To tax or to ban? A discrete choice experiment to elicit public preferences for phasing out glyphosate use in agriculture

Taxer ou interdire ? Une expérience de choix discret pour obtenir les préférences du public pour l’élimination progressive du glyphosate en agriculture

Amalie Bjørnåvold, Maia David (), Vincent Mermet-Bijon, Olivier Beaumais, Romain Crastes Dit Sourd, Steven van Passel and Vincent Martinet
Additional contact information
Amalie Bjørnåvold: UA - University of Antwerp
Maia David: UMR PSAE - Paris-Saclay Applied Economics - AgroParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement
Vincent Mermet-Bijon: UMR PSAE - Paris-Saclay Applied Economics - AgroParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement
Olivier Beaumais: LERN - Laboratoire d'Economie Rouen Normandie - UNIROUEN - Université de Rouen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - IRIHS - Institut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire Homme et Société - UNIROUEN - Université de Rouen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université
Romain Crastes Dit Sourd: University of Leeds
Steven van Passel: UA - University of Antwerp

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: In 2023, the European Union will vote on the reauthorization of glyphosate use, renewed in 2017 despite concern on impacts on the environment and public health. A ban is supported by several Member States but rejected by most farmers. What are citizens' preferences to phase out glyphosate? To assess whether taxation could be an alternative to a ban, we conducted a discrete choice experiment in five European countries. Our results reveal that the general public is strongly willing to pay for a reduction in glyphosate use. However, while 75.5% of respondents stated to support a ban in the pre-experimental survey, experimental results reveal that in 73.35% of cases, earmarked taxation schemes are preferred when they lead to a strong reduction in glyphosate use for an increase in food price lower than that induced by a ban. When glyphosate reduction is balanced against its costs, a tax may be preferred.

Keywords: Discrete Choice Experiment; Glyphosate (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-agr, nep-dcm, nep-env and nep-exp
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-04057671v1
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Published in PLoS ONE, 2023, 18 (3), pp.e0283131. ⟨10.1371/journal.pone.0283131⟩

Downloads: (external link)
https://hal.science/hal-04057671v1/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04057671

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283131

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().