IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/harvwp/4.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer acceptance of provitamin A orange maize in rural Zambia:

Author

Listed:
  • Meenakshi, J. V.
  • Banerji, A.
  • Manyong, Victor
  • Tomlins, Keith
  • Hamukwala, Priscilla
  • Zulu, Rodah
  • Mungoma, Catherine

Abstract

This study analyzes consumer acceptance of biofortified orange maize in rural Zambia by eliciting consumers' willingness to pay. It attempts to examine the impact of nutrition information, comparing the use of simulated radio versus community leaders in transmitting the nutrition message, on consumer acceptance. Finally, it assesses whether product experience in a home-use setting influences the magnitude of premiums or discounts. The results suggest that (a) the negative perception of yellow maize does not affect orange maize which is well liked, (b) there is a premium for orange maize with nutrition information, (c) the mode of nutritional-message dissemination does not have a large impact on consumer acceptance, and (d) product experience does not translate into lower willingness to pay for orange maize.

Suggested Citation

  • Meenakshi, J. V. & Banerji, A. & Manyong, Victor & Tomlins, Keith & Hamukwala, Priscilla & Zulu, Rodah & Mungoma, Catherine, 2010. "Consumer acceptance of provitamin A orange maize in rural Zambia:," HarvestPlus Working Papers 4, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:harvwp:4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/harvestpluswp_4.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. Langyintuo, Augustine S. & Mungoma, Catherine, 2008. "The effect of household wealth on the adoption of improved maize varieties in Zambia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 550-559, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    5. Lusk Jayson L & Schroeder Ted C., 2006. "Auction Bids and Shopping Choices," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-39, August.
    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. 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.
    8. Danny Campbell & George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Lexicographic preferences for rural environmental landscape improvements: implications on individual-specific willingness to pay estimates," Working Papers 0610, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    9. Smale, Melinda & Jayne, T.S., 2003. "Maize in Eastern and Southern Africa: 'seeds' of success in retrospect," EPTD discussion papers 97, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Muzhingi, Tawanda & Langyintuo, Augustine S. & Malaba, Lucie C. & Banziger, Marianne, 2008. "Consumer acceptability of yellow maize products in Zimbabwe," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 352-361, August.
    11. Cherry, Todd L. & Kroll, Stephan & Shogren, Jason F., 2005. "The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on public good contributions: evidence from the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 357-365, July.
    12. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. David Hensher & John Rose & William Greene, 2005. "The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 203-222, May.
    16. Jeremy Clark, 2002. "House Money Effects in Public Good Experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(3), pages 223-231, December.
    17. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-39, January.
    18. 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).
    19. John D. Jackson, 1997. "Effects of Health Information and Generic Advertising on U.S. Meat Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 13-23.
    20. 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.
    21. Chowdhury, Shyamal & Meenakshi, J. V. & Tomlins, Keith & Owori, Constance, 2009. "Are consumers willing to pay more for biofortified foods?: Evidence from a field experiment in Uganda," HarvestPlus Working Papers 3, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    22. 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), November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Diro, Samuel & De Groote, Hugo & Gunarata, Nilupa, 2016. "Effect of nutritional information and sensory quality on the willingness to pay for quality protein maize - results of a field experiment in Jimma zone, Ethiopia," 2016 AAAE Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 246979, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    2. Mwiti, Florine & Okello, Julius J. & Munei, Kimpei, 2015. "Are Farmers Willing to Pay for Quality Planting Materials of Clonally Propagated Biofortified Crops? The Case of Orange-Fleshed Sweetpotatoe in Tanzania," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212519, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Mwiti, Florine K. & Okello, Julius J. & Munei, Kimpei & Low, Jan, 2016. "Assessment of farmer willingness to pay for quality planting materials of biofortified and non-biofortified varieties of sweetpotato," 2016 AAAE Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 249327, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    maize; willingness to pay; consumer acceptance;

    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:fpr:harvwp:4. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.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.