IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaae23/364816.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumers’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Honey Quality Attributes in Nyandarua County, Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Maina, Milkah Wanjiku
  • Mburu, John
  • Chimoita, Evans Ligare
  • Maina, Fredah Wangui

Abstract

Honey adulteration and limited consumer knowledge are some of the major challenges facing the honey sector. Despite the interventions of planting bee flora to ensure honey quality, limited empirical information exists on consumers’ preferences for honey quality features. This study assessed consumers’ preferences for honey quality attributes and estimated willingness to pay for these attributes in Nyandarua County, Kenya. Further, inclusion of bee floral source label as a quality attribute is a useful contribution to empirical literature. Random Parameter Logit model was used to analyze choice experiment data from 252 honey consumers. The empirical results showed that consumers had a positive preference for bee flora source label, origin labelling, joint certification, continuous viscosity and dark brown color of honey. Preference heterogeneity across various attributes was observed. Consumers were willing to pay the highest premium for honey viscosity. The results of this study will help in developing market positioning strategies for honey as well as policies to promote consumption of honey of high quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Maina, Milkah Wanjiku & Mburu, John & Chimoita, Evans Ligare & Maina, Fredah Wangui, 2023. "Consumers’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Honey Quality Attributes in Nyandarua County, Kenya," 2023 Seventh AAAE/60th AEASA Conference, September 18-21, 2023, Durban, South Africa 364816, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaae23:364816
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.364816
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/364816/files/140.%20Honey%20in%20Kenya.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.364816?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. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    2. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    3. 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.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    7. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    8. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    9. Kennedy Otieno Pambo & David Jakinda Otieno & Julius Juma Okello, 2017. "Analysis of Consumer Preference for Vitamin A-Fortified Sugar in Kenya," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 29(4), pages 745-768, August.
    10. Jemal Ahmed & Tewodros Tefera & Girma T. Kassie, 2020. "Consumers’ preference and willingness to pay for enriched snack product traits in Shashamane and Hawassa cities, Ethiopia," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, December.
    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. Halkos, George & Aslanidis, Panagiotis-Stavros, 2025. "The Socio-Cultural and Spiritual Dimensions on Non-marketed Environmental Valuation," MPRA Paper 124961, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. 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).
    3. Otieno, D., 2018. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Attributes of Goat Meat in Kenya," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277156, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia M. Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2018. "Discrete-choice experiments valuing local environmental impacts of renewables: two approaches to a case study in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 145-162, December.
    5. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    6. Trujillo, Francisca & Chávez, Carlos & Jaime, Marcela & Salazar, César, 2025. "Households' preferences for door-to-door recycling service: A choice experiment in southern Chile," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    7. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    8. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Ondřej Vojáček & Iva Pecáková, 2010. "Comparison of Discrete Choice Models for Economic Environmental Research," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2010(1), pages 35-53.
    10. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 1323-1337, October.
    11. Mulatu, Dawit Woubishet & Alvsilver, Jessica & Siikamäki, Juha, 2019. "Valuing Residents’ Preferences for Improved Urban Green Space Ecosystem Services in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia," EfD Discussion Paper 19-2, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    12. 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.
    13. Sharma, Sadikshya & Kreye, Melissa M., 2022. "Social value of bird conservation on private forest lands in Pennsylvania, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    14. Mokas, Ilias & Lizin, Sebastien & Brijs, Tom & Witters, Nele & Malina, Robert, 2021. "Can immersive virtual reality increase respondents’ certainty in discrete choice experiments? A comparison with traditional presentation formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    15. William Henry Kaye-Blake & Walt L. Abell & Eva Zellman, 2009. "Respondents' ignoring of attribute information in a choice modelling survey," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 547-564, October.
    16. Barrowclough, Michael & Boys, Kathryn A. & Carpio, Carlos, 2015. "An Evaluation of Firm and Contract Characteristics Valued by Supply Chain Partners in Specialty Crop Marketing Channels," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205768, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Asinyaka Michael, 2019. "Willingness to Pay for Energy Efficient Refrigerating Appliances in Accra, Ghana: A Choice Experiment Approach," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 70(1), pages 15-39, April.
    18. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, 2007. "Farm Animal Welfare—Testing for Market Failure," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 61-73, April.
    19. Ajayi, V. & Reiner, D., 2020. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Green Plastics," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 20110, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    20. Vogdrup-Schmidt, Mathias & Strange, Niels & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2019. "Support for Transnational Conservation in a Gain-Loss Context," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 49-58.

    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:ags:aaae23:364816. 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.