SUSTAINABLE HYDERABAD PROJECT

12 | NEWS THEMATIC FROM SECTION THE PROJECT EDITORIAL
and comes without warranty. Further, more
respondents were keen on longer warranty
than on free capacitors. The data can further
be analysed with micro econometric methods.
Applying a conditional logit model, it is possible
to calculate choice probabilities, marginal
effects and willingness to pay values (trade-off
between the attributes) for the attributes. The
model estimates in terms of willingness to pay
Willingness to 95% confidence intervall
Attributes pay in INR Lower bound Upper bound
Alternative cooperative 324.9 *** 243.9 405.9
One year Warranty 117.4 *** 89.7 145.1
Costs -­‐1 *** -­‐1 -­‐1
Number Observations
3550
Number Respondents
233
Count R 2
0.735
Table 2: Conditional logit regression results expressed in Willingness to pay conditional on
Table 2: Conditional logit regression results expressed
in willingness to pay conditional on those
those choosing an alternative with capacitor
choosing an alternative with capacitor.
are presented in table 2. The sampled farmers
are more likely to choose the alternative with a
cooperative and, not surprisingly, prefer lower
costs and longer warranty. They are on average
willing to pay 325 INR additionally for joining
the cooperative and 117 INR additionally
for one more year of warranty. Although the
analysis can be widely extended, such as by
investigating preference heterogeneity or correlating
the choices with socio-demographic
variables, important insights have already become
obvious and can be directly used for project
implementation.
Although this example is limited to only
three attributes, there might have been other,
more relevant features that were not included.
If there is little a priori information available,
it is useful to conduct focus group discussions
and expert interviews to optimise attribute
choice.
The advantages of precise and extended
analysis come, however, at the cost of extra
time and effort. A CE should only be used if the
additionally generated information, compared
for example to focus group discussions, is really
required for implementation. Arguments
against the use of CEs include the following.
First, CEs involve much preparation and are
cost intensive. Like most quantitative methods,
a relatively large sample size is required
to get statistically sound estimates, and field
investigators need to be hired and trained for
at least one full day. Second, falsely selected
or omitted attributes or a poor experimental
design can bias the results and lead to false or
misleading implications. Third, due to the hypothetical
nature of the method, respondents
might not answer in the same manner as they
would actually behave in real decision situations
(hypothetical bias).
Figure 3: Training of the Field Investigators: Before
going into field, the field investigators require at
least one day of training to fully understand the
Choice Experiment.
TOPIC 2: ON-SITE TRAININGS: AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO
BUILD CAPACITY AMONG STREET FOOD VENDORS
by Anne Dahmen and Prof. Christoph Dittrich
Ingredients for vegetable manchurian
are placed on the floor
uncovered for several hours, a
risk of contamination that can be
easily avoided.
Since our last Newsletter
(7/8, Winter 11/12),
we have completed an announced
training tool: a
Street Food Safety Manual.
The next phase within the food-safety strategy
of the Pilot Project Sustainable Street Food
Plan has been focused on implementation of
the capacity building measure of on-site trainings,
which will begin in autumn 2012.
On the basis of the safety manual, easy-toapply
measures and guidelines to adjust personal
behaviour and food handling practices
are to be taught at food-safety trainings, conducted
in cooperation with the Home Science
College, the NGO SNEHA and other partners.
So far, street food-safety training programmes
in Hyderabad have failed, because participating
street vendors dropped out rather quickly
or refused to participate in the training sessions
at the outset. Two major reasons have
been identified for this conduct. Firstly, most
of the petty trade vendors are running their
businesses without formal licenses. Hence,
they do not fall under the Food Safety and
Standards Act and therefore are not within
the field of responsibility and requirements of
GHMC food inspectors. As long as these vendors
are hampered from obtaining licenses and
are still threatened by corruption, displacement
and confiscation of property (pushcarts,
cooking utensils, food items), the issue of food
safety remains rather insignificant to them.
Some vendors do take measures to improve
SUSTAINABLE HYDERABAD PROJECT ISSUES 09 AND 10