IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea16/235249.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Behavioral Determinants of Biofortified Food Acceptance: The Case of Orange-fleshed Sweet Potato in Ghana

Author

Listed:
  • Etumnu, Chinonso

Abstract

Biofortified foods are being introduced in sub-Saharan Africa as an important strategy to help address micronutrient malnutrition. However, there has been little research on factors that could play decisive roles in their successful introduction. This paper investigates the determinants of consumer acceptance of biofortified orange-fleshed sweet potato (OFSP) using data from a choice experiment conducted in Ghana. I find that OFSP is preferred to traditional white-fleshed and yellow-fleshed sweet potatoes as indicated by consumers' marginal willingness to pay for the three varieties. I also find that consumers' socio-economic characteristics do not have a significant effect on the acceptance of OFSP. Conversely, providing consumers with information about the nutritional benefits of OFSP exert a substantial, positive and significant effect on their acceptance of the produce. Providing nutritional information thus appears to be more crucial in the successful introduction of OFSP and other biofortified foods.

Suggested Citation

  • Etumnu, Chinonso, 2016. "Behavioral Determinants of Biofortified Food Acceptance: The Case of Orange-fleshed Sweet Potato in Ghana," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235249, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:235249
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.235249
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/235249/files/AAEA_2016_Etumnu_Behavioral_Determinants_of_OFSP_Acceptance.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.235249?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hugo De Groote & Simon Chege Kimenju & Ulrich B. Morawetz, 2011. "Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: the case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(1), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Abdul T. A. Naico & Jayson L. Lusk, 2010. "The Value of a Nutritionally Enhanced Staple Crop: Results from a Choice Experiment Conducted with Orange-fleshed Sweet Potatoes in Mozambique," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 19(4), pages 536-558, August.
    3. Alan de Brauw & Patrick Eozenou & Daniel O Gilligan & Christine Hotz & Neha Kumar & J V Meenakshi, 2018. "Biofortification, Crop Adoption and Health Information: Impact Pathways in Mozambique and Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 906-930.
    4. Matin Qaim & Alexander J. Stein & J. V. Meenakshi, 2007. "Economics of biofortification," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 37(s1), pages 119-133, December.
    5. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    6. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    7. Stevens, Robyn & Winter-Nelson, Alex, 2008. "Consumer acceptance of provitamin A-biofortified maize in Maputo, Mozambique," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 341-351, August.
    8. Meenakshi, J.V. & Johnson, Nancy L. & Manyong, Victor M. & DeGroote, Hugo & Javelosa, Josyline & Yanggen, David R. & Naher, Firdousi & Gonzalez, Carolina & García, James & Meng, Erika, 2010. "How Cost-Effective is Biofortification in Combating Micronutrient Malnutrition? An Ex ante Assessment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 64-75, January.
    9. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    10. Jayson L. Lusk & Darren Hudson, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 152-169.
    11. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    12. David Hoyos & Petr Mariel, 2010. "Contingent Valuation: Past, Present and Future," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2010(4), pages 329-343.
    13. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    14. John D. Jackson, 1997. "Effects of Health Information and Generic Advertising on U.S. Meat Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 13-23.
    15. Carolina González & Nancy Johnson & Matin Qaim, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance of Second‐Generation GM Foods: The Case of Biofortified Cassava in the North‐east of Brazil," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 604-624, September.
    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. Amar Razzaq & Yifan Tang & Ping Qing, 2021. "Towards Sustainable Diets: Understanding the Cognitive Mechanism of Consumer Acceptance of Biofortified Foods and the Role of Nutrition Information," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-17, January.

    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. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    2. Banerji, Abhijit & Birol, Ekin & Karandikar, Bhushana & Rampal, Jeevant, 2016. "Information, branding, certification, and consumer willingness to pay for high-iron pearl millet: Evidence from experimental auctions in Maharashtra, India," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 133-141.
    3. Meenakshi, J. V. & Banerji, A. & Manyong, Victor & Tomlins, Keith & Hamukwala, Priscilla & Zulu, Rodah & Mungoma, Catherine, 2010. "Consumer acceptance of provitamin A orange maize in rural Zambia:," HarvestPlus working papers 4, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    5. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    6. Giuseppe Timpanaro & Claudio Bellia & Vera Teresa Foti & Alessandro Scuderi, 2020. "Consumer Behaviour of Purchasing Biofortified Food Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-14, August.
    7. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John N. Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2017. "Can insects increase food security in developing countries? An analysis of Kenyan consumer preferences and demand for cricket flour buns," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(3), pages 471-484, June.
    8. Melanie Lefevre, 2011. "Willingness-to-pay for Local Milk-based Dairy Product in Senegal," CREPP Working Papers 1108, Centre de Recherche en Economie Publique et de la Population (CREPP) (Research Center on Public and Population Economics) HEC-Management School, University of Liège.
    9. Sardaro, Ruggiero & La Sala, Piermichele & De Pascale, Gianluigi & Faccilongo, Nicola, 2021. "The conservation of cultural heritage in rural areas: Stakeholder preferences regarding historical rural buildings in Apulia, southern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    10. Valera, Harold Glenn & Yamano, Takashi & Pede, Valerien & Puskur, Ranjitha & Habib, Muhammad Ashraful & Bashar, Khairul, 2021. "Impact of Nutrition Training on Long-Term Adoption of High Zinc Rice: A Randomized Control Trial Study Among Female Farmers in Bangladesh," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315165, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Darren Hudson & Karina Gallardo & Terry Hanson, 2005. "Hypothetical (Non)Bias In Choice Experiments: Evidence From Freshwater Prawns," Experimental 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Shyamal Chowdhury & J. V. Meenakshi & Keith I. Tomlins & Constance Owori, 2010. "Are Consumers in Developing Countries Willing to Pay More for Micronutrient-Dense Biofortified Foods? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(1), pages 83-97.
    13. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    14. Helga Fehr-Duda & Robin Schimmelpfennig, 2018. "Wider die Zahlengläubigkeit: Sind Befragungsergebnisse eine gute Grundlage für wirtschaftspolitische Entscheidungen?," ECON - Working Papers 297, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Dec 2018.
    15. Jeremiah Hurley & Emmanouil Mentzakis, 2011. "Existence and Magnitude of Health-related Externalities: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Department of Economics Working Papers 2011-01, McMaster University.
    16. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    17. McFadden, Brandon R. & Malone, Trey, 2018. "How will mandatory labeling of genetically modified food nudge consumer decision-making?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 186-194.
    18. Pascucci, Stefano & Magistris, Tiziana de, 2013. "Information Bias Condemning Radical Food Innovators? The Case of Insect-Based Products in the Netherlands," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 16(3), pages 1-16, September.
    19. Elisa Giampietri & Dieter B. A. Koemle & Xiaohua Yu & Adele Finco, 2016. "Consumers’ Sense of Farmers’ Markets: Tasting Sustainability or Just Purchasing Food?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-14, November.
    20. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.

    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:ags:aaea16:235249. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.