IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/foi/wpaper/2016_02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammed H. Alemu

    () (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

  • Søren Bøye Olsen

    () (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

  • Suzanne E. Vedel

    () (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

  • John Kinyuru

    () (Department of Food Science and Technology, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Kenya)

  • Kennedy O. Pambo

    () (Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Kenya)

Abstract

In this study, we present one of the first thorough assessments of potential consumer demand for an insect based food product. We assess the demand in terms of Kenyan consumer preferences and willingness to pay for buns containing varying amounts of cricket flour. The novel feature of the study is that it uses an incentivized discrete choice experiment method integrated with sensory experiments intended to reduce any hypothetical bias and to allow participants to acquire experience in terms of tasting the different buns before they make their choices in the choice tasks. We find significant and positive preferences for the buns which contain cricket flour. Interestingly, the bun products with medium amounts of cricket flour are preferred to no or high amount of cricket flour. Finally, we show in a simulated market that the cricket flour based buns are likely to obtain a greater market shares than that of standard buns today.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:foi:wpaper:2016_02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://okonomi.foi.dk/workingpapers/WPpdf/WP2016/IFRO_WP_2016_02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hugo De Groote & Simon Chege Kimenju & Ulrich B. Morawetz, 2011. "Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: the case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(1), pages 1-16, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    4. De Groote, Hugo & Kimenju, Simon Chege, 2008. "Comparing consumer preferences for color and nutritional quality in maize: Application of a semi-double-bound logistic model on urban consumers in Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 362-370, August.
    5. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Francesco Marangon, 2008. "Using Flexible Taste Distributions to Value Collective Reputation for Environmentally Friendly Production Methods," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(2), pages 145-162, June.
    6. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    7. Maros Ivanic & Will Martin, 2008. "Implications of higher global food prices for poverty in low‐income countries1," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(s1), pages 405-416, November.
    8. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    9. Delgado, Christopher L. & Rosegrant, Mark W. & Steinfeld, Henning & Ehui, Simeon K. & Courbois, Claude, 1999. "Livestock to 2020: the next food revolution," 2020 vision briefs 61, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    11. Azucena Gracia & Maria L. Loureiro & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2011. "Are Valuations from Nonhypothetical Choice Experiments Different from Those of Experimental Auctions?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1358-1373.
    12. Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth G. Willis & Melinda Acutt, 2007. "Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 449-466.
    13. Joseph A. Herriges & Daniel J. Phaneuf, 2002. "Inducing Patterns of Correlation and Substitution in Repeated Logit Models of Recreation Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1076-1090.
    14. Erik Meijer & Jan Rouwendal, 2006. "Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 227-244.
    15. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    16. 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.
    17. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    18. Stevens, Robyn & Winter-Nelson, Alex, 2008. "Consumer acceptance of provitamin A-biofortified maize in Maputo, Mozambique," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 341-351, August.
    19. Ivanic, Maros & Martin, Will, 2008. "Implications of higher global food prices for poverty in low-income countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4594, The World Bank.
    20. Alfnes, Frode & Guttormsen, Atle G. & Steine, Gro & Kolstad, Kari, 2005. "Consumers' Willingness To Pay For The Color Of Salmon:A Choice Experiment With Real Economic Incentives," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19126, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    21. Larissa Drescher & Jutta Roosen & Stephan Marette, 2014. "The effects of traffic light labels and involvement on consumer choices for food and financial products," Post-Print hal-01173022, HAL.
    22. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2007. "Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 34(3), pages 321-344, September.
    23. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas, 2015. "Determinants of food demand and the experienced taste effect of healthy labels – An experiment on potato chips and bread," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 13-20.
    24. Herriges, Joseph A. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2002. "Inducing Patterns Correlation and Substitution in Repeated Logit Model of Recreation Demand," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5035, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    25. Louviere, Jordan J & Hensher, David A, 1983. " Using Discrete Choice Models with Experimental Design Data to Forecast Consumer Demand for a Unique Cultural Event," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 348-361, December.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.
    28. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    29. 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.
    30. Azucena Gracia, 2014. "Consumers’ preferences for a local food product: a real choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 111-128, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cricket flour; insect; incentivized discrete choice experiment; taste; willingness to pay;

    JEL classification:

    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development
    • Q11 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Aggregate Supply and Demand Analysis; Prices
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy

    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:foi:wpaper:2016_02. 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: (Geir Tveit). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/foikudk.html .

    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.