
segment. Communications strategies can aim at changing
for organic. These are not interchangeable concepts but are behavioral, social, and/or control beliefs. Strategy might focus
viewed as different by the consumer. on changing evaluative/search beliefs either by adding a belief,
by changing the evaluation (importance) of a belief (a specific
outcome of “buying local”), or by changing the perception
Discussion and conclusions that the outcome is associated with the behavior. Whole
Foods offers an excellent example of this strategy. While many
The term Locavore is of relatively recent origin. The Oxford people associate local production with Whole Foods, the
University Press recognized “Locavore” as the word of the company has, in their web site, stressed the environmental,
year in 2007 (Oxford University Press, 2007). A July 2010 green and sustainability benefits of buying local. They even
search of library databases found 224 references to add the attribute of crop diversity where they say, “Crop
“Locavore,” overwhelmingly consisting of newspaper and Diversity and Quality: Many farmers producing for a local
business/trade magazine references. Although there are market choose to diversify, growing a variety of crops instead
undoubtedly some academic papers on the topic, the of just one. This is a boon for biodiversity and your palate,
database search found none. This paper is among the first since local crops are harvested at their peak of freshness and
to address the topic. flavor” (Whole Foods, 2010).
If the results of this study are replicable in other regions, Kroger, another large USA food retailer tells consumers in
one can conclude that Locavore households are an identifiable their web site, “[. . .] purchasing from local farmers helps the
and potentially economically important segment of the retail economy in the communities we serve. Our company has a
produce market. They tend to cluster at higher income long history of supporting our hometowns. There are other
categories and to be larger households. advantages, too. Local produce can be delivered to your store
They also spend more on fruits and vegetables than non- very quickly. Faster shipping means even fresher produce for
Locavores, regardless of household size, and are willing to pay you. Items can be picked and packed at a more mature stage.

257
 Who are the locavores?
John L. Stanton, James B. Wiley and Ferdinand F. Wirth
Figure 5 Relative importance (%) of seven apple product attributes in conjoint preference ratings for all respondents
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 07:14 30 January 2016 (PT)
This can really bring out the taste of the product. The variety,
quality and the larger sizing are benefits, as well. Eating locally
grown food also means less fossil fuel burned in preparation
and transport – and less energy needed to refrigerate during
transportation” (O’Mara, 2008).
Affect/experience attributes, such as taste, might be
changed with in-store opportunities to taste produce. For
example, supermarkets but especially club stores have been
sampling their products for years. And while they do not want
to demean their year-round produce, many have taken to
giving samples of local fruit, often avoiding side-by-side taste
tests.
Social norms may be changed either by adding relevant
others, or by changing the perceptions of what relevant others
believe about the behavior, or by changing individuals’
motivation to comply with the relevant others’ perceived
beliefs. This strategy will be critical if the consumption of
local produce is to grow beyond a fringe. Many food trends
often begin with a fringe consumer group, just as organic and
vegetarian were not mainstream. However by the wife of the
US President not only encouraging local buying, but actually
planting a garden at the White House, the perceptions of who
are the socially relevant groups will be expanded.
Control beliefs may be changed by changing perceptions
that a relevant resource is available or that a perceived
inhibition is relevant or by changing the perception that they
will influence ability to perform the behavior, even if they are
present. This is the strategy attempted by various local
produce organizations. This issue has been expressed by
consumers stating that there is not enough locally produced
products to meet demand. While that may be true on an
annual basis, in most cases there is enough “seasonal”
production. So many supermarkets are trying to bring back
the concept of seasonal to reinforce the “local issue.”
Beginning with physical product attributes, an “adding an
attribute” strategy should be considered, specifically a
credence attribute such as “locally grown.” Locavores shop
258
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2012 · 248 –261
at a variety of venues. Supermarkets, and to a lesser extent
Superstores, are the place to find the non-Locavores.
Locavores are more likely to use commercial mass media
such as TV for information on food products than non-
Locavores. When targeting the Locavores, it appears that in-
store advertising and store circulars would be a more effective
use of promotional dollars than mass media.
As with any research study, this paper has a number of
limitations. Only one specific product group, Apples, was
studied. While apples have broad appeal, it is still just one
food group. It would be of value in future research to see if the
same types of consumers are “Locavores” for a variety of fresh
fruits and vegetables versus one product group.
The data are for a single time and a single US state,
Pennsylvania. While the state has a good mixture of urban,
suburban, and rural consumers, the study must be replicated
in other states and other countries to establish generalizability
for the results. Replications within regions are also needed in
order to track changes in segment growth and behavior.
Validating segment behavior using (for example) scanner data
also would be valuable.
References
Ajzen, I. (1988), Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior, Dorsey
Press, Chicago, IL.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Processes, Vol. 50,
pp. 179-211.
Bachmann, D., Elfrink, J. and Vazzana, G. (1996), “Tracking
the progress of e-mail vs snail-mail”, Marketing Research,
Vol. 8 No. 2, p. 30.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1990), “Trying to
consume”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17,
pp. 127-40.
Beale, D.A. and Manstead, A.S.R. (1991), “Predicting
mothers’ intentions to limit frequency of infants’ sugar
 Who are the locavores?
John L. Stanton, James B. Wiley and Ferdinand F. Wirth
intake: testing the theory of planned behavior”, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 285-301.
Berrens, R.P., Bohara, A.K., Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C. and
Weimer, D.L. (2003), “The advent of internet surveys for
political research: a comparison of telephone and internet
samples”, Political Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Bond, J.K., Thilmany, D. and Bond, C.A. (2006), “Direct
marketing of fresh produce: understanding consumer
purchasing decisions”, Choices, Vol. 21, pp. 229-36.
Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J. and Brown, T.C. (2003), A Primer
on Nonmarket Valuation, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
Couper, M.P. (2000), “Web surveys: a review of issues and
approaches”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 64, pp. 464-94.
Darby, K., Batte, M., Ernst, S. and Roe, B. (2008),
“Decomposing local: a conjoint analysis of locally
produced foods”, American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 476-86.
Darby, M.R. and Karni, E. (1973), “Free competition and
the optimal amount of fraud”, Journal of Law and
Economics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 67-88.
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 07:14 30 January 2016 (PT)
Dentoni, D., Tonsor, G.T., Calantone, R.J. and Peterson, H.C.
(2009), “The direct and indirect effects of ‘locally grown’ on
consumers’ attitudes towards agri-food products”,
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 384-96.
Enright, A. (2006), “Gian-Fulgoni: web consumer habits yield
real-world results”, Marketing News, November 1, pp. 20-2.
Fishbein, N. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention
and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Frazier, M. (2007), “Farmstands vs big brands”, Advertising
Age, June 5.
Froelich, E.J., Carlberg, J.G. and Ward, C.E. (2009),
“Willingness-to-pay for fresh brand name beef”, Canadian
Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 119-37.
Gao, Z., Schroeder, T.C. and Yu, X. (2010), “Consumer
willingness to pay for cue attribute: the value beyond its
own”, Journal of International Food & Agribusiness
Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 108-24.
Hartman Group (2008), Pulse Report: Consumer Understanding
of Buying Local, Hartman Group, Bellevue, WA, February.
Hernandez, E. (2007), “Survey ethnic groups online with
specific objectives”, Marketing News, April 1, p. 26.
Knapton, K. and Myers, S. (2005), “Demographics and
online survey response rates”, Quirk’s Marketing Research
Review, January, available at: www.quirks.com
Lloyd, H., Paisley, C. and Mela, D.J. (1993), “Changing to a
low fat diet: attitudes and beliefs of UK consumers”,
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 47, pp. 361-73.
Mabiso, A., Sterns, J., House, L. and Wysocki, A. (2005),
“Estimating consumers’ willingness-to-pay for country-of-
origin labels in fresh apples and tomatoes: a double-hurdle
probit analysis of American data using factor scores”, paper
presented at the American Agricultural Economics
Association Annual Meeting, Providence, RI, available at:
http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/detailview.pl?paperid¼
16215
Nelson, P. (1970), “Information and consumer behavior”,
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 78, pp. 311-29.
Nelson, P. (1974), “Advertising as information”, Journal of
Political Economy, Vol. 81, pp. 729-54.
Nielsen (2008), Organic Trends Report, Food, Drug, Mass
Merchandisers, Excluding Wal-Mart, Nielsen, New York, NY.
259
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2012 · 248 –261
O’Mara, J. (2008), “Wal-Mart pares costs by selling local
produce”, August 26, available at: www.npr.org/templates/
story/story.php?storyId¼93956012
Oxford University Press (2007), Oxford University Press,
available at: http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/locavore
Parseghian, P. (2009), Nation’s Restaurant News, Vol. 43 No. 3,
p. 84.
Pennsylvania Apple Board (2009), available at: www.pennsyl
vaniaapples.org/Home/Facts.aspx
Rutgers University (2010), “Restaurants serving Jersey
Fresh”, available at: http://njfarmfresh.rutgers.edu/
servingjerseyfresh.asp
Schmitt, J. (2008), “‘Locally grown’ sounds great, but what
does it mean?”, USA Today, October 28, p. 4B.
Sparks, P. and Shepherd, R. (1992), “Self-identity and the
theory of planned behavior: assessing the role of self-
identification with ‘green consumerism’”, Social Psychology
Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 388-99.
Sparks, P., Hedderley, D. and Shepherd, R. (1992), “An
investigation into the relationship between perceived
control, attitude variability and the consumption of two
common foods”, European Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol. 22, pp. 55-71.
Sterns, J. and Ricks, D. (1999), “Focus groups as a useful
approach to agribusiness research”, Department of
Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI, Staff Paper 99-32.
Sullum, J. (2009), “Recipes for virtuous dining – save the
world one forkful at a time”, Wall Street Journal, August 22,
p. W6 (Eastern edition).
Towler, G. and Shepherd, R. (1992), “Application of
Fishbein and Ajzen’s expectancy-value model to
understanding fat intake”, Appetite, Vol. 18, pp. 15-27.
US Apple Association (2006), “USDA world markets and
trade report, fresh deciduous fruit (apples, pears, and
grapes)”, available at: www.usapple.org/consumers/appleb
its/core.cfm
US Census Bureau (1995), Urban and Rural Population: 1900
to 1990, US Census Bureau, Washington, DC, released
October.
Warner, M. (2006), “Wal-Mart eyes organic foods”, New York
Times, May 12.
Whole Foods (2010), “Locally grown: the Whole Foods
market promise”, available at: www.wholefoodsmarket.co
m/products/locally-grown/index.php
Wirth, F.F., Love, L.A. and Palma, M.A. (2007), “Purchasing
shrimp for at-home consumption: the relative importance
of credence versus physical product features”, Aquaculture
Economics and Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 17-37.
Zepeda, L. and Leviten-Reid, C. (2004), “Consumers’ views
on local food”, Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 35
No. 3, pp. 1-6.
Zepeda, L. and Li, J. (2006), “Who buys local food?”, Journal
of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 1-11.
Further reading
Logistics & Transport Focus (2008), Logistics & Transport Focus,
Vol. 10 No. 8, pp. 36-7.
Corresponding author
John L. Stanton can be contacted at: jstanton@sju.edu
 Who are the locavores?
John L. Stanton, James B. Wiley and Ferdinand F. Wirth
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the
material present.
A range of issues have increased consumer anxiety about food
production. Concern has risen about manufacturing practices
and the growing trend towards nationalization and
internationalization. The public demands consideration of
many environmental factors and achieving sustainable
production methods is also regarded as important.
These rising concerns have spawned greater interest in
organic food or that which is produced locally. Fears about a
negative impact on health from pesticide and chemical use are
driving consumers away from established production
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 07:14 30 January 2016 (PT)
methods. Belief also exists that organic and locally-produced
foods offer superior flavor and taste. Buying local offers the
added satisfaction of helping to reduce carbon emissions.
In the United States, however, classification of local has not
been standardized. Consequently, food retailers exploit this
void and the definition can be subject to different
geographical boundaries depending on the supermarket
concerned.
Agreement does exist about the emergence of a new
consumer segment that purchases locally-produced food from
retailers or farmers. The name “Locavore” is used to identify
such consumers and the term has become widely recognized
in established food industry publications, indicating the
growing importance of this segment. Its significance is further
illustrated by the fact that manufacturers and retailers now
invest considerably in promoting locally produced foods in-
store, online and through traditional mass media channels.
In spite of growing demand for local food, research into the
issue remains limited. Evidence does though suggest
consumers perceive such food as being fresher and
healthier. Lower search costs are often a factor, while
demand is also influenced when a desire to help local farmers
and the local economy prevails.
Two theories are cited to explain the actions a consumer
intends to make. Both propose that intention is a
“motivational construct” which reflects the degree of effort
an individual is willing to make to perform the action. It is
also supposed that motivation and ability or behavioral
control must be present in order for the behavior to take
place. The existence of perceived behavioral control (PBC) is
also acknowledged and it is stated that individuals may
persevere in searching for locally produced food if they have
believe in their ability to successfully execute the task. That
PBC can function as a “surrogate for actual behavioral control
is proposed but depends on accurate perceptions to succeed.
Intention can additionally be influenced by attitude towards
the behavior in question and social norms in relation to
performing it or not. Stanton et al. suggest that behavioral
control, attitude and social norm are determined by individual
beliefs, behavioral beliefs, social beliefs and control beliefs.
Only beliefs which are time and context specific function as
antecedents of that particular behavior.
260
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2012 · 248 –261
Behavioral beliefs are evaluative or affective, respectively
concerning the benefit or cost of an action, or the positive or
negative feelings which result. It is also mooted that:
.
the positive or negative outcome of an action combined
with the likelihood that this outcome will occur
determines the impact of a specific behavioral belief;
.
social norm results from the strength of normative beliefs
and the extent of individual belief in complying with the
behavioral norm; and
.
control beliefs determine perceived behavioral control
through the perceived “presence or absence of salient
resources or impediments” and the perceived power of the
factor to influence how the activity is performed.
The issues were investigated in a study using data obtained
from a larger, multi-phase research project. An online survey
was conducted into the purchase of apples by shoppers in
Pennsylvania. Apples were selected as the target product
because they are frequently purchased, grown locally and
nationally and also imported from many other countries. A
usable sample of 1,224 was obtained from urban, suburban
and rural subjects aged from under 20 to above 65 years-old.
Survey questions classified 388 as Locavores, 67 percent of
which reported visiting a “pick-your-own farm” during the
previous year. Over the same period, none of the other
participants engaged in this activity. Data also revealed that,
compared to these other respondents, Locavores:
.
tend to boast higher household incomes;
.
typically have more household occupants;
.
regard themselves as being more informed about food
quality and safety issues;
.
eat healthily and spent more on fruit and vegetables
regardless of household size; and
.
are more willing to pay higher prices for organic produce.
Subjects were asked to ask to identify attributes of apples that
most influenced their purchase decision. Quality, flavor and
ripeness were in the top five for both segments. Some
differences were evident though, the surprising one being that
non-Locavores put greater emphasis on nutrition. Stanton
et al. put forward the idea that the nutritional value of locally-
grown apples might be taken for granted by Locavore
subjects.
In addition, the survey revealed a greater tendency among
Locavores to use information sources that are more objective
in nature and to carefully examine the list of ingredients
before making a food purchase. While Locavores are more
likely to be influenced by articles and TV and radio reports,
both groups are not swayed by newspaper advertisements.
Nevertheless, their decision about where to shop can be
influenced by “advertised specials”. Both segments regularly
patronize supermarkets, although visit frequency per week is
higher among Locavores. Overall, this consumer group shops
in more outlet types which include health food stores.
Further analysis was conducted in response to the question
of whether Locavores can be classified as just “organic
shoppers”. This involved rating the importance of physical
attributes of apples relative to credence attributes and
purchase price. Credence attributes are defined as those
which cannot be discovered through experience and include
such as production method and origin. Results indicated that
subjects attach higher value to local production than to
organic, suggesting a negative answer to the question posed.
 Who are the locavores?
John L. Stanton, James B. Wiley and Ferdinand F. Wirth
The results here signify that Locavores are an “identifiable
and potentially economically important segment” for both
supermarkets and less-mainstream stores. Local producers
and suppliers should therefore devise ways of effectively
targeting the segment.
One suggestion is to use communication strategies that
might change existing behavioral, social and/or control beliefs.
The desired effect can be achieved by changing or adding
beliefs, altering the importance of a belief or by changing the
perceived association between behavior and outcome. Such a
strategy has been deployed effectively by Whole Foods, a
company associated with local production. The retailer has
exploited this reputation by emphasizing on its web site the
many ways in which buying local can benefit the environment.
A similar approach is deployed by Kroger, a large US food
retailer that also uses the company web site to point out how
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 07:14 30 January 2016 (PT)
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
261
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2012 · 248 –261
sourcing products from local farmers enables the firm to
economically benefit the communities which it serves.
The authors believe it is possible to change social norms by
adding relevant others or changing the perception of what
significant others feel about certain behaviors. Taking this
approach can help elevate consumption of locally-produced
food into more than a marginal activity. They also advocate
changing perceptions about availability as a way of altering
control beliefs.
Another suggestion is to focus on experience attributes
through in-store tasting opportunities. Adding credence
attributes like “grown locally” is also recommended. In-
store advertising and store circulars are regarded as the most
effective means of reaching Locavores.
(A précis of the article “Who are the locavores?”. Supplied by
Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
 This article has been cited by:

1. Corinna Hempel, Ulrich Hamm. 2016. How important is local food to organic-minded consumers?. Appetite 96, 309-318.
[CrossRef]
2. B. D. Perry, D. C. Grace. 2015. How Growing Complexity of Consumer Choices and Drivers of Consumption Behaviour Affect
Demand for Animal Source Foods. EcoHealth 12, 703-712. [CrossRef]
3. Norazah Mohd Suki, Norbayah Mohd Suki. 2015. Does religion influence consumers’ green food consumption? Some insights
from Malaysia. Journal of Consumer Marketing 32:7, 551-563. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Nathalie Spielmann, Margot Bernelin. 2015. Locavores: where you buy defines who you are. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management 43:7, 617-633. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Corinna Feldmann, Ulrich Hamm. 2015. Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food: A review. Food Quality and
Preference 40, 152-164. [CrossRef]
6. Warren Goodsir, Lindsay Neill, David Williamson, Alan Brown. 2014. Journalistic integrity or arbiter of taste? The case study
of restaurant critic Peter Calder. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 21, 127-133. [CrossRef]
7. Mark Lang, John Stanton, Yingdao Qu. 2014. Consumers’ evolving definition and expectations for local foods. British Food
Journal 116:11, 1808-1820. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Susan Cholette, Özgür Özlük, Leyla Özşen, Gerardo R. Ungson. 2013. Exploring purchasing preferences: local and ecologically
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 07:14 30 January 2016 (PT)

labelled foods. Journal of Consumer Marketing 30:7, 563-572. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]