Willingness to Pay, Quality Perception, and Local Foods: The Case of Broccoli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large and growing body of literature has studied consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for local foods in the United States. However, these studies implicitly assume that consumers perceive local foods to have superior quality than nonlocal foods. Little is known about WTP for local foods when taking into account differences in consumer perception of food quality between local and nonlocal foods. In this article, we conduct an economic experiment to assess the effect of locally grown information on consumer WTP and quality perceptions of three broccoli varieties (one commercial variety grown in California and two newly developed local varieties). Our results show that consumers rate both the appearance and the taste of the two local broccoli varieties lower than the California variety when evaluating food quality blindly. However, consumers’ evaluations of the two local varieties improve substantially after being told the two varieties are locally grown. Results also indicate that consumers are willing to pay a price premium for the two local varieties after being told that they are locally grown. Our results provide evidence that locally grown information has a positive effect on both consumer WTP and quality perception of local foods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".