IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ehbiol/v52y2024ics1570677x23001211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cigarette packaging, warnings, prices, and contraband: A discrete choice experiment among smokers in Ontario, Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Guindon, G. Emmanuel
  • Mentzakis, Emmanouil
  • Buckley, Neil J.

Abstract

In Canada, despite substantial decline, tobacco use remains the leading risk factor responsible for mortality and morbidity. There is overwhelming evidence that higher tobacco taxes reduce tobacco use, even if high taxes create an incentive to avoid or evade tobacco taxes. Recently, in addition to taxes, plain and standardized packaging and printing a warning on each cigarette have been lauded to reduce tobacco use. In November 2019, Canada became the country with the most comprehensive cigarette packaging regulations; and in June 2022, Canada proposed to print health warnings on individual cigarettes, the first jurisdiction to ever do so. The regulations came into force on August 1, 2023, and are being implemented through a stepwise approach. Our objective was to examine the effects of plain and standardized packaging, warning on cigarettes, price, and the availability of illicit cigarettes on intention to purchase and risk perceptions. We conducted a discrete choice experiment, and examined heterogeneity in preferences using latent class models among smokers in Ontario, Canada. We found that using latent class analyses was essential in quantifying preferences for attributes of cigarettes and cigarette packs. First, nearly half of smokers stated a preference for cheaper illicit cigarettes in a branded pack without any health warnings, regardless of the licit cigarette alternatives. For about 20% of respondents, plain packaging and especially warning on cigarette sticks decreased the probability of stating a purchasing preference for these alternatives. Third, about a third of respondents chose competing alternatives with mostly one attribute in mind, price. Lastly, none of the products and attributes seem to have significantly influenced risk perception. Our findings attest to the importance of prices and taxes, to the potential of warnings on cigarette sticks to control tobacco use, and indicate that efforts to restrict the availability of illicit cigarettes may yield substantial benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Guindon, G. Emmanuel & Mentzakis, Emmanouil & Buckley, Neil J., 2024. "Cigarette packaging, warnings, prices, and contraband: A discrete choice experiment among smokers in Ontario, Canada," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ehbiol:v:52:y:2024:i:c:s1570677x23001211
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ehb.2023.101340
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X23001211
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ehb.2023.101340?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    2. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    3. David Hensher & John Rose & Zheng Li, 2012. "Does the choice model method and/or the data matter?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 351-385, March.
    4. Flores, Alvaro & Berbeglia, Gerardo & Van Hentenryck, Pascal, 2019. "Assortment optimization under the Sequential Multinomial Logit Model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1052-1064.
    5. Domenico Piccolo & Rosaria Simone, 2019. "The class of cub models: statistical foundations, inferential issues and empirical evidence," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 28(3), pages 389-435, September.
    6. An, Wookhyun & Alarcón, Silverio, 2021. "Rural tourism preferences in Spain: Best-worst choices," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    7. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Wang, Wei-Chung & Fu, Chiang, 2012. "Latent class nested logit model for analyzing high-speed rail access mode choice," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 545-554.
    8. Shin, Jungwoo & Hwang, Won-Sik, 2017. "Consumer preference and willingness to pay for a renewable fuel standard (RFS) policy: Focusing on ex-ante market analysis and segmentation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 32-40.
    9. Le Gloux, Fanny & Dupraz, Pierre & Issanchou, Alice & Ropars-Collet, Carole, 2022. "Payments for environmental services with provision thresholds: farmers’ preferences for a conditional bonus," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321177, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    10. D Rigby & M Burton, 2003. "Capturing Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Models: A Random Parameter Logit Model of the Demand for GM Food," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0319, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    11. Marco Costanigro & Yuko Onozaka, 2020. "A Belief‐Preference Model of Choice for Experience and Credence Goods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 70-95, February.
    12. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    13. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    14. Oberst, Christian & Harmsen - van Hout, Marjolein J. W., 2017. "Adoption and Cooperation Decisions in Sustainable Energy Infrastructure: Evidence from a Sequential Choice Experiment in Germany," FCN Working Papers 14/2017, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    15. Gonçalves, Tânia & Lourenço-Gomes, Lina & Pinto, Lígia M. Costa, 2020. "Dealing with ignored attributes through an inferred approach in wine choice experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    16. Alexandros Dimitropoulos, 2014. "The Influence of Environmental Concerns on Drivers’ Preferences for Electric Cars," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-128/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    17. Hsin‐Fan Chen & Sheng‐Hung Chen & Jie‐Min Lee & Huei‐Yann Jeng, 2010. "Who Are the Potential Smokers of Smuggled Cigarettes?," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 24(3), pages 221-234, September.
    18. Martínez-Pardo, Ana & Orro, Alfonso & Garcia-Alonso, Lorena, 2020. "Analysis of port choice: A methodological proposal adjusted with public data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 178-193.
    19. Dhakal, Bhubaneswor & Yao, Richard T. & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim, 2012. "Recreational users' willingness to pay and preferences for changes in planted forest features," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 34-44.
    20. Chen, Gang & Ratcliffe, Julie & Milte, Rachel & Khadka, Jyoti & Kaambwa, Billingsley, 2021. "Quality of care experience in aged care: An Australia-Wide discrete choice experiment to elicit preference weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ehbiol:v:52:y:2024:i:c:s1570677x23001211. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622964 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.