IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaae16/249327.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessment of farmer willingness to pay for quality planting materials of biofortified and non-biofortified varieties of sweetpotato

Author

Listed:
  • Mwiti, Florine K.
  • Okello, Julius J.
  • Munei, Kimpei
  • Low, Jan

Abstract

The current fight against Vitamin A deficiency has focused on promoting biofortified staples that are rich in beta carotene, such as Orange Fleshed Sweetpotato (OFSP). These efforts usually entail providing quality planting materials to vulnerable households accompanied by sensitization about the benefits of OFSP. Most such interventions heavily subsidize the planting materials, with subsidies ranging from 50-100%. The subsidies are often premised on the hope that farmers will eventually absorb the full cost of the planting materials once they experience the benefits of consuming OFSP. This study uses data from 481 farmers drawn from different regions that benefited from a sweetpotato project, and the ANOVA and descriptive statistics, to examine farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for OFSP planting materials. It specifically compares the WTP for quality planting materials of OFSP and non-OFSP varieties and assesses differences in WTP by region and agroecology. It finds a higher WTP for clean planting materials of a non-OFSP variety than for all OFSP varieties studied. It also finds that WTP differs by region and agroecology. The study concludes that there is higher demand for quality planting materials of some of the non-OFSP varieties of sweetpotato than for OFSP varieties, and that WTP for differs by intervention area. These findings imply that farmers’ demand for clean planting materials of non-OFSP varieties is higher than for the OFSP varieties. They suggest the need for sweetpotato breeding to continue considering some of the attributes that make local varieties popular, e.g., taste and dry matter content, in their breeding programs.

Suggested Citation

  • 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 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 249327, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaae16:249327
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.249327
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/249327/files/172.%20Consumer%20WTP%20for%20quality%20vines%20in%20Tanzania.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.249327?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. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396.
    2. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    3. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1997. "Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 109-123, September.
    4. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    5. P. Frykblom & Jason Shogren, 2000. "An Experimental Testing of Anchoring Effects in Discrete Choice Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 329-341, July.
    6. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2008. "Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 433-446, April.
    7. Bohara, Alok K. & McKee, Michael & Berrens, Robert P. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol L. & Brookshire, David S., 1998. "Effects of Total Cost and Group-Size Information on Willingness to Pay Responses: Open Ended vs. Dichotomous Choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 142-163, March.
    8. Banerji, A. & Hamukwala, Priscilla & Manyong, Victor & Meenakshi, J. V. & Mungoma, Catherine & Tomlins, Keith & Zulu, Rodah, 2010. "Consumer acceptance of provitamin A orange maize in rural Zambia:," HarvestPlus working papers 4, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Dixie Reaves & Randall Kramer & Thomas Holmes, 1999. "Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 365-383, October.
    10. Combris, Pierre & Pinto, Alexandra Seabra & Fragata, Antonio & Giraud-Heraud, Eric, 2007. "Does taste beat food safety? Evidence from the "Pera Rocha" case in Portugal," 105th Seminar, March 8-10, 2007, Bologna, Italy 7879, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    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. 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.
    2. Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop, 2006. "Is Willingness to Pay for a Public Good Sensitive to the Elicitation Format?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 162-173.
    3. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C., 2001. "Is Actual Willingness to Pay for a Public Good Sensitive to the Elicitation Format? Implications for Contingent Values," Western Region Archives 321681, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    4. Mwiti, Florine Karuru & Okelo, Julius & Munei, Kimpei, 2015. "Assessment Of Willingness To Pay For Quality Sweetpotato Planting Materials: The Case Of Smallholder Farmers In Tanzania," Dissertations and Theses 269713, University of Nairobi, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    5. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    6. Farr, Marina & Stoeckl, Natalie & Alam Beg, Rabiul, 2014. "The non-consumptive (tourism) ‘value’ of marine species in the Northern section of the Great Barrier Reef," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 89-103.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    8. Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027, Elsevier.
    9. George Parsons & Kelley Myers, 2017. "Fat tails and truncated bids in contingent valuation: an application to an endangered shorebird species," Chapters, in: Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train (ed.), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods, chapter 2, pages 17-42, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Cokou Patrice Kpadé & Edouard Roméo Mensah & Michel Fok & Jupiter Ndjeunga, 2017. "Cotton farmers’ willingness to pay for pest management services in northern Benin," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 105-114, January.
    11. Martinez-Espineira, Roberto, 2006. "A Box-Cox Double-Hurdle model of wildlife valuation: The citizen's perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 192-208, June.
    12. Halkos, George, 2012. "Assessing the economic value of protecting artificial lakes," MPRA Paper 39557, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Jin, Jianjun & Wan, Xinyu & Lin, Yongsheng & Kuang, Foyuan & Ning, Jing, 2019. "Public willingness to pay for the research and development of solar energy in Beijing, China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    14. Raymond Y. T. Yeung & Richard D. Smith & Lai‐Ming Ho & Janice M. Johnston & Gabriel M. Leung, 2006. "Empirical implications of response acquiescence in discrete‐choice contingent valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1077-1089, October.
    15. Sean F. Ellis & Maik Kecinski & Kent D. Messer & Clive Lipchin, 2022. "Consumer perceptions after long‐term use of alternative irrigation water: A field experiment in Israel," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 1003-1020, June.
    16. Peter Howley & Stephen Hynes & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2009. "Countryside Preferences: Exploring individuals’ WTP for the protection of traditional rural landscapes," Working Papers 0906, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    17. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2019. "Distinguishing protest responses in contingent valuation: A conceptualization of motivations and attitudes behind them," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-20, January.
    18. Ahlheim, Michael & Fror, Oliver & Sinphurmsukskul, Nopasom, 2006. "The Role of Participation in CVM Survey Design: Evidence from a Tap Water Improvement Program in Northern Thailand," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25692, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Pappa, Valentina, 2016. "Elicitation formats and the WTA/WTP gap: A study of climate neutral foods," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 141-155.
    20. Prof Clem Tisdell & R. Bandara, 2003. "Does The Economic Value Of The Asian Elephant To Urban Dwellers Exceed Their Cost To The Farmers? A Sri Lankan Study," Discussion Papers Series 325, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.

    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:aaae16:249327. 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.