Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Olum, Solomon, Gellynck, Xavier, Okello, Collins, Webale, Dominic, Odongo, Walter, Ongeng, Duncan, De Steur, Hans
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5946192/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29587370
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu10040407
_version_ 1783322145825226752
author Olum, Solomon
Gellynck, Xavier
Okello, Collins
Webale, Dominic
Odongo, Walter
Ongeng, Duncan
De Steur, Hans
author_facet Olum, Solomon
Gellynck, Xavier
Okello, Collins
Webale, Dominic
Odongo, Walter
Ongeng, Duncan
De Steur, Hans
author_sort Olum, Solomon
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5946192
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59461922018-05-15 Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Agronomic Iodine Biofortification: A SWOT-AHP Analysis in Northern Uganda Olum, Solomon Gellynck, Xavier Okello, Collins Webale, Dominic Odongo, Walter Ongeng, Duncan De Steur, Hans Nutrients Article 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. MDPI 2018-03-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5946192/ /pubmed/29587370 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu10040407 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Olum, Solomon
Gellynck, Xavier
Okello, Collins
Webale, Dominic
Odongo, Walter
Ongeng, Duncan
De Steur, Hans
Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Agronomic Iodine Biofortification: A SWOT-AHP Analysis in Northern Uganda
title Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Agronomic Iodine Biofortification: A SWOT-AHP Analysis in Northern Uganda
title_full Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Agronomic Iodine Biofortification: A SWOT-AHP Analysis in Northern Uganda
title_fullStr Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Agronomic Iodine Biofortification: A SWOT-AHP Analysis in Northern Uganda
title_full_unstemmed Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Agronomic Iodine Biofortification: A SWOT-AHP Analysis in Northern Uganda
title_short Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Agronomic Iodine Biofortification: A SWOT-AHP Analysis in Northern Uganda
title_sort stakeholders’ perceptions of agronomic iodine biofortification: a swot-ahp analysis in northern uganda
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5946192/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29587370
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu10040407
work_keys_str_mv AT olumsolomon stakeholdersperceptionsofagronomiciodinebiofortificationaswotahpanalysisinnorthernuganda
AT gellynckxavier stakeholdersperceptionsofagronomiciodinebiofortificationaswotahpanalysisinnorthernuganda
AT okellocollins stakeholdersperceptionsofagronomiciodinebiofortificationaswotahpanalysisinnorthernuganda
AT webaledominic stakeholdersperceptionsofagronomiciodinebiofortificationaswotahpanalysisinnorthernuganda
AT odongowalter stakeholdersperceptionsofagronomiciodinebiofortificationaswotahpanalysisinnorthernuganda
AT ongengduncan stakeholdersperceptionsofagronomiciodinebiofortificationaswotahpanalysisinnorthernuganda
AT desteurhans stakeholdersperceptionsofagronomiciodinebiofortificationaswotahpanalysisinnorthernuganda