We conducted an online consumer survey in May 2020 in two major metropolitan areas in the United States to investigate food shopping behaviors and consumption during the pandemic lockdown caused by COVID‐19. The results of this study parallel many of the headlines in the popular press at the time. We found that about three‐quarters of respondents were simply buying the food they could get due to out of stock situations and about half the participants bought more food than usual. As a result of foodservice closures, consumers indicated purchasing more groceries than normal. Consumers attempted to avoid shopping in stores, relying heavily on grocery delivery and pick‐up services during the beginning of the pandemic when no clear rules were in place. Results show a 255% increase in the number of households that use grocery pickup as a shopping method and a 158% increase in households that utilize grocery delivery services. The spike in pickup and delivery program participation can be explained by consumers fearing COVID‐19 and feeling unsafe. Food consumption patterns for major food groups seemed to stay the same for the majority of participants, but a large share indicated that they had been snacking more since the beginning of the pandemic which was offset by a sharp decline in fast food consumption.

The COVID‐19 pandemic exposed critical weaknesses in the US food supply chain. Faced with the near‐complete loss of the food service distribution channel, stories of wasted food, failing suppliers, and food shortages were common. We argue that the pandemic revealed a fundamental lack of resilience in the food supply chain that, while causing short‐term welfare losses, need not have happened, and resulted from a failure of vision rather than a market failure in the traditional sense. We present a model of supply chain flexibility, grounded in real options theory, that demonstrates how firms can increase shareholder value by maintaining flexibility across supply chains. We present an example from the US fresh produce industry (onions) to demonstrate our hypothesis.

A growing literature in health and nutrition suggests that healthy foods are less available and more expensive at nontraditional store formats such as supercenters, convenience stores, and drug stores. We use Nielsen Homescan data to investigate the relationship between store format and the healthfulness of consumers' grocery shopping. Accounting for a rich set of controls, as well as food retail market structure, we simultaneously estimate the healthfulness of consumers' food purchases and the shares of food expenditure at traditional and nontraditional store formations. We find that healthier food choices are generally associated with higher food expenditure shares at supermarkets and supercenters and lower shares at drug stores and convenience stores. In addition, market concentration has a negative effect on shopping healthfulness.

Coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) disrupted the food system motivating discussions about moving from a dependence on long food supply channels toward shorter local supply channels, including urban agriculture. This study examines two central questions regarding the adoption of urban agriculture practices at the household level during the COVID‐19 pandemic: whether the outbreak of the novel coronavirus elicited participation in urban agriculture (e.g., community growing and home growing) and what are the characteristics of individuals who participate. To answer these questions, we conducted two online surveys in Phoenix, AZ, and Detroit, MI. The first round occurred during 2017 and the second during the lock‐down in 2020. Using bivariate probit models, we find that (1) considerably fewer individuals participate in urban agriculture at community gardens compared to at‐home gardening; (2) participation overall is lower in 2020 compared to 2017; and (3) respondents in Detroit practice urban agriculture more than respondents in Phoenix. Across both cities, our results suggest that the continuity of individuals' participation in growing food at community gardens and home is fragile. Not all characteristics that determined who participated in community gardens before COVID‐19 are determining the likelihood to participate during the pandemic. In addition, growing food at home before COVID‐19 was practiced by larger households and employed respondents, yet, during the pandemic, we find that home‐growing was more likely when children were in the household and households were smaller and younger (Detroit), and younger and more educated (Phoenix). These findings suggest that many urban households' food‐growing practices may not yet be mainstream and that other barriers may exist that inhibit households' participation.

Urban agriculture offers the opportunity to provide fresh, local food to urban communities. However, urban agriculture can only be successfully embedded in urban areas if consumers perceive urban farming positively and accept urban farms in their community. Success of urban agriculture is rooted in positive perception of those living close by, and the perception strongly affects acceptance of farming within individuals' direct proximity. This research investigates perception and acceptance of urban agriculture through a qualitative, exploratory field study with N = 19 residents from a major metropolitan area in the southwest U.S. Specifically, in this exploratory research we implement the method of concept mapping testing its use in the field of Agroecology and Ecosystem Services. In the concept mapping procedure, respondents are free to write down all the associations that come to mind when presented with a stimulus, such as, "urban farming." When applying concept mapping, participants are asked to recall associations and then directly link them to each other displaying their knowledge structure, i.e., perception. Data were analyzed using content analysis and semantic network analysis. Consumers' perception of urban farming is related to the following categories: environment, society, economy, and food and attributes. The number of positive associations is much higher than the number of negative associations signaling that consumers would be likely to accept farming close to where they live. Furthermore, our findings show that individuals' perceptions can differ greatly in terms of what they associate with urban farming and how they evaluate it. While some only think of a few things, others have well-developed knowledge structures. Overall, investigating consumers' perception helps designing strategies for the successful adoption of urban farming.