000			03044nab a22003617a 4500
001			G90474
003			MX-TxCIM
005			20231114204210.0
008			210629s2008 xxk|||p|op||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a0306-9192
024	8		_ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.02.005
040			_aMX-TxCIM
041			_aeng
090			_aCIS-5311
100	1		_aDe Groote, H. _gFormerly Socioeconomics Program _gFormerly Sustainable Agrifood Systems _8INT2512 _9841
245	1	0	_aComparing consumer preferences for color and nutritional quality in maize : _bapplication of a semi-double-bound logistic model on urban consumers in Kenya
260			_aUnited Kingdom : _bElsevier, _c2008.
340			_aComputer File|Printed
500			_aPeer review
500			_aPeer-review: Yes - Open Access: Yes|http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=0306-9192
520			_aConsumer preferences for white maize in East and Southern Africa concerns developers of maize biofortified with provitamin A carotenoids, since carotenoids impart a yellow or orange coloration. Urban consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for yellow maize was estimated, using a semi-double-bounded logistic model, based on a survey of 600 maize consumers in Nairobi, Kenya, at posho mills, kiosks and supermarkets. Consumers showed a strong preference for white maize. Only a minority would buy yellow maize at the same price as white maize, and fewer consumers in the posho mills (24%) and kiosks (19%) than in the supermarkets (34%) would do so. On average, consumers need a price discount of 37% to accept yellow maize. This discount was less at the posho mills (35%) and kiosks (37%) than in the supermarkets (48%). Most respondents (76%) were aware of the existence of fortified meal and the generally showed an interest. The average premium for fortified maize was much less than the discount for yellow: 5.9% for those aware and 7.4% for those unaware. Consumer preferences were influenced by socioeconomic factors such as gender, education, income and ethnic background. Women have a stronger preference for both white maize and fortified maize than men, and consumers with more education have a stronger preference for white. Income decreases the WTP for yellow maize as well as the price elasticity, but increases the WTP for fortified maize. Consumers originating from Western Kenya have a lower preference for white, while those from Central Kenya had a stronger preference for fortified maize.
536			_aSocioeconomics Program
546			_aText in English
594			_aINT2512
650		7	_aMaize _2AGROVOC _91173
650		7	_aBiofortification _91731 _2AGROVOC
650		7	_aContingent valuation _910803 _2AGROVOC
651		7	_2AGROVOC _93783 _aKenya
700	1		_aKimenju, S.C. _92787
773	0		_tFood Policy _n635340 _gv. 33, no. 4, p. 362-370 _dUnited Kingdom : Elsevier, 2008. _wG444320 _x0306-9192
856	4		_yAccess only for CIMMYT Staff _uhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12665/2950
942			_cJA _2ddc _n0
999			_c27029 _d27029