IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaae23/364818.html

Willing but not willing to pay more for clean vines of bio-fortified sweet potato varieties. evidence from orange fleshed sweet potato smallholder farmers in Malawi

Author

Listed:
  • Kaphaika, Chrispin
  • Katengeza, Samson
  • Pangapanga, Innocent

Abstract

Root and tuber crops (RTCs) such as sweet potato play a significant role in enhancing adaptation of smallholder farmers to food, nutrition, and economic insecurity in the face of climate change and other food system threatening crises. However, with RTC seed systems where social norms and networks guide farmers’ exchange of planting materials, markets are rarely used as sources of planting materials and transactions are mostly non-monetary. The use of non-market sources and non-monetary transactions when sourcing RTC planting materials has a direct bearing on the efforts to commercialise and sustain the production of early generation seed given that estimation effective demand for the planting materials remains a challenge. As such, this study used an open-ended format of the contingent valuation method to elicit farmers’ willingness to pay for clean vines of bio fortified and non-biofortified varieties of sweet potato. Multi-stage sampling technique was used to sample 721 smallholder farmers in central and northern regions of Malawi. Seemingly unrelated regression model was used to analyse the determinants of farmers’ farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for clean planting materials for the two sweet potato varieties while ANOVA was used to compare the WTPs. Further, a triple hurdle model was used to compare and analyse farmers’ decisions around the stated WTPs. The study found that the average WTP for clean vines of non-biofortified varieties was found to be higher than that of bio-fortified variety. The differences between the WTPs showed that proportions of farmers whose WTP for clean vines of biofortified varieties was lower, same, or higher than WTP for non-biofortified were 38 percent, 28 percent, and 32 percent respectively. Results for both the Triple hurdle and SUR models show that demographic, socio-economic, and institutional factors are crucial determiners of WTP for clean vines and the associated decisions to pay less, same, or more. The study concludes that farmers are willing to pay higher for non-biofortified varieties than for biofortified varieties and that various factors are into play. There is need for continued efforts and campaigns that aim at sensitising farmers on the importance of bio-fortified varieties. Aside enhancing farmers’ accessibility to clean vines, seed system interventions must therefore pay attention to farmers’ varietal preferences in order to enhance acceptability of the improved varieties if adoption is to be increase.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaphaika, Chrispin & Katengeza, Samson & Pangapanga, Innocent, 2023. "Willing but not willing to pay more for clean vines of bio-fortified sweet potato varieties. evidence from orange fleshed sweet potato smallholder farmers in Malawi," 2023 Seventh AAAE/60th AEASA Conference, September 18-21, 2023, Durban, South Africa 364818, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaae23:364818
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.364818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/364818/files/157.%20Sweet%20potatoes%20in%20Malawi.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.364818?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. William J. Burke & Robert J. Myers & Thomas S. Jayne, 2015. "A Triple-Hurdle Model of Production and Market Participation in Kenya's Dairy Market," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1227-1246.
    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. James Heckman, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    4. Asfaw, Solomon & Shiferaw, Bekele & Simtowe, Franklin & Lipper, Leslie, 2012. "Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 283-295.
    5. Bekele A. Shiferaw & Tewodros A. Kebede & Liang You, 2008. "Technology adoption under seed access constraints and the economic impacts of improved pigeonpea varieties in Tanzania," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 309-323, November.
    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. Chrispin Sunganani Kaphaika & Samson Pilanazo Katengeza & Innocent Pangapanga-Phiri & Madalitso Happy Chambukira, 2023. "More Interventions, Low Adoption: To What Extent Are the Existing Seed Sources to Blame? The Case of Orange Fleshed Sweet Potato in Central and Northern Malawi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Kaphaika, Chrispin & Katengeza, Samson & Pangapanga, Innocent, 2023. "A Recipe for Disaster? Effect of the Existing Sources of Vines on Awareness, Adoption, and Intensity of Adoption of Orange Fleshed Sweet Potato in Malawi," 2023 Seventh AAAE/60th AEASA Conference, September 18-21, 2023, Durban, South Africa 364804, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    3. Emiliano Magrini & Mauro Vigani, 2016. "Technology adoption and the multiple dimensions of food security: the case of maize in Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(4), pages 707-726, August.
    4. Shiferaw, K. & Gebremedhin, B. & Tegegne, A. & Hoekstra, D., 2018. "Analysis of milk production, butter marketing and household use of inputs in rural Ethiopia," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277104, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Momanyi, Denis & Lagat, Prof. Job K. & Ayuya, Dr. Oscar I., 2016. "Analysis of the Marketing Behaviour of African Indigenous Leafy Vegetables among Smallholder Farmers in Nyamira County, Kenya," MPRA Paper 69202, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 27 Jan 2016.
    6. Clarke, Philip M., 1998. "Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 767-787, December.
    7. V. Smith & Xiaolong Zhang & Raymond Palmquist, 1997. "Marine Debris, Beach Quality, and Non-Market Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 223-247, October.
    8. Mullen, John D. & Wohlgenant, Michael K., 1992. "The Willingness to Pay for Attributes of Lamb," 1992 Conference (36th), February 10-13, 1992, Canberra, Australia 146548, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol, 1998. "Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 209-224, November.
    10. Raju Ghimire & Wen-Chi Huang, 2016. "Adoption Pattern and Welfare Impact of Agricultural Technology," Journal of South Asian Development, , vol. 11(1), pages 113-137, April.
    11. Tigist Mekonnen Melesse, 2015. "Agricultural Technology Adoption and Market Participation under Learning Externality: Impact Evaluation on Small-scale Agriculture from Rural Ethiopia," Working Papers 2015/06, Maastricht School of Management.
    12. John D. Mullen & Michael K. Wohlgenant, 1991. "The Willingness Of Consumers To Pay For Attributes Of Lamb," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 35(3), pages 247-262, December.
    13. Thapa, Samir & Morrison, Mark & Parton, Kevin A, 2021. "Willingness to pay for domestic biogas plants and distributing carbon revenues to influence their purchase: A case study in Nepal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    14. Panos, Georgios & Theodossiou, Ioannis, 2009. "Union Mediation and Adaptation to Reciprocal Loyalty Arrangements," MPRA Paper 15471, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Mintewab Bezabih & Remidius Ruhinduka & Mare Sarr, 2016. "Climate change perception and system of rice intensification (SRI) impact on dispersion and downside risk: a moment approximation approach," GRI Working Papers 256, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    16. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yen, Steven T. & Bowker, J.M. & Newman, David H., 2008. "Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 267-285, April.
    17. Ranney, Christine K. & Kushman, John E., 1987. "A Study of the Interdependent Food Stamp Program Participation and Food Demand Decisions," Research Reports 251940, University of California, Davis, Giannini Foundation.
    18. González-Cabán, Armando & Loomis, John B. & Rodriguez, Andrea & Hesseln, Hayley, 2007. "A comparison of CVM survey response rates, protests and willingness-to-pay of Native Americans and general population for fuels reduction policies," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 49-71, May.
    19. Dlamini, Lucinda Nosizo, 2019. "Determinants of commercial orientation and the level of market participation by women maize farmers in Eswatini," Research Theses 334763, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    20. Konstantinos Pouliakas & Ioannis Theodossiou, 2010. "Measuring the Utility Cost of Temporary Employment Contracts Before Adaptation: A Conjoint Analysis Approach," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(308), pages 688-709, October.

    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:aaae23:364818. 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.