IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/eurjdr/v29y2017i4d10.1057_s41287-016-0059-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of Consumer Preference for Vitamin A-Fortified Sugar in Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Kennedy Otieno Pambo

    (University of Nairobi)

  • David Jakinda Otieno

    (University of Nairobi)

  • Julius Juma Okello

    (University of Nairobi)

Abstract

Food fortification is an important strategy for addressing micronutrient malnutrition, especially relating to, among others, vitamin A deficiency (VAD) in developing countries. Current efforts to tackle VAD in developing countries include biofortification and industrial fortification. In Kenya, the recent formulation of the national food security and nutritional policy has spurred efforts to fortify sugar with vitamin A to complement the on-going biofortification efforts targeting rural farm households. This study assessed consumer preferences for sugar that is industrially fortified with Vitamin A. The study used data collected from a random sample of 350 sugar consumers drawn from rural and peri-urban areas of Kenya. Preference data were collected using choice experiment method and analysed using the random parameter logit regression technique. Results show that consumers had positive and heterogeneous preferences for the key attributes of fortified sugar including natural fortificants, inclusion of gift packs and fortification labels, minimum levels of vitamin A and the colour of the grains. Consistent with the current campaigns, respondents from households with infants and lactating mothers had higher preferences for fortified sugar than those with aged members or the youth. The paper discusses the implications of these findings for production and marketing policy.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:eurjdr:v:29:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1057_s41287-016-0059-y
    DOI: 10.1057/s41287-016-0059-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41287-016-0059-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41287-016-0059-y?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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. Simon Chege Kimenju & Hugo De Groote, 2008. "Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 35-46, January.
    3. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2010. "Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 720-734, July.
    4. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    5. Birol, Ekin & Asare-Marfo, Dorene & Karandikar,Bhushana & Roy, Devesh, 2011. "A latent class approach to investigating farmer demand for biofortified staple food crops in developing countries: The case of high-iron pearl millet in Maharashtra, India," HarvestPlus working papers 7, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    8. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    9. Onyango, Benjamin M. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2004. "Consumer Acceptance of Nutritionally Enhanced Genetically Modified Food: Relevance of Gene Transfer Technology," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1-17, December.
    10. Hensher, David A., 1992. "The use of discrete choice models in the determination of community choices in public issue areas impacting on business decision making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 165-175, March.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    12. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    15. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    16. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    17. Meenakshi, J.V. & Johnson, Nancy L. & Manyong, Victor M. & DeGroote, Hugo & Javelosa, Josyline & Yanggen, David R. & Naher, Firdousi & Gonzalez, Carolina & García, James & Meng, Erika, 2010. "How Cost-Effective is Biofortification in Combating Micronutrient Malnutrition? An Ex ante Assessment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 64-75, January.
    18. Okello, Julius J. & Sindi, Kirimi & Low, Jan & Shikuku, Kelvin M., 2013. "Hidden hunger or knowledge hunger? Nutritional knowledge, diet diversity and micronutrient intake in Rwanda: The case of Vitamin A," 2013 Fourth International Conference, September 22-25, 2013, Hammamet, Tunisia 161278, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    19. 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.
    20. Guy Garrod & Kenneth G. Willis, 1999. "Economic Valuation of the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1368.
    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. Shikuku, Kelvin Mashisia & Okello, Julius Juma & Wambugu, Stella & Sindi, Kirimi & Low, Jan W. & McEwan, Margaret, 2019. "Nutrition and food security impacts of quality seeds of biofortified orange-fleshed sweetpotato: Quasi-experimental evidence from Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    2. 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.
    3. Ngozi, Semeni & Wineman, Ayala & Maredia, Mywish K. & Tschirley, David & Fisher, Ian & Khaled, Nahian Bin, 2024. "Patterns and Drivers of Packaged (Fortified) Maize Flour Purchase in Urban and Peri-Urban Kenya," IAAE 2024 Conference, August 2-7, 2024, New Delhi, India 344386, International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE).

    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. 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.
    2. repec:ags:aaea15:200414 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Pambo, Kennedy & Otieno, David & Okello, Julius J., 2015. "Willingness-to-Pay for Sugar Fortification in Western Kenya," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202970, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
    7. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    8. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Lin, Sonja, 2013. "Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 307-330.
    9. Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Rodriguez-Entrena, Macario & Arriaza, Manuel & Gomez-Limon, Jose A., 2015. "Matching supply-side and demand-side analyses for the assessment of agri-environmental schemes: The case of irrigated olive groves of southern Spain," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211919, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Houessionon, P. & Fonta, W. M. & Bossa, A. Y. & Sanfo, S. & Thiombiano, N. & Zahonogo, P. & Yameogo, T. B. & Balana, Bedru, "undated". "Economic valuation of ecosystem services from small-scale agricultural management interventions in Burkina Faso: a discrete choice experiment approach," Papers published in Journals (Open Access) H048370, International Water Management Institute.
    11. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Passel, Steven & Schreurs, Eloi, 2015. "Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.
    13. 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.
    14. Prosper Houessionon & William M. Fonta & Aymar Y. Bossa & Safiétou Sanfo & Noel Thiombiano & Pam Zahonogo & Thomas B. Yameogo & Bedru Balana, 2017. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Small-Scale Agricultural Management Interventions in Burkina Faso: A Discrete Choice Experiment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, September.
    15. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2017. "Assessing Farmers’ Preferences To Participate In Agri-environment Policies In Thailand," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260888, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    17. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    18. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    19. Bui Bich Xuan & Erlend Dancke Sandorf, 2020. "Potential for Sustainable Aquaculture: Insights from Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(2), pages 401-421, October.
    20. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    21. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.

    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:pal:eurjdr:v:29:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1057_s41287-016-0059-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    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.