IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae15/212519.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Farmers Willing to Pay for Quality Planting Materials of Clonally Propagated Biofortified Crops? The Case of Orange-Fleshed Sweetpotatoe in Tanzania

Author

Listed:
  • Mwiti, Florine
  • Okello, Julius J.
  • Munei, Kimpei

Abstract

Hidden hunger, resulting from micronutrient deficiency, is a major problem in developing countries. Vitamin A is one of the micronutrients that are widely deficient in diets of many rural households. Biofortified staples that are rich in beta carotene, a precursor for vitamin A, such as Orange Fleshed Sweetpotato (OFSP) can contribute to solving this problem. Recent efforts have therefore focused on sensitizing farmers about the benefits of OSFP while at the same time supplying highly subsidized quality (i.e., pest and diseases free) OFSP planting materials (i.e., vines), usually fee or at heavily subsidized prices. This study uses seemingly unrelated regression technique and data from 481 farmers to assess the demand for quality OFSP vines and the factors affecting the demand for such vines. It finds high willingness to pay for quality OFSP vines shown by the high willingness to pay. Demand for quality vines is affected by number of children, age, tastes, preferences, yield and Income. The study concludes that demand for quality OFSP vines is high, but still lower than for white-fleshed varieties. It discusses implications of the findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Mwiti, Florine & Okello, Julius J. & Munei, Kimpei, 2015. "Are Farmers Willing to Pay for Quality Planting Materials of Clonally Propagated Biofortified Crops? The Case of Orange-Fleshed Sweetpotatoe in Tanzania," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212519, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae15:212519
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.212519
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/212519/files/Mwiti-Are%20Farmers%20Willing%20to%20Pay%20for%20Quality%20Planting%20Materials-505.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.212519?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. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    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. 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. Henningsen, Arne & Hamann, Jeff D., 2007. "systemfit: A Package for Estimating Systems of Simultaneous Equations in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 23(i04).
    5. 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.
    6. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    7. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2008. "Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 433-446, April.
    8. Stéphane Luchini & Christel Protière & Jean‐Paul Moatti, 2003. "Eliciting several willingness to pay in a single contingent valuation survey: application to health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 51-64, January.
    9. Combris, Pierre & Pinto, Alexandra Seabra & Fragata, Antonio & Giraud-Heraud, Eric, 2007. "Does taste beat food safety? Evidence from the "Pera Rocha" case in Portugal," 105th Seminar, March 8-10, 2007, Bologna, Italy 7879, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mwiti, Florine Karuru & Okelo, Julius & Munei, Kimpei, 2015. "Assessment Of Willingness To Pay For Quality Sweetpotato Planting Materials: The Case Of Smallholder Farmers In Tanzania," Dissertations and Theses 269713, University of Nairobi, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    2. Mwiti, Florine K. & Okello, Julius J. & Munei, Kimpei & Low, Jan, 2016. "Assessment of farmer willingness to pay for quality planting materials of biofortified and non-biofortified varieties of sweetpotato," 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 249327, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    3. Contu, Davide & Mourato, Susana, 2020. "Complementing choice experiment with contingent valuation data: Individual preferences and views towards IV generation nuclear energy in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    9. G. Concu, 2004. "Effects of distance on non-use values," Working Paper CRENoS 200411, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    10. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    11. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    12. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    13. Choi, Andy S. & Ritchie, Brent W. & Papandrea, Franco & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-220.
    14. Komarek, Timothy M. & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael D., 2011. "Valuing energy policy attributes for environmental management: Choice experiment evidence from a research institution," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5105-5115, September.
    15. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Stefan Borsky & Paul A. Raschky, "undated". "Estimating the Option Value of Exercising Risk-taking Behavior with the Hedonic Market Approach," Working Papers 2008-14, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    17. Daniel McFadden, 2014. "The new science of pleasure: consumer choice behavior and the measurement of well-being," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 2, pages 7-48, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    19. Oliver Froer, 2003. "Using Stated Preference Methods for Biodiversity Valuation. A critical analysis," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 217/2003, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Crop Production/Industries; Farm Management;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iaae15:212519. 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/iaaeeea.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.