IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v36y2020i4p693-706.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Urban consumer preferences for nutrient fortified snacks in Zambia

Author

Listed:
  • Nadia A. Streletskaya
  • Samuel D. Bell
  • Grace Kuo
  • Emily Heneghan Kasoma

Abstract

This paper uses a choice experiment with 661 respondents in two large cities in Zambia to evaluate urban consumers’ preferences for nutrient‐fortified wheat cookies. Our results indicate that both nutrient fortification and marketing messaging tied to taste, health and energy are important attributes for discretionary food selection among urban consumers in Zambia. Using a latent class model, we identify two types of consumers: price sensitive consumers strongly interested in nutrient fortification, who respond to different types of marketing messages and are unlikely to select the opt out option; and a smaller (24%) proportion of consumers who would rather not buy cookies at all, but exhibit strong demand for nutrient fortification, and are to some extent influenced by marketing messages that highlight the taste characteristics of the product. This suggests that while demand for fortified discretionary items is high among a significant proportion of the population promoting such foods on their health or energy characteristics might be counterproductive to some consumers, potentially due to health fortification stigma previously identified in the field. Taste messaging is identified as the most effective marketing appeal across our participants.

Suggested Citation

  • Nadia A. Streletskaya & Samuel D. Bell & Grace Kuo & Emily Heneghan Kasoma, 2020. "Urban consumer preferences for nutrient fortified snacks in Zambia," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 693-706, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:36:y:2020:i:4:p:693-706
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.21659
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21659
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/agr.21659?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. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Haggblade, Steven & Babu, Suresh & Harris, Jody & Mkwandawire, Elizabeth & Nthani, Dorothy & Hendriks, Sheryl L., 2016. "Drivers Of Micronutrient Policy Change In Zambia: An Application Of The Kaleidoscope Model," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Papers 259047, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    5. Alejandro Guar�n & Peter Knorringa, 2014. "New Middle-Class Consumers in Rising Powers: Responsible Consumption and Private Standards," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 151-171, June.
    6. Haggblade, Steven & Babu, Suresh & Harris, Jody & Mkandawire, Elizabeth & Nthani, Dorothy & Hendriks, Sheryl L., 2016. "Drivers of Micronutrient Policy Change in Zambia: An Application of the Kaleidoscope Model," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 245110, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    7. David Tschirley & Thomas Reardon & Michael Dolislager & Jason Snyder, 2015. "The Rise of a Middle Class in East and Southern Africa: Implications for Food System Transformation," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 628-646, July.
    8. Mason, Nicole M. & Jayne, Thomas S., 2009. "Staple Food Consumption Patterns in Urban Zambia: Results from the 2007/2008 Urban Consumption Survey," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 56803, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    9. Bruno Larue & Gale E. West & Carole Gendron & Rémy Lambert, 2004. "Consumer response to functional foods produced by conventional, organic, or genetic manipulation," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 155-166.
    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. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    4. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    5. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    7. Jochen Hartl & Roland Herrmann, 2009. "Do they always say no? German consumers and second‐generation GM foods," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(5), pages 551-560, September.
    8. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    9. Osman GULSEVEN & Michael WOHLGENANT, 2017. "What are the factors affecting the consumers' milk choices?," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 63(6), pages 271-282.
    10. Olsthoorn, Mark & Schleich, Joachim & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Durand, Antoine & Faure, Corinne, 2023. "Beyond energy efficiency: Do consumers care about life-cycle properties of household appliances?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    11. M. Lefebvre & C. Biguzzi & E. Ginon & S. Gomez-y-Paloma & S. R. H. Langrell & S. Marette & G. Mateu & A. Sutan, 2017. "Mandatory integrated pest management in the European Union: experimental insights on consumers’ reactions," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(1), pages 25-54, July.
    12. Ihli, Hanna & Seegers, Ronja & Winter, Etti & Chiputwa, Brian & Gassner, Anja, 2021. "Preferences for Tree-Fruit Market Attributes Among Smallholder Farmers in Eastern Rwanda: A Discrete Choice Experiment," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 314980, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Krucien, Nicolas & Heidenreich, Sebastian & Gafni, Amiram & Pelletier-Fleury, Nathalie, 2020. "Measuring public preferences in France for potential consequences stemming from re-allocation of healthcare resources," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    14. Punel, Aymeric & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2017. "Modeling the acceptability of crowdsourced goods deliveries: Role of context and experience effects," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 18-38.
    15. Huh, Sung-Yoon & Jo, Manseok & Shin, Jungwoo & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "Impact of rebate program for energy-efficient household appliances on consumer purchasing decisions: The case of electric rice cookers in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1394-1403.
    16. Resnick, Danielle & Haggblade, Steven & Babu, Suresh & Hendriks, Sheryl L. & Mather, David, 2018. "The Kaleidoscope Model of policy change: Applications to food security policy in Zambia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 101-120.
    17. Timothy R. Silberg & Robert B. Richardson & Maria Claudia Lopez, 2020. "Maize farmer preferences for intercropping systems to reduce Striga in Malawi," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(2), pages 269-283, April.
    18. Matthew Beck & John Rose & David Hensher, 2011. "Behavioural responses to vehicle emissions charging," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 445-463, May.
    19. Milad Haghani & Majid Sarvi & Zahra Shahhoseini & Maik Boltes, 2016. "How Simple Hypothetical-Choice Experiments Can Be Utilized to Learn Humans’ Navigational Escape Decisions in Emergencies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-24, November.
    20. Lüthi, Sonja & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2012. "The price of policy risk — Empirical insights from choice experiments with European photovoltaic project developers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 1001-1011.

    More about this item

    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:wly:agribz:v:36:y:2020:i:4:p:693-706. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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.