5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Factors driving the acceptance of genetically modified food crops in Ghana

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Crops produced using recombinant DNA technology have invaluable food security roles but are not broadly accepted. Food insecurity affects between 45% and 50% of the Ghanaian populace, while the debate to adopt, accept, use, and commercialize genetically modified (GM) crops is ongoing. In this study, a choice‐based conjoint experimental design was adopted to investigate factors driving the acceptance or rejection of GM crops in Ghana. Results from average marginal component effect estimation suggest that safety concern is the major driver for accepting or rejecting GM crops. This was further confirmed using predicted probabilities and marginal means estimation of community acceptance especially when it possesses certain attributes. The safer the GM crop is perceived for human consumption, health, and environment, the more likely the Ghanaian populace will accept it. In addition, yield and taste were observed to be other key driving factors to accept GM crops. Importantly, the country of patency was also observed to be a critical driving factor for whether or not a GM crop is accepted in Ghana. There is a need for active and greater engagement with the Ghanaian populace to put proper legislation, regulations, policies, and knowledge co‐creation process to ensure the proper use of GM crops.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior.

          Survey experiments, like vignette and conjoint analyses, are widely used in the social sciences to elicit stated preferences and study how humans make multidimensional choices. However, there is a paucity of research on the external validity of these methods that examines whether the determinants that explain hypothetical choices made by survey respondents match the determinants that explain what subjects actually do when making similar choices in real-world situations. This study compares results from conjoint and vignette analyses on which immigrant attributes generate support for naturalization with closely corresponding behavioral data from a natural experiment in Switzerland, where some municipalities used referendums to decide on the citizenship applications of foreign residents. Using a representative sample from the same population and the official descriptions of applicant characteristics that voters received before each referendum as a behavioral benchmark, we find that the effects of the applicant attributes estimated from the survey experiments perform remarkably well in recovering the effects of the same attributes in the behavioral benchmark. We also find important differences in the relative performances of the different designs. Overall, the paired conjoint design, where respondents evaluate two immigrants side by side, comes closest to the behavioral benchmark; on average, its estimates are within 2% percentage points of the effects in the behavioral benchmark.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Survey research.

            J Krosnick (1999)
            For the first time in decades, conventional wisdom about survey methodology is being challenged on many fronts. The insights gained can not only help psychologists do their research better but also provide useful insights into the basics of social interaction and cognition. This chapter reviews some of the many recent advances in the literature, including the following: New findings challenge a long-standing prejudice against studies with low response rates; innovative techniques for pretesting questionnaires offer opportunities for improving measurement validity; surprising effects of the verbal labels put on rating scale points have been identified, suggesting optimal approaches to scale labeling; respondents interpret questions on the basis of the norms of everyday conversation, so violations of those conventions introduce error; some measurement error thought to have been attributable to social desirability response bias now appears to be due to other factors instead, thus encouraging different approaches to fixing such problems; and a new theory of satisficing in questionnaire responding offers parsimonious explanations for a range of response patterns long recognized by psychologists and survey researchers but previously not well understood.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments

              Conjoint analysis is a common tool for studying political preferences. The method disentangles patterns in respondents’ favorability toward complex, multidimensional objects, such as candidates or policies. Most conjoints rely upon a fully randomized design to generate average marginal component effects (AMCEs). They measure the degree to which a given value of a conjoint profile feature increases, or decreases, respondents’ support for the overall profile relative to a baseline, averaging across all respondents and other features. While the AMCE has a clear causal interpretation (about the effect of features), most published conjoint analyses also use AMCEs to describe levels of favorability. This often means comparing AMCEs among respondent subgroups. We show that using conditional AMCEs to describe the degree of subgroup agreement can be misleading as regression interactions are sensitive to the reference category used in the analysis. This leads to inferences about subgroup differences in preferences that have arbitrary sign, size, and significance. We demonstrate the problem using examples drawn from published articles and provide suggestions for improved reporting and interpretation using marginal means and an omnibus F-test. Given the accelerating use of these designs in political science, we offer advice for best practice in analysis and presentation of results.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Food Safety and Health
                Food Safety and Health
                Wiley
                2835-1096
                2835-1096
                January 2024
                January 04 2024
                January 2024
                : 2
                : 1
                : 158-168
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Goodnight Family Department of Sustainable Development Appalachian State University 212 Living Learning Center Boone North Carolina USA
                [2 ] Government & Justice Studies Department Appalachian State University Boone Boone North Carolina USA
                [3 ] Department of Environment and Resource Studies SDD University of Business and Integrated Development Studies Wa Ghana
                [4 ] Department of Communication Innovation and Technology Faculty of Communication and Media Studies University for Development Studies Tamale Ghana
                [5 ] Department of Planning and Land Administration Faculty of Sustainable Development Studies University for Development Studies Tamale Ghana
                [6 ] Department of Management and Human Resource Management Glasgow School for Business and Society Glasgow Caledonian University London UK
                [7 ] Department of Microbiology Faculty of Science Bayelsa Medical University Yenagoa Bayelsa Nigeria
                [8 ] Department of Health and Social Science London School of Science and Technology London UK
                Article
                10.1002/fsh3.12031
                1545511b-ab0f-4159-ae8f-c6c67f932819
                © 2024

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article