Aquaculture 530 (2021) 735755

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aquaculture
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aquaculture

Consumer choices and demand for Tilapia in urban Malawi: What are the T
complementarities and trade-offs?
Christopher T.M. Chikowia, , Dennis O. Ochiengb, Charles B.L. Jumbec
⁎

a
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR), P.O. Box 219, Lilongwe, Malawi
b
Development Strategy and Governance Division, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), P.O. Box 31666, Lilongwe, Malawi
c
Centre for Agricultural Research and Development (CARD), Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR), P.O. Box 219, Lilongwe, Malawi

ABSTRACT

Fish consumption can reduce malnutrition in many fish-producing low-income countries. Despite concerted efforts to develop capture fisheries and aquaculture in
many low-income countries, fish demand remains poorly understood due to weak and fragmented domestic markets, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. An important
area that affects their development is limited understanding of the complementarities and trade-offs in choice and demand for fish products and how the choice and
demand for fish products are affected by the socioeconomic characteristics of consumers, market factors and fish-specific attributes. Previous studies have assessed
consumer choice and demand for fish in general, without considering species-specific consumer choices. We add to the literature by analyzing complementarity and
trade-offs in consumer choice and demand for fresh and smoked/dried products of two tilapia species, Lake Malawi Oreochromis (Nyasalapia) spp. and Oreochromis
shiranus using household survey data from urban Malawi. We employ Multivariate Probit and Seemingly Unrelated Regression models to analyze the correlates and
complementarities and trade-offs in consumer choice and demand. Regression results indicate trade-offs in choices but complementarities in demand for tilapia
products. We find that the correlates of choice are not the same as correlates of demand. Sex and years of schooling of the food decision maker, frequency of fish
consumption, household income, access to fish price and market information, tilapia price and traits significantly influenced consumer choice and demand.
Developing robust tilapia value chains requires exploiting the complementarities and trade-offs and policy support to boost tilapia production, lower prices and
increase access to fish price and market information. More generally fish breeding programs should also link breeding objectives to consumer choices and demand for
fishery products, particularly considering the rarely examined fish attributes such as ease of cooking, appearance, taste, and smell.

1. Introduction
Fish consumption can reduce malnutrition in many fish-producing
low-income countries (Tacon and Metian, 2013; Kobayashi et al.,
2015). Recent global statistics show a growth in annual per capita fish
consumption from 9 kg in 1961 to 20.5 kg in 2017 (FAO, 2018). As­
suming fish prices and consumer preferences remain stable, per capita
consumption is likely to increase to 25 kg by 2020 (Cai and Leung,
2017). With peaking global capture fisheries, increased production is
vital to meet demand growth, but will prove challenging in the face of a
growing world population, climate change, and dwindling fish stocks
especially in sub-Saharan Africa (Banda et al., 2005; Kasulo and
Perrings, 2006; Limuwa et al., 2018). Aquaculture has expanded ra­
pidly to offset supply gaps and now accounts for 47% of global food fish
production (53% if non-food uses are included) (FAO, 2018). Although
fish production and consumption has generally declined throughout
sub-Saharan Africa, aquaculture growth and increases in fish imports
have reversed that trend in some fish-producing countries (Genschick
et al., 2018; Kaminski et al., 2018). Aquaculture growth has far-
reaching positive implications for economic development, poverty re­
duction, food security, and nutrition (Belton and Thilsted, 2014; Béné
et al., 2016). Aquaculture contributes to rural employment (Hernandez
et al., 2018; Ragasa et al., 2018; Steenbergen et al., 2019) and broader
rural transformation (Arthur et al., 2013; Pinstrup-Andersen and
Cheng, 2018), and makes global food systems more resilient
(Kristofersson and Anderson, 2006; Troell et al., 2014).
Despite efforts to promote sustainable capture fisheries and expand
aquaculture in fish-producing countries of sub-Saharan Africa, pro­
ductivity remains low with inconsistent fish marketing and consump­
tion trends of between 5 and 14 kg per capita (FAO, 2018; Kaminski
et al., 2018). This reinforces the argument that, along with food
availability and affordability, consumer choices are a key driver of food
consumption (Dimitri and Rogus, 2014). Little is known about how
consumer choices and demand for fish are affected by fish attributes (or
traits), consumer characteristics, and market factors. Achieving a
greater understanding of the relationships among these factors is

Abbreviations: Ny, Lake Malawi Oreochromis (Nyasalapia) spp; Os, Oreochromis shiranus; MVP, multivariate probit; SUTR, seemingly unrelated truncated regression
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: chikowichristopher@gmail.com (C.T.M. Chikowi), D.Ochieng@cgiar.org (D.O. Ochieng), cjumbe@luanar.ac.mw (C.B.L. Jumbe).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735755
Received 24 January 2020; Received in revised form 30 June 2020; Accepted 21 July 2020
Available online 30 July 2020
0044-8486/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
C.T.M. Chikowi, et al.
important in the context of rapid urbanization, modernization of food
retail system, a rising middle class, and changes in consumer pre­
ferences and tastes (Tschirley et al., 2015; Ogutu et al., 2020), as well as
a growing consumer realization of the immense nutrition benefits of
fish consumption (Oken et al., 2012).
This paper focuses on the domestic tilapia market in Malawi's two
major cities - Lilongwe and Blantyre. We focus on choice and demand
for fresh and smoked/dried products of two tilapia species: Lake
Malawi Oreochromis (Nyasalapia) spp., hereafter referred to as Ny, and
Oreochromis shiranus, hereafter referred to as Os, using cross-sectional
data for urban fish consumers in Malawi.1 We descriptively analyze
consumer choices for Os and Ny products and, then simultaneously,
analyze the correlates of, and complementarities and trade-offs in
choice and demand using Multivariate Probit (MVP) and Seemingly
Unrelated Truncated Regression (SUTR) models, respectively. The
paper addresses the following research questions: (1) What are the
correlates of choice of Os and Ny products? (2) What are the correlates
of demand for Os and Ny products? (3) What are the complementarities
and trade-offs in the choice and demand for Os and Ny products?2
Worldwide, there is a dearth of studies on the link between fisheries
in general, aquaculture, and fish consumption patterns (Belton et al.,
2018). An understanding of choice and demand complementarities and
trade-offs in food products is also important for food policy, but is not
yet well understood (Tezzo et al., 2020). Hernandez et al. (2018) ob­
served that previous studies focused on the role of fish producers in
marketing and the resulting welfare impacts, value chains in terms of
structure, conduct, and performance, and export markets for a few
commercial fish species such as trout, catfish, salmon, and shrimp in
developed countries, but not on domestic markets, particularly in de­
veloping countries (Goss et al., 2000; Belton and Bush, 2014). Yet, since
much of production is for domestic markets and not exports, there is a
need to analyze domestic markets for fish (Belton et al., 2018; Tlusty
et al., 2019).
Although consumer choice of fish traits is hardly reported in fish-
profile designs (Mehar et al., 2019), studies show that understanding
consumer trait preferences is critical for pro-poor fish-breeding pro­
grams (Omasaki et al., 2016; Murphy et al., 2020). Tilapia ranks second
to carp in terms of global food fish production and is one of the most
widely bred and adapted fish worldwide (FAO, 2018). Over the past
twenty years, tilapia genetic improvement programs have increased the
availability of tilapia selected for attributes or traits that improve pro­
duction (e.g., tilapia breeds that grow between 7 and 10% faster than
other breeds are now used globally in more than sixteen countries)
(Ponzoni et al., 2012). Historically, breeding programs have primarily
been driven by the economic value of fish and consumers preferences
for specific fish traits (Brascamp et al., 1985). However, current fish
breeding programs are increasingly considering non-economic values to
users (Nielsen et al., 2014; Ragot et al., 2018; Mehar et al., 2019). A
recent study in Egypt shows heterogeneous preferences for fish traits
among low-income consumers in the country (Murphy et al., 2020).
Hence, aquaculture needs to adapt to changes in consumer choice
preferences and demand (Genschick et al., 2018; Akuffo and
Quagrainie, 2019; Murphy et al., 2020).
We contribute to the existing literature on fish marketing as follows:
firstly, we analyze the correlates of species-specific consumer choice
1
The Oreochromis spp. are closely related species of tilapine cichlids. Lake
Malawi Oreochromis (Nyasalapia) spp. is a collective name for all tilapias
(Trewavas, 1983) locally known as Chambo (Oreochromis lidole, Oreochromis
squamipinnis and Oreochromis karongae). Hence, we treated them as one in this
study. Os, locally called Makumba, is a distinct species in Malawi.
2
Complementarity refers to a product being chosen or demanded alongside
another product, whereas trade-off refers to a product substituting another
product (Varian, 2010). For example, we look at whether choice or demand for
smoked/dried and fresh fish are complementary – that is, consumers choose or
demand both Ny and Os – or traded-off (substituting Ny for Os, or vice versa).
2
Aquaculture 530 (2021) 735755
and demand for fish, together with complementarities and trade-offs
between fresh and smoked/dried products using Ny and Os as examples;
secondly, when analyzing the drivers of choice and demand, we con­
sider other fish traits rarely examined in literature, such as ease of
cooking, taste and appearance. A recent review of studies on consumer
preferences for fish traits concluded that most research focused on
economically valuable traits such as size and weight, but over­
looked these economically non-quantifiable traits (Mehar et al., 2019);
lastly, we contextually focus on choice and demand for species-specific
products among urban consumers. Mehar et al. (2019) noted that, ex­
cept for hatchery and nursery operators, most studies focused on choice
and demand among fish consumers, in general. However, preferences
can vary across different operators, including processors, traders, and
consumers. A few studies in Malawi have examined consumer choice
and demand for fish, in general, but not for species-specific fish pro­
ducts (e.g., Maganga et al., 2014; Nankwenya et al., 2017).
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section
describes fish production and marketing in Malawi. Section 3 presents
the conceptual framework. Section 4 details the data and methods used
in analyzing correlates of and complementarities and trade-offs in
choice and demand for tilapia products. Section 5 presents the study
findings while section 6 discusses them. Section 7 concludes.
2. Background
2.1. Fish production and consumption in Malawi
Malawi's fisheries sector comprises of three subsectors, namely;
capture fishery, aquaculture, and aquarium (ornamental fishery). The
sector contributes about 4% to Malawi's Gross Domestic Product (GDP),
employs about 63,023 people annually, and supports the livelihoods of
about 1.6 million people (Malawi Government, 2019). Fish accounts for
roughly 40% of protein intake in general and 70% of animal protein
intake in Malawi diets (Malawi Government, 2019).
Capture fishery is practiced by artisanal fishers3, and small-scale
and large-scale commercial fishers in Lakes Malawi, Chilwa, Malombe,
and Chiuta, and along the Shire River as well as other rivers. However,
Lake Malawi accounts for 94% of total fish catch while the rest account
for less than 5% (Breuil and Grima, 2014). Artisanal fishing contributed
98.7% of total fish landings in 2018 (Malawi Fisheries Department,
2019). Malawi's lakes are rich in various food fish species, mainly:
Chambo (Oreochromis spp); Utaka (Copadichromis spp); Usipa (En­
graulicypris sardella); Kambuzi (Haplochromis spp); Kampango (Bar­
grusmeridionalis); Mlamba (Clariid gariepinus); Ndunduma (Diplotax­
odon); Matemba (Barbus spp.); Kapenta (Limnothrissa miodon); Mpasa
(Opsaridium microlepis); and Mcheni (Rhamphochromis spp). The dis­
tribution of fish species has varied markedly over the years. Lake Ma­
lawi sardines (Usipa) contributed the largest share of total catch (71%)
in 2018 (FAO, 2019).
The aquaculture sub-sector in Malawi dates back to as early as 1906
with the introduction of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and the
culture of tilapias (Os and Tilapia rendalli) and catfish by 1956 (Balarin,
1987). The production system comprises of pond and cage culture, but
pond culture is the most common. The less intensive pond production
systems of tilapia are largely subsistence, while more intensive ones are
commercial. Pond aquaculture is important for supplying fish to upland
areas farther from the lakes. There are a few large-scale cage culture
farms in Malawi that includes the Mangochi-based Maldeco Ltd., which
produces Os and Chambo Fisheries (using the bioflock farming system),
and others that mainly produce common carp, Os, and O. mossambicus.
Tilapia rendalli is produced largely by small-scale farms (Malawi
3
Artisanal fishing is a traditional fishing practice using low-technology and
low-capital undertaken by individual fishing households (as opposed to com­
mercial companies) basically for home consumption.
C.T.M. Chikowi, et al. Aquaculture 530 (2021) 735755

100%
90%

Percentage of total farmed fish

80%
70%
Tilapia rendalli
60%
Oreochromis shiranus
50%
Rainbow trout
40%
Catfish
30%
Oreochromis mossambicus
20%
Common carp
10%
0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year

Fig. 1. Distribution of cultured fish species (2008–2018).

(Source: Authors' construction based on FAO Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics (2020))

Fig. 2. Annual fish supply per capita in Malawi (2008–2018).

(Source: Authors' construction based on FAO Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics (2020))

Fisheries Department, 2019). Over time, the number of fish farmers has
grown significantly from less than 100 in the 1960s (Dickson and
Brooks, 1997) to 15,465 by 2018 (Malawi Fisheries Department, 2019).
Presently, there are 10,007 ponds spread over 252 ha of land, produ­
cing up to 3600 tons of fish annually (Malawi Government, 2019).
Fig. 1 presents the distribution of cultured fish species in Malawi
between 2008 and 2018. Tilapias consistently accounted for over 90%
of aquaculture fish production followed by catfish (5%) and other
exotic species such as common carp and trout. The share of Os increased
significantly over time, while shares of other tilapia species declined.
The shares of other fish species such as common carp, catfish, and trout
are marginal (Malawi Government, 2019).
Fig. 2 presents trends in annual capture fisheries, aquaculture, net
fish imports, and (per capita) fish supply in Malawi between 2008 and
2018. The total tonnage from capture fisheries increased from 70,019 in
2008 to 221,849 in 2018. Aquaculture production increased during the
same period, from 1700 tons in 2008 to 9014 tons in 2018. However,
pond aquaculture was greatly affected by reduced rainfall, particularly
in 2017, which could explain the reduced production between 2017
and 2018. As mentioned earlier, small farmers produced about 3600
tons, implying that large-scale producers accounted for about 60% of
total aquaculture production. Net imports decreased during this period
by 430%. The annual per capita fish supply increased from 6.07 kg in
2008 to 13.21 kg in 2018. The reduction in supply between 2017 and
2018 is attributed to a significant increase in population based on the
2018 population census (NSO, 2019).
Even though capture fishery contributes the largest proportion of
fish produced in Malawi, aquaculture is rapidly growing due to, among
other reasons, increased access to quality inputs such as fish feeds and
genetically improved fingerlings from public and private hatcheries,
promotion of integrated aquaculture-agriculture technologies, the rise
of communally owned ponds and dams, and growing demand but
dwindling fish stocks in open waters (Banda et al., 2005; Kasulo and
Perrings, 2006; Limuwa et al., 2018; Malawi Fisheries Department,
2019).
2.2. Fish marketing in Malawi
Food fish marketing in Malawi is largely domestic with limited
imports. As shown in Fig. 2, Malawi imports diverse fish species (e.g.,
tilapia, tuna and catfish, among others) especially from South Africa,
Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Mozambique, and China (FAO, 2019). In terms of
exports, Malawi exports both non-food (ornamental fish such as colored
cichlids, known as mbuna) and food fish such as trout and tilapia (FAO,
2019). There are also significant informal fish exports to neighboring
countries, especially Usipa to Zambia (Mussa et al., 2017).
Fish is marketed in both fresh (e.g., fresh, chilled, or frozen) and
processed forms (e.g., smoked, dried, salted). Fresh fish is most

3
C.T.M. Chikowi, et al.
common in areas near water bodies or aquaculture farms. About 75% of
marketed fish in Malawi is processed to prevent quantity and quality
losses (Nagoli et al., 2009). Fish processing practices include smoking
using dug-out ovens and drying using drying reeds, mats, or wire racks.
In terms of market reach, most of the pond farms are less market-or­
iented and sell fish at the farmgate because of low quantities from
unscheduled harvests (ADiM, 2005), whereas commercial aquaculture
farms have a wider market reach, supplying major urban centers
through their distribution outlets and supermarkets (ADiM, 2005). The
fish distribution network is concentrated in the southern part of central
Malawi, and the whole of southern Malawi, where transportation in­
frastructure is more developed, in proximity to large public markets in
urban areas such as Lilongwe, Blantyre, and Zomba (Malawi Fisheries
Department, 2009). The average retail prices at purchase points are
influenced by fish attributes and market factors (Brummett, 2000). Fish
is commonly sold based on size by piece, heaps, buckets or units in
public markets, but by weight in supermarkets and retail outlets di­
rectly or indirectly managed by aquaculture companies.
The 2019 fisheries statistics show that increased fish production was
accompanied by increased fish prices (Malawi Fisheries Department,
2019). For example, the landed value increased by 11.23% between
2017 and 2018 (273.18 million United States dollars). The average
landed price per kg also increased from 867.95 Malawi Kwacha (MWK
867.95) to MWK 928.964 due to increased demand for fish and in­
creased operation costs. Tilapia is relatively more expensive than other
fish in Malawi and many poor households consume less expensive fish
species such as Utaka, Usipa, and Ndunduma. Nonetheless, tilapia de­
mand is high, especially in urban areas. Although data on landed prices
is available, there is no time series data on fish consumption and
farmgate and retail prices in Malawi.
There is a dearth of studies on fish marketing in Malawi, particularly
studies focusing on consumer choice and demand for species-specific
fish and fish products. Yet, an indepth understanding of the marketing
environment for fish products is critical to assess the effectiveness of the
revised National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy, which is aimed at
improving fish quality and value addition in Malawi's fish supply chains
(Malawi Government, 2016). Existing studies generally focus on esti­
mating demand for fish and fish products. For example, Nankwenya
et al. (2017) analyzed demand and drivers of demand for tinned, fresh,
smoked, and dried fish products in Malawi. They found that several
socioeconomic, market, and location factors (e.g., marital status, oc­
cupation, age, sex, and education of household head; expenditure, oc­
cupation, and distance to the market) influenced fish consumption.
They also found that demand outstripped supply, and was inelastic to
changes in prices, and demand for fish increased with rising household
incomes. Maganga et al. (2014) also found that these factors influenced
consumption; however, fish demand was sensitive to price changes.
3. Conceptual framework
This paper adopted the theory of consumer behavior with the as­
sumption that consumer choices and demand for products are driven by
utility (satisfaction) derived from consumption subject to budget (income)
constraints (Varian, 2010). Hence, consumers prioritize products that yield
maximum utility . In this paper, consumers were presented with four ti­
lapia products from Ny and Os tilapia species in fresh or smoked/dried
forms, as shown in Fig. 3. We elicited their product choices and quantities
purchased. Both choice and demand (purchase) decisions were multi­
variate, meaning that consumers could choose or demand more than one
product, but the choice or demand was correlated with those of other
products (Cappellari and Jenkins, 2003). Hence, there were possible
complementarities and trade-offs in choice and demand for the products
(Cappellari and Jenkins, 2003; Varian, 2010).
4
US$1.00= MWK 729.11 as of November 2018
4
Aquaculture 530 (2021) 735755
As documented by previous studies, consumer choice and demand
can be influenced by several factors: (i) food decision-makers' char­
acteristics such as sex, age, marital status, and formal education (Ragot
et al., 2018; Murphy et al., 2020); (ii) household characteristics such as
size, income, and consumption frequency (Nankwenya et al., 2017;
Genschick et al., 2018; Murphy et al., 2020); (iii) market factors such as
distance and price (Brummett, 2000); (iv) access to information on
product availability and market prices (Dey et al., 2011; Toufique and
Belton, 2014); and, (v) tilapia traits such as color, size, taste, ease of
cooking, and appearance (Lin and Milon, 1993; Omasaki et al., 2016;
Murphy et al., 2020). Our null hypotheses were -: (i) household char­
acteristics, tilapia attributes, market and location factors had no sig­
nificant influence on consumer choice and demand for tilapia products;
and (ii) there were no complementarities or trade-offs in choice and
demand for tilapia products.
4. Materials and methods
4.1. Study area and sampling procedure
This paper used quantitative data collected from urban households
in the cities of Lilongwe and Blantyre in November 2018. These cities
provided a good setting for research as the rapid modernization of food
retailing in Malawi mirrors other developing countries characterized by
rapid urbanization, a rising middle class and changes in consumer tastes
and preferences (Tschirley et al., 2015; Khonje and Qaim, 2019). We
Z2 (1 P)P
used the formula n = to obtain a representative sample, where
e2
n is the sample size and Z is the Z-score for 95% confidence interval
(1.96). P is the proportion of the population of urban households in the
two cities, estimated to be 46% using 2008 Malawi Population and
Housing Census data (NSO, 2009) and population data from UN-
HABITAT (2011). e is the absolute size of error (0.05). Hence, the re­
quired sample size was 382. However, after factoring in possibilities of
non-response, we adjusted the sample to 584 households (310 from
Lilongwe and 274 from Blantyre).
Fifteen areas (administrative units) in Lilongwe and 14 in Blantyre
were randomly selected, with population proportionate to size sam­
pling used to determine the number of households from the areas
(Fig. 4). Households were then sampled using a systematic random
sampling procedure. Respondents were either the household heads or
other members primarily responsible for food purchases and prepara­
tion. Interviews were conducted using a multi-module semi-structured
questionnaire to capture data on households' socio-economic char­
acteristics, food expenditures, fish purchase, consumption, and attri­
bute choices, and the fish marketing environment.
4.2. Statistical analysis
4.2.1. Correlates of consumer choice of tilapia products
In consumer (or household) choice analysis, probit models are
widely used particularly when products are assumed to be neither
substitutes nor complements. However, in the context of this paper,
choice of any of the four tilapia products (smoked/dried and fresh Os
and Ny) is correlated with choice of the rest of the products. Hence,
using a simple probit model may yield biased estimates. Therefore, we
employed the Multivariate Probit (MVP) regression model to simulta­
neously analyze the influence of food decision makers, household,
market, and location characteristics on the choice of each of the four
products. The model assumes that binary consumer choice decisions are
jointly correlated (Cappellari and Jenkins, 2003). We estimated four
binary choice equations, corresponding to the four products, for
household i, while accounting for the household, market, and location
factors (Xij) and unobserved factors that influence choice of product
j = 1, 2, 3 and 4, denoting fresh Os, smoked/dried Os, fresh Ny, and
smoked/dried Ny, respectively. The observed binary dependent
C.T.M. Chikowi, et al. Aquaculture 530 (2021) 735755

Household profile
-Age, sex, education and marital status of food decision maker
-Household size, income and fish consumption frequency

Tilapia attributes
-Ease of cooking, color, size, taste and appearance

Market Characteristics
-Distance to market
-Prices of tilapia products
-Access to price and market information

Location profile
-Lilongwe and Blantyre cities

Consumer choice Consumer demand

-Fresh Os or Ny (quantity)
-Smoked/dried Os or Ny -Fresh Os and Ny
- Smoked/dried Os andNy

Tilapia products complemented or traded-off

Fig. 3. Conceptual framework of consumer choice and demand for tilapia products.
(Source: Authors' construction (2018))

variable yij in eq. 2 equals to 1 if the household chooses a product, 0 assessing choice complementarity and trade-offs of the tilapia products.
otherwise. The j-dimensional MVP model is expressed as:
yij = j Xij + ij, j = 1, …, 4 (1)
4.2.2. Correlates of consumer demand for tilapia products
1, if yij > 0 Seemingly Unrelated Regression (SUR) is the most appropriate to
yij = model the correlation of demand for a tilapia product given its ability to
0, otherwise (2) handle both the censored nature of the data and the correlation among the
where the latent variable yij∗ captures unobserved household percep­ error terms. In this study, the dependent variable assumes value of either
tion of the tilapia products and εij is the stochastic error terms, each zero (for no consumption scenarios) or a positive and continuous value,
with a multivariate normal distribution and zero mean and variance- and that the error terms between equations are correlated and normally
covariance matrix V. The matrix has values of 1 on the leading diagonal distributed (Zellner, 1962). A truncated rather than censored regression
and the correlations ρjk = ρkj on the off-diagonals as shown in eq. 3. approach was used because we focused on a sub-sample of households that
purchased at least one tilapia product. We estimated a system of 4 SUTR
1 0 1 12 13 14 equations, where the dependent variables are the quantities purchased
2 0 21 1 23 24 (logged), denoted as k = q1⁎, q2⁎, q3⁎ and q4⁎ for fresh Os, smoked/dried
~Nj ,
3 0 31 32
1 34 Os, fresh Ny, and smoked/dried Ny, respectively.
4 0 1
41 42 43 (3) q1 xk1 0 0 0 1
1
Simulated maximum likelihood estimation was approximated using q2 0 xk 2 0 0 2 2
= + = x ik + µi
the Geweke-Hajivassiliou-Keane algorithm which is widely used in 0 0 x k3 0 k
q3 3
3

analyzing consumer behavior (Geweke, 1996). We then used a like­ q4 0 0 0 xk 2 4

4 (4)
lihood ratio test for the hypothesis of equal correlation coefficients in

5
C.T.M. Chikowi, et al. Aquaculture 530 (2021) 735755

Fig. 4. Sampled areas in Blantyre and Lilongwe.

(Source: Authors' construction based on the 2018 census enumeration area maps.)

The quantity (q⁎s) demanded per month for one tilapia product was E [µ | x1 , x2,x3 and x 4] = 0 (5)
assumed to be correlated with demand for any of the other three pro­
ducts to analyze the demand complementarity and trade-offs. xik is the k E [µµ | x1 , x2,x3 and x 4] = , (6)
x k matrix of the independent variables influencing the quantities de­ and Ω is the variance-covariance matrix (VCM) presented as follows;
manded by household i. βk is the vector of estimated parameters while
μi is the stochastic error term for the four equations that are in­ 11 12 13 14

dependent across time but are assumed to be contemporaneously cor­ =

21 22 23 24
31 32 33 34
related. The error terms are assumed to be distributed according to N(0,
41 42 43 44 (7)
Ω);
If the covariance among ε1, ε2 ε3 and ε4 is equal to zero (i.e., the off-

6
C.T.M. Chikowi, et al. Aquaculture 530 (2021) 735755

diagonal elements in Ω are zero), then each demand equations in (4) Table 1
can be estimated separately using the unrelated truncated regressions. Description of variables.
However, consumers may purchase either none, one or different com­ Variable Description
binations of fish products so that the error terms are correlated. Further,
the decision may also be correlated so that the correlation of the error Tilapia and tilapia products
Lake Malawi Ny spp. 1 if household chose Ny, 0 otherwise
terms would be non-zero. The unknown parameters (β coefficients in
Oreochromis shiranus (Os) 1 if household chose Os, 0 otherwise
system 4 and elements of the VCM in eq. 7) can be consistently esti­ Smoked/dried Nya 1 if household chose smoked/dried Ny, 0 otherwise
mated using the maximum likelihood technique. We used Feasible Fresh Nyb 1 if household chose fresh Ny, 0 otherwise
Generalized Least Squares method to estimate the parameters and Smoked/dried Osa 1 if household chose smoked/dried Os, 0 otherwise
correlation coefficients simultaneously when the covariance matrix of Fresh Osb 1 if household chose fresh Os, 0 otherwise

disturbance is unknown (Zellner, 1962). The study used a likelihood
ratio test of the hypothesis of equal correlation coefficients in assessing
choice complementarity and trade-offs of the tilapia products de­
manded. Data were analyzed using STATA version 16 (StataCorp).
In this paper, we categorized Ny and Os based on: (i) distinct fea­
tures, especially color - Os is distinctively darker in color while Ny is
lighter (silver/brownish/grey); and, (ii) production trends - higher
volumes of Os produced both in catch and aquaculture (FAO, 2020),
and as a potential complement or substitute for the common Ny spp.,
production of which continues to decline under capture fisheries
(Banda et al., 2005). Table 1 presents a summary of variables used in
the regression models.
5. Results
5.1. Descriptive statistics
The upper part of Table 2 presents the general household char­
acteristics in terms of means of continuous variables while the lower
part presents a disaggregated analysis of the household, market, and
location characteristics by tilapia products. The mean age of decision
makers of household food purchases is about 36 years, with 13 years of
formal schooling. The average household has four members, which
equals the national from the 2018 population census (NSO, 2019). Per
capita monthly household income is MWK115,251 (158 United States
dollars). In terms of access to markets, consumers are closer to fish
markets since the average distance from the homestead to the nearest
market is about 1.2 km. Overall, more consumers choose fresh than
smoked/dried tilapia, which can be explained by the higher prices of
smoked/dried tilapia. This is also reflected in the quantities purchased.
Consumers choose more of fresh Os than Ny but more of smoked/dried
Ny than Os.
As shown in the Table 2, there are significant differences in the
proportion of consumers who choose the four products when con­
sidering access to market and price information. Generally, consumers
who access information on fish market and prices consume more tilapia
products than those who do not. Although most consumers choose fresh
tilapia products, there are no significant species-specific differences in
purchased quantities of smoked/dried and fresh products.
Table 3 presents the summary of the fish attributes consumers
consider and locations of purchases of tilapia products, ranked in order
of importance. The values in column (1) are proportions of households
that responded ‘yes’, while the values in columns (2) to (4) are pro­
portions of household rankings of the three most considered attributes.
Most consumers consider several attributes in their choices of tilapia,
with taste, size, and form mentioned by more than half of the house­
holds. Consumers also consider traits such as smell, appearance, color,
and ease of cooking.
Results in Table 3 show most of the sampled households purchase
tilapia products from vendors at designated fish markets (83%) fol­
lowed by Maldeco Ltd. outlets (69%). Interestingly, about 46% of the
sampled households purchase from mobile vendors who often hawk fish
around the city. About 29% of the households purchase the products
from supermarkets. .
Socioeconomic characteristics
Male food decision maker⁎ 1 if primary food decision maker is male, 0 otherwise
Age Age of primary food decision maker in years
Education Years of formal education for primary food decision
maker
Marital status 1 if primary food decision maker is married, 0
otherwise
Household size Number of household members
Household income Monthly household income in Malawi Kwacha
Consumption frequency a
Frequency of fish consumption (percentage)
1 = More than twice a week, 0 otherwise
1 = Twice a week, 0 otherwise
1 = Once a week, 0 otherwise
1 = Less than once a week, 0 otherwise
Market factors
Fish market information 1 if household accessed fish market information, 0
otherwise
Price information 1 if household accessed fish price information, 0
otherwise
Price of fish products (MWK) Smoked/dried Ny in Malawi Kwacha
Fresh Ny in Malawi Kwacha
Smoked/dried Os in Malawi Kwacha
Fresh Os in Malawi Kwacha
Distance to fish market (km) Distance to the most frequently used fish market
Location factors
Blantyre Cityb 1 if household is in Blantyre, 0 otherwise
Lilongwe City 1 if household is in Lilongwe, 0 otherwise
Notes:a Base category is less than once a week; b Base category is Lilongwe;
MWK = Malawi Kwacha; km = kilometer.
⁎
Food decision makers are those household members primarily responsible
in making food-related decisions such as the type and amount of food products
to purchase.
5.2. Consumer choice of and demand for tilapia products
We present the MVP regression results of correlates of consumer
choice in Table 4 and SUTR results of correlates of demand in Table 5.
The marginal effects indicate the significance of the relationship be­
tween the dependent variables (choice or demand) and the independent
variables (socioeconomic, market, and tilapia characteristics). For the
MVP model, we interpret the marginal effects (columns 3, 6, 9, and 12
of Table 4), which show the proportional change in the dependent
variable (choice) associated with a unit change in the independent
variables estimated at their means. The marginal effects for dummy
variables mean a change from 0 to 1. For the SUTR, the dependent
variable (quantities purchased) is continuous and in log form so that the
interpretation is a percentage change in quantities demanded because
of a unit change in the independent variables. However, this depends
again on the value of the independent variable, whether a dummy,
categorical, continuous, or in log form. The regression results show
significant and varied relationships between consumer profiles, market
factors, and tilapia trait descriptors and choice and demand for tilapia
products.
The results show that male food decision makers are 6% more likely
to choose smoked/dried Os (p < .1; Table 4, row 1, column 6) and
38% more likely to demand more of smoked/dried Ny (p < .05;
Table 5, column 7). The education level of household food decision
makers significantly influence the quantities demanded for most of the

7
C.T.M. Chikowi, et al. Aquaculture 530 (2021) 735755

Table 2
Descriptive statistics.
Variable Mean (n = 584) Standard deviation

Age of food decision maker (years) 35.77 10.08

Education of decision maker (years) 18.16 4.09
Household size (number) 4.43 1.89
Household income per capita 115,251.30 110,560.70
(MWK)
Distance to market (kilometers) 1.18 0.75

Characteristics by tilapia product Fresh Os (n = 440) Smoked/dried Os (n = 82) Fresh Ny (n = 338) Smoked/dried Ny (n = 148)

Dummy variables (percentages)

Female decision maker 74.89 12.79 59.13 25.34
Male decision maker 76.71 17.81 54.11 25.34
Marital status
Never married 78.85 17.31 57.05 23.08
Ever married 74.07 12.85 58.18 26.17
Consumption frequency ***
Less than once a week 74.51 3.92 29.41 15.69
Once a week 76.40 13.04 56.52 23.60
Twice a week 76.10 13.97 60.66 28.31
More than once a week 72.00 21.00 67.00 25.00
Access to market information *** * ***
No 67.95 11.11 72.22 28.63
Yes 80.29 16.00 48.29 23.14
Access to price information *** ***
No 68.29 12.2 72.13 28.22
Yes 82.15 15.82 44.11 22.56
City *** **
Lilongwe 66.77 15.81 62.26 26.13
Blantyre 85.04 12.04 52.92 24.45
Tilapia products preference 59.93 4.45 30.14 5.48
Continuous variables
Mean price per kg (MWK) 3139.33 3149.46 2348.65 2844.22
Standard deviation 954.13 1114.60 1066.79 1074.35
Mean monthly quantities purchased (kg) 3.66 2.22 4.22 2.72
Standard deviation 3.53 2.13 3.65 2.60

Notes: MWK = Malawi Kwacha; *, **, ***, differences in the proportion of consumers are significant at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively; 1 United States
Dollar = MWK 729.11; Female household heads and decision makers constitute 34% and 75% of the sample, respectively; kg = kilogram.

Table 3 smoked/dried tilapia. Ceteris paribus, higher household income in­

Tilapia purchase points and attributes. crease the likelihood of choosing fresh Os and Ny by 4.4% and 5.5%,
Variables Ranking (%Yes)
respectively (P < .05; Table 3, columns 3 and 9) and the quantities
demanded of all tilapia products by between 15 and 22% (P < .01;
%Yes First Second Third Table 4 columns 1, 3, 5, and 7). Tilapia consumption of at least once a
(1) (2) (3) (4) week increases the likelihood of choosing dry/smoked Os and fresh Ny
General attributes
by between 9.1 and 18.6% and 21 to 29%, respectively (p < .01;
Taste 62.67 29.45 13.15 12.13 Table 4 columns 6 and 9). It also increases demand for fresh Os and Ny
Size 58.90 15.07 20.18 15.53 by between 26% (p < .1) and 57.7% (p < .01) (Table 5, columns 1
Form (smoked/dried, fresh) 51.88 18.49 14.41 13.40 and 5).
Smell 35.79 4.28 7.57 9.36
Market characteristics variedly influence choice and demand.
Appearance (related to body texture) 30.82 3.60 8.11 5.53
Color 29.62 8.73 5.95 6.81 Access to market information increases the likelihood of choosing Os
Ease of cooking 18.66 4.79 2.70 5.53 but reduces the likelihood of choosing Ny. It increases the likelihood of
Purchase points
choosing smoked/dried Os by 7.6% but reduces the likelihood of
Market vendors 83.39 54.45 22.48 12.85 choosing fresh Ny by 9.4% (p < .1; Table 4, columns 6 and 9). Access
Maldeco outlets 69.01 24.14 28.49 26.54 to market information generally reduces the demand for tilapia pro­
Moving vendors 45.89 7.71 28.49 14.80 ducts by at least 21% (Table 5, columns 1, 3, and 5). Access to price
Supermarket 28.60 6.68 6.20 22.07
information increases the likelihood of choosing fresh Os by 8.1% but
Private suppliers 15.07 4.45 5.81 7.54
Local butcher 13.18 0.17 2.13 9.78 reduces the likelihood of choosing fresh Ny by 19.6%.
Maldeco main shop 7.71 0.34 3.88 4.47 Household location significantly influences consumer choices and
Fishermen 5.99 2.05 1.94 1.12 demand for tilapia products. Table 4 shows that relative to Lilongwe
Aquaculture farm 1.54 – 0.58 0.84 consumers, Blantyre consumers are 17.5% more likely to choose fresh
Os but 7.5% less likely to choose fresh Ny (p < .01). However, living in
Source: Tilapia consumers survey, 2018.
Blantyre decreases the quantities demanded of fresh Os by 16.4%
(p < .05; Table 5). Blantyre consumers are 5% less likely to choose
tilapia products but not choice of products. Additional years of
smoked/dried Os (p < .1; Table 4 column 6) but the demand decreases
schooling increase the demand for all fresh and smoked/dried Os and
by 35.5% (p < .05; Table 5 column 3). In terms of the influence of
fresh Ny by 2.5, 4.4, and 2.6%, respectively (p < .05; Table 4, columns
product prices, a percentage increase in the price of fresh Os reduces the
1, 3, 5). Level of education is associated with increased demand for
quantities demanded by 22.1% (Table 5, column 1) while a similar

8
C.T.M. Chikowi, et al. Aquaculture 530 (2021) 735755

Table 4
Correlates of consumer choice of tilapia products - Multivariate Probit Model results.
Covariates Fresh O. shiranus Smoked/dried O. shiranus Fresh O. Nyasalapia spp. Smoked/dried O. Nyasalapia spp.

Coefficient Std Error Marginal Coefficient Std Error Marginal Coefficient Std Error Marginal Coefficient Std error Marginal
effect effect effect effect

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

Socioeconomic characteristics
Sex of food decision maker 0.120 0.145 0.034 0.289* 0.151 0.060* −0.104 0.136 −0.036 0.006 0.140 0.002
(dummy)
Age (years) −0.009 0.006 −0.002 −0.002 0.007 −0.0003 0.0002 0.006 0.0001 0.006 0.006 0.002
Marital status (dummy) −0.084 0.160 −0.024 −0.274 0.175 −0.057 −0.023 0.151 −0.008 −0.015 0.164 −0.004
Education (years) −0.005 0.016 −0.001 −0.021 0.017 −0.004 −0.014 0.015 −0.005 −0.011 0.016 −0.003
Household size (count) −0.001 0.036 −0.003 0.032 0.039 0.007 −0.020 0.033 −0.007 0.016 0.035 0.005
Household income (log) 0.156** 0.072 0.044** 0.041 0.071 0.009 0.158** 0.066 0.055** 0.093 0.064 0.028

Consumption frequencya
Once a week −0.020 0.230 −0.005 0.705** 0.340 0.091*** 0.594*** 0.227 0.212*** 0.213 0.252 0.059
Twice a week −0.118 0.218 −0.033 0.793** 0.323 0.109*** 0.659*** 0.218 0.236*** 0.296 0.245 0.084
More than twice week −0.251 0.248 −0.072 1.102*** 0.342 0.186*** 0.805*** 0.245 0.286*** 0.172 0.273 0.047

Market characteristics
Market information (dummy) 0.176 0.158 0.050 0.364* 0.188 0.076* -0.270* 0.150 -0.094* -0.118 0.158 -0.035
Price information 0.284* 0.166 0.081* 0.030 0.187 0.006 -0.463*** 0.149 -0.161*** -0.165 0.156 -0.050
(dummy)
Distance to fish market (km) −0.002 0.002 −0.0004 0.002 0.003 0.0003 -0.0003 0.003 -0.0001 0.003 0.003 0.001
Blantyre city (dummy)b 0.614*** 0.122 0.175*** −0.239* 0.134 −0.050* -0.219* 0.115 -0.076* 0.029 0.122 0.009

Tilapia attributes (dummies)

Color −0.163 0.131 −0.046 0.187 0.141 0.039 0.049 0.123 0.017 0.280** 0.127 0.084**
Size 0.176 0.130 0.050 -0.123 0.149 -0.026 0.149 0.120 0.052 0.068 0.129 0.020
Taste 0.278** 0.125 0.079** 0.178 0.154 0.037 -0.158 0.119 -0.055 0.363*** 0.128 0.109***
Ease of cooking −0.188 0.164 −0.053 0.327* 0.180 0.068* 0.023 0.151 0.008 -0.502*** 0.181 -0.151***
Appearance −0.008 0.128 −0.002 0.130 0.146 0.027 0.104 0.125 0.036 0.345*** 0.128 0.104***

Note:N = 584. Log likelihood = −1154.2685; likelihood ratio test of rho chi2 (72) = 217.29; ***, **, * significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively; Robust
standard errors are clustered at household level; km = kilometer; a Base category is less than once a week; b Base category is Lilongwe.

increase in the price of smoked/dried Ny reduces the quantities de­
manded by 51.2% (p < .01; Table 5, column 7).
Results in Tables 4 and 5 show heterogeneous influence of tilapia
attributes on the choice and demand for tilapia products, respectively.
Color, size, taste, ease of cooking, and appearance influence the choice
of and demand for tilapia products. Color has a significant influence on
the choice of Ny products, increasing the likelihood of choosing
smoked/dried Ny by 8.4% (p < .05; Table 4, column 12), but reducing
the demand for fresh Ny by 13.7% (p < .1; Table 5, column 5). Ap­
pearance also increases the likelihood of choosing dry/smoked Ny by
10.4% (p < .01; Table 4 column 12). In terms of taste, consumers are
likely to choose fresh Os and smoked/dried Ny. The likelihood of
choosing Ny decreases by 6.8% (p < .1; Table 4, column 6) but its
demand increases by 32.5% when ease of cooking is considered
(p < .01; Table 5, column 1).
5.3. Complementarities and trade-offs between tilapia products
So far, we have examined the correlates of choice and demand for
tilapia products. However, consumer choice and demand are closely
linked and there is no mutual exclusivity in the consumption of tilapia
products. In other words, ceteris paribus, the consumption of one tilapia
product does not stifle consumption of the other three products. We
examine the complementarity and trade-offs between choice and de­
mand for Os and Ny products using covariance matrices from the MVP
and SUTR models presented in Table 6. As shown in the Table 6, the
likelihood ratio test of equal correlation coefficients is rejected in both
models, indicating that both models are most appropriate for the ana­
lysis and that an ordinary probit model would not suffice. The positive
correlations imply complementarity of the products while negative
correlations imply trade-offs and possible substitutability.
The MVP correlation matrix shows negative correlations between
choices of both fresh and smoked/dried tilapia products (p < .01;
Rows 1–8), suggesting a trade-off in choice between Os and Ny pro­
ducts. Consumers choose more of fresh (or smoked/dried) Os but less of
fresh (or smoked/dried) Ny and vice versa. The two products are
therefore substitutable. In contrast, the SUTR covariance matrix shows
positive correlations between demand for both Os and Ny products
(Rows 9–16), suggesting complementarity of demand for all tilapia
products (consumers purchase more or less of them together).
6. Discussion
Here, we discuss the correlates of choice and demand together to
relate consumer choices with demanded quantities. We also discuss the
complementarities and trade-offs in choice and demand for tilapia
products. We find that male decision makers are more likely to choose
or demand smoked/dried products, indicating the different effects of
gender on choice and demand. On average, monthly earnings of male
decision makers are almost double the earnings of their female coun­
terparts and further results show that higher income increases the
likelihood of purchasing more smoked/dried products. Education level
influences the demand for tilapia products and more-educated decision
makers purchase more tilapia products than less-educated ones, likely
because more education translates to more disposable income.
Nankwenya et al. (2017) also found that more-educated Malawians had
higher disposable incomes and propensity to purchase nutritious foods
including fish. Higher incomes increase the likelihood of choosing fresh
tilapia products and the quantities demanded of all tilapia products.
The results also show that higher incomes increase frequency of fish
consumption and the likelihood of consuming more tilapia products.
This finding is important for aquaculture expansion in Malawi, which

9
C.T.M. Chikowi, et al. Aquaculture 530 (2021) 735755

Table 5
Correlates of consumer demand for tilapia products - Seemingly Unrelated Truncated Regression results.
Covariates Fresh O. shiranus Smoked/dried O. shiranus Fresh O. Nyasalapia spp. Smoked/dried O. Nyasalapia spp.

Coefficient Std error Coefficient Std error Coefficient Std error Coefficient Std error

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Socioeconomic characteristics
Sex of food decision maker (dummy) 0.116 0.077 −0.151 0.150 0.053 0.087 0.376*** 0.117
Age (years) 0.003 0.003 −0.006 0.006 0.005 0.004 −0.001 0.005
Marital status (dummy) −0.026 0.080 −0.103 0.142 0.018 0.096 0.150 0.123
Education (years) 0.025*** 0.009 0.044*** 0.014 0.026** 0.010 0.017 0.014
Household size (count) 0.091*** 0.020 0.065* 0.036 0.085*** 0.019 0.100*** 0.029
Household income (log) 0.159*** 0.038 0.187*** 0.070 0.149*** 0.039 0.222*** 0.054

Consumption frequencya
Once a week 0.290** 0.130 −0.059 0.518 0.262* 0.160 −0.255 0.217
Twice a week 0.378*** 0.127 −0.185 0.514 0.242* 0.152 −0.120 0.212
More than twice week 0.434*** 0.144 0.002 0.518 0.577*** 0.167 −0.004 0.221
Market characteristics
Market information (dummy) −0.221** 0.087 −0.479*** 0.157 −0.215** 0.088 −0.195 0.162
Price information (dummy) 0.196** 0.091 −0.064 0.132 −0.075 0.096 −0.025 0.153
Price (log) in Malawi Kwacha −0.221*** 0.083 −0.095 0.146 −0.031 0.081 −0.512*** 0.130
Distance to fish market (kilometer) 0.003 0.002 0.005** 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.003
Blantyre city (dummy)b −0.164** 0.068 −0.355** 0.117 −0.074 0.074 0.233*** 0.104

Tilapia attributes (dummies)

Color −0.070 0.073 −0.131 0.161 −0.137* 0.081 −0.071 0.106
Size 0.004 0.070 −0.427*** 0.141 −0.019 0.081 0.062 0.113
Taste 0.083 0.073 −0.249** 0.126 0.029 0.072 −0.072 0.112
Ease of cooking −0.325*** 0.084 −0.142 0.141 −0.063 0.095 0.477** 0.137
Appearance 0.069 0.069 0.266 0.112 −0.048 0.081 0.022 0.094

Note: N = 584. Log likelihood = −902.9804; likelihood ratio test of rho chi2 (76) = 854.76; ***, **, * significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.
Robust standard errors are clustered at household level; a Base category is less than once a week; b Base category is Lilongwe.

Table 6 Previous studies found higher income and price elasticity of demand
Correlation matrices for the MVP and SUTR models. among poor consumers than among rich consumers (Dey et al., 2011;
Tilapia products O.shiranus O. Nyasalapia spp. Toufique and Belton, 2014). Tilapia is becoming more expensive in
Malawi because there are less good-sized tilapias in the wild but more
Fresh Smoked/dried Fresh Smoked/dried good-sized ones under aquaculture (Malawi Fisheries Department,
2019). Higher prices incentivize greater investment in the tilapia value
(1) (2) (3) (4)
chain, especially among traders. Richer households can afford the ex­
Choice of fish products (MVP model matrix) pensive imported or locally farmed tilapias. But what do higher prices
Fresh Os 1 mean for poor households in urban and rural areas? In Malawi, most
Smoked/dried Os −0.113 1 poor households consume cheaper fish such as Usipa, Utaka, and
(0.085)
Ndunduma, which are smaller but equally nutritious and abundant in
Fresh Ny −0.433*** −0.043 1
(0.069) (0.081) the wild. Similarly, poor urban consumers in Zambia also consumed
Smoked/dried Ny −0.269*** −0.276*** −0.043 1 more of less expensive, small-sized fish such as Usipa and Kapenta
(0.075) (0.079) (0.074) (Genschick et al., 2018), and the bulk of usipa and other pelagic species
Quantities demanded (SUTR model matrix) from Malawi are informally exported to neighboring countries (Mussa
Fresh Os 1 et al., 2017). Hence, the promotion of aquaculture can help to supply
Smoked/dried Os 0.687*** 1 food fish to low-income populations.
(0.100)
Fresh Ny 0.496*** 0.640*** 1
Our finding that access to price and market information increases
(0.053) (0.104) the likelihood of choosing Os over Ny is attributable to consumer pre­
Smoked/dried Ny 0.542*** 0.845*** 0.721*** 1 ference for Os over Ny. Further, access to price information increases
(0.067) (0.057) (0.038) the quantities demanded of fresh Os. The finding that market in­
formation reduces quantities demanded of all tilapia products is coun­
Note: N = 584; Standard errors in (parentheses); The likelihood ratio test of
terintuitive, but not surprising. Tilapia products are generally more
equal correlation coefficients is rejected (p < .01); ***, significant at the 1%
level; MVP = multivariate probit; SUTR = seemingly unrelated truncated re­
expensive than small fish species. As such, consumers often opt for
gression. cheaper fish products or substitutes. Time series data on fish prices and
demand and income of consumers do not exist in Malawi yet it could
has been hampered by high production costs, translating to higher retail help to analyze the long-run relationship between price, income and
prices for farmed fish than for caught fish. Increased demand for tilapia demand for fish products. Further results show that consumer location
from aquaculture is met by efficient and timely distribution by a few significantly influences choice and demand, with disutility for smoked/
large aquaculture companies and other trader listed in Table 3. In­ dried Os observed among Blantyre consumers. Blantyre consumers are
creased access to refrigeration, especially among richer households in more likely to choose fresh Os and smoked/dried Ny but demanded
the cities, facilitates fish storage and partly explains the higher demand more of Ny and less of Os than Lilongwe consumers. This finding is
for fresh tilapia. counterintuitive but not surprising because the prices per kg of Os
We also find that higher prices reduce the quantities of tilapia products are higher in Blantyre than Lilongwe. As such, resource-con­
products demanded, which are only affordable to richer households. strained households may demand more of the cheaper Ny products.

10
C.T.M. Chikowi, et al.
Fish attributes variedly influence choice and demand for tilapia
products. We find that consumers who consider size are more likely to
choose Os, which grows faster and is therefore relatively bigger than
Ny. Appearance also increases the likelihood of choosing Ny products in
that consumers are more likely to choose fresh Ny than Os based on
color, preferring the silver Ny to the darker Os. We also find that con­
sumers demand less of Os products but more of Ny products when ease
of cooking is considered. In terms of taste, consumers are more likely to
choose fresh Os and smoked/dried Ny. Taste influences consumer
choice more than demand for fish (Lin and Milon, 1993). These are
important findings for tilapia breeding program in Malawi that cur­
rently focuses more on growth rate.
From the covariance matrices, we have established trade-offs in
choice of but complementarity in demand for tilapia products.
Consumers substitute fresh (or smoked/dried) products of the two
species when it came to choice but demand both Os and Ny products
nonetheless, indicating an intricate relationship between choice and
demand that influences consumption when household, market, loca­
tion, and tilapia characteristics are considered. This suggests that the
possible dynamics of choice can sometimes not be translated into de­
mand for fish products. The complementarity of demand for tilapia
products is important for growth of the aquaculture and fishery sectors
especially for the tilapia value chain. This lends credence to the need to
promote value addition activities as prioritized by the National
Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy 2016 (Malawi Government, 2016).
7. Conclusion
This paper analyzed consumer choice and demand for fresh and
smoked/dried products of two tilapia species, Oreochromis shiranus (Os)
and Oreochromis (Nyasalapia) spp. (Ny). We also investigated the cor­
relates of consumer choice and demand and the complementarities and
trade-offs between consumption of the products in Malawi's two major
cities, Blantyre and Lilongwe. This is one of the few studies to have
examined species-specific complementarities and trade-offs in con­
sumer choice and demand for fish products.
The findings show trade-offs in choice of tilapia products between
the two species (e.g., consumers choosing more of fresh (or smoked/
dried) Os and less of fresh (or smoked/dried) Ny. Nonetheless, we find
complementarity of demand for all tilapia products; meaning con­
sumers demand all products and demand for one product does not lead
to reduced demand for another. The complementarities of demand for
tilapia products, including for the higher-priced smoked/dried tilapia,
is an opportunity to encourage greater value addition among traders.
Also, given that Ny stocks continue to decline while Os stocks increase,
there is potential for expanded tilapia farming in Malawi. However,
farmed fish is still more expensive than caught fish and there is need for
greater investment in aquaculture to facilitate economies of scale to
lower production costs and consumer prices.
We find that drivers of choice are different from drivers of demand.
Sex and years of schooling of the food decision maker, frequency of fish
consumption, household income, access to fish price and market in­
formation and tilapia price and traits significantly influence consumer
choice and demand. Higher prices reduces demand for tilapia products.
Pro-poor aquaculture growth should also diversify production by cul­
turing the cheaper small-sized fish species, which are not presently
cultured in Malawi. Malawi Government should also sustainably govern
the capture fisheries to replenish dwindling stocks. Access to fish price
and market information is associated with reduced demand for tilapia
products. There is no official fish price monitoring system in Malawi
and, therefore, Malawi Government should establish one to expand
access to price information by consumers and other industry players,
and to determine fish price and demand trends. This can facilitate
private sector investment in aquaculture to increase fish production and
enable consumers to make informed choices. Tilapia traits such as
color, size, taste, appearance, and ease of cooking should be considered
11
Aquaculture 530 (2021) 735755
in tilapia breeding programs in Malawi to produce fish products that
meet consumer expectations. Further studies should focus on unpacking
these attributes more particularly using choice experiments with var­
ious fish users.
This paper lays a foundation for future studies aimed at under­
standing the dynamics of species-specific choice and demand for fish
products among urban consumers in light of rapid urbanization, the
hidden hunger among urban dwellers, and high fish production sea­
sonality in low-income countries. Sustained demand for tilapia pro­
ducts, breeding programs responsive to consumer preferences, and
promotion of aquaculture can bridge the fish supply gaps and con­
tribute to food security in countries with fish-consumption tradition.
Future studies should also examine choices and demand for fish by
other value chain actors such as traders, feed mills, and processors.
Funding
This work was supported by the International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI) Malawi under the Bunda Grant Scheme Mentorship
Program funded by the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) Malawi [grant number 302012.002.001, 2019]
and the Aquafish - Africa Center of Excellence, Lilongwe University of
Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR) [grant number
IDA58020, 2018].
Author statement
Christopher T.M. Chikowi: Conceptualization, Formal analysis,
Data curation, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Writing - original
draft.
Dennis O. Ochieng: Conceptualization, Investigation, Data cura­
tion, Funding acquisition, Writing - review & editing.
Charles B.L. Jumbe: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing -
review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ­
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.
We also thank Sandra Froebe-Kaltenbach and Pamela Stedman-Edwards
for proof-reading the penultimate draft of this paper.
References
ADiM (Aquaculture Development in Malawi), 2005. National Fish Farmer's Socio-
Economic Survey Report (2003). FAO Publication Related to Aquaculture in Malawi
Working Paper No. 3 Available at. http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_
malawi/en.
Akuffo, A.S., Quagrainie, K.K., 2019. Assessment of household food security in fish
farming communities in Ghana. Sustainability 11 (10), 2807. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su11102807.
Arthur, R., Béné, C., Leschen, W., Little, D., 2013. Fisheries and aquaculture and their
potential roles in development: an assessment of the current evidence. In: Marine
Resources Assessment Group Limited (MRAG). UK, London.
Balarin, J.D., 1987. “National Review for Aquaculture Development in Africa”. 12.
Malawi. FAO Fisheries Circular, No.770.12.
Banda, M., Jamu, D., Njaya, F., Makuwila, M., Maluwa, A., 2005. The Chambo
Restoration Strategic Plan. In: Proceedings of the national workshop Mangochi, May
13–16, 2013. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings. 71. pp. 112. Available at.
https://ideas.repec.org/b/wfi/wfbook/16346.html.
Belton, B., Bush, S.R., 2014. Beyond net deficits: new priorities for an aquacultural
geography. Geogr. J. 180 (1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12035.
Belton, B., Thilsted, S.H., 2014. Fisheries in transition: food and nutrition security im­
plications for the global South. Global Food Security 3 (1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.gfs.2013.10.001.
C.T.M. Chikowi, et al.
Belton, B., Bush, S.R., Little, D., 2018. Not just for the wealthy: Rethinking farmed fish
consumption in the Global South. Global Food Security 16, 85–92. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gfs.2017.10.005.
Béné, C., Arthur, R., Norbury, H., Allison, E.H., Beveridge, M., Bush, S., Campling, L.,
Leschen, W., Little, D., Squires, D., Thilsted, S.H., 2016. Contribution of fisheries and
aquaculture to food security and poverty reduction: assessing the current evidence.
World Dev. 79, 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.007.
Brascamp, E.W., Smith, C., Guy, D.R., 1985. Derivation of economic weights from profit
equations. Anim. Sci. 40 (1), 175–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0003356100031986.
Breuil, C., Grima, D., 2014. Baseline Report Malawi. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/
a-br796e.pdf.
Brummett, R.E., 2000. Factors influencing fish prices in Southern Malawi. Aquaculture
186 (3–4), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(99)00383-X.
Cai, J., Leung, P., 2017. Short-term projection of global fish demand and supply gaps. In:
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, Retrieved from. http://agris.fao.
org/agrissearch/search.do?recordID=XF2018000754.
Cappellari, L., Jenkins, S.P., 2003. Multivariate probit regression using simulated max­
imum likelihood. Stata J. 3 (3), 278–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1536867x0300300305.
Dey, M.M., Alam, M.F., Paraguas, F.J., 2011. A multistage budgeting approach to the
analysis of demand for fish: An application to inland areas of Bangladesh. Mar.
Resour. Econ. 26 (1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.5950/0738-1360-26.1.35.
Dickson, M.W., Brooks, A.C., 1997. The Development of Fish Farming Technologies in fish
Farming in Malawi: A Case Study of the Central and Northern Regions Fish Farming
Project, Stirling Aquaculture. University of Stirling, Scotland Available at: http://
scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20development%20of%20fish
%20farming%20technologies&author=MW.%20Dickson&author=AC.%20Brooks&
publication_year=1997.
Dimitri, C., Rogus, S., 2014. Food choices, food security, and food policy. J. Int. Aff. 67
(2), 19–31. Available at: www.jstor.org/stable/24461733.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 2018. The State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture 2018 –Meeting the sustainable development goals. Rome, Italy Available
at: www.fao.org/publications.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 2019. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics.
Global Fisheries commodities production and trade 1976–2017 (FishstatJ). FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online], Rome Updated 2019. www.fao.org/
fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 2020. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics.
Global production by production source 1950–2018 (FishstatJ). FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Department [online], Rome Updated 2020. www.fao.org/fishery/
statistics/software/fishstatj/en.
Genschick, S., Marinda, P., Tembo, G., Kaminski, A.M., Thilsted, S.H., 2018. Fish con­
sumption in urban Lusaka: The need for aquaculture to improve targeting of the poor.
Aquaculture 492, 0.280–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.03.052.
Geweke, J., 1996. Bayesian reduced rank regression in econometrics. J. Econ. 75 (1),
121–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(95)01773-9.
Goss, J., Burch, D., Rickson, R.E., 2000. Agri-food restructuring and third word trans­
nationals: Thailand, the CP Group and the global shrimp industry. World Dev. 28 (3),
513–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00140-0.
Hernandez, R., Belton, B., Reardon, T., H, C., Zhang, X., Ahmed, A., 2018. The ‘quiet
revolution’ in the aquaculture value chain in Bangladesh. Aquaculture 493, 456–468.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.06.006.
Kaminski, A.M., Genschick, S., Kefi, A.S., Kruijssen, F., 2018. Commercialization and
upgrading in the aquaculture value chain in Zambia. Aquaculture 493, 355–364.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.12.010.
Kasulo, V., Perrings, C., 2006. Fishing down the value chain: Biodiversity and access
regimes in freshwater fisheries—the case of Malawi. Ecol. Econ. 59 (1), 106–114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.029.
Khonje, M.G., Qaim, M., 2019. Modernization of African Food Retailing and (Un)healthy
Food Consumption. Sustainability 11 (16), 4306. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11164306.
Kobayashi, M., Msangi, S., Batka, M., Vannuccini, S., Dey, M.M., Anderson, J.L., 2015.
Fish to 2030: the role and opportunity for aquaculture. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 19 (3),
282–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2015.994240.
Kristofersson, D., Anderson, J.L., 2006. Is there a relationship between fisheries and
farming? Interdependence of fisheries, animal production and aquaculture. Mar.
Policy 30 (6), 721–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2005.11.004.
Limuwa, M., Singini, W., Storebakken, T., 2018. Is fish farming an illusion for lake malawi
riparian communities under environmental changes? Sustainability 10 (5), 1453.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051453.
Lin, C.T.J., Milon, J.W., 1993. Attribute and safety perceptions in a double-hurdle model
of shellfish consumption. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 75 (3), 724–729.
Maganga, A.M., Phiri, M.A.R., Mapemba, L.D., Gebremariam, G.G., Dzanja, J.K., 2014. “A
Food Demand System Estimation for Rural Malawi: Estimates Using Third Integrated
Household Survey Data.” Conference Paper. Agricultural and Applied Economics
Association. Annual Meeting, July 27–29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Available
at: http://purl.umn.edu/174853.
12
Aquaculture 530 (2021) 735755
Malawi Fisheries Department, 2019. Fisheries and Aquaculture production in Malawi
2019. In: Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development Brief. Zomba,
Government Printer.
Malawi Government, 2016. National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy. Available at:
http://www.unpei.org/malawi-government-national-fisheries-and-aquaculture-
policy-2016.
Malawi Government, 2019. Annual Economic report 2019. Ministry of Finance, Economic
Planning and Development, Department of Economic Planning and Development
Available at: https://www.finance.gov.mw/index.php/blog/documents/annual-
economic-reports?download=50:2019-annual-economic-report.
Mehar, M., Mekkawy, W., McDougall, C., Benzie, J., 2019. Fish trait preferences: a review
of existing knowledge and implications for breeding programmes. Rev. Aquac.
https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12382.
Murphy, S., Charo-Karisa, H., Rajaratnam, S., Cole, S.M., McDougall, C., Nasr-Allah, A.M.,
Kenawy, D., Abou Zead, M.Y., van Brakel, M., Banks, L.K., 2020. Selective breeding
trait preferences for farmed tilapia among low-income women and men consumers in
Egypt; Implications for pro-poor and gender-responsive fish breeding programmes.
Aquaculture. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735042.
Mussa, H., Chimatiro, S., Kakwasha, K., Banda, L., Nankwenya, B., Nyengere, J., 2017.
Assessment of informal cross-border fish trade in the southern Africa region: a case of
malawi and zambia. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. https://doi.org/10.17265/2161-6264/
2017.05.009.
Nagoli, J., Phiri, E.M., Kambewa, E., Jamu, D., 2009. Adapting integrated agriculture
aquaculture for HIV and AIDS-affected households: the case of Malawi. In: WorldFish
Center Working Paper 1957. The WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia Available at:
https://www.worldfishcenter.org/content/adaptingintegrated-agriculture-
aquaculture-hiv-and-aids-ffected-households-case-malawi-0.
Nankwenya, B., Kaunda, E., Chimatiro, S., 2017. The demand for fish products in Malawi:
An almost ideal demand system estimation. J. Econ. Sustain. Dev. 8 (16), 63–71.
Available at: https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEDS/article/view/38380.
Nielsen, J.R., Kristensen, K., Lewy, P., Bastardie, F., 2014. A Statistical Model for
Estimation of Fish Density Including Correlation in Size, Space, Time and between
Species from Research Survey Data. PLoS One 9 (6), e99151. https://doi.org/10.
1371/journal.pone.0099151.
NSO (National Statistical Office), 2009. Malawi 2008 Population and Housing Census:
Main Report, 1–23. Zomba, NSO Available at: www.nsomalawi.mw.
NSO (National Statistical Office), 2019. 2018 Malawi Population and Housing Census:
Main Report. Zomba, NSO Available at: http. www.nsomalawi.mw.
Ogutu, S.O., Ochieng, D.O., Qaim, M., 2020. Supermarket contracts and smallholder
farmers: Implications for income and multidimensional poverty. Food Policy. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101940. (In press).
Oken, E., Choi, A.L., Karagas, M.R., Mariën, K., Rheinberger, C.M., Schoeny, R.,
Sunderland, E., Korrick, S., 2012. Which fish should I eat? Perspectives influencing
fish consumption choices. Environ. Health Perspect. 120 (6), 790–798. https://doi.
org/10.1289/ehp.1104500.
Omasaki, S.K., Arendonk, J., Kahi, A.K., Komen, H., 2016. Defining a breeding objective
for Nile tilapia that takes into account the diversity of smallholder production sys­
tems. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 133 (5), 404–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbg.12210.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Cheng, F., 2018. Case Studies in Food Policy for Developing
Countries: Domestic Policies for Markets, Production, and Environment. Cornell
University Press Available at: https://biblioteca.sagrado.edu/eds/detail?db=edsebk
&an=1852781&isbn=9780801466380.
Ponzoni, R.W., Nguyen, N.H., Khaw, H.L., Rodriguez, B.M., 2012. Considerations about
effective dissemination of improved fish strains. In: WorldFish Working Paper:
2012–47. Malaysia, The WorldFish Center Penang. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/
25080.
Ragasa, C., Andam, K.S., Kufoalor, D.S., Amewu, S., 2018. A blue revolution in sub-
Saharan Africa? Evidence from Ghana’s tilapia value chain. vol. 49 Institute,
International Food Policy Research Available at: http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/
collection/p15738coll2/id/132732.
Ragot, M., Bonierbale, M.W., Weltzien, E., 2018. From market demand to breeding de­
cisions: a framework. In: CGIAR Sex and Breeding Initiative Working Paper 2. CGIAR
Sex and Breeding Initiative, Lima (Peru). https://hdl.handle.net/10568/91275.
Steenbergen, D.J., Eriksson, H., Hunnam, K., Mills, D.J., Stacey, N., 2019. Following the
fish inland: understanding fish distribution networks for rural development and nu­
trition security. Food Security. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-019-00982-3.
Tacon, A., Metian, M., 2013. Fish matters: importance of aquatic foods in human nutrition
and global food supply. Rev. Fish. Sci. 21, 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10641262.2012.753405.
Tezzo, X., Bush, S.R., Oosterveer, P., Belton, B., 2020. Food system perspective on fish­
eries and aquaculture development in Asia. Agric. Hum. Values. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10460-020-10,037-5.
Tlusty, M.F., Tyedmers, P., Bailey, M., Ziegler, F., Henriksson, P.J., Béné, C., Bush, S.,
Newton, R., Asche, F., Little, D.C., Troell, M., 2019. Reframing the sustainable sea­
food narrative. Glob. Environ. Chang. 59, 101991.
Toufique, K.A., Belton, B., 2014. Is aquaculture pro-poor? Empirical evidence of impacts
on fish consumption. World Dev. 64, 600–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.
2014.06.035.
C.T.M. Chikowi, et al.
Trewavas, E., 1983. “Tilapiine Fishes of the genera Sarotherodon, Oreochromis and
Danakilia,” Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History). 583 London and Cornell
& University Press, Ithaca, New York Available at: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.
org/page/52219102#page/7/mode/1up.
Troell, M., Naylor, R.L., Metian, M., Beveridge, M., Tyedmers, P.H., Folke, C., Arrow, K.J.,
Barrett, S., Crépin, A.S., Ehrlich, P.R., Gren, Å., Kautsky, N., Levin, S.A., Nyborg, K.,
Österblom, H., Polasky, S., Scheffer, M., Walker, B.H., Xepapadeas, T., de Zeeuw, A.,
2014. Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system? Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U. S. A. 111 (37), 13257–13,263. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404067111.
Tschirley, D., Reardon, T., Dolislager, M., Snyder, J., 2015. The rise of a middle class in
13
Aquaculture 530 (2021) 735755
the east and southern Africa: Implications for food system transformation. J. Int. Dev.
27 (5), 628–646. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3107.
UN-HABITAT, 2011. UN-Habitat Human Settlements Programme. Available at: http://
www.unhabitat.org.
Varian, H.R., 2010. Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach, 8th ed. W. W.
Norton & Company, Inc., New York.
Zellner, A., 1962. An efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and
Tests for Aggregation Bias. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 57, 348368. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01621459.1962.10480664.