Factors Affecting the Most Prefferred Local Tomato Variety “Akikon” Purchasing Prices in Benin

Abstract

Tomato is the most consumed vegetable of Africa. It is consumed by millions of people across the continent’s diverse religious, ethnic and social groups. Even though it is not produced everywhere in the continent, there are some countries having endowments and producing local varieties. As an instance, there are many local varieties grown in Benin Republic. However, within many local varieties of tomato grown in Benin, the mostly preferred variety and consumers’ willingness to pay for this variety and its characteristics haven’t been searched yet. This paper aimed to evaluate factors influencing consumers’ willingness to pay for their most preferred local tomato variety. Through a formal structured questionnaire prepared due on Hedonic-pricing model, data were collected from 223 consumers in Cotonou district of Benin Republic to identify the key factors that are most likely to affect consumers’ accepted premium price for the most preferred tomato variety. 51% of consumers preferred mostly “Akikon” (L.esculentum var. Pyriforme) variety. The average accepted premium was 0.28 USD and the price rises to 0.64 USD with addition of 200 FCFA (0.36 USD), the standard market price of 400 grams of tomato. The reasoning behind the excepted premium was analysed and shape, colour, freshness, size, variety preference and income had appeared as the factors that mostly affect Akikon preference.

Keywords

• benin
• tomato
• willingness to pay
• hedonic pricing

References

1. Anonymous (2007). Enquête modulaire intégrée sur les conditions de vie des ménages (EMICoV) Bénin. Rapport de synthèse, Cotonou, Bénin. Institut National de la Statistique et de l’Analyse Economique du Benin (Benin National Institute of Statistics and Economic Analysis); 2006. Available: http://www.insae-bj.org/ Consulté le 8 Octobre 2008. 2007. French
2. Anonymous (2011). Ulupono Initiative, Report on “Local food market demand study confirms that Hawaii residents want more locally grown products and are willingto pay more for it.” December 6; 2011.
3. Anonymous (2021). Tomato production data for Benin. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Retrieved: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCon 29.01.2021.
4. Becker, G.S. (1965). A Theory of the Allocation of Time. Economic Journal,75:493–517.
5. Brown, C. (2003). Consumers’ Preferences for Locally Produced Food: A Study in Southeast Missouri. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture,18:213–24.
6. Carpio, C.E. & Isengildina-Massa O. (2009). Consumer Willingness to Pay for Locally Grown Products: The Case of South Carolina. Agribusiness, 25:412–26.
7. Colin, J.E. & Heyd, J.C. (1991). Situation Des Légumes Feuilles Dans La Production Maraîchères au Sud Benin. In Tropicultura, 9(3): pp 129-133.
8. Collins, M. (1986). Sampling In: Worcester RM, Downhom J. editors. Consumer Market Research Handbook. Elsevier Science Puplishing Company Inc.

9. Darby, K., Batte, M.T., Ernst, S. & Roe, B. (2006). Willingness to pay for locally produced foods: A customer intercept study of direct market and grocery store shoppers. Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, California, July 23-26.
10. Diewert, E. (2003). Hedonic regressions: a review of some unresolved issues. Paper presented at the 7thMeeting of Ottawa Group, Paris, May27-29.
11. Espinosa, J.A. & Goodwin, B.K. (1991). Hedonic price estimation for Kansas wheat characteristics. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics,16(1): 72-85.
12. Ezin V., Ibouraïma, Y. & Adam, A. (2012). Impact of salinity on the production of tomato along the coastal areas of Benin Republic. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 6(4), pp. 214-223, April 2012. Available online at DOI: 10.5897/AJEST11.369 ISSN 1996-0786 ©2012 Academic Journals. http://www.academicjournals.org/AJEST.
13. Giraud, K.L., Bond, C.A., & Bond, J.J. (2005). Consumer Preferences for Locally Made Specialty Food Products across Northern New England. Agricultural and Resource EconomicsReview,34:204–16.
14. Grebitus, C., Lusk, J.L. & Nayga, R.M. Jr. (2013). Effect of Distance of Transportation on Willingness to Pay for Food. Ecological Economics,88:67–75. Hawaii Department of Agriculture. “Island Fresh Hawaii Seasonality Chart.”
15. Gujarati, D. (2003). Basic Econometrics. McGraw Hill, 4thedition. New York. pp: 1002.Heckman, J.J. (1979). Sample Bias as a Specification Error. Econometrics,47(1), 153-162.
16. Iwuoha, J.P. (2016). Meet the Smart Entrepreneurs Making Money from Africa’s tomato problems retrieved:https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/meet-smart-entrepreneurs-who-making-money-from-africas-iwuoha/. Accessed 19 June 2018. ALIDOU et al./Eurasian Journal of Agricultural Economics 1(1):66-76
17. Lancaster, K.J. (1966). A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy,74:132–57.
18. Misra, S.K. & Bondurant, J. (2000). The role of product and market characteristics in determining cottonseed prices. Agribusiness,16(3):357–366.
19. Muth, R.F. (1966). Household Production and Consumer Demand Functions. Econometrica,34 :699–708.
20. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition. Journal of Political Economy,82:34–55.
21. Tronstad, R., Huthoefer, L.S. & Monke, E. (1992). Market windows and hedonic price analyses: An application to the apple industry. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics,17(2):314-322.
22. Waugh, F.V. (1929). Quality as a determinant of vegetable prices. New York Columbia University Press;
23. Xu, X., Loke, M.K. & Leung, P. (2015). Is there a price premium for local food? The case for the fresh lettuce market in Hawaii. Agriculture and Resource Economics Review, 44:110-123.ALIDOU et al./Eurasian Journal of Agricultural Economics 1(1):66-76