- Open Access
Market outlet choices for African Indigenous Vegetables (AIVs): a socio-economic analysis of farmers in Zambia
Agricultural and Food Economics volume 10, Article number: 28 (2022)
Agricultural research institutes in Sub-Sahara Africa have focused on establishing farmer groups that facilitate the commercial production and marketing of African Indigenous Vegetables (AIVs) to address food and nutritional security. With the freedom of selecting the choices of market outlets, we explored the factors such as farmers’ characteristics, farm attributes, selling preferences, social relations, and other primary reasons that influence farmers' decision to choose a particular outlet to sell AIVs. A purposive random survey was conducted among the AIV farmers to understand the preferred market outlets for AIVs in Zambia. The results of the multinomial logit model indicate that male respondents are more likely to choose intermediary options to sell AIVs, particularly brokers and wholesalers. The rainfed farmers and those who receive primary income from farming activities are less likely to choose retailers and wholesalers to market their AIVs. Similarly, those who expect instant payment for their produce indicate that they are less likely to prefer retailers and brokers. Farmers who belong to the farmer's group exhibited a positive coefficient, meaning that they are more likely to choose intermediary options to sell their AIVs compared with the farmer-to-consumer direct sales option. However, good price, a positive momentum of AIVs price in the past, and processing activities were found to be insignificant determinants for market outlet choices when compared with farmer-to-consumer direct outlet option. Our findings could help to better cognize AIVs marketing channels and develop the intervention for new farmers to make an informed decision as to how best to market their AIVs.
Small-scale farmers in developing countries have inadequate market opportunities to sell their farm products at a profitable price. Indigenous and traditional crops are comparatively less popular in the commercial market because of various reasons that include low levels of acceptability and access, limited market information, lack of processing technologies, intrinsically weak value chains and technologies to push the indigenous crops to the broader commercial markets (Mabhaudhi et al. 2019; Kasolo et al. 2018; Omotayo and Aremu 2020). Often the indigenous crops are considered underutilized since these crops are generally harvested from wild populations that are probably considered weeds. However, indigenous vegetables have an advantage over staple crops, as they are well adapted to the local climatic conditions and tolerant to biotic and abiotic stresses (Weinberger and Lumpkin 2007). To drive the development agenda for the smallholder, a pervasive change of the farms from semi-subsistence, low input, low-productivity approaches to intensive, market-oriented approaches is needed (Olwande et al. 2015; Fischer and Qaim 2012).
In recent years, many Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries have experienced considerable changes in agri-food sectors including demand and supply-side components. This transformation in the food system on the demand side is driven by dramatic changes in consumer preferences, tastes, and food choices (Vroegindewey et al. 2021; Tschirley et al. 2015; Udomkun et al. 2021). Although, the supply-side relies on productivity growth (Agamile et al. 2021; World Bank 2008; Barrett 2008; Alene et al. 2008) and improved access to markets (Fischer and Qaim 2012; Obi 2010; Chamberlin and Jayne 2013). Productivity growth involves upgrading technologies, dissemination, and adoption of high-yielding crop varieties. The productivity advancing technologies help to achieve marketable surpluses that lead to increased household income and livelihoods. This is referred to as the “agricultural productivity pathway” for the sustenance of agriculture and to eradicate poverty (Barrett 2008). Still, productivity growth alone is not enough to address the challenges encountered by farmers when marketing their agricultural produce (Obi 2010; Jagwe et al. 2010). The farmers in SSA have weak or non-existing markets due to a lack of coordination among the community and high costs of transactions (Namonje Kapembwa et al. 2022; Obi 2010). Under this market situation, productivity enhancement technology provides only marketable surpluses but may not generate significant economic benefits for the farmers (Obi 2010; Jagwe et al. 2010; Minot and Ngigi 2004).
Further, contract farming has the potential to connect farmers to global markets and limit market channel choices. However, in SSA where contract enforcement is weak, inadequate institutional support and infrastructural developments are considered as major restrictions to smallholder farming than low productivity (Gerard et al. 2022; Namonje-Kapembwa et al. 2022; Alene et al. 2008; Pingali et al. 2005). Often, poor infrastructure and limited supporting services reduce the farmer's interest in market participation (O’Cass and Viet Ngo 2012; Fischer and Qaim 2012; Key et al. 2000; Omamo 1998). Smallholders are also excluded from emerging markets due to the enforcement of quality standards and modernization of procurement systems (Olwande et al. 2015; Okello et al. 2008). These challenges, combined with seasonal cash shortages, lack of produce handling facilities, and limited market information weaken farmers’ position along the value chain in Sub-Saharan Africa (Vroegindewey et al. 2021; Pokhrel and Gopal 2007). Given this reality, researchers have recommended that addressing smallholder productivity growth must be coupled with measures to enhance market access for agricultural commodities (Fischer and Qaim 2012; Alene et al. 2008).
In Sub-Saharan Africa, several intervention projects have focused on productivity growth and market access in order to improve their food and nutritional security. For instance, research and development of indigenous vegetables have focused on eco-geographic assessment, collection, evaluation, and identification of promising germplasm (Brindisi et al. 2020; Chadha et al. 2007; Dinssa et al. 2020) the nutritional and health contributions of AIVs (Mebelo et al. 2020; Somers et al. 2020) and strengthening the value chain (Govindasamy et al. 2020). Further, past studies indicate that most farmers would prefer to sell their produce in modern market outlets. In reality, this may not always be possible or even desirable (Blandon et al. 2009; Guo et al. 2007; Masakure and Henson 2005).
In this paper, we examine farmers' behaviour in decision-making related to market outlet choices for AIVs by using representative samples of the farmers in Zambia. Gaps in knowledge concerning AIVs to be addressed with outlet choices to promote and expand the market options for wider production, fair market operation, and necessary infrastructure developments. Against this background, this paper addresses these research gaps by analysing the factors that influence farmers to choose a particular outlet to market AIVs.
The baseline production survey for African Indigenous Vegetables (AIVs) was conducted in Lusaka and the Eastern provinces of Zambia. The AIV producers from a total of six districts from two provinces were interviewed: (1) Lusaka and Chongwe districts from Lusaka Province; and (2) Chipata, Lundazi, Katete, and Petauke districts from Eastern Province. The purposive random survey was conducted from 19 October 2015 to 6 November 2015. The study population included 50 producers from Lusaka Province and 250 from Eastern Province. These survey participants/producers grow African Indigenous Vegetables for home consumption, sale, or both. The survey participants were mostly farmers who belonged to cooperatives. Also, the purpose of the survey was explained to the farmers, and consent was obtained before collecting the information required for the survey. A purposive random survey was conducted by using a well-structured interview questionnaire to collect data on the production of AIVs. Local names of the indigenous vegetables were used during the survey to help farmers identify the vegetables. The survey was administered in English and also in the appropriate provincial native languages through face-to-face interview method. English, Soli, Bemba, Tonga, and Nyanja languages were used in Lusaka Province; and Tumbuka, Chewa, and Nsenga languages were used in the Eastern Province.
Producers choose various market outlets to sell their agricultural products in order to maximize their profits. However, selecting an appropriate market channel is not an easy task because there are different factors that influence market outlet choices. The choice experiment models were originally developed to analyse the preferences of consumers. However, they can also be used to analyse the preference of farmers as sellers (Roe et al. 2004; Blandon et al. 2009). Many studies have been conducted to reveal factors influencing marketing channel choice decisions. Multinomial probit/logit, multivariate probit/logit, conditional or mixed, or nested logit models are appropriate for analysing categorical choice-dependent variables. A study by Kifle et al. (2015), Atsbaha (2015), Bezabih et al. (2015), Bongiwe and Micah (2013), Roe et al. (2004) attempted to determine factors influencing producers' market outlet choice using a multinomial logit model. However, Abate et al. (2019), Djalalou-Dine et al. (2015) and Shewaye (2016) employed a multivariate probit model to analyse factors affecting producers’ market outlet choice.
Multinomial models are appropriate when individuals can choose only one outcome from among a set of mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive alternatives (Tse 1987; Hensher et al. 2005; Seo and Mendelsohn 2008; Rossini et al. 2014; Arumugam et al. 2014; Lang and Shao 2019; Arumugam et al. 2018). Therefore, based on the empirical studies reviewed, multinomial logit regression was employed to decompose the factors contributing to the likelihood to choose a particular outlet among the available options to sell AIVs. The AIV producers were mapped into four marketing outlets: sales to consumers, brokers, retailers, and wholesale. The AIVs producing farmer i was able to choose from a set of alternatives (j = 1, 2, 3, and 4) which provided a certain level of utility Uijt from each alternative. This model was based on the principle that the farmer will choose an outlet that will maximize his/her utility. However, it is not possible to directly observe the utilities but the choice made by the farmer revealed which marketing outlet provides the greater utility (Greene 2012; Djalalou-Dine et al. 2015). Following random utility theory an individual’s utility can be expressed as (Louviere et al. 2000; McFadden 1986):
The MNL model for market outlets choice enumerates the relationship between the probability of choosing an option j (j = 1, 2…) and a set of explanatory variables X (Hausman and McFadden 1984). This study assumed that each farmer faces a set of discrete, mutually exclusive options of market outlets. The utility maximization that ith AIVs grower attains alternative jth choice/option and tth situation is disintegrated into (1) a part labelled Vjit that is recognized (known part), and (2) an unknown part εjit which captures variations in choice due to within and between individual variance, omitted variables and measurement errors (Batsell and Louviere 1991) and which is treated as the error term.
The probability that ith farmer choose jth option over kth alternative and the situation/time t is equal to the probability that the utility of j is greater than (or equal to) the utility of k after evaluating all alternatives in a given choice of k = 1..j…K alternatives. This is given by,
The probability equation is,
Reordering the equation with respect to utility maximization,
The options of choice models arise with the assumed error structure of above εjkt (Dow and Enders 2004). If the εit’s are independently and identically distributed choosing jth option among alternatives kth and ith individuals with an extreme value distribution, the probability of farmers ith choosing alternative jth among kth is given by the multinomial logit (MNL) model:
The MNL model parameters can be estimated by the maximum likelihood (ML) method using an iterative nonlinear optimization technique such as the Newton–Raphson Method. These estimates are consistent and asymptotically normal (CAN) under standard regularity conditions (McFadden 1986).
Assume that the MNL model utility function can be written linearly in its parameters: Uij = β0 + β1Vij + εij Where Uij = farmers maximum utility derived from alternative j.; β0 = constant term; β1 = parameter estimate; Vij is a vector of observed variables relating to alternative j. With this background, the probabilities become.
The multinomial logit regression is formulated as:
The multinomial logit (MNL) model assumes that respondents have homogenous preferences. But in truth, the preferences may differ with respect to availability and situation. Four types of outlets were found to fit the market situation. In this model 71%, 17%, 7%, and 5% of the farmers prefer farmers to consumers' direct outlet options, wholesale markets, brokers, and retailers, respectively. The estimation results of the MNL model revealed the selected attributes, viz. farmer’s characteristics, farm attributes, selling preference, social relations, and other primary reasons are the important determinants of an outlet choice by the farmers. The description of MNL model explanatory variables is presented in Table 1.
The estimated result of the model was satisfactory with a pseudo R2 of 0.5596. A chi-square value LR chi2 value 288.35 rejects the null hypothesis that the independent variables collectively do not contribute toward change in the dependent variable (p value of 0.000). From our estimated results, farmers will consider many attributes when he/she decide to choose a particular outlet to market their produce. Further, they rely on various sources including personal experiences for market information. Table 2 presents the results of the MNL model for selected attributes and the overall sample. The (1) individual characteristics significantly influence the farmer’s decisions to choose a particular outlet to sell AIVs. For instance, male farmers are more likely to choose both brokers and wholesalers to sell their AIVs compared with farmers to consumers' direct sales option. However, married farmers are more likely to choose retailers and less likely to choose brokers, similarly, those who studied up to secondary school education are more likely to choose a wholesaler whereas those who are above 50 years old are less likely to choose wholesalers market compared with farmers to consumers' direct sales option. Further, (2) the farm attributes also considerably influence the farmer’s decision to choose preferred outlets for AIVs. The estimated results denote that the acreage had a positive effect; thus, higher acreage levels lead to increases in the likelihood to choose both retailers and wholesalers as the market outlets for AIVs when compared with farmers to consumer’s direct sales option. However, rainfed farmers are less likely to choose both retailers and wholesalers as preferred market outlets for AIVs. Farmers who grow indigenous vegetables for home consumption have a negative significant coefficient indicating that farmers are less likely to choose the wholesaler; also, those who receive primary income from farming are less likely to choose both brokers and wholesalers to market their AIVs when compared with farmers to consumers' direct sales option.
In addition to price and income, attributes related to the (3) selling preferences are found to be an important attribute to choose a particular outlet for agricultural produce. Our estimated results stated that the AIVs price was increased in the past 5 years and those who received good prices for AIVs were found to be an insignificant determinant for outlet choices when compared with farmers to consumers' direct outlet option. It denotes that farmers may not get a good price for AIVs in the different market outlets. Further, paid immediately was found to be a negative and highly significant coefficient that indicates that farmers are less likely to prefer retailers and brokers when compared with farmers to consumers' direct sales option. On the other hand, those who are willing to sell AIVs for an extra income prefer to choose brokers, and those who visit a local market once a week prefer to choose a wholesale market to sell their AIVs when compared with farmers to consumers' direct sales option. Our results, however, demonstrate some evidence related to (4) social relations and their influence on the grower's decision to pick a market outlet to sell AIVs. The estimated results confirm that the farmer's group exhibited a positive coefficient, meaning that they are more likely to choose brokers, retailers, and wholesalers to sell their AIVs, whereas those who attended extension training related to AIVs production and marketing are less likely to choose brokers compared with farmers to consumers direct market outlet option. Finally, (5) other primary reasons, viz. price awareness, informal education, and money-saving behaviour of the farmers are also considered important variables to choose a particular market outlet. Among these reasons, farmers who are aware of the AIVs market price are less likely to choose a wholesaler. Similarly, those who received informal education are less likely to choose brokers to sell their AIVs compared with farmers to consumers' direct market outlet option.
In general, the male farmers prefer brokers and wholesalers to sell AIVs as compared with female counterparts because they are performing exceedingly well in bargaining, negotiating and enforcing the contract with brokers (Cunningham et al. 2008; Maina et al. 2012). However, women are observed to participate more in farmers to consumers' direct market outlet option as compared to their male counterparts because of the ability of women to sell in small quantities (Agamile et al. 2021; Cunningham et al. 2008; Maina et al. 2012). The age of the farmers, marital status, and level of education have a significant influence on choosing outlet options to sell AIVs. For instance, those who are above 50 years old are less likely to choose a wholesale market to sell their AIVs. This may be the reason that older people would prefer direct transactions like farm gate prices immediately offered by the broker. Also, they trust retailers and brokers because they may have developed a long-term relationship (Adegbola and Gardebroek 2007; Sall et al. 2000) unlike, young people who have longer planning horizons and might be more willing to take risks (Zegeye et al. 2001).
The farm attributes including acreage, home consumption, processing, rainfed farming, and received primary income from farm-based activities are significant influences on the outlet options when compared with farmers to consumers' direct sales option. In this case, AIV's marketable surpluses are generally less on small and marginal farms, and their proportions depend on the size of holding allocated to primary crops and AIVs (Abafe et al. 2021; Alene et al. 2008; Fischer and Qaim, 2012; O’Cass and Viet Ngo 2012). Hence, farmers preferred direct to consumers outlet option to sell small quantities (Cunningham et al. 2008).
Explaining the importance of selling preferences are upfront: Market outlet choices are primarily characterized by price awareness including processing, farm gate/current price, and movement of price over the period of time. Whereas profitable prices and positive price movements of AIVs over the time period were found to be insignificant determinants of the market choice. It denotes that farmers may not get a good price for AIVs because production and consumption of traditional vegetables in Sub-Sahara Africa remains low due to cultural values, human perceptions, and lack of consumer awareness about the benefits (Faber et al. 2010; Afari-Sefa et al. 2016; Vorster et al. 2007). Further, farmers prefer to receive cash immediately for their produce. So the farmers to consumers' direct market outlets choices are preferred by the farmers to sell AIVs and have many advantages including competitive pricing, direct contact with consumers to get a better understanding of them, and being able to freely experiment with new products and gain their feedback. Likewise, farmers grow AIVs for additional income and they traded with brokers because they trust and may have formed a long-term relationship (Adegbola and Gardebroek 2007; Sall et al. 2000).
The social relation variables including average family size, farmers' group and extension training also influence the farmer's decision to pick an appropriate market outlet to sell their produce. The estimated results indicated that the farmer's group showed positive effects, meaning that farmer's group members prefer all the networks including brokers, retailers, and wholesaler options to sell their AIVs compared with farmers to consumers' direct outlet option. Social networks in which farmers are embedded or have purposefully created to support and help the farmers' innovation efforts by providing relevant knowledge and other resources (Abafe et al. 2021; Fadden and Gorman 2016; Klerkx et al. 2013; Hilkens et al. 2018; Van Rijn et al. 2012). Likewise, farmers who have attended extension training and received informal education may not prefer brokers to sell their produce. The training and informal education allow greater access to formal research-based knowledge, innovative experiences elsewhere, and financial resources (Ruiu et al. 2017; Saint Ville et al. 2016; Yu et al. 2013) including opening, diversifying forms of production, and business opportunities.
In our study, the original dataset was also used to quantify the farmers' preference for AIVs market outlets on the estimated marginal effects. Since the value of the coefficient can be directly interpreted in the above section, we, therefore, provide the marginal effects in the table form. Marginal effects that is, the change in predicted probability (per cent changes) of an outcome changes associated with changes in the explanatory variables (Table 3).
We examined socio-economics factors that influence the farmer’s decision to choose a particular marketing outlet to market AIVs. Our estimated MNL model results denote that individual characteristics, farm attributes, selling preferences, social relations, and others significantly influence the farmer’s decisions to choose particular outlets to sell AIVs. The results revealed that male respondents are more likely to choose brokers and wholesalers to sell AIVs. Farmers, those who received primary income from farming activities, and rainfed farmers are less likely to choose retailers and wholesalers to market their AIVs. Likewise, those who expect immediate payment for their products are less likely to prefer retailers and brokers. The farmers who belong to the farmer's group observed a positive coefficient, indicating that they are more likely to choose intermediary options to sell their AIVs compared with the farmers-to-consumers direct sales option. However, good prices for AIVs, positive moments of price and processing-related variables were found to be insignificant determinants for AIVs outlet choices when compared with farmers to consumers' direct outlet option.
The processing and value addition activities are most important to get a good price for AIVs, however, they are found to be poorly developed in the marketing of AIVs in the SSA. This is true not only for AIVs but for horticultural crops, in general, as there is a lack of investment in horticultural crop processing in Africa (Lenné and Ward 2008). To create market opportunities for AIVs, it is important to change stakeholder perceptions and increase awareness of the health benefits of AIVs through community-based outreach, Information and Communication Technology (ICT)—enabled campaigns, and other educational programs with the support of international donors, local governments, NGOs, educational institutes and extension officers. Further, Farmers' producer organizations (FPO) and Public–Private Partnerships (PPP) along with the support of farmer groups can be created and thus could be considered a success in either linking farmers to the market, or opening up new marketing potentials including new product developments of AIVs. Such partnerships strengthen the member's knowledge and facilitate the exchange of information about market prices, demand, and market windows with other group members. Our findings could be used by the AIV farmers, consumers, marketers, and policymakers for a better understanding of farmer’s preferences to sell AIVs through various channels and to develop the intervention training for new farmers and families so that they can make informed decisions as to how best to market their fresh produce.
Availability of data and materials
The primary datasets used for the current study are available upon request.
Abafe EA, Oduniyi OS, Tekana SS (2021) Quantitative analysis of farmer’s perception of the constraints to sunflower production: a transverse study approach using hierarchical logistic model (HLM). Sustainability 13(23):13331
Abate TM, Mekie TM, Dessie AB (2019) Determinants of market outlet choices by smallholder teff farmers in Dera district, South Gondar Zone, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia: a multivariate probit approach. Econ Struct 8:39
Adegbola P, Gardebroek C (2007) The effect of information sources on technology adoption and modification decisions. Agric Econ 37:55–65
Afari-Sefa V, Rajendran S, Kessy RF, Karanja DK, Musebe R, Samali S, Makaranga M (2016) Impact of nutritional perceptions of traditional African vegetables on farm household production decisions: a case study of smallholders in Tanzania. Exp Agric 52(2):300–313
Agamile P, Dimova R, Golan J (2021) Crop choice, drought and gender: new insights from smallholders’ response to weather shocks in rural Uganda. J Agric Econ 72(3):829–856
Alene AD, Manyong VM, Omanya G, Mignouna HD, Bokanga M, Odhiambo G (2008) Smallholder market participation under transactions costs: maize supply and fertilizer demand in Kenya. Food Policy 33(4):318–328
Arumugam S, Ashok KR, KulshreshthaSuren N, Vellangany I, Govindasamy R (2014) Adapting to climate change through crop choice by small and medium farmers in southern zone of Tamil Nadu, India. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. SAARC J Agric 12(1):139–149
Arumugam S, Govindasamy R, Vellangany I, Gohil H (2018) Consumer’s preferences for fresh organic produce in the Mid-Atlantic USA: an econometric analysis. Agric Res 8(3):383–391
Atsbaha M (2015) Value chain analysis of movable frame hive honey: the case of Ahferom Woreda, Tigray, Ethiopia. MSc. thesis, Aksum University, Ethiopia
Barrett CB (2008) Smallholder market participation: concepts and evidence from eastern and southern Africa. Food Policy 33(4):299–317
Batsell RR, Louviere JJ (1991) Experimental analysis of choice. Mark Lett 2(3):199–214
Bezabih E, Mengistu K, Jeffreyson KM, Jemal Y (2015) Factors affecting market outlet choice of potato producers in Eastern Hararghe Zone, Ethiopia. J Econ Sustain Dev 6(15):159–172
Blandon J, Henson S, Islam T (2009) Marketing preferences of small-scale farmers in the context of new agri-food systems: a stated choice model. Agribusiness 25(2):251–267
Bongiwe GX, Micah BM (2013) Factors affecting the choice of marketing channel by vegetable farmers in Swaziland. Sustain Agric Res 2(1):112–123
Brindisi L, Merchant EV, Eliver B, Odhiambo J, Night E, Nyawir T, Nyabinda N, Weller S, Simon JE, Hoffman D (2020) Comparative nutritional analysis between African Indigenous Vegetables grown by urban farmers and those available for purchase in Kibera, Nairobi, Kenya: a case study. J Med Act Plants 9(3):166–180
Chadha ML, Oluoch MO, Silue D (2007) Promoting indigenous vegetables for health, food security and income generation in Africa. Acta Hortic 762:253–262. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.762.24
Chamberlin J, Jayne TS (2013) Unpacking the meaning of ‘market access’: evidence from rural Kenya. World Dev 41:245–264
Cunningham LT, Brown BW, Anderson KB, Tostao E (2008) Gender differences in marketing styles. J Agric Econ 38:1–7
Dinssa F, Nyabinda N, Byrnes DR, Ndinya C, Merchant EV, Simon JE (2020) Performances of vegetable Amaranth entries in yield and nutrient contents in Tanzania and Kenya and variety release. J Med Act Plants 9(3):181–194
Djalalou-Dine AAA, Pascucci S, Linnemann AR, Coulibaly ON, Hagelaar G, Omta OSWF (2015) Marketing channel selection by smallholder farmers. J Food Prod Mark 21(4):337–357
Dow JK, Enders JW (2004) Multinomial probit and multinomial logit: A comparison of choice models for voting research. Electoral Stud 23(1):107–122
Faber M, Oelofse A, Van Jaarsveld PJ, Wenhold F, Jansen van Rensburg WS (2010) African leafy vegetables consumed by households in the Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal Provinces in South Africa. J Clin Nutr 23(1):30–38
Fadden TM, Gorman M (2016) Exploring the concept of farm household innovation capacity in relation to farm diversification in policy context. J Rural Stud 46:60–70
Fischer E, Qaim M (2012) Linking smallholders to markets: determinants and impacts of farmer collective action in Kenya. World Dev 40(6):1255–1268
Gerard A, Lopez MC, Mason NM, Bizoza AR (2022) Do government-zoning policies improve buyer-farmer relationships? Evidence from Rwanda’s coffee sector. Food Policy 107:102209
Govindasamy R, Gao Q, Simon JE, Van Wyk E, Weller S, Ramu G, Mbeweu M (2020) An assessment of African Indigenous Vegetables grower’s production practices and the environment: a case study from Zambia. J Med Act Plants 9(3):195–208
Greene W (2012) Econometric analysis, 7th edition. Prentice Hall, Pearson, NJ
Guo H, Jolly RW, Zhu J (2007) Contract farming in China: perspectives of farm households and agribusiness firms. Comp Econ Stud 49(2):285–312
Hausman J, McFadden D (1984) Specification tests for the Multinomial Logit Model. Econometrica 52(5):1219–1240
Hensher DA, Rose J, Greene W (2005) Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hilkens A, Reid JI, Klerkx L, Gray DI (2018) Money talk: how relations between farmers and advisors around financial management are shaped. J Rural Stud 63:83–95
Jagwe J, Machethe C, Ouma E (2010) Transaction costs and smallholder farmers’ participation in banana markets in the Great Lakes Region of Burundi, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Afr J Agric Resour Econ 6(1):302–317
Kasolo W, Chemining’wa G, Temu A (eds) (2018) Neglected and underutilized species (NUS) for improved food security and resilience to climate change: a contextualized learning manual for African colleges and universities. ANAFE, Nairobi
Key N, Sadoulet E, de Janvry A (2000) Transactions costs and agricultural household supply response. Am J Agric Econ 82(2):245–259
Kifle T, Tekeste B, Abadi A (2015) Determinants of the choice of marketing channel among small-scale honey producers in Tigrai Region of Ethiopia. J Bus Manag Soc Sci Res 4(4):295–305
Klerkx L, Adjei-Nsiah S, Adu-Acheampong R, Saïdou A, Zannou E, Soumano L, Sakyi-Dawson O, van Paassen A, Nederlof S (2013) Looking at agricultural innovation platforms through an innovation champion lens: an analysis of three cases in West Africa. Outlook Agric 42:185–192. https://doi.org/10.5367/oa.2013.0137
Lang X, Shao X (2019) Research on retailers’ assortment decision under competition, 2019. Xitong Gongcheng Lilun Yu Shijian/Syst Eng Theory Pract 39(5):1105–1116
Lenné J, Ward A (2008) Exotic and indigenous vegetable value chain analysis for selected countries in East and Southern Africa. Report submitted to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J, Adamowicz W (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753831
Mabhaudhi T, Chimonyo VGP, Hlahla S, Massawe F, Mayes S, Nhamo L, Modi AT (2019) Prospects of orphan crops in climate change. Planta 250:695–708
Maina I, Miruka M, Rono B, Njeru P, Amboga S, Gitari J, Mahasi M, Murithi F (2012) Adaptive strategies and local innovations of smallholder farmers in selected agri-food systems of central Kenya. Afr Crop Sci J 20(1):77–84
Masakure O, Henson S (2005) Why do small-scale producers choose to produce under contract? Lessons from nontraditional vegetable exports from Zimbabwe. World Dev 33(10):1721–1733
McFadden D (1986) The choice theory approach to market research. Mark Sci 5(4):275–297
Mebelo M, Siziya IN, Shindano J, Moonga HB, Simon JE (2020) Variation in leaf macronutrient and anti-nutrient contents associated with maturity in selected roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa) genotypes. J Med Act Plants 9(3):133–144
Minot N, Ngigi M (2004) Are horticultural exports a replicable success story? Evidence from Kenya and Côte d’Ivoire. EPTD discussion paper.120
Namonje Kapembwa T, Chiwawa H, Sitko N (2022) Analysis of goat production and marketing among smallholder farmers Zambia. Small Rumin Res 208:106620
Obi A (2010) Institutional constraints to small farmer development in Southern Africa. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen
O’Cass A, Viet Ngo L (2012) Creating superior customer value for 5B2B6 firms through supplier firm capabilities. Ind Mark Manag 41(1):125–135
Okello J, Narrod C, Ro D (2008) Smallholder compliance with International Food Safety Standards is not a fantasy: evidence from African Green Bean Producers. Retrieved from Agrifoodstandards.net
Olwande J, Smale M, Mathenge MK, Place F, Mithöfer D (2015) Agricultural marketing by smallholders in Kenya: a comparison of maize, kale and dairy. Food Policy 52:22–32
Omamo SW (1998) Farm-to-market transaction costs and specialization in small-scale agriculture: explorations with a non-separable household model. J Dev Stud 35(2):152–163
Omotayo AO, Aremu AO (2020) Underutilized African indigenous fruit trees and food–nutrition security: opportunities, challenges, and prospects. Food Energy Secur 9(3):e220
Pingali P, Yasmeen K, Madelon, M (eds) (2005) Commercializing small farmers: reducing transaction costs. FAO/ESA working paper 05-08
Pokhrel DM, Gopal BT (2007) Are marketing intermediaries exploiting mountain farmers in Nepal? A study based on market price, marketing margin and income distribution analyses. Agric Syst 94(2):151–164
Roe B, Sporleder TL, Belleville HB (2004) Producer preferences for marketing contract attributes. Am J Agric Econ 8(1):115–123
Rossini G, Arancibia RG, Guiguet ED (2014) Argentine beef demand and household choices of retail channels. Int J Food Syst Dyn 5(1):1–10
Ruiu ML, Seddaiu G, Roggero PP (2017) Developing adaptive responses to contextual changes for sustainable agricultural management: the role of social capital in the Arborea district (Sardinia, Italy). J Rural Stud 49:162–170
Saint Ville AS, Hickey GM, Locher U, Phillip LE (2016) Exploring the role of social capital in influencing knowledge flows and innovation in smallholder farming communities in the Caribbean. Food Secur 8:535–549
Sall S, Norman D, Featherstone AM (2000) Quantitative assessment of improved rice variety adoption: the farmer’s perspective. Agric Syst 66(2):129–144
Seo SN, Mendelsohn R (2008) An analysis of crop choice: adapting to climate change in South American farms. Eco Econ 7(1):109–116
Shewaye A (2016) Econometric analysis of factors affecting haricot bean market outlet choices in Misrak Badawacho District, Ethiopia. Int J Res Stud Agric Sci 2(9):6–12
Somers B, Dinnsa FF, Wu QL, Simon JE (2020) Elemental micronutrients, antioxidant activity, total polyphenol, and total flavonoid content of selected African spider plant accessions (Cleome gynandra) grown in eastern Africa and the eastern United States. J Med Act Plants 9(3):157–165
Tschirley D, Reardon T, Dolislager M, Snyder J (2015) The rise of a middle class in East and Southern Africa: implications for food system transformation. J Int Dev 27(5):628–646
Tse YK (1987) A diagnostic test for the multinomial logit model. J Bus Econ Stat 5(2):283–286
Udomkun P, Masso C, Swennen R, Ibitoye DO, Vanlauwe B (2021) Consumer preferences and socioeconomic factors decided on plantain and plantain-based products in the central region of Cameroon and Oyo state Nigeria. Foods 10(8):1955
Van Rijn F, Bulte E, Adekunle A (2012) Social capital and agricultural innovation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agric Syst 108:112–122
Vorster IHJ, Van Rensburg JW, Van Zijl JJB, Venter SL (2007) The importance of traditional leafy vegetables in South Africa. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev 7(3):49–54
Vroegindewey R, Richardson RB, Ortega DL, Theriault V (2021) Consumer and retailer preferences for local ingredients in processed foods: evidence from a stacked choice experiment in an African urban dairy market. Food Policy 103:102–106
Weinberger K, Lumpkin T (2007) Diversification into horticulture and poverty reduction: a research agenda. World Dev 35(8):1464–1480
World Bank (2008) World development report (2008) agriculture for development. The World Bank, Washington, DC
Yu Y, Hao JX, Dong XY, Khalifa M (2013) A multilevel model for effects of social capital and knowledge sharing in knowledge-intensive work teams. Int J Inf Manag 33:780–790
Zegeye T, Tadesse B, Tesfaye S, Nigussie M, Tanner D, Twumasi-Afriyie S (2001) Determinants of adoption of improved maize technologies in major maize growing regions of Ethiopia. Paper presented at the enhancing the contribution of maize to food security in Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of the second national maize workshop of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
We also thank the Horticulture Innovation Lab funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), as part of the US government’s global hunger and food security initiative called “Feed the Future” for funds and support. We also gratefully acknowledge the support of Springer Nature Waivers Team and anonymous referees.
The project was funded in part by the Horticulture Innovation Lab funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), as part of the US government’s global hunger and food security initiative called Feed the Future. The New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Hatch Project #NJ12170 and the New Use Agriculture and Natural Plant Products Program also provided funds.
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Arumugam, S., Govindasamy, R., Simon, J.E. et al. Market outlet choices for African Indigenous Vegetables (AIVs): a socio-economic analysis of farmers in Zambia. Agric Econ 10, 28 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-022-00235-6
- African Indigenous Vegetables (AIVs)
- African Traditional Vegetables
- Farmers preference
- Choice experiments