S. Zapata, O. Isengildina-Massa, Carlos E. Carpio, R. D. Lamie
MarketMaker is one of the most extensive collections of electronic searchable food industry related data engines in the country with over 17,500 profiles of food related enterprises, including more than 7,600 agricultural producers and 1,295 farmers markets. This study examined the impact of MarketMaker on participating farmers’ markets. Our findings indicate that about half of the farmers markets have experienced benefits from their participation in the form of new contacts, new customers and vendors, and increase in sales. Through the analysis of factors that affect the increase in farmers’ markets sales due to MarketMaker we identified that the components needed for the more successful use of MarketMaker include an established MarketMaker program, an established farmers’ market and an active user-manager.
{"title":"Does E-Commerce Help Farmers’ Markets? Measuring the Impact of MarketMaker","authors":"S. Zapata, O. Isengildina-Massa, Carlos E. Carpio, R. D. Lamie","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.240766","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.240766","url":null,"abstract":"MarketMaker is one of the most extensive collections of electronic searchable food industry related data engines in the country with over 17,500 profiles of food related enterprises, including more than 7,600 agricultural producers and 1,295 farmers markets. This study examined the impact of MarketMaker on participating farmers’ markets. Our findings indicate that about half of the farmers markets have experienced benefits from their participation in the form of new contacts, new customers and vendors, and increase in sales. Through the analysis of factors that affect the increase in farmers’ markets sales due to MarketMaker we identified that the components needed for the more successful use of MarketMaker include an established MarketMaker program, an established farmers’ market and an active user-manager.","PeriodicalId":36788,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Distribution Research","volume":"16 1","pages":"1-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87072329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Edwards, Margarita Velandia, C. Clark, D. Lambert, W. H. Pepper, K. Jensen
Product liability insurance can help farmers manage product liability risk and gain access to additional market outlets. Data from a survey of Tennessee fruit and vegetable producers were used to evaluate differences between product liability insurance users and non-users, barriers associated with the use of this type of insurance, along with insurance coverage amounts and costs. Findings suggest that primary occupation, percentage of income from farming, size of fruit and vegetable operation, and market outlets used may influence the decision to purchase product liability insurance. Barriers to use include perceived costs of product liability insurance and limited understanding of liability insurance policies.
{"title":"Product Liability Insurance Use Among Tennessee Fruit and Vegetable Farmers","authors":"M. Edwards, Margarita Velandia, C. Clark, D. Lambert, W. H. Pepper, K. Jensen","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.241102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.241102","url":null,"abstract":"Product liability insurance can help farmers manage product liability risk and gain access to additional market outlets. Data from a survey of Tennessee fruit and vegetable producers were used to evaluate differences between product liability insurance users and non-users, barriers associated with the use of this type of insurance, along with insurance coverage amounts and costs. Findings suggest that primary occupation, percentage of income from farming, size of fruit and vegetable operation, and market outlets used may influence the decision to purchase product liability insurance. Barriers to use include perceived costs of product liability insurance and limited understanding of liability insurance policies.","PeriodicalId":36788,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Distribution Research","volume":"52 1","pages":"127-137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91225699","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
An online survey of 620 respondents was utilized to elicit consumer preferences for six holiday turkey attributes (price, weight, antibiotic free, local, pasture access, and brand) related to aspects of food purchasing, including healthfulness, food safety, and treatment of animals. To explore possible relationships in consumer perceptions of holiday turkey attributes and lifestyle factors, respondents were asked about their health consciousness. Those who indicated they would consume turkey for one or more holiday meal were generally rated more health conscious. Price was the most important attribute and the preference share for price was negatively correlated with health consciousness.
{"title":"Health Consciousness and Consumer Preferences for Holiday Turkey Attributes","authors":"N. Widmar, E. Byrd, C. Wolf, Lalatendu Acharya","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.240769","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.240769","url":null,"abstract":"An online survey of 620 respondents was utilized to elicit consumer preferences for six holiday turkey attributes (price, weight, antibiotic free, local, pasture access, and brand) related to aspects of food purchasing, including healthfulness, food safety, and treatment of animals. To explore possible relationships in consumer perceptions of holiday turkey attributes and lifestyle factors, respondents were asked about their health consciousness. Those who indicated they would consume turkey for one or more holiday meal were generally rated more health conscious. Price was the most important attribute and the preference share for price was negatively correlated with health consciousness.","PeriodicalId":36788,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Distribution Research","volume":"10 1","pages":"83-97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83598865","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Food labels convey various information about credence attributes. An increasing number of labels and the existence of superfluous labels lead to questions on how consumers value different number of co-presented labels. Average respondents to our national survey about eggs were willing to pay a premium for all considered attribute labels, but their valuations depended on how many other labels were presented simultaneously. For example, certified organic label lost value as it was presented with more labels. On average, respondents also valued labels that conveyed no additional information, even after being presented with their superfluity.
{"title":"Consumer Responses to Multiple and Superfluous Labels in the Case of Eggs","authors":"Yan Heng, H. Peterson, Xianghong Li","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.240708","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.240708","url":null,"abstract":"Food labels convey various information about credence attributes. An increasing number of labels and the existence of superfluous labels lead to questions on how consumers value different number of co-presented labels. Average respondents to our national survey about eggs were willing to pay a premium for all considered attribute labels, but their valuations depended on how many other labels were presented simultaneously. For example, certified organic label lost value as it was presented with more labels. On average, respondents also valued labels that conveyed no additional information, even after being presented with their superfluity.","PeriodicalId":36788,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Distribution Research","volume":"45 1","pages":"62-82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81416829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study uses a Central Bureau Statistics (CBS) demand system to estimate food import demand parameters for the Caribbean region. The analysis is based on food import data for 1961–2009 from the FAO-STAT database. The study determined that for the defined period the Caribbean food import demand was price inelastic, and that tourism arrivals and real income growth were not statistically significant in determining food import demand. However, per capita agricultural production was found to be statistically significant in determining Caribbean food import demand over the study period.
{"title":"Caribbean Food Import Demand: An Application of the CBS Differential Demand System","authors":"L. Walters, Keithly G. Jones","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.240767","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.240767","url":null,"abstract":"This study uses a Central Bureau Statistics (CBS) demand system to estimate food import demand parameters for the Caribbean region. The analysis is based on food import data for 1961–2009 from the FAO-STAT database. The study determined that for the defined period the Caribbean food import demand was price inelastic, and that tourism arrivals and real income growth were not statistically significant in determining food import demand. However, per capita agricultural production was found to be statistically significant in determining Caribbean food import demand over the study period.","PeriodicalId":36788,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Distribution Research","volume":"6 1","pages":"19-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79023174","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Food manufacturing industries are traditionally cosnidered to be a significance force of economic development of rural areas. By locating their establishments in a particular region, they create employment opportunities and increase demand for agricultural commodities grown in the region. South Carolina has a bery diverse agriculture. A wide variety of agricultural commodities is grown in the state, including grains (soybeans, corn, wheat, oats), fruits, vegetables and nutes (peaches, melons, tomatoes, cucumbers, peanuts), poultry and eggs, livestock and dairy (USDA NASS 2014). A diverse agricultural sector creates incentives for food manufacturing companies to locate their establishments in this area. In addition, it encourages agricultural producers to get involved in food manufacturing businesses. Food manufacturing industries are important sectors of the South Carolina economy. The objective of this research is to evaluate the size, structure and economic performance of food manufacturing industry in South Carolina during the period of 2000-2012. The analysis is conducted using a number of key economic indicators reported by the US Census Bureau Economic Census surveys. The analyzed economic indicators include the number of establishments, number of employees, annual payroll, value added and value of shipments. The results have implications for the food industry and policy decision-making process, as they provide evidence on the current and projected economic performance of food manufacturing industries in South Carolina.
{"title":"Food Manufacturing Industry in South Carolina: An Analysis of the Size, Structure, and Performance","authors":"Yuliya V. Bolotova","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.232289","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.232289","url":null,"abstract":"Food manufacturing industries are traditionally cosnidered to be a significance force of economic development of rural areas. By locating their establishments in a particular region, they create employment opportunities and increase demand for agricultural commodities grown in the region. South Carolina has a bery diverse agriculture. A wide variety of agricultural commodities is grown in the state, including grains (soybeans, corn, wheat, oats), fruits, vegetables and nutes (peaches, melons, tomatoes, cucumbers, peanuts), poultry and eggs, livestock and dairy (USDA NASS 2014). A diverse agricultural sector creates incentives for food manufacturing companies to locate their establishments in this area. In addition, it encourages agricultural producers to get involved in food manufacturing businesses. Food manufacturing industries are important sectors of the South Carolina economy. The objective of this research is to evaluate the size, structure and economic performance of food manufacturing industry in South Carolina during the period of 2000-2012. The analysis is conducted using a number of key economic indicators reported by the US Census Bureau Economic Census surveys. The analyzed economic indicators include the number of establishments, number of employees, annual payroll, value added and value of shipments. The results have implications for the food industry and policy decision-making process, as they provide evidence on the current and projected economic performance of food manufacturing industries in South Carolina.","PeriodicalId":36788,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Distribution Research","volume":"24 1","pages":"12-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84740829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sixty undergraduate students enrolled in AAEC-3100, Food and Fiber Marketing, developed a survey with IRB approval, gathered the information, and compiled the results from 3,018 food shoppers in North Georgia and the Atlanta Metro counties concerning the shoppers’ opinions about their shopping experiences and store attributes. Although chain store names were identified, WalMart references, for instance, were not all Supercenters combining grocery and mass-merchandise and specialty departments, or all Neighborhood Market (grocery only) formats. Surprisingly, America’s largest grocer, WalMart, did not fare the best responses for customer shopping experience. WalMart received subpar scores for checkout speed/open checkout lanes, employee courtesy and service, stockouts of advertised specials, and fresh meat and produce quality, although customers were drawn to these stores by the advertised low prices. Shoppers viewed many other regional grocery chains as having comparable prices with WalMart or Sam’s Club – namely, Costco, Trader Joe’s, Krogers, Ingles, Bells, Harris Teeter, BiLo, Piggly Wiggly, and Publix—all have prominent market share in the Southeast. Food shoppers are promiscuous in their willingness to try many different grocers; grocery shoppers averaged an estimated eighty-three trips per year to purchase groceries with an estimated average annual household expenditure of $5,120. For the survey, stores known to have grocery formats were identified/grouped into several store type categories: regional chains (i.e., Publix, Harris Teeter, Piggly Wiggly, BiLo, Ingles, Bells, Earthfare), warehouse clubs (i.e., Costco, Sam’s Club, BJ’s), national chains (i.e., Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, Kroger (and affiliates)), neighborhood pharmacies (i.e., Walgreens, CVS, RiteAid), mass merchants or department stores (i.e., Target, WalMart), and convenience stores (i.e., 7-Eleven, Quick Trip). Customer experience maps were developed and plotted to reflect the customers’ shopping experience across the variety of store formats. Customer satisfaction indices (CSI) were also calculated with respect to the customers’ overall shopping experience, the service, the product variety and selection, quality, prices, cleanliness, and ease of shopping. For overall shopping experience, regional chains scored the highest CSI and convenience stores the lowest CSI. To gain an understanding of customer retention and loyalty, net promoter scores were determined for each of the store formats. To compare prices, a common grocery list was“shopped” by the students at the various outlets, noting the store-brand price. Venues offering lowest prices for food products varied with the products being priced. The significance of the survey is for students to learn smarter shopping and understand how goods are priced and marketed.
{"title":"Is Being Big Better? Shoppers Compare Food Merchandisers","authors":"F. Stegelin","doi":"10.22004/ag.econ.232317","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.232317","url":null,"abstract":"Sixty undergraduate students enrolled in AAEC-3100, Food and Fiber Marketing, developed a survey with IRB approval, gathered the information, and compiled the results from 3,018 food shoppers in North Georgia and the Atlanta Metro counties concerning the shoppers’ opinions about their shopping experiences and store attributes. Although chain store names were identified, WalMart references, for instance, were not all Supercenters combining grocery and mass-merchandise and specialty departments, or all Neighborhood Market (grocery only) formats. Surprisingly, America’s largest grocer, WalMart, did not fare the best responses for customer shopping experience. WalMart received subpar scores for checkout speed/open checkout lanes, employee courtesy and service, stockouts of advertised specials, and fresh meat and produce quality, although customers were drawn to these stores by the advertised low prices. Shoppers viewed many other regional grocery chains as having comparable prices with WalMart or Sam’s Club – namely, Costco, Trader Joe’s, Krogers, Ingles, Bells, Harris Teeter, BiLo, Piggly Wiggly, and Publix—all have prominent market share in the Southeast. Food shoppers are promiscuous in their willingness to try many different grocers; grocery shoppers averaged an estimated eighty-three trips per year to purchase groceries with an estimated average annual household expenditure of $5,120. For the survey, stores known to have grocery formats were identified/grouped into several store type categories: regional chains (i.e., Publix, Harris Teeter, Piggly Wiggly, BiLo, Ingles, Bells, Earthfare), warehouse clubs (i.e., Costco, Sam’s Club, BJ’s), national chains (i.e., Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, Kroger (and affiliates)), neighborhood pharmacies (i.e., Walgreens, CVS, RiteAid), mass merchants or department stores (i.e., Target, WalMart), and convenience stores (i.e., 7-Eleven, Quick Trip). Customer experience maps were developed and plotted to reflect the customers’ shopping experience across the variety of store formats. Customer satisfaction indices (CSI) were also calculated with respect to the customers’ overall shopping experience, the service, the product variety and selection, quality, prices, cleanliness, and ease of shopping. For overall shopping experience, regional chains scored the highest CSI and convenience stores the lowest CSI. To gain an understanding of customer retention and loyalty, net promoter scores were determined for each of the store formats. To compare prices, a common grocery list was“shopped” by the students at the various outlets, noting the store-brand price. Venues offering lowest prices for food products varied with the products being priced. The significance of the survey is for students to learn smarter shopping and understand how goods are priced and marketed.","PeriodicalId":36788,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Distribution Research","volume":"12 1","pages":"81-82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87273272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
An analysis presented in the article evaluates the behavior of retail fluid milk prices, farm-level milk prices and farm-to-retail margins during the period of 2000-2010 in six cities located in the Eastern United States: Boston, MA; Syracuse, NY; Philadelphia, PA; Louisville, KY; Atlanta, GA; and Miami, FL. The empirical evidence presented in the article supports empirical findings reported in the existing literature: retail fluid milk prices tend to increase at a higher rate than farm-level milk prices and there is a presence of asymmetries in the farm-to-retail price transmission process. Furthermore, there is empirical evidence that may suggest that the patterns of behavior of fluid milk prices and farm-to-retail margins are different in the states with resale milk price control regulations (New York State and Pennsylvania) and states without resale milk price control regulations. In the former case, the pattern of changes in retail fluid milk prices is similar to the pattern of changes in farm-level milk prices. In the latter case, changes in the retail fluid milk prices do not necessarily reflect changes in the farm-level milk prices, which often causes farm-to-retail margin to increase.
{"title":"An Analysis of Retail Milk Pricing in the Eastern United States","authors":"Yuliya V. Bolotova, A. Novakovic","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.232304","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.232304","url":null,"abstract":"An analysis presented in the article evaluates the behavior of retail fluid milk prices, farm-level milk prices and farm-to-retail margins during the period of 2000-2010 in six cities located in the Eastern United States: Boston, MA; Syracuse, NY; Philadelphia, PA; Louisville, KY; Atlanta, GA; and Miami, FL. The empirical evidence presented in the article supports empirical findings reported in the existing literature: retail fluid milk prices tend to increase at a higher rate than farm-level milk prices and there is a presence of asymmetries in the farm-to-retail price transmission process. Furthermore, there is empirical evidence that may suggest that the patterns of behavior of fluid milk prices and farm-to-retail margins are different in the states with resale milk price control regulations (New York State and Pennsylvania) and states without resale milk price control regulations. In the former case, the pattern of changes in retail fluid milk prices is similar to the pattern of changes in farm-level milk prices. In the latter case, changes in the retail fluid milk prices do not necessarily reflect changes in the farm-level milk prices, which often causes farm-to-retail margin to increase.","PeriodicalId":36788,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Distribution Research","volume":"4 2 1","pages":"65-72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83499199","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), also known as wild grapes are native to the Southeastern United States and well adapted to the warm and humid conditions of the region. Georgia is the largest producer of mscadine grapes in the United States and has enjoyed a market niche for decades consisting of fresh fruit processed for jams, juice and wine. In recent years, precision breeding using cisgenic technology has allow the development of new disease-resistant and seedless cultivars with potentials to serve different end-use market segments. However, the profitability of muscadine grapes cultivars newly developed with cisgenic technology relative to those developed with traditional transgenic technology is still questionable. This study takes a first step in bridging the gap in the literative with the objective to estimate the costs, revenue and profitability of producing transgenic-bred muscadine grapes in Georgia using a Single Trellis System with drip irrigation. Subsequently, we plan to derive similiar estimates for a new cisgenicbred rot resistant and seedless counterpart, currently in field trials, and compare both estimates to determine which of the two has the highest economic potentials in term of profitability and or net returns to the growers.
{"title":"Cost Estimates and Investment Analysis for Muscadine Grapes Production in Georgia","authors":"E. Fonsah, Sebastian Awondo","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.232281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.232281","url":null,"abstract":"Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), also known as wild grapes are native to the Southeastern United States and well adapted to the warm and humid conditions of the region. Georgia is the largest producer of mscadine grapes in the United States and has enjoyed a market niche for decades consisting of fresh fruit processed for jams, juice and wine. In recent years, precision breeding using cisgenic technology has allow the development of new disease-resistant and seedless cultivars with potentials to serve different end-use market segments. However, the profitability of muscadine grapes cultivars newly developed with cisgenic technology relative to those developed with traditional transgenic technology is still questionable. This study takes a first step in bridging the gap in the literative with the objective to estimate the costs, revenue and profitability of producing transgenic-bred muscadine grapes in Georgia using a Single Trellis System with drip irrigation. Subsequently, we plan to derive similiar estimates for a new cisgenicbred rot resistant and seedless counterpart, currently in field trials, and compare both estimates to determine which of the two has the highest economic potentials in term of profitability and or net returns to the growers.","PeriodicalId":36788,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Distribution Research","volume":"23 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90773272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
P. Armah, J. Wimberly, G. C. Phillips, Anett Pagan, Alana J. McVey
This study evaluates potential economic impacts on the region that may result from diversifying into vegetable crops. Five vegetables: okra, Southern peas, snap beans, summer squash, and sweet potatoes are evaluated. The evaluations entail analyses of potential regional economic impacts, using IMPLAN 3.0. The results exhibit strong multiplier effects and economic contributions in the region to output, employment, value-added, and income generation. The results also show that vegetable production can be important source of indirect and induced economic activities in the region. These indicate that vegetable production can have positive impacts and linkages in the region’s economy and may not be ignored in developing economic strategies for the region
{"title":"Diversification into Specialty Crops Production as a Regional Economic Development Strategy for Northeast Arkansas: An Economic Impact Analysis","authors":"P. Armah, J. Wimberly, G. C. Phillips, Anett Pagan, Alana J. McVey","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.232298","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.232298","url":null,"abstract":"This study evaluates potential economic impacts on the region that may result from diversifying into vegetable crops. Five vegetables: okra, Southern peas, snap beans, summer squash, and sweet potatoes are evaluated. The evaluations entail analyses of potential regional economic impacts, using IMPLAN 3.0. The results exhibit strong multiplier effects and economic contributions in the region to output, employment, value-added, and income generation. The results also show that vegetable production can be important source of indirect and induced economic activities in the region. These indicate that vegetable production can have positive impacts and linkages in the region’s economy and may not be ignored in developing economic strategies for the region","PeriodicalId":36788,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Distribution Research","volume":"91 1","pages":"36-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76060114","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：