Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Restaurants, chefs and local foods: insights drawn from application of a diffusion of innovation framework

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Chefs have been recognized as potentially important partners in efforts to promote local food systems. Drawing on the diffusion of innovation framework we (a) examine the characteristics of chefs and restaurants that have adopted local foods; (b) identified local food attributes valued by restaurants; (c) examine how restaurants function as opinion leaders promoting local foods; (d) explored network linkages between culinary and production organizations; and (e) finally, we consider some of the barriers to more widespread adoption of local foods in the culinary community. Analyzing quantitative and qualitative data collected from interviews with individuals from 71 restaurants, we compare and contrast restaurants that utilize relatively large amounts of locally-produced ingredients with restaurants using few, if any, local products. Results reveal that chefs are most interested in intrinsic food qualities, such as taste and freshness, and less interested in production standards. As opinion leaders, chefs utilize signage, wait staff, and cooking classes to promote local foods; however, the diffusion process across restaurants, and between restaurants and producers, is limited by network associations. Structural barriers such as distribution problems and lack of convenience were identified as limiting more widespread use of locally-grown foods. We offer several implications of this research for further work that seeks to engage chefs as opinion leaders who are important to building greater support for local food systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Understanding the demographics and motivations of early adopters has historically been used to modify and create support services and policy tailored towards further facilitating the adoption of innovations among particular classes of potential adopters.

  2. It is acknowledged that the potential also exists for negative dining experiences, potentially arising from the fact that there may be greater variability in the product quality of local and/or organic foods.

  3. The interview guide and closed-ended questionnaire are available from the lead author by request.

  4. A restaurant may be considered “established” anywhere from 2 to 3 years of age, with longevity demonstrating the ability to operate profitability and satisfy customers (Restaurant Association 2003).

Abbreviations

ACENET:

Appalachian Center for Economic Networks

NGOs:

Non governmental organizations

NOP:

U.S. National Organic Program

References

  • Albright, C.L., J.A. Flora, and S.P. Fortmann. 1990. Restaurant menu labeling: Impact of nutrition information on entrée sales and patron attitudes. Health Education Quarterly 17 (2): 157–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, P. 2004. Together at the table: Sustainability and sustenance in the American agrifood system. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnettf, A. 2006. You say tomatoes. The Boston Globe, August 23: C1.

  • Balazs, K. 2002. Take one entrepreneur: The recipe for success of France’s great chefs. European Management Journal 20 (3): 247–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 407–417. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L.A. 1981. Innovation diffusion: A new perspective. New York: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, F. 2006. Food you’d 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: 1–5.

  • Clancy, K. 1997. Reconnecting farmers and citizens in the food system. In Visions of American Agriculture, ed. W. Lockeretz, 31–46. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloud, J. 2007. My search for the perfect apple. Time Magazine 169 (11): 42–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLind, L.B., and H.H. Fackler, eds. 1999. CSA: Patterns, problems, and possibilities. In The many faces of community supported agriculture. Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance 5–9. Hartland, Michigan: Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance.

  • Economic Research Service (ERS) U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. Ohio State fact sheet. http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/OH.htm. Accessed 12 February 2002.

  • Goldstein, D., and Bensel T. 2000. Conservation marketing of agricultural products in the French Creek Valley. Report Completed for The Nature Conservancy—Central and Western New York Chapter. Meadville, PA: Allegheny College.

  • Goodman, D.E., and E.M. DuPuis. 2002. Knowing and growing good: Beyond the production-consumption debate in the sociology of agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 42 (1): 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M.S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J. 2003. Fast food/organic food: Reflexive tastes and the making of yuppie chow. Social and Cultural Geography 4 (1): 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erzberger, C., and U. Kelle. 2003. Making inferences in mixed methods: The rules of integration. In Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, ed. A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, 457–490. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Harper, C., and K. Leicht. 2002. Exploring social change: America and the world, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinrichs, C. 2000. Embeddedness and local food systems: Notes on two types of direct agricultural markets. Journal of Rural Studies 16 (3): 295–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, J., S. Lezberg, K. De Master, G.W. Stevenson, and J. Hendrickson. 2000. Tasting food, tasting sustainability: Defining the attributes of an alternative food system with competent, ordinary people. Human Organization 59 (2): 177–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lappé, F.M. 1990. Food, farming and democracy. In Our sustainable table. Essays, ed. R. Clark, 143–160. Berkley, CA: North Point Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lofland, J., and L.H. Lofland. 1995. Analyzing social settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T. 2004. Civic agriculture: Reconnecting farm, food, and community. Medford: Tufts University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T., G.W. Gillespie, and D. Hilchey. 1995. Farmer’s markets and the local community: Bridging the formal and informal economy. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 10: 108–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T., and J. Green. 1999. The agricultural marketscape: A framework for sustaining agriculture and communities in the Northeast. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 15: 133–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marder, D. 2006. Top dog easing out. The Philadelphia Inquirer, November 9. Section F; Food: 1–4.

  • Murdoch, J. 2000. Networks: A new paradigm of rural development? Journal of Rural Studies 16: 407–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Organic Program (NOP). 2003. NOP regulations and policies. http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/NOPhome.html. Accessed December 2003.

  • Nygard, B., and O. Storstad. 1998. De-globalization of food markets? Consumer perceptions of safe food: The case of Norway. European Society for Rural Sociology 38 (1): 35–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA). 2006. Ohio proud farmers market directory search page. http://www.ohioproud.org/fmdirectory/fmdRev1228.asp. Accessed 20 October 2006.

  • Ohio Proud. 2000. Consumer recognition of Ohio Proud Products. Ohio Proud Conference, February 15, 2001.

  • O’Neill, P., and S. Whatmore. 2000. The business of place: Networks of property, partnership and produce. Geoforum 31 (1): 121–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padel, S. 2001. The diffusion and institutionalization of organic farming: Conversion to organic farming: A typical example of the diffusion of an innovation? Sociologia Ruralis 41 (1): 40–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 omnivore’s dilemma: A natural history of four meals. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 213–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratten, J.D. 2003. The importance of waiting staff in restaurant service. British Food Journal 105 (11): 826–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raynolds, L.T. 2000. Re-embedding global agriculture: The international organic and fair trade movements. Agriculture and Human Values 17 (3): 297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 301–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 3–50. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 233–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, M. 2003. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Jason Parker and Greta Wyrick for their support, editorial and proof reading assistance. Many thanks are due to Laura Ann Bergman and Innovative Farmers of Ohio for conceptualizing and laying the ground work for this study. The Ohio Department of Agriculture-Ohio Proud Program Specialty Crop Block Grant funded this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rural Sociology Program, Department of Human and Community Resource Development, The Ohio State University, Ag Admin Bldg Rm 208, 2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Shoshanah M. Inwood, Jeff S. Sharp & Richard H. Moore

  2. Organic Food Farming Education and Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC), The Ohio State University, 1680 Madison Ave, Wooster, OH, 44691, USA

    Deborah H. Stinner

Authors
  1. Shoshanah M. Inwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeff S. Sharp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard H. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deborah H. Stinner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shoshanah M. Inwood.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Inwood, S.M., Sharp, J.S., Moore, R.H. et al. Restaurants, chefs and local foods: insights drawn from application of a diffusion of innovation framework. Agric Hum Values 26, 177–191 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9165-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9165-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation