Cost vector effects in forced-choice discrete choice experiments: Assessing the acceptability of future glyphosate policies

Effets des vecteurs de coûts dans les expériences de choix discrets forcés: Évaluer l'acceptabilité des futures politiques en matière de glyphosate

Vincent Martinet (), Maïa David (), Vincent Mermet-Bijon and Romain Crastes Dit Sourd
Additional contact information
Vincent Martinet: UMR PSAE - Paris-Saclay Applied Economics - AgroParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement
Maïa 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
Romain Crastes Dit Sourd: Leeds University Business School

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: One way to evaluate future policies that significantly deviate from the status quo is through discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with a reference policy featuring a positive cost and no opt-out option. This study examines how the design of the cost vector, particularly the cost assigned to the reference policy, influences DCE outcomes in this context. Focusing on glyphosate phase-out policies in France, we compare a strict ban (used as the reference policy) with taxation alternatives. Using a split-sample design with two groups of 500 individuals, we analyze how variations in the ban's cost and the associated cost range affect welfare estimates. Our findings reveal that while overall preference rankings remain consistent across samples, willingness-to-pay for some attributes increases when the reference policy's cost rises. We explore potential drivers of this effect, including the inability to choke off demand for the ban, strategic biases, attribute non-attendance, relative evaluation, and anchoring bias. The results suggest that relative evaluation and anchoring bias are the most likely explanations for the observed differences. These findings provide methodological insights for addressing cost vector effects in DCEs.

Keywords: Public policy design; No opt-out; Reference policy; Cost vector effect; Anchoring bias (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025-06
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Journal of Choice Modelling, 2025, 55, pp.100550. ⟨10.1016/j.jocm.2025.100550⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

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-05031294

DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2025.100550

Access Statistics for this paper

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