Smart farms use advanced technologies to grow crops indoors without soil, offering environmental benefits such as reduced transportation distances and lower water consumption. However, consumers who prefer local food may resist these products. This study examines this ‘local food paradox’ among South Korean consumers. We surveyed 1,247 consumers and used latent class analysis to identify distinct consumer groups based on their technology acceptance, resistance to food technology, and local food values. Three groups emerged: Technology Enthusiasts (37.0%), who strongly support smart farming due to its perceived safety and efficiency benefits; Conflicted Moderates (25.0%), who hold mixed views balancing technological advantages against traditional values; and Tradition-Oriented Skeptics (38.0%), who prioritize terroir and authenticity and reject smart farm products despite their environmental advantages. Interestingly, consumers who frequently purchase organic food or shop at farmers’ markets were more likely to belong to the skeptical group, confirming the local food paradox: those most committed to sustainable food consumption may resist the most environmentally efficient production method. Prior experience with smart farm products, environmental concern, and health consciousness also significantly influenced group membership. These findings suggest that expanding the smart farm market requires tailored communication strategies. For technology-oriented consumers, emphasizing innovation and safety is effective. For tradition-oriented consumers, messaging should focus on freshness and community connections rather than technical features. This study contributes to understanding why sustainable food technology faces consumer resistance rooted not in fear of novelty, but in deeper conflicts over what constitutes authentic food.
You et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: