Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
DOI 10.1007/s10460-008-9165-6
Introduction
Local foods have become increasingly popular in some
sectors of the culinary community (Burrows 2004; Marder
2006; Severson 2006), although the range of restaurants
utilizing them is still limited (Arnettf 2006; Bruni 2006). In
this research, we systematically examined restaurants using
locally grown foods to identify the characteristics of early
adopters of local food in the culinary community. Understanding how these innovative restaurants utilize and
advertise locally-produced ingredients should provide
useful insights for those seeking to expand their use. We
begin by describing some of the context and theoretical
background for this work, drawing on a diffusion of
innovation framework. We then list the interrelated
research questions that guided our qualitative and quantitative analysis of data collected from over 70 Ohio
restaurants.
123
178
S. M. Inwood et al.
123
179
of kitchen staff (who may one day head their own restaurant or kitchen). To increase customer interest, restaurants
have at their disposal a number of communication tools
(such as signage, promotions and menus) that can be utilized to convey important information about food qualities
to customers (Pratten 2003). In addition, the opinion
leadership potential of chefs has increased with the growing celebration of chefs as public personalities through
mainstream television programming (e.g., The Food Network), and popular culinary magazines (e.g., Gourmet,
Saveour, Bon Appetite).
While media coverage (or the use of promotions and
menus) can broadly advertise an innovation, research has
also found that interpersonal communication between
opinion leaders and potential adopters is one of the most
important avenues for inducing change and furthering the
diffusion of an innovation (Rogers 2003). Network analysis
of the diffusion process has revealed that peer networks
(Coleman cited in Rogers 2003), homophilous and
heterophilous relationships, and weak ties (see
Granovetter 1973) are important conduits for the flow of
information and diffusion of an innovation across a wider
range of actors and social groups. In the case of local foods,
then, the dining experience and personal interactions with
restaurant kitchen and wait staff may be one important
avenue of generating awareness or reinforcing interest in
local foods among the consuming public.2 Likewise, personal interaction between the restaurant buyer and the
farmer or distributor is another pathway through which
awareness and appreciation might be generated.
While the innovation, the attributes of the adopters, and
communication flows may be important to the diffusion of an
innovation, there can be a number of obstacles to adoption. In
an important critique of diffusion of innovation theory,
Brown (1981) found that in some contexts, substantial
social-structural constraints of marketing and infrastructure
dependencies can retard or even prevent widespread adoption. This point has particular relevance to the continued
development of local food systems because the absence of a
local food infrastructure is widely noted as limiting the
availability and usage of local foods (Kloppenburg et al.
2000). In the case of restaurants, Starr et al.s (2003) research
found a high interest in purchasing locally grown foods, but
translating that interest into large scale purchases was seriously impeded by problems with distribution, reliability, and
consistency. To overcome these limitations, some chefs and
other local food system participants have formed creative
networks with local growers to develop products and
123
180
S. M. Inwood et al.
(2)
(3)
What are the demographic characteristics of restaurants and chefs currently utilizing local foods? Based
on the earlier reviewed work, we anticipated that
compared to non-adopters, the early adopters would
generally be higher-status firms (e.g., with higher
menu prices and a longstanding presence in the
community).
What motivations do early adopting restaurants have
for purchasing and experimenting with local food?
We expected that local foods would be perceived as
having superior qualities compared to foods typically
available on the market (e.g., having superior taste or
freshness qualitiestwo core quality indicators in the
culinary sector). Additionally, we anticipated that
local food adopters would express a preference
regarding the production practices used to achieve
these superior attributes, with the practices themselves being viewed as quality attributes (e.g., such as
being organically grown or produced). Finally, we
anticipated that economic rationality factors, such as
price and convenience, may be impediments to
purchasing and experimentation with local foods,
despite possible perceptions of other superior
qualities.
How and to what extent do early-adopting restaurants
function as opinion leaders (and how do they
communicate information about local food with their
clientele)? We anticipated that restaurants serving
123
(4)
(5)
local foods would utilize the modes of communication they naturally had at their disposal, such as
menus, signage and wait staff to educate consumers
and stimulate interest in further consumption of local
foods.
How do early-adopting restaurants network with their
peers and with producers from whom they might
obtain product? We expected that restaurants and
chefs would demonstrate active engagement in existing network structures (e.g., such as membership in
farm or culinary organizations promoting local foods)
in order to effectively access information or a supply
of local food.
To what extent are structural conditions, such as
availability and access to product, limiting factors in
more widespread adoption of local foods by restaurants? Distribution infrastructure is a noted problem
in developing local food systems in general (Starr
et al. 2003) and, consistent with the observations of
Brown (1981), we anticipated that restaurants and
chefs (both the early adopters and non-adopters alike)
would identify inadequacy of distribution infrastructure as a critical obstacle to effective utilization of
local foods.
Methods
We considered the five research questions using a research
design that was both inductive (extensive field research)
and deductive (closed-ended survey). A strength of this
approach is that we were able to look beyond, and sometimes more deeply at, our quantitative findings and engage
in a process of qualitative induction to confirm our quantitative findings or to help identify exceptions that might
guide us toward more comprehensive explanations of the
processes, opportunities and constraints to the use or
adoption of local foods (Erzberger and Kelle 2003). This
mixed-methods approach allowed for data triangulation,
increasing our confidence in the patterns we observed
while simultaneously increasing our ability to provide a
rich description of the adoption and diffusion processes.
When possible, we report statistical differences that confirm (or disconfirm) our expectations, but also to elaborate
the qualitative data from representative cases to further
refine our understanding of how chefs and restaurants do or
do not conform to our expectations.
Ohio and local food system development
The State of Ohio is an interesting laboratory for the study
of local food systems because it has substantial potential
181
culinary community, were consulted throughout the process of data interpretation to assess the accuracy of the
teams interpretation of the data.
Interviewees were selected from five Ohio cities from
four distinct regions: Akron (northeast); Cleveland
(northeast); Columbus (central); Cincinnati (southwest)
and Toledo (northwest). The study intentionally focused on
cities in large metropolitan areas because metro-area residents tend to spend more money on away-from-home foods
than do nonmetropolitan households (ERS 2002; Restaurant Association 2004a, b). Within each metro-region, 20
restaurants and food retail outlets were studied. Restaurants
ranged from inexpensive mom and pop diners to highend gourmet restaurants. Interviews were conducted with
either the chef or restaurant owner. A snowball sampling
method described by Lofland and Lofland (1995) was used
to ensure that the sample included restaurants with different levels of exposure to local and organic foods.
Restaurants and food retail outlets were identified by
contacting food editors from each citys major newspaper,
free city newspapers, on-line restaurant reviews, guide
books, and word of mouth. The choice of interview subjects was intentionally biased toward restaurants and chefs
perceived as culinary leaders due to their ability to influence the diffusion of a particular food trend (Valente and
Davis 1999; Harper and Leicht 2002). Each outlet identified can be characterized as respected and well-regarded in
their communities. Some were actively purchasing local
foods year round, some were making use of local foods
only during local peak harvest months, and some were not
actively purchasing any local foods at the time of the study
(and may or may not adopt them in the future).
Two percent of the initially-identified restaurants and
retail stores declined to participate. Ultimately, face-to-face
interviews were conducted at 85 establishments with an
individual in charge of ordering foodgenerally the
chef, manager, or owner. Due to time limitations, phone
interviews were conducted with 15 individuals to accommodate their schedules. Seventy-one interviews were
conducted with restaurants and 29 with retail food outlet
representatives (such as grocery stores or food co-ops). In
this paper, we focus only on data from restaurants. Three
biases of our selection methodology must be noted. First,
many interviews were with representatives of well-established and long-lived restaurantsin an industry not
known for longevity (Balazs 2002) (Table 1). Second,
almost all of the interviews were conducted with individuals working at locally-based firms, not national restaurant
chains. This bias may have arisen from following the lead
of the nominators in the snowball sample; nominations
overall failed to identify national chain restaurants as local
leaders. Finally, the sample had a disproportionately high
number of restaurants that might be characterized as
123
182
Table 1 Restaurant
demographics
S. M. Inwood et al.
Category
No to low
Medium
High
1% or less
Between 1%
and 8.25%
8.25% or more
24
25
22
14.6
13.8
14.4
66.7
84.0
77.3
33.3
16.0
22.7
20.8
24.0
13.6
41.7
56.0
40.9
37.5
20.0
45.5
Demographic
Average age of restaurant (years)
Owner
expensive, likely due to our seeking out leading establishments in their respective communities.
Analytical strategy
An important feature of this analysis is our characterization
of restaurants according to the amount of locally-produced
food they utilize. Interviewees were asked to state the
approximate percentage of locally-grown produce, meat
and dairy inventory for each of the four seasons. Responses
for a particular commodity type ranged from none to 100%
sourced locally in a given season (Note: one restaurant
actually purchased local dairy products all year, however,
the use of local foods generally varied according to seasonal availability). Overall, restaurant purchases ranged
from buying no locally-sourced foods to an average of 78%
of all produce, meat, and dairy products being locally
sourced over the course of the year.
The pattern of local food usage by this particular sample
of restaurants suggests the existence of three distinctive
sets of local food users. The groups include No to Low,
Medium and High volume users of local food. The set
characterized as No to Low volume users reported that 1%
or less of their total inventory consisted of locally produced
foods (n = 24, of which 14 reported no local food purchases whatsoever, while ten reported very modest usage
of local produce during peak harvest seasons). Due to the
extremely low levels of local food purchasing occurring in
the No to Low cluster, we treated this category as our nonadopter comparison group. The Medium and High volume
users therefore represent some degree of local food adoption. Medium users reported that between 1% and 8.25% of
their total inventory consisted of local foods (n = 25).
Compared to the No to Low level users, Medium users
more actively utilized local produce when in season, and to
a modest extent purchased local dairy and meat products.
High users reported more than 8.25% of total inventory as
123
qualitative findings to add insight and depth to the quantitative findings and comparisons. To the extent to which the
quantitative data allows, we also report statistical tests that
confirmed whether an expected relationship existed or not.
Defining local and organic
A note about our use of the terms local and organic is
warranted because there can be ambiguity and argument
regarding the meanings of both terms (Allen and Kovach
2000). To ensure consistency and comparability of data,
uniform definitions of local and organic were provided and
maintained throughout each interview. Local was defined as
any produce, dairy or meat products grown or raised in the
State of Ohio. The definition of local was expanded to
include regions of neighboring states for cities with metropolitan areas spanning multiple states, e.g., Cincinnati is
linked to areas in Kentucky, and Indiana and Toledo is closely linked to parts of southeastern Michigan. Participants
were asked to respond to questions within these geographic
parameters. Organic was defined as items sourced from
farms certified under the U.S. National Organic Program
(NOP) (NOP 2003).
183
123
184
S. M. Inwood et al.
Table 2 Customer influences and attitudes toward local and organic foods by level of local foods purchased using a one way ANOVA test
Category
F-test or
Pearson v2
No to Low
Medium
High
Importance of taste
4.6 (1.0)
4.9 (0.3)
4.7 (0.9)
0.9
Importance of convenience
4.5 (0.8)
3.7 (1.1)
3.5 (1.2)
6.7*
NL [ M, H
Importance of price
4.3 (0.8)
3.5 (1.3)
3.0 (1.2)
7.6*
NL [ M, H
32.0
68.2
18.2**
2.1 (1.1)
3.2 (1.3)
2.9 (1.1)
4.0 (0.8)
4.7*
14.8*
8.3
1.9 (1.4)
2.1 (1.5)
NL, M \ H
NL \ M \ H
Note: Standard deviations in parentheses. NL refers to No to Low, M refers to Medium and H refers to High. For Factors related to
purchasing decisions and Perception of market demand, respondents rated the attributes on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was least
important and 5 was most important
* F-test significant at the .05 level
** Chi-square significant at .05 level
123
185
123
186
S. M. Inwood et al.
choice. Therefore we considered how a chefs or restaurants dedication to local foods was communicated to the
wait staff and, in turn, transmitted to the diner. In 19 of the
22 restaurants characterized as High volume users of local
foods, employees were intentionally educated about the
merits of the local food items on the menu (Table 3); such
educational efforts were more modest among the Medium
volume users and rare among the No to Low volume users.
The philosophy among some restaurants is that the better
educated and excited a staff member is about a product, the
better able they are to transfer enthusiasm and information
to the potential customer, thereby resulting in increased
sales and increased awareness of local foods. One chef
claimed: I increased sales of goat cheese by 80% once my
staff started eating it and promoting it to the customer. In
the interviews, one observed pattern was that expensive
restaurants that purchased directly from farmers were the
most likely to report spending time educating their staff on
the ingredients and menu items. One chef explained,
Every night we go over the menu and break down the
ingredients. They taste the food so they can communicate
to the customer what is available.
The training of kitchen staff, wait staff, managers and
floor staff in some restaurants can be intensive. Some
restaurants reporting High usage of local foods even
described having staff visit farms. Six of the chefs interviewed had scheduled employee farm field trips intended to
help employees develop an enhanced understanding of the
food they handled and to cultivate a personal relationship
with the farmer. However, many interviewees, including
Table 3 Percent diffusion through opinion leadership, networks and structural barriers
Category
Communication tools
Display local foods on the menu
No to low
Medium
High
Pearson v2
52.0
81.8
32.3*
16.7
40.0
86.4
23.1*
8.3
48.0
72.7
20.0*
Networks-membership organizations
Ohio proud
NA
NA
8.3
16.0
40.9
7.9*
Chefs collaborative
28.0
13.6
7.9*
54.2
60.0
59.1
0.2
12.5
24.0
22.7
1.2
16.0
15.0
4.2
20.8
44.0
45.5
3.9
66.7
76.0
8.3
25.0
8.0
56.0
Chamber of commerce
Structural variables
Is there an adequate supply of local foods (% yes)
Pick up local foods at the farm
123
100
4.5
72.7
8.5*
0.3
10.9*
187
123
188
diffusion studies have revealed that locally-directed communication networks and diffusion processes can be
effective, especially when the innovation does not require
sophisticated technical expertise for successful adoption
(Rogers 2003).
Barriers to adoption
Our final research question pertained to the extent to which
structural issues (such as access and availability) limited
adoption of local foods. Whereas Rogers focuses closely on
characteristics of adopters and the importance of access to
information, Brown (1981) claims that the process of diffusion is most affected by access to (a) means of
production, (b) public goods, (c) information, (d) capital,
(e) skills, (f) education, and (g) public infrastructure. In
particular Browns conflict theory perspective emphasizes
that access is limited by infrastructure. Innovations that are
infrastructure constrained will be adopted only by those
individuals with access to the infrastructure. In an earlier
section, the significance of price and convenience of
accessing the product was noted as an issue, particularly
among No to Low and Medium users of local foods. We
probed chefs and restaurant owners further about such
issues of availability, infrastructure and access, anticipating
these issues would be substantial barriers to greater use of
local foods.
S. M. Inwood et al.
distributors, even if another distributor offered lower prices. If a regional distributor of local foods should emerge
and gain the trust of restaurant buyers, interviewees indicated this distributor need not provide all possible products,
but would need to carry a comprehensive variety of choices
or specialize in a few select premium products. Interestingly, buying from a Midwestern food distributor was of
very low interest among all three sets of restaurants, with
the perception that a larger-scale distributors offerings
would be too generic. Thus it appeared that the preference
among restaurants for sourcing their local foods was to
have a relationship with one or a small number of reliable
local distributors versus multiple farmers or a non-local,
large-scale distributor.
While issues of distribution and access were noted by
many, we did find a small group of interviewees, particularly at the higher end restaurants, who were dedicated to
local and organic foods and who considered distribution an
important issue but not a paralyzing one:
Farmers have more flexibility than distributors and
tend to treat me better because of those relationships.
Farmers give me an anticipated harvest date, so I can
create a menu. Convenience means nothing to me
because this way of ordering is the least convenient.
This subset of interviewees also expressed greater
willingness to pay higher prices for local foods.
Accessing local foods through direct marketing
Distribution
Similar to findings from a study of restaurants in Colorado
(Starr et al. 2003), restaurants in Ohio were motivated to
purchase local foods but, regardless of the volume of their
local food purchases, generally reported there was an
inadequate supply (Table 3). Further, many indicated that
ease of access to that supply was critical to the amount of
locally-produced foods they were able to utilize. We asked
chefs and restaurant representatives about their level of
interest in purchasing from a variety of sources, regardless
of the current level of their local food purchases, and less
then 50% reported an interest in buying directly from
farmers. The preference among many of those interviewed
was to purchase local foods from a regional distributor
(Table 3). One chef summarized the basis for this preference explaining, I like knowing the individual farmers but
the less ordering I have to do the better. Another reason
for the distributor preference is that many restaurants have
valued personal relationships with their distributors. All
restaurants employed multiple distributors, utilizing each
for specific products, and many reported longstanding
relationships with reliable distributors who delivered a
quality product. Thus many were hesitant to switch
123
189
Findings
Characteristics of sample restaurants Early adopting, high volume users are more likely to operate moderately and expensively priced
restaurants.
Local food attributes valued by
restaurants
Taste was consistently reported as one of the most important purchasing criteria, regardless of level of
local food use. Restaurants expressed a widespread view that local generally has superior taste
attributes.
Convenience and price are important purchasing criterion for No to Low volume users of local foods.
High volume users were more willing to pay higher prices for local foods.
All categories of restaurants expressed low concern for specific production standards (such as organic)
and substantial trust and deference to the expertise of farmers.
High volume users used menus, specials and wait-staff to promote and educate diners about local foods.
Limiting factors to communication and opinion leadership include: supply inconsistency issues, cognitive
limitations of customers, and time constraints.
None of the restaurants studied were members of production based organizations and interview reports
indicate a bias toward local networks and direct relationships with local producers.
High and Medium volume users were more likely to be members of professional chef organizations.
All categories of restaurants had fairly high membership in local Chambers of Commerce.
Structural barriers
123
190
123
S. M. Inwood et al.
References
Albright, C.L., J.A. Flora, and S.P. Fortmann. 1990. Restaurant menu
labeling: Impact of nutrition information on entree sales and
patron attitudes. Health Education Quarterly 17 (2): 157167.
Allen, P. 2004. Together at the table: Sustainability and sustenance in
the American agrifood system. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Allen, P., and M. Kovach. 2000. The capitalist composition of
organic: The potential of markets in fulfilling the promise of
organic agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 17: 221232.
Arnettf, A. 2006. You say tomatoes. The Boston Globe, August 23: C1.
Balazs, K. 2002. Take one entrepreneur: The recipe for success of
Frances great chefs. European Management Journal 20 (3):
247259.
Ballenger, N., N. Blisard, J. Cromartie, D. David, E. Golan, J.M.
Harris, L. Bling-Hwan, S. Martinez, G. Pompelli, A. Regmi, H.
Stewart, and J.N. Variyam. 2000. Food review: Consumer-driven
agriculture. USDA Economic Research Services 25 (1).
Berg, B.L. 2004. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences,
5th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Berry, W. 1996. Conserving communities. In The case against the
global economy: And for a turn toward the local, ed. J. Mander and
E. Goldsmith, 407417. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.
Brown, L.A. 1981. Innovation diffusion: A new perspective. New
York: Methuen.
Bruni, F. 2006. Food youd almost rather hug than eat. The New York
Times, August 2. Section F; Dining Out: 8.
Burrows, M. 2004. Dine at the Rockefellers, get in touch with the
earth. The New York Times, April 21. Section F; Dining Out: 15.
Clancy, K. 1997. Reconnecting farmers and citizens in the food
system. In Visions of American Agriculture, ed. W. Lockeretz,
3146. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
191
Panitz, B. 2000. Reading between the lines: The psychology of
menu design. Restaurants USA. http://www.restaurant.org/rusa/
magArticle.cfm?ArticleID=162. Accessed 20 March 2004.
Pirog, R. 2004. Ecolabel Value Assessment phase II: Consumer
perceptions of local foods. Ames, IA: Iowa State University,
Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.
Pollan, M. 2006. The omnivores dilemma: A natural history of four
meals. New York: Penguin Press.
Pothukuchi, K., and J.L. Kaufman. 1999. Placing the food system on
the urban agenda: The role of municipal institutions in food
system planning. Agriculture and Human Values 16: 213224.
Pratten, J.D. 2003. The importance of waiting staff in restaurant
service. British Food Journal 105 (11): 826834.
Raynolds, L.T. 2000. Re-embedding global agriculture: The international organic and fair trade movements. Agriculture and Human
Values 17 (3): 297309.
Restaurant Association. 2004. Restaurant spending. http://www.
restaurant.org/research/consumer/spending.cfm. Accessed 20
March 2004.
Restaurant Association. 2004. Industry at a glance. http://www.
restaurant.org/research/ind_glance.cfm. Accessed 20 March 2004.
Rogers, E. 2003. Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New York: The
Free Press.
Severson, K. 2006. Gathering to celebrate food made the old, slow way.
The New York Times, November 1. Section F; Dining Out: 5.
Starr, A., A. Card, C. Benepe, G. Auld, D. Lamm, K. Smith, and K.
Wilken. 2003. Sustaining local agriculture: Barriers and opportunities to direct marketing between farms and restaurants in
Colorado. Agriculture and Human Values 20: 301321.
Teddlie, C., and A. Tashakkori. 2003. Major issues and controversies
in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral
sciences. In Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, ed. A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, 350.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Trubek, A. 2003. The taste of place. Food and Society Policy Fellow.
http://www.foodandsocietyfellows.org. Accessed 20 March 2004.
Valente, T.W., and R.L. Davis. 1999. Accelerating the diffusion of
innovations using opinion leaders. The Annals of the American
Academy 566: 5567.
Weatherell, C., A. Tregear, and J. Allinson. 2003. In search of the
concerned consumer: UK public perceptions of food, farming
and buying local. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 233244.
Winter, M. 2003. Embeddedness, the new food economy and
defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 2332.
Author Biographies
Shoshanah M. Inwood is a Ph.D. candidate in Rural Sociology at
The Ohio State University. Her research focuses on sustainable
agriculture, organic agriculture, agricultural change at the ruralurban
interface, farm succession, and local food system development.
Jeff S. Sharp is an associate professor of Rural Sociology at The
Ohio State University. His research interests include community and
agricultural change at the ruralurban interface.
Richard H. Moore is a professor in the Department of Human and
Community Resource Development at Ohio State University where
he leads the Sugar Creek Research Team.
Deborah H. Stinner is a research scientist and the administrative
coordinator of the Organic Food and Farming Education and Research
Program (OFFER) at The Ohio State Universitys Ohio Agriculture
Research and Development Center in Wooster, OH.
123