IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277338.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing household preferences for wastewater fed fish: Lessons from a field experiment in Peru

Author

Listed:
  • Danso, G.
  • Boaitey, A.
  • Otoo, M.

Abstract

Abstract This paper used choice experiment to assess households preferences for wastewater fed fish in Lima, Peru. The study considered four fish attributes, price, source, certification and information on additives. In total, 443 households participated in the field experiment. Results from the estimation of the random parameter logit (RPL) model in both the willingness to pay (WTP) and preference space showed that in general, households expressed positive preferences for fish raised in wastewater, freshwater and wild fish as well as certification and use of additives. Our findings show that household WTP for fish raised in the wild and in freshwater were positive and more robust as compared to WTP for wastewater fed fish which was influenced by factors such as certification. We find that households are willing to pay premiums of $0.69, $1.06 and $2.98 for wastewater, freshwater and wild fish respectively. We also find evidence to suggest that health and food safety concerns are the most important consideration in household preferences for wastewater fed fish amongst a set of perceptions variables examined in this study. Acknowledgement :

Suggested Citation

  • Danso, G. & Boaitey, A. & Otoo, M., 2018. "Assessing household preferences for wastewater fed fish: Lessons from a field experiment in Peru," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277338, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277338
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.277338
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277338/files/1713.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.277338?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. Drechsel, Pay & Scott, C. A. & Raschid-Sally, Liqa & Redwood, M. & Bahri, Akissa, 2010. "Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigating risk in low-income countries," IWMI Books, Reports H042600, International Water Management Institute.
    2. Drechsel, Pay & Scott, C. A. & Raschid-Sally, Liqa & Redwood, M. & Bahri, Akissa, 2010. "Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigating risk in low-income countries," IWMI Books, Reports H042759, International Water Management Institute.
    3. Rijsberman, Frank R., 2006. "Water scarcity: Fact or fiction?," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 80(1-3), pages 5-22, February.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    5. Klaiman, Kimberly & Ortega, David L. & Garnache, Cloé, 2016. "Consumer preferences and demand for packaging material and recyclability," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 1-8.
    6. Ubilava, David & Foster, Kenneth, 2009. "Quality certification vs. product traceability: Consumer preferences for informational attributes of pork in Georgia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 305-310, June.
    7. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    8. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    9. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    10. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    12. Robert Fonner, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Multiple Seafood Labels in a Niche Market," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(1), pages 51-70.
    13. Waldman, Kurt B. & Ortega, David L. & Richardson, Robert B. & Snapp, Sieglinde S., 2017. "Estimating demand for perennial pigeon pea in Malawi using choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 222-230.
    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. Ortega, David L. & Waldman, Kurt B. & Richardson, Robert B. & Clay, Daniel C. & Snapp, Sieglinde, 2016. "Sustainable Intensification and Farmer Preferences for Crop System Attributes: Evidence from Malawi’s Central and Southern Regions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 139-151.
    2. Riccardo Scarpa & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2017. "A Monte Carlo Evaluation of the Logit-Mixed Logit under Asymmetry and Multimodality," Working Papers in Economics 17/23, University of Waikato.
    3. Ward, Patrick S. & Makhija, Simrin, 2018. "New modalities for managing drought risk in rainfed agriculture: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Odisha, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 163-175.
    4. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    5. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    6. Beharry-Borg, Nesha & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2010. "Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1124-1139, March.
    7. Youssef M Aboutaleb & Mazen Danaf & Yifei Xie & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2020. "Sparse Covariance Estimation in Logit Mixture Models," Papers 2001.05034, arXiv.org.
    8. Raffaelli, R. & Menapace, L., 2018. "Indirect questioning as a debiasing mechanism in preference elicitation for sustainable food? First evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277039, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    10. Juutinen, Artti & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 396-412.
    11. Ding, Ye & Nayga Jr, Rodolfo M. & Zeng, Yinchu & Yang, Wei & Arielle Snell, Heather, 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of a live video feed in restaurant kitchens for online food delivery service," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    12. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    13. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    14. Caplan, Arthur J. & Akhundjanov, Sherzod B. & Toll, Kristopher, 2021. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for residential amenities," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    15. Danso, G. K. & Otoo, Miriam & Duy Linh, N. & Madurangi, Ganesha, "undated". "Households’ willingness-to-pay for fish product attributes and implications for market feasibility of wastewater-based aquaculture businesses in Hanoi, Vietnam," Papers published in Journals (Open Access) H048216, International Water Management Institute.
    16. Talevi, Marta & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Das, Ipsita & Lewis, Jessica J. & Singha, Ashok K., 2022. "Speaking from experience: Preferences for cooking with biogas in rural India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    17. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. 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).
    19. Wensing, Joana & Caputo, Vincenzina & Carraresi, Laura & Bröring, Stefanie, 2020. "The effects of green nudges on consumer valuation of bio-based plastic packaging," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    20. Ortega, David L. & Chen, Maolong & Wang, H. Holly & Shimokawa, Satoru, 2017. "Emerging Markets for U.S. Pork in China: Experimental Evidence from Mainland and Hong Kong Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(2), May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    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:iaae18:277338. 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.