Nivel de satisfacción por parte del profesorado

Estimated part worth of selected quality and safety attributes of beef and related statistics are presented in Table 4.1. The results are statistically reliable as both Pearson’s R and Kendall’s tau statistics are highly significant at a probability of less than 1%.

Table 4.1. Utility estimates of part worth of quality and safety attributes of beef, by income group Attributes and levels Total sample Low income Middle income High income Fat content

Low 0.60 (0.27) 0.35 (0.14) 0.62 (0.30) 0.83 (0.40)

High –0.60 (0.27) –0.35 (0.14) –0.62 (0.30) –0.83 (0.40)

Freshness

Non-fresh –1.02 (0.33) –1.20 (0.17) –0.97 (0.36) –0.90 (0.49)

Fresh 1.02 (0.33) 1.20 (0.17) 0.97 (0.36) 0.90 (0.49)

Abattoir stamp

Absent –1.04 (0.22) –0.89 (0.11) –1.07 (0.24) –1.17 (0.33)

Present 1.04 (0.22) 0.89 (0.11) 1.07 (0.24) 1.17 (0.33)

Hygiene of premise and staff

Unclean –1.12 (0.32) –0.86 (0.16) –1.14 (0.35) –1.49 (0.47)

Clean 1.12 (0.32) 0.86 (0.16) 1.14 (0.35) 1.49 (0.47)

Price (ETB/kg)

28 –0.10 (0.37) 0.12 (0.19) –0.12 (0.41) –0.34 (0.55)

34 0.00 (0.00) .000 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)

38 0.10 (0.37) –0.12 (0.19) 0.12 (0.41) 0.34 (0.55)

Constant 4.48 (0.32) 4.627 (0.16) 4.49 (0.35) 4.20 (0.47)

Pearson’s R 0.99*** 0.99*** 0.99*** 0.99***

Kendall’s tau 0.93*** 0.93*** 0.93*** 0.93***

Kendall’s tau for holdouts 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33

Standard error in parentheses.

*** Significant at 1%.

Source: Field survey (2007).

The part worth of fat content indicates that high fat content in beef gave lower utility to consumers than low fat content and the relative dislike for high-fat beef was higher among higher income households. One possible reason is that while beef was among the few dietary sources of fat for low income households, high income households could obtain fat from a variety of sources and thus were much more sensitive to high fat content in the beef they bought due to health reasons.

The part worth of freshness shows that the utility derived from purchase of fresh beef declined as income level increased. Over half of the high income households bought beef once or twice a week while only a quarter of the low income households did so (Table 4.2).

Some consumers bought beef from more than one outlet (Table 4.3). For the total sample, the market outlets widely visited to purchase beef were butcheries in local wet markets followed by special butcher shops located in different parts of the city along main roads or near residential areas. Supermarkets were frequently visited by over half of high income households and a few low income households. Those who bought from butcher shops usually bought fresh beef while those who bought from supermarkets usually bought frozen/

refrigerated beef. Hence low income buyers who purchased mostly from butcher shops for

immediate consumption were more sensitive to price. As many butcher shops did not have the means to preserve beef for long periods, their customers, who were mostly low income, demanded that the product be fresh.

Table 4.2. Frequency of purchasing food items for consumption, by consumer income group Frequency Total sample (%) Low income (%) Middle income (%) High income (%)

As necessary 55.0 68.9 52.6 41.6

Daily 1.7 2.6 1.1 2.1

3–4 times a week 4.3 3.8 4.0 6.3

Twice a week 13.0 10.4 14.3 12.5

Once a week 26.0 14.3 28.0 37.5

Total 100 100 100 100

Source: Field survey (2007).

Table 4.3. Market outlet where beef was bought by sampled households

Outlet Percent of households within the income group

Total sample Low income Medium income High income

Producer’s residence or local market 1 0 1 1

Butcher in local wet market 90 60 94 74

Supermarket 14 0 11 54

Special butcher shop 60 73 57 18

Source: Field survey (2007).

The part worth of abattoir stamp indicates that consumers derived higher utility from buying beef from an officially stamped carcass; high income households were relatively more sensitive to this attribute. In general, the abattoir stamp was regarded as a form of quality assurance to consumers that the meat was inspected and found to be disease-free and thus safe for consumption. The relatively low value of the official abattoir stamp among low income consumers may be partly due to the fact that these households consumed small quantities of meat mostly in cooked form so might not worry too much about the presence of tapeworms which are destroyed upon cooking, while the higher income households consumed larger quantities of meat in a variety of forms, including eating it raw.

The part worth of level of hygiene of the premises and meat handling staff indicates that consumers derived higher utility from buying beef from hygienic butcheries and meat

handlers. The high income households were highly sensitive to hygiene while the low income households were relatively less sensitive. This sensitivity might be the reason why more high income households bought beef from supermarkets as opposed to butcheries. Overall, 14% of households bought beef from supermarkets. However, during the month prior to the survey, none of the low income households reported buying beef from supermarkets while 11% of middle income households and 54% of high income households reportedly did so.

During the PRA some consumers reported that high price of beef could indicate better quality while others thought price was not an indicator of quality. Thus, in the empirical model, the price attribute was modelled as ‘discrete’ i.e. no direction of influence of price on utility was assumed. Rather, it was left to the model to reveal. The result shows that the part worth of price was low with a high standard error, indicating that price was not an important determinant of quality and safety; this result is consistent with the findings of the PRA. However, the positive coefficient indicates that for some consumers, high price might be an indicator of quality. This is probably because these consumers did not have adequate information beforehand about the quality of beef they were buying, though they observed the beef physically and might have had some perception or expectation about quality but were not able to verify or validate that at the time of purchase. As a result, they tended to believe that price differential was merely due to quality differential. Hence, some consumers probably tended to believe that given two products of similar attributes but different prices, the higher-priced one was of better quality. This weak inference about quality based on price could have been solved if there were official standards defining quality which could be verified or observed from labelling, rather than the local conventional way of judging quality and safety.

Among the sample households, 48% believed that the beef they purchased during the month prior to the survey was safe and 45% believed it was of good quality. Like the PRA, although quality and safety criteria were mentioned separately by most households, in some cases there was some overlap between the two so that an attribute primarily representing quality also had a safety dimension and vice versa. About 64% of the sample households expressed willingness to pay for quality and safety enhancements, indicating that there was a gap between what they expected and what was available in the market (Table 4.4).

Table 4.4. Perception of purchased beef and willingness to pay for improved quality and safety Percentage of households Total

sample Low-

incomeMiddle- income High-

income Perception of purchased beef

Safe 48.3 41.6 48.6 58.3

Good quality 44.7 39.0 44.0 54.2

Willingness to pay for improved attributes of beef

Safety 63.7 53.2 63.4 81.3

Good quality 63.7 50.6 64.0 83.3

Source: Field survey (2007).

The proportion of households that were satisfied with the quality and safety of current purchases of beef and that were willing to pay for better quality and safety enhancements

increased as income level increased. This again indicates the existence of a demand gap for quality and safety between consumers, with high income groups being a niche market.