IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/cmpart/243461.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Assessment of Losses Due to Fruit Fly Infestation in Mango and the Willingness to Pay for an Integrated Pest Management Package in Embu District, Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Mugure, Muchiri

Abstract

Mango production is a major form of income generation for Kenyan large and small-scale farmers. However, it is confronted with the major threat of fruit fly infestation which causes reduction of quality and quantity of marketable fruit resulting to considerable produce losses. New and cheaper methods to reduce fruit fly infestation levels in mango production have been developed, but farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for them is not known. First, this study was conducted in Embu district, and it aimed to examine the magnitude of losses caused by fruit flies at the farm level via rejections during harvest using descriptive analysis and seeks to determine farmer and farm-level factors influencing the variation of these losses among mango producers using a simple robust regression technique. Secondly, a survey based on contingent valuation was conducted to obtain the maximum amount of money that mango farmers were willing to pay for an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) fruit fly control package if it is released in the market. Using a logistic regression model the study then investigated factors influencing the probability that farmers would be willing to pay a pre-determined seasonal cost of KES 1100 per acre for the package. The model was estimated using data collected from 240 mango growing farmers selected using multistage and proportionate to size random sampling procedures. Results from the study indicate that the average percentage loss due to fruit fly infestation via rejections at the farm was 24 percent, with some farmers reporting higher losses of up to 60 percent. The results further showed that fruit fly related mango losses increase with the area under mango cultivation and the farmer’s age while access to information on pest control, annual income and orchard sanitation are associated with lower losses. Results from the WTP analysis showed that 66 percent of respondents were willing to pay the cost of KES 1100 per acre for the IPM fruit fly control package. The descriptive mean WTP among farmers was found to be KES 1700 per acre implying a high potential for its adoption as it is higher than the pre-determined seasonal cost. Farmers’ WTP for the package is positively influenced by a host of factors; level of education, mango cropping system, household income, the magnitude of fruit damaged by fruit fly, damage rating and expenditure for pest control using pesticides. Based on the empirical results, the study derives policy implications in the design and implementation of workable policies that support sustainable dissemination of IPM technologies if the expected high demand and potential benefits to farmers are to be realized. A more systematic ex-post impact assessment study should however be conducted after the release and adoption of the technology to evaluate the performance of this intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Mugure, Muchiri, 2012. "Economic Assessment of Losses Due to Fruit Fly Infestation in Mango and the Willingness to Pay for an Integrated Pest Management Package in Embu District, Kenya," Research Theses 243461, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:cmpart:243461
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.243461
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/243461/files/MSc%20Thesis_Caroline%20Muchiri.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.243461?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. Horna, J. Daniela & Smale, Melinda & Oppen, Matthias Von, 2007. "Farmer willingness to pay for seed-related information: rice varieties in Nigeria and Benin," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(6), pages 799-825, December.
    2. Wilson, Clevo & Tisdell, Clem, 2001. "Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 449-462, December.
    3. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    4. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    5. AfDB AfDB, . "AfDB Group Annual Report 2006," Annual Report, African Development Bank, number 62 edited by Koua Louis Kouakou.
    6. Govindasamy, Ramu & Italia, John, 1999. "Predicting Willingness-To-Pay A Premium For Organically Grown Fresh Produce," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 30(2), pages 1-10, July.
    7. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
    8. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    9. Emmi Haltia & Jari Kuuluvainen & Ville Ovaskainen & Eija Pouta & Mika Rekola, 2009. "Logit model assumptions and estimated willingness to pay for forest conservation in southern Finland," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 681-691, December.
    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. Muhammad Dildar Gogi & Waleed Afzal Naveed & Asim Abbasi & Bilal Atta & Muhammad Asif Farooq & Mishal Subhan & Inzamam Ul Haq & Muhammad Asrar & Najat A. Bukhari & Ashraf Atef Hatamleh & Mohamed A. A., 2023. "Field Evaluation of Slow-Release Wax Formulations: A Novel Approach for Managing Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-21, October.

    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. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    2. Gebretsadik, Kidanemariam Abreha & Romstad, Eirik, 2020. "Climate and farmers’ willingness to pay for improved irrigation water supply," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    3. Genius, Margarita & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2011. "Can unbiased be tighter? Assessment of methods to reduce the bias-variance trade-off in WTP estimation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 293-314, January.
    4. M. Genius & E. Strazzera, 2005. "Modeling Elicitation effects in contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis of the bivariate approach," Working Paper CRENoS 200502, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    5. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2008. "Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 700-711, July.
    6. 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.
    7. McNair, Ben J. & Hensher, David A. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Modelling heterogeneity in response behaviour towards a sequence of discrete choice questions: a latent class approach," MPRA Paper 23427, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Burton, Anthony C. & Carson, Katherine S. & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George, 2003. "An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies in responses to second offers in double referenda," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 472-489, November.
    9. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Ran, Shenghong, 2006. "Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-441, May.
    10. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    11. Carson, Katherine Silz & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George, 2009. "Necessary conditions for demand revelation in double referenda," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 219-225, March.
    12. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    14. P. Calia & E. Strazzera, 1998. "Bias and efficiency of single vs. double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis," Working Paper CRENoS 199801, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    15. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    16. Deutschmann, Joshua W. & Postepska, Agnieszka & Sarr, Leopold, 2021. "Measuring willingness to pay for reliable electricity: Evidence from Senegal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    17. Jung-Eun Kim & Jungsung Yeo, 2010. "Valuation of Consumers’ Personal Information: A South Korean Example," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 297-306, September.
    18. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    19. Corsi, Alessandro, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay in terms of price: an application to organic beef during and after the “mad cow” crisis," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 92(01), pages 25-46, October.
    20. Gashaw Tenna Alemu & Atsushi Tsunekawa & Nigussie Haregeweyn & Zerihun Nigussie & Mitsuru Tsubo & Asres Elias & Zemen Ayalew & Daregot Berihun & Enyew Adgo & Derege Tsegaye Meshesha & Dessalegn Molla , 2021. "Smallholder farmers’ willingness to pay for sustainable land management practices in the Upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 5640-5665, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cmpart:243461. 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: http://www.agriculturaleconomics.net .

    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.