IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae06/25752.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuation of Cow Attributes by Conjoint Analysis: A Case Study in Western Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Makokha, Stella Nabwile
  • Karugia, Joseph Thuo
  • Staal, Steven J.
  • Oluoch-Kosura, Willis

Abstract

The objective of the study was to determine the value that different households attach to attributes of the dairy cow. The cow attributes were, milk yield, disease resistance, feed requirement. The valuation was done in order to quantify the economic trade-offs made during adoption of dairy technologies, assess resource availability, households perceptions on dairy technologies and their farming priorities. This was necessary to understand the adoption patterns of dairy technologies observed and suggest intervention. The Marginal Rate of Substitution (MRS), Marginal Willingness to Pay (mWTP), and Marginal Willingness to Accept (mWTA) that were used were determined from conjoint (CJ) analysis using data from a survey of 630 households in Western Kenya. The household characteristics that influenced valuation were off-farm income, precipitation over evapo-transpiration (PPE), ethnicity, cultural values, education, and extension. In reference to the typical households, household characteristics that showed a higher mWTP for a cow with low feed requirement implied either scarcity of feed, high opportunity cost of using land for fodder or lack of information on feed resources. The latter indicates inefficiency in resource use. A higher mWTP for a cow with high milk yield gave an indication of the households' priorities. A mWTA payment for a cow with high milk yield in the face of potential markets showed different farming priorities and lack of information. A mWTA payment for a cow with low disease resistance shows risk aversion and limited information on disease control.

Suggested Citation

  • Makokha, Stella Nabwile & Karugia, Joseph Thuo & Staal, Steven J. & Oluoch-Kosura, Willis, 2006. "Valuation of Cow Attributes by Conjoint Analysis: A Case Study in Western Kenya," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25752, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae06:25752
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.25752
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/25752/files/cp060765.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.25752?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. Scarpa, Riccardo & Ruto, Eric S. K. & Kristjanson, Patti & Radeny, Maren & Drucker, Adam G. & Rege, John E. O., 2003. "Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: an empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 409-426, July.
    2. List, John A., 2004. "Substitutability, experience, and the value disparity: evidence from the marketplace," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 486-509, May.
    3. Tano, Kouadio & Kamuanga, Mulumba & Faminow, Merle D. & Swallow, Brent, 2003. "Using conjoint analysis to estimate farmer's preferences for cattle traits in West Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 393-407, July.
    4. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    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. Birol, Ekin & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," MPRA Paper 38232, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Girma T. Kassie & Awudu Abdulai & Clemens Wollny, 2009. "Valuing Traits of Indigenous Cows in Central Ethiopia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 386-401, June.
    3. Fadiga, Mohamadou L. & Makokha, Stella Nabwile, 2014. "Consumer valuations of the quality and safety attributes of milk and meat in Kenya," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(2), pages 1-15, April.
    4. Adelina Gschwandtner & Jose Eduardo Ribeiro & Cesar Revoredo-Giha & Michael Burton, 2021. "Combining Stated and Revealed Preferences for valuing Organic Chicken Meat," Studies in Economics 2113, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    5. Birol, Ekin & Villalba, Eric Rayn & Smale, Melinda, 2009. "Farmer preferences for milpa diversity and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent class approach," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 521-540, August.
    6. Mailu, Stephen & Wanyoike, M & Serem, Jared, 2013. "Rabbit breed characteristics, farmer objectives and preferences in Kenya: A correspondence analysis," MPRA Paper 48476, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Roessler, Regina & Drucker, Adam G. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Markemann, André & Lemke, Ute & Thuy, Le T. & Valle Zárate, Anne, 2008. "Using choice experiments to assess smallholder farmers' preferences for pig breeding traits in different production systems in North-West Vietnam," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 184-192, May.
    8. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 89-98, January.
    9. L. Zaibet & S. Traore & A. Ayantunde & K. Marshall & N. Johnson & M. Siegmund-Schultze, 2011. "Livelihood strategies in endemic livestock production systems in sub-humid zone of West Africa: trends, trade-offs and implications," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 87-105, February.
    10. Teferi, Ermias Tesfaye & Kassie, Girma T. & Pe, Mario Enrico & Fadda, Carlo, 2020. "Are farmers willing to pay for climate related traits of wheat? Evidence from rural parts of Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    11. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    12. Birol, Ekin & Kontoleon, Andreas & Smale, Melinda, 2005. "Using A Choice Experiment To Estimate The Demand Of Hungarian Farmers For Food Security And Agrobiodiversity During Economic Transition," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Discussion Papers 31937, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economy.
    13. Catalina M. Torres & Antoni Riera & Dolores García, 2009. "Are Preferences for Water Quality Different for Second-Home Residents?," Tourism Economics, , vol. 15(3), pages 629-651, September.
    14. Ouma, Emily Awuor & Abdulai, Awudu, 2006. "Contribution of Economics to Design of Sustainable Cattle Breeding Programs in Eastern Africa: A Choice Experiment Approach," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25587, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Simianer, H., 2005. "Decision making in livestock conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 559-572, June.
    16. 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.
    17. Mark Morrison & Craig Nalder, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Improved Quality of Electricity Supply Across Business Type and Location," The Energy Journal, , vol. 30(2), pages 117-134, April.
    18. Nick Hanley & Gary Koop & Begoña Álvarez‐Farizo & Robert E. Wright & Ceara Nevin, 2001. "Go climb a mountain: an application of recreation demand modelling to rock climbing in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 36-52, January.
    19. Richard G. Newell & Juha Siikamäki, 2014. "Nudging Energy Efficiency Behavior: The Role of Information Labels," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 555-598.
    20. Jin, Jianjun & He, Rui & Wang, Wenyu & Gong, Haozhou, 2018. "Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 214-219.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Livestock Production/Industries;

    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:iaae06:25752. 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/iaaeeea.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.