IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaae16/246920.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Peri-urban food traders’ preferences for open-air market design and management attributes in Nairobi, Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Cherono, Irine
  • Otieno, David Jakinda

Abstract

Open-air markets are a popular market channel for most agri-food products in developing countries. In the peri-urban areas of Kenya, these are the most convenient sources of fresh fruits and vegetables for many households. However, the haphazard organization and management of these markets often results in insecurity and other economic losses. Yet, no empirical study has delved in the analysis of the extent of these challenges and remedial measures. In order to address this critical policy issue and advance knowledge in this area, the present study analyzed peri-urban food traders’ preferences for the design and management attributes of open-air markets in Nairobi, Kenya. A total of 120 agri-food traders were randomly selected and interviewed from open-air markets. The results of a choice experiment survey showed that traders prefer the management of these markets through clearly structured county government procedures, allocation of market space on monthly rotational basis and restriction of space to each user. Further, the study observed that traders prefer comprehensive services provision based on competitive tendering processes. These findings call for reforms in the management and design of open-air markets in order to improve service delivery and security of all participants.

Suggested Citation

  • Cherono, Irine & Otieno, David Jakinda, 2016. "Peri-urban food traders’ preferences for open-air market design and management attributes in Nairobi, Kenya," 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 246920, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaae16:246920
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.246920
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/246920/files/265.%20Open-air%20markets%20in%20Kenya.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.246920?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. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    2. Ágnes Czakó & Endre Sik, 1999. "Characteristics and Origins of the Comecon Open‐air Market in Hungary," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(4), pages 715-737, December.
    3. David Jakinda Otieno & Eric Ruto & Lionel Hubbard, 2011. "Cattle Farmers’ Preferences for Disease‐Free Zones in Kenya: An application of the Choice Experiment Method," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 207-224, February.
    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. Uwamariya, Beatrice, 2014. "Assessment of Consumer Awareness and Preferences for Quality Certification and Origin-Labeling in Fruit Salads in Kigali,Rwanda," Research Theses 198512, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    2. Hao Li & Michael T Bennett & Xuemei Jiang & Kebin Zhang & Xiaohui Yang, 2017. "Rural Household Preferences for Active Participation in “Payment for Ecosystem Service” Programs: A Case in the Miyun Reservoir Catchment, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, January.
    3. Otieno, David & Ogutu, Sylvester, 2015. "Consumer willingness to pay for animal welfare attributes in a developing country context: The case of chicken in Nairobi, Kenya," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212602, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Dan Pan, 2016. "The Design of Policy Instruments towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: An Application of the Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Kennedy Otieno, Pambo, 2013. "Analysis of Consumer Awareness and Preferences for Fortified Sugar in Kenya," Research Theses 243455, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    6. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    7. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    8. Filiptseva, Anna & Filler, Günther & Odening, Martin, 2022. "Compensation Options for Quarantine Costs in Plant Production," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329595, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    9. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    10. 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.
    11. Hyunjoo Lee & Misuk Lee & Sesil Lim, 2018. "Do Consumers Care about the Energy Efficiency of Buildings? Understanding Residential Choice Based on Energy Performance Certificates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, November.
    12. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    13. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    14. Cheng, Haotian & Zhang, Tong & Lambert, Dayton M. & Feuz, Ryan, 2023. "An empirical comparison of conjoint and best-worst scaling case III methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    15. 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.
    16. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    17. Mario Bossler & Michael Oberfichtner & Claus Schnabel, 2020. "Employment Adjustments Following Rises and Reductions in Minimum Wages: New Insights From a Survey Experiment," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 34(3), pages 323-346, September.
    18. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    19. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2016. "Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 58-67.
    20. Adam Finn & Stuart McFadyen & Colin Hoskins, 2003. "Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 177-192, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics; Demand and Price Analysis; International Relations/Trade;
    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:aaae16:246920. 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/aaaeaea.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.