IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaae16/246915.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A survey of consumer perceptions and preferences for geographical indication and quality attributes of honey in Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Juma, Charity Nabwire
  • Otieno, David Jakinda
  • Oluouch-Kosura, Willis
  • Gyau, Amos
  • Oduol, Judith Auma

Abstract

Geographical indication (GI) is an important measure for revealing the origin of a product and communicating the salient site-specific practices embedded in the value chain. For most products and services, recent literature has extensively documented consumer concerns for GI and other quality attributes especially in the developed nations. However, in the developing countries there is very limited empirical analysis of these aspects; in fact there is a complete lack of research insight on GI for honey in Kenya. The present study contributes to fill this knowledge gap through a choice experiment survey of consumer perceptions and preferences for GI and other important quality attributes in honey. The study applied the random parameter logit (RPL) model to analyze data from a random sample of 478 honey consumers drawn from three distinct areas in Kenya: a rural semi-arid honey producing area, Kitui; a humid production-consumption area, Nakuru and; a cosmopolitan net consuming area, the city of Nairobi. Results show that consumers have significant positive preferences for GI labelling, floral source disclosure, organic production methods and joint public-private certification of honey quality. The middle income category of consumers and the relatively aged ones have a specifically strong preference for organic honey. These insights should be integrated in the improvement of honey value chains.

Suggested Citation

  • Juma, Charity Nabwire & Otieno, David Jakinda & Oluouch-Kosura, Willis & Gyau, Amos & Oduol, Judith Auma, 2016. "A survey of consumer perceptions and preferences for geographical indication and quality attributes of honey in Kenya," 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 246915, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaae16:246915
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.246915
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/246915/files/250.%20WTP%20for%20GI%20in%20honey%20in%20Kenya.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.246915?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. 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.
    2. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    4. Caswell, Julie A., 1998. "How Labeling of Safety and Process Attributes Affects Markets for Food," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 151-158, October.
    5. Shang Wu & Jacob R. Fooks & Kent D. Messer & Deborah Delaney, 2015. "Consumer demand for local honey," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(41), pages 4377-4394, September.
    6. Silvius STANCIU & Nicoleta STANCIUC & Loredana DUMITRASCU & Roxana ION & Costel NISTOR, 2013. "The Effects Of Horse Meat Scandal On Romanian Meat Market," SEA - Practical Application of Science, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 1, pages 174-181, June.
    7. 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.
    8. repec:cmj:journl:y:2013:i:27:stancius is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Mabiso, Athur & Sterns, James A. & House, Lisa & Wysocki, Allen F., 2005. "Estimating Consumers' Willingness-To-Pay for Country-Of-Origin Labels in Fresh Apples and Tomatoes: A Double-Hurdle Probit Analysis of American Data Using Factor Scores," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19418, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Cosmina, Marta & Gallenti, Gianluigi & Marangon, Francesco & Troiano, Stefania, 2015. "Attitudes towards honey among Italian consumers: a choice experiment approach," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202733, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
    12. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    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. Lubinga, H. Moses & Ngqangweni, Simphiwe & Nyhodo, Bonani & Potelwa, X. Yolanda & van der Walt, Stephanie & Phaleng, Lucius & Ntshangase, Thandeka, 2017. "Geographical Indication (GI) in the wine industry: Does it matter?," NAMC Publications 262912, National Agricultural Marketing Council.
    2. Jemal Ahmed & Tewodros Tefera & Girma T. Kassie, 2020. "Consumers’ preference and willingness to pay for enriched snack product traits in Shashamane and Hawassa cities, Ethiopia," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Nadia Palmieri & Walter Stefanoni & Francesco Latterini & Luigi Pari, 2022. "Italian Consumer Preferences for Eucalyptus Honey: An Exploratory Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-11, June.
    4. Lami, Olda & Díaz-Caro, Carlos & Mesías, Francisco Javier, 2023. "Are short food supply chains a sustainable alternative to traditional retailing? A choice experiment study on olive oil in Spain," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 23(01), June.
    5. Sama, Celia & Crespo-Cebada, Eva & Díaz-Caro, Carlos & Escribano, Miguel & Mesías, Francisco J., 2018. "Consumer Preferences for Foodstuffs Produced in a Socio-environmentally Responsible Manner: A Threat to Fair Trade Producers?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 290-296.

    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. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    5. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    6. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    7. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    8. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    11. Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Ortega, David L., 2014. "Comparing Consumer Preferences for Livestock Production Process Attributes Across Products, Species, and Modeling Methods," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(3), pages 1-17, August.
    12. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan & Wossink, Ada, 2012. "Using best–worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 661-670.
    14. Ching‐Hua Yeh & Stefan Hirsch, 2023. "A meta‐regression analysis on the willingness‐to‐pay for country‐of‐origin labelling," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 719-743, September.
    15. Hynes, S. & Ankamah-Yeboah, I. & O’Neill, S. & Needham, K. & Bich Xuan, B. & Armstrong, C., 2020. "Entropy balancing for causal effects in discrete choice analysis: The Blue Planet II effect," Working Papers 309500, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    16. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2014. "Spatially-Referenced Choice Experiments: Tests of Individualized Geocoding in Stated Preference Questionnaires," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170191, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Paolo Bragolusi & Chiara D’Alpaos, 2021. "The Willingness to Pay for Residential PV Plants in Italy: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-13, September.
    18. Li, Xiaogu & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Clark, Christopher D. & Lambert, Dayton M., 2015. "Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Non-taste Attributes in Beef Products," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196719, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    19. Rungie, Cam & Scarpa, Riccardo & Thiene, Mara, 2014. "The influence of individuals in forming collective household preferences for water quality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 161-174.
    20. Doll, Claire A. & Burton, Michael P. & Pannell, David J. & Rollins, Curtis L., 2023. "Are greenspaces too green? Landscape preferences and water use in urban parks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics;

    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:ags:aaae16:246915. 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.