Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Iodine and Pregnancy—A Qualitative Study Focusing on Dietary Guidance and Information
Previous Article in Journal
Dietary Patterns and Their Relationship with Frailty in Functionally Independent Older Adults
Previous Article in Special Issue
Iodine Intake Estimation from the Consumption of Instant Noodles, Drinking Water and Household Salt in Indonesia
Open AccessArticle

Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Agronomic Iodine Biofortification: A SWOT-AHP Analysis in Northern Uganda

1
Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
2
Department of Food Science and Postharvest Technology, Gulu University, P.O. Box 166, Gulu, Uganda
3
Department of Biosystems Engineering, Gulu University, P.O. Box 166, Gulu, Uganda
4
Department of Rural Development and Agribusiness, Gulu University, P.O. Box 166, Gulu, Uganda
5
School of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Mountains of the Moon University, Fort Portal, Uganda
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2018, 10(4), 407; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10040407
Received: 31 January 2018 / Revised: 21 March 2018 / Accepted: 22 March 2018 / Published: 24 March 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Iodine and Health throughout the Lifecourse)
Agronomic biofortification (i.e., the application of fertilizer to elevate micronutrient concentrations in staple crops) is a recent strategy recommended for controlling Iodine Deficiency Disorders (IDDs). However, its success inevitably depends on stakeholders’ appreciation and acceptance of it. By taking Northern Uganda as a case, this study aimed to capture and compare the perceptions of seven key stakeholder groups with respect to agronomic iodine biofortification. Therefore, we employed a SWOT (Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats) analysis in combination with an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Findings show that stakeholders (n = 56) are generally positive about agronomic iodine biofortification in Uganda, as its strengths and opportunities outweighed weaknesses and threats. Cultural acceptance and effectiveness are considered the most important strengths while the high IDD prevalence rate and the availability of iodine deficient soils are key opportunities for further developing agronomic iodine biofortification. Environmental concerns about synthetic fertilizers as well as the time needed to supply iodine were considered crucial weaknesses. The limited use of fertilizer in Uganda was the main threat. While this study provides insight into important issues and priorities for iodine biofortification technology in Uganda, including differences in stakeholder views, the application of the SWOT-AHP method will guide future researchers and health planners conducting stakeholder analysis in similar domains. View Full-Text
Keywords: agronomic biofortification; iodine deficiency; stakeholder analysis; analytical hierarchy process; SWOT analysis; Uganda agronomic biofortification; iodine deficiency; stakeholder analysis; analytical hierarchy process; SWOT analysis; Uganda
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Olum, S.; Gellynck, X.; Okello, C.; Webale, D.; Odongo, W.; Ongeng, D.; De Steur, H. Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Agronomic Iodine Biofortification: A SWOT-AHP Analysis in Northern Uganda. Nutrients 2018, 10, 407.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop