IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i15p6130-d391970.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences and Consumption of Pigeon Peas among Rural Households as Determinants for Developing Diversified Products for Sustainable Health

Author

Listed:
  • Zahra Saidi Majili

    (Department of Food Technology, Nutrition and Consumer Sciences, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro Box 3006, Tanzania)

  • Cornelio Nyaruhucha

    (Department of Food Technology, Nutrition and Consumer Sciences, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro Box 3006, Tanzania)

  • Kissa Kulwa

    (Department of Food Technology, Nutrition and Consumer Sciences, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro Box 3006, Tanzania)

  • Khamaldin Mutabazi

    (School of Agricultural Economics and Business Studies, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro P.O. Box 3007, Tanzania)

  • Constance Rybak

    (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF e. V), Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany)

  • Stefan Sieber

    (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF e. V), Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany
    Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Life Sciences Thaer-Institute, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

Pigeon peas are legumes with a high nutritional value. Existing studies of pigeon peas in Tanzania mainly examine production and marketing, but little has been documented with respect to consumer preferences and the consumption of pigeon peas. This study assesses the preferences surrounding pigeon peas and their consumption as bases for the development of diversified and shelf-stable products for nutrition and income improvement. This study comprised 303 randomly selected farming households. Furthermore, 60 farmers participated in six focus group discussions in the Lindi region. A structured questionnaire and a checklist with guided questions were provided for data collection. The analysis uses SPSS (V.21), with differences between groups established using Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests. The associations were tested using Spearman’s ρ at p < 0.05. The mean pigeon peas consumption during the harvesting and lean seasons was 80 g/person/day and 18 g/person/day, respectively. The frequency of consumption was higher during the harvesting season (92%) than the lean (29%) season. The majority of farmers (91%) preferred to consume the local variety, with 84% of them consuming pigeon peas as stew. Five pigeon pea recipes exist in the area. The farmers identified availability, taste, source of income, and familiarity as the factors determining pigeon pea consumption and preferences. With limited recipes and other barriers limiting consumption, the creation of innovative ideas for the development of diversified and shelf-stable products fitting their consumption preferences is needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Zahra Saidi Majili & Cornelio Nyaruhucha & Kissa Kulwa & Khamaldin Mutabazi & Constance Rybak & Stefan Sieber, 2020. "Preferences and Consumption of Pigeon Peas among Rural Households as Determinants for Developing Diversified Products for Sustainable Health," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-15, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:15:p:6130-:d:391970
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6130/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6130/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Franklin Simtowe & Solomon Asfaw & Tsedeke Abate, 2016. "Determinants of agricultural technology adoption under partial population awareness: the case of pigeonpea in Malawi," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    3. Simtowe, Franklin & Kassie, Menale & Diagne, Aliou & Asfaw, Solomon & Shiferaw, Bekele & Silim, Said & Muange, Elijah, 2011. "Determinants of Agricultural Technology Adoption: The Case of Improved Pigeonpea Varieties in Tanzania," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 50(4), pages 1-21.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Magdalena Śmiglak-Krajewska & Julia Wojciechowska-Solis & Domenico Viti, 2020. "Consumers’ Purchasing Intentions on the Legume Market as Evidence of Sustainable Behaviour," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Laila Eleraky & Ramula Issa & Sónia Maciel & Hadijah Mbwana & Constance Rybak & Jan Frank & Wolfgang Stuetz, 2021. "High Prevalence of Overweight and Its Association with Mid-Upper Arm Circumference among Female and Male Farmers in Tanzania and Mozambique," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-13, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yasir A. Nasereldin & Abbas Ali Chandio & Maurice Osewe & Muhammad Abdullah & Yueqing Ji, 2023. "The Credit Accessibility and Adoption of New Agricultural Inputs Nexus: Assessing the Role of Financial Institutions in Sudan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Ward, Clement E. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Dutton, Jennifer M., 2008. "Implicit Value of Retail Beef Product Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-18.
    3. Reynolds, Travis & Kolodinsky, Jane & Murray, Byron, 2012. "Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for compact fluorescent lighting: Policy implications for energy efficiency promotion in Saint Lucia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 712-722.
    4. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    5. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    6. Hyowon Kim & Dong Soo Kim & Greg M. Allenby, 2020. "Benefit Formation and Enhancement," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 419-468, December.
    7. Anderson, Simon P. & Foros, Øystein & Kind, Hans Jarle, 2012. "Product quality, competition, and multi-purchasing," Discussion Papers 2012/9, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    8. Mika Kortelainen & Timo Kuosmanen, 2007. "Eco-efficiency analysis of consumer durables using absolute shadow prices," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 57-69, October.
    9. Barnett, William A. & Serletis, Apostolos, 2008. "Consumer preferences and demand systems," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 210-224, December.
    10. Mtimet, Nadhem & Ujiie, Kiyokazu & Kashiwagi, Kenichi & Zaibet, Lokman & Nagaki, Masakazu, 2011. "The effects of Information and Country of Origin on Japanese Olive Oil Consumer Selection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114642, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Jitender Singh, 2016. "Quality of Public Goods, Public Policy and Human Development: A State-wise Analysis," Indian Journal of Human Development, , vol. 10(2), pages 215-235, August.
    12. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    13. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    14. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Tu, Gengyang, 2020. "Conveyance, envy, and homeowner choice of appliances," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    15. Trojanek, Radoslaw & Huderek-Glapska, Sonia, 2018. "Measuring the noise cost of aviation – The association between the Limited Use Area around Warsaw Chopin Airport and property values," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 103-114.
    16. Veneziani, Mario & Sckokai, Paolo & Moro, Daniele, 2012. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for a functional food," 2012 First Congress, June 4-5, 2012, Trento, Italy 124101, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    17. John K. Dagsvik & Zhiyang Jia, 2016. "Labor Supply as a Choice Among Latent Jobs: Unobserved Heterogeneity and Identification," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 487-506, April.
    18. Blum, Bianca, 2018. "Ausgestaltung einer Steuerpolitik zur Förderung von LED-Beleuchtung," The Constitutional Economics Network Working Papers 01-2018, University of Freiburg, Department of Economic Policy and Constitutional Economic Theory.
    19. Verity Watson & Chris Dibben & Matt Cox & Iain Atherton & Matt Sutton & Mandy Ryan, 2019. "Testing the Expert Based Weights Used in the UK’s Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) Against Three Preference-Based Methods," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(3), pages 1055-1074, August.
    20. Diane Coyle & Jen‐Chung Mei, 2023. "Diagnosing the UK productivity slowdown: which sectors matter and why?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 90(359), pages 813-850, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:15:p:6130-:d:391970. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.