Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit the demand for a nutritious food: Willingness-to-pay for orange maize in rural Zambia

Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 62-71

  Meenakshi, J V ^a   Banerji, A ^a   Manyong, Victor ^b   Tomlins, Keith ^c   Mittal, Nitya ^a   Hamukwala, Priscilla ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELHI   (India)

^b International Institute of Tropical Agriculture   (Tanzania)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA   (Zambia)

Author keywords

Biofortification; Discrete choice experiments; Vitamin A deficiency

Indexed keywords

DEMAND ANALYSIS; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FOOD SUPPLEMENTATION; MAIZE; NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENT; NUTRITIONAL STATUS; RURAL SOCIETY; VITAMIN DEFICIENCY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; FOOD PROCESSING; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; LEADERSHIP; MAIZE; MALE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; NORMAL HUMAN; NUTRITIONAL HEALTH; NUTRITIONAL VALUE; ORANGE MAIZE; RURAL AREA; SIMULATION; TELECOMMUNICATION; ZAMBIA;

ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FOOD PREFERENCES; FOOD, FORTIFIED; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUTRITION SURVEYS; RURAL POPULATION; ZAMBIA; ZEA MAYS;

ZAMBIA;

ZEA MAYS;

EID: 84856588146     PISSN: 01676296     EISSN: 18791646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2012.01.002     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Alfines F., Atle G., Guttormsen G., Kolstad K. Consumers' willingness to pay for the color of salmon: A choice experiment with real economic incentives. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2006, 88(4):1050-1061.
2. Black R.E., Allen L.H., Bhutta Z.A., Caulfield L.E., de Onis M., Ezzati M., Mathers C., Rivera J. Maternal and child undernutrition: global and regional exposures and health consequences. The Lancet 2008, (January). for the Maternal, Child Undernutrition Study Group.
3. Boutrolle I., Arranz D., Rogeaux M., Delarue J. Comparing central location test and home use test results: Application of a new criterion. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:704-713.
4. Bunch D.S., Louviere J.J., Anderson D.A. A comparison of experimental design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis with generic-attribute multinomial logit models 1996, University of California, Davis, Graduate School of Management Working Paper, pp 11-96.
5. Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W.G., Scarpa, R., 2006. Lexicographic preferences in discrete choice experiments: consequences on individual willingness to pay estimates. Working Paper. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Note di Lavoro, Italy.
6. d'Aspremont C., Gabscewicz J., Thisse J.-F. On Hotelling's stability in competition. Econometrica 1979, 17:1145-1151.
7. De Groote H., Chege Kimenju S. Comparing consumers preferences for color and nutritional quality in maize: application of a semi-double-bound logistic model on urban consumers in Kenya. Food Policy 2008, 33:362-370.
8. Ferrini S., Scarpa R. Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2007, 53(3):342-363.
9. Hensher D.A., Rose J., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer 2005, Cambridge University Press.
10. Hensher D.A., Rose J., Greene W.H. The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 2005, 32:203-222.
11. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
12. Lusk J.L., Schroeder T.C. Auction bids and shopping choices. Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy 2006, 6(1):1-37.
13. Lusk J.L., Schroeder T.C. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2004, 86(2):467-482.
14. McCann J. Maize and Grace: Africa's Encounter with a New World Crop 2005, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
15. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
16. Meilgaard M., Civile G.V., Carr B.T. Sensory Evaluation Techniques 2007, CRC Press, Florida. 4th ed.
17. Micronutrient Initiative and others, 2009. Investing in the future: a united call to action on vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Global report. Ottawa, Canada.
18. Muzhingi T., Langyintuo A., Malaba L., Banzinger M. Consumer acceptability of yellow maize products in Zimbabwe. Food Policy 2008, 33:352-361.
19. Poe G.L., Severance-Lossin E.K., Welsh M.P. Measuring the difference (X-Y) of simulated distributions: a convolutions approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1994, 76:904-915.
20. Shaked A., Sutton J. Relaxing price competition through product differentiation. Review of Economic Studies 1982, 49:3-13.
21. Stevens R., Winter-Nelson A. Consumer acceptance of pro-vitamin A biofortified maize in Maputo, Mozambique. Food Policy 2008, 33:341-351.
22. Tschirley, D.L., Santos, A.P., 1995. Who eats yellow maize? Preliminary results of a survey of consumer maize preferences in Maputo, Mozambique. International Development Working Paper 53. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
23. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2009, Cambridge University Press. 2nd ed.
24. Train K. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics 1998, 74:230-239.
25. Zimicki S. Promotion in Sub-Saharan Africa (Part 1). Net Gain: A New Method for Preventing Malaria Deaths 1997, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada. C. Lengeler, J. Cattani, D. de Savigny (Eds.).