IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring heterogeneity, survey engagement and response quality in preferences for organic products in Nigeria


  • Muhammad Bello
  • Awudu Abdulai


The identification of the market potentials of organic products is important in the drive towards a sustainable agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, available evidence shows that valuing attributes of credence goods (such as organic products) while using stated preference methods faces additional obstacles compared to other normal goods. In this study, we examine consumers’ preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for health and environmental attributes of organic products in Nigeria. We employ an approach that allows us to adequately capture the value of organic products by linking part of the heterogeneity across respondents to differences in scale, while making use of indicators of survey engagement, without risks of endogeneity bias and measurement error that arise from the deterministic methods. The empirical results show that market for organic products exists in Nigeria, with reduction in pesticide residues attribute attracting the highest value, followed by the certification programme. Furthermore, we observe that increases in the latent engagement variable lead to a greater probability of agreement with statements relating to survey understanding and realism, and hence more substantive output.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Bello & Awudu Abdulai, 2016. "Measuring heterogeneity, survey engagement and response quality in preferences for organic products in Nigeria," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(13), pages 1159-1171, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:48:y:2016:i:13:p:1159-1171
    DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2015.1093089

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    2. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 135-148, June.
    3. Hess, Stephane & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2013. "Linking response quality to survey engagement: A combined random scale and latent variable approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-12.
    4. Riccardo Scarpa & Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson, 2007. "Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 617-634.
    5. Glenn Harrison, 2006. "Experimental Evidence on Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 125-162, May.
    6. Kleemann, Linda & Abdulai, Awudu, 2013. "Organic certification, agro-ecological practices and return on investment: Evidence from pineapple producers in Ghana," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 330-341.
    7. William H. Greene & David A. Hensher, 2013. "Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(14), pages 1897-1902, May.
    8. Ju-Chin Huang & Min Qiang Zhao, 2015. "Model selection and misspecification in discrete choice welfare analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(39), pages 4153-4167, August.
    9. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    10. 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.
    11. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    12. Shang Wu & Jacob R. Fooks & Kent D. Messer & Deborah Delaney, 2015. "Consumer demand for local honey," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(41), pages 4377-4394, September.
    13. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2012. "Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1225-1239, November.
    14. Andrew Collins & John Rose & Stephane Hess, 2012. "Interactive stated choice surveys: a study of air travel behaviour," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 55-79, January.
    15. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    16. Oelofse, Myles & Høgh-Jensen, Henning & Abreu, Lucimar S. & Almeida, Gustavo F. & Hui, Qiao Yu & Sultan, Tursinbek & de Neergaard, Andreas, 2010. "Certified organic agriculture in China and Brazil: Market accessibility and outcomes following adoption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1785-1793, July.
    17. Dakshina G. De Silva & Rachel A. J. Pownall, 2014. "Going green: does it depend on education, gender or income?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(5), pages 573-586, February.
    18. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    19. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    20. Richard C. Ready & Patricia A. Champ & Jennifer L. Lawton, 2010. "Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(2), pages 363-381.
    21. Tiziana de-Magistris & Azucena Gracia & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2013. "On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1136-1154.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2018. "Hybrid choice models vs. endogeneity of indicator variables: a Monte Carlo investigation," Working Papers 2018-21, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    2. Joanna Mazur & Katarzyna Śledziewska & Damian Zieba, 2018. "Regulation of Geo-blocking: does it address the problem of low intraEU iTrade?," Working Papers 2018-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    3. Bello, Muhammad & Abdulai, Awudu, 2016. "Identification of consumer segments and market potentials for organic products in Nigeria: A Hybrid Latent Class approach," 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 246965, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:taf:applec:v:48:y:2016:i:13:p:1159-1171. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.