IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v248y2026ics0921800926001667.html

Valuing sustainability in aquaculture: A comprehensive demand and supply side study in Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Zewdie, Markose Chekol
  • Magondu, Esther
  • Bottema, Mariska
  • Adam, Rahma
  • Rossignoli, Cristiano M.
  • Bonilla Anariba, Sara
  • Okemwa, Douglas
  • Yossa, Rodrigue

Abstract

Integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA) sustainably produces aquatic food by integrating multiple species. Despite its environmental, social and economic benefits, IMTA adoption and market acceptance remain limited in Africa, including Kenya. This study explores producer and consumer preferences through a discrete choice experiment involving 600 fish-farming and 600 fish-consuming households. Results reveal a clear divergence in stakeholder preference. After accounting for attributes such as the price, socioeconomic and environmental benefits of IMTA, and demographic interactions, fish-producing households showed an intrinsic preference for IMTA over conventional monoculture and were willing to accept price reductions of 12.97% for economic benefits, 11.70% for social benefits, and 14.32% for environmental benefits of IMTA relative to the monoculture alternative. Conversely, fish-consuming households recognized the value of IMTA, indicating a willingness to pay premiums of 11.34%, 10.50%, and 12.41% for the economic, social, and environmental benefits, respectively, over conventional monoculture products, despite showing a baseline aversion to adoption. For both producers and consumers, environmental benefits were the most highly valued attribute of IMTA. The result also identifies key demographic determinants: producer adoption is positively associated with household size and income, but negatively with age. Conversely, consumer acceptance is higher among female-headed and wealthier households. These findings suggest that successful IMTA implementation requires distinct strategies: targeted technical and financial support for younger, labor-abundant producer households, and gender-sensitive consumer education campaigns emphasizing environmental benefits. This comprehensive demand and supply side analysis offers key insights into the aquatic food sector, guiding targeted interventions aligned with stakeholder preferences and incentives.

Suggested Citation

  • Zewdie, Markose Chekol & Magondu, Esther & Bottema, Mariska & Adam, Rahma & Rossignoli, Cristiano M. & Bonilla Anariba, Sara & Okemwa, Douglas & Yossa, Rodrigue, 2026. "Valuing sustainability in aquaculture: A comprehensive demand and supply side study in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 248(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:248:y:2026:i:c:s0921800926001667
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2026.109081
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800926001667
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2026.109081?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Suzanne van Osch & Stephen Hynes & Shirra Freeman & Tim O’Higgins, 2019. "Estimating the Public’s Preferences for Sustainable Aquaculture: A Country Comparison," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-24, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    5. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    6. Winnie Yip & Duncan Knowler & Wolfgang Haider & Ryan Trenholm, 2017. "Valuing the Willingness-to-Pay for Sustainable Seafood: Integrated Multitrophic versus Closed Containment Aquaculture," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 65(1), pages 93-117, March.
    7. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    8. Whitmarsh, David J. & Cook, Elizabeth J. & Black, Kenneth D., 2006. "Searching for sustainability in aquaculture: An investigation into the economic prospects for an integrated salmon-mussel production system," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 293-298, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Hynes, Stephen & Armstrong, Claire W. & Xuan, Bui Bich & Ankamah-Yeboah, Isaac & Simpson, Katherine & Tinch, Robert & Ressurreição, Adriana, 2021. "Have environmental preferences and willingness to pay remained stable before and during the global Covid-19 shock?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    11. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    12. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    13. Joan L. Walker & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Denis Bolduc, 2007. "Identification of parameters in normal error component logit-mixture (NECLM) models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 1095-1125.
    14. Roselinde Kessels & Peter Goos & Bradley Jones & Martina Vandebroek, 2011. "Rejoinder: the usefulness of Bayesian optimal designs for discrete choice experiments," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 197-203, May.
    15. Alexander, K.A. & Freeman, S. & Potts, T., 2016. "Navigating uncertain waters: European public perceptions of integrated multi trophic aquaculture (IMTA)," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 230-237.
    16. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    17. Aslam, Uzma & Termansen, Mette & Fleskens, Luuk, 2017. "Investigating farmers’ preferences for alternative PES schemes for carbon sequestration in UK agroecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 103-112.
    18. Roselinde Kessels & Bradley Jones & Peter Goos & Martina Vandebroek, 2011. "The usefulness of Bayesian optimal designs for discrete choice experiments," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 173-188, May.
    19. Gro Steine & Kari Kolstad, 2006. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for the Color of Salmon: A Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1050-1061.
    20. Alfnes, Frode & Guttormsen, Atle G. & Steine, Gro & Kolstad, Kari, 2006. "Ajae Appendix: Consumers’ Willingness To Pay For The Color Of Salmon: A Choice Experiment With Real Economic Incentives," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1-8, November.
    21. Ragkos, Athanasios & Theodoridis, Alexandros, 2016. "Valuation of environmental and social functions of the multifunctional Cypriot agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 593-601.
    22. Bui Bich Xuan & Erlend Dancke Sandorf, 2020. "Potential for Sustainable Aquaculture: Insights from Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(2), pages 401-421, October.
    23. Alcon, Francisco & Marín-Miñano, Cristina & Zabala, José A. & de-Miguel, María-Dolores & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2020. "Valuing diversification benefits through intercropping in Mediterranean agroecosystems: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    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. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Mohd Zuhair & Ram Babu Roy, 2022. "Eliciting relative preferences for the attributes of health insurance schemes among rural consumers in India," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 443-458, December.
    3. Brent, Daniel A. & Gangadharan, Lata & Leroux, Anke D. & Raschky, Paul A., 2022. "Reducing bias in preference elicitation for environmental public goods," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(02), January.
    4. Black, Michael A. & Woodward, Richard T. & Morgan, Cristine & Bagnall, Dianna & Kiella, Erin & Cisneros, Marissa & McIntosh, William Alex, 2020. "An empirical estimate of value of manageable soil quality," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304430, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Meles, Tensay Hadush & Ryan, Lisa & Mukherjee, Sanghamitra C., 2022. "Heterogeneity in preferences for renewable home heating systems among Irish households," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Yu-Hui Chen & Kai-Han Qiu & Kang Ernest Liu & Chun-Yuan Chiang, 2020. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay a Premium for Pure Rice Noodles? A Study of Discrete Choice Experiments in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, July.
    8. Markose Chekol Zewdie & Michele Moretti & Daregot Berihun Tenessa & Steven Passel, 2024. "Farmers’ preferences and willingness to pay for improved irrigation water supply program: a discrete choice experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 27277-27300, November.
    9. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    10. Talevi, Marta & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Das, Ipsita & Lewis, Jessica J. & Singha, Ashok K., 2022. "Speaking from experience: Preferences for cooking with biogas in rural India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    11. Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
    12. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    13. Demarchi, Gabriela & Subervie, Julie & Leite, Fernando Palha & Laclau, Jean-Paul, 2021. "Farmers' preferences for water-saving strategies in Brazilian eucalypt plantations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    14. Tibesigwa, Byela & Ntuli, Herbert & Muta, Telvin, 2023. "Willingness to Pay for Nature Restoration and Conservation in Sub-Saharan African Cities: The Case of Forests, Rivers and Coasts in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania," EfD Discussion Paper 23-7, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    15. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    16. Lee, Han Bum & McNamara, Paul E., 2017. "Deconcentrating the poor via public housing policy: What really matters?," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 67-78.
    17. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    18. Meenakshi, J.V. & Banerji, A. & Manyong, Victor & Tomlins, Keith & Mittal, Nitya & Hamukwala, Priscilla, 2012. "Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit the demand for a nutritious food: Willingness-to-pay for orange maize in rural Zambia," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 62-71.
    19. Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
    20. Kar Ho Lim & Wuyang Hu, 2023. "Contextual reference price in choice experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(4), pages 1288-1306, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:ecolec:v:248:y:2026:i:c:s0921800926001667. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.