IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0283131.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Amalie Bjørnåvold
  • Maia David
  • Vincent Mermet-Bijon
  • Olivier Beaumais
  • Romain Crastes dit Sourd
  • Steven Van Passel
  • Vincent Martinet

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Amalie Bjørnåvold & Maia David & Vincent Mermet-Bijon & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes dit Sourd & Steven Van Passel & Vincent Martinet, 2023. "To tax or to ban? A discrete choice experiment to elicit public preferences for phasing out glyphosate use in agriculture," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-12, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0283131
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283131
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0283131
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0283131&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0283131?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Danne, M. & Musshoff, O. & Schulte, M., 2019. "Analysing the importance of glyphosate as part of agricultural strategies: A discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 189-207.
    2. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini, 2017. "Effectiveness, earmarking and labeling: testing the acceptability of carbon taxes with survey data," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(1), pages 197-227, January.
    3. Raja Chakir & Maia David & Estelle Gozlan & Aminata Sangare, 2016. "Valuing the Impacts of An Invasive Biological Control Agent: A Choice Experiment on the Asian Ladybird in France," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(3), pages 619-638, September.
    4. Bjørnåvold, Amalie & David, Maia & Bohan, David A. & Gibert, Caroline & Rousselle, Jean-Marc & Van Passel, Steven, 2022. "Why does France not meet its pesticide reduction targets? Farmers' socio-economic trade-offs when adopting agro-ecological practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    5. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    6. Ali Chalak & Kelvin Balcombe & Alastair Bailey & Iain Fraser, 2008. "Pesticides, Preference Heterogeneity and Environmental Taxes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 537-554, September.
    7. Stefano Carattini & Maria Carvalho & Sam Fankhauser, 2018. "Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(5), September.
    8. Theodoros Skevas, 2020. "Evaluating alternative policies to reduce pesticide groundwater pollution in Dutch arable farming," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(4), pages 733-750, March.
    9. Schuitema, Geertje & Steg, Linda & Forward, Sonja, 2010. "Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 99-109, February.
    10. Zilberman, David & Millock, Katti, 1997. "Pesticide Use And Regulation: Making Economic Sense Out Of An Externality And Regulation Nightmare," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-12, December.
    11. Travisi, Chiara Maria & Nijkamp, Peter, 2008. "Valuing environmental and health risk in agriculture: A choice experiment approach to pesticides in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 598-607, November.
    12. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    13. Finger, Robert & Möhring, Niklas & Dalhaus, Tobias & Böcker, Thomas, 2017. "Revisiting Pesticide Taxation Schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 263-266.
    14. Stefano Carattini & Steffen Kallbekken & Anton Orlov, 2019. "How to win public support for a global carbon tax," Nature, Nature, vol. 565(7739), pages 289-291, January.
    15. Sara Maestre-Andrés & Stefan Drews & Jeroen van den Bergh, 2020. "Perceived fairness and public acceptability of carbon pricing: a review of the literature," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(9), pages 1186-1204, July.
    16. Rivlin, Alice M, 1989. "The Continuing Search for a Popular Tax," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(2), pages 113-117, May.
    17. Dresner, Simon & Dunne, Louise & Clinch, Peter & Beuermann, Christiane, 2006. "Social and political responses to ecological tax reform in Europe: an introduction to the special issue," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 895-904, May.
    18. Baumgärtner, Stefan & Drupp, Moritz A. & Meya, Jasper N. & Munz, Jan M. & Quaas, Martin F., 2017. "Income inequality and willingness to pay for environmental public goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 35-61.
    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. Sommer, Stephan & Mattauch, Linus & Pahle, Michael, 2022. "Supporting carbon taxes: The role of fairness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    2. Umit, Resul & Schaffer, Lena Maria, 2020. "Attitudes towards carbon taxes across Europe: The role of perceived uncertainty and self-interest," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    3. Hammerle, Mara & Best, Rohan & Crosby, Paul, 2021. "Public acceptance of carbon taxes in Australia," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    4. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    5. Ewald, Jens & Sterner, Thomas & Sterner, Erik, 2022. "Understanding the resistance to carbon taxes: Drivers and barriers among the general public and fuel-tax protesters," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    6. Daniele Malerba, 2022. "The Effects of Social Protection and Social Cohesion on the Acceptability of Climate Change Mitigation Policies: What Do We (Not) Know in the Context of Low- and Middle-Income Countries?," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(3), pages 1358-1382, June.
    7. Moeinaddini, Amin & Habibian, Meeghat, 2024. "Acceptability of transportation demand management policy packages considering interactions and socio-economic heterogeneity," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    8. Stefano Carattini & Maria Carvalho & Sam Fankhauser, 2018. "Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(5), September.
    9. Sverker C. Jagers & Erick Lachapelle & Johan Martinsson & Simon Matti, 2021. "Bridging the ideological gap? How fairness perceptions mediate the effect of revenue recycling on public support for carbon taxes in the United States, Canada and Germany," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 529-554, September.
    10. Finger, Robert & Sok, Jaap & Ahovi, Emmanuel & Akter, Sharmin & Bremmer, Johan & Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, Silke & de Lauwere, Carolien & Kreft, Cordelia & Kudsk, Per & Lambarraa-Lehnhardt, Fatima & McCallum, 2024. "Towards sustainable crop protection in agriculture: A framework for research and policy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    11. Douenne, Thomas & Fabre, Adrien, 2020. "French attitudes on climate change, carbon taxation and other climate policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    12. Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline, 2022. "Rendre acceptable la nécessaire taxation du carbone. Quelles pistes pour la France ?," Revue de l'OFCE, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(1), pages 15-53.
    13. Sara Maestre-Andrés & Stefan Drews & Ivan Savin & Jeroen Bergh, 2021. "Carbon tax acceptability with information provision and mixed revenue uses," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    14. Yoon, Yeochang, 2023. "Improving social acceptance for carbon taxation in South Korea," KDI Journal of Economic Policy, Korea Development Institute (KDI), vol. 45(2), pages 1-20.
    15. Dütschke, Elisabeth & Preuß, Sabine & Brunzema, Iska & Piria, Raffaele, 2023. "Using the revenues from carbon pricing - Insights into the acceptance and perceptions of particularly burdened groups," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    16. Siegerink, Veerle E. & Delnoij, Joyce & Alpizar, Francisco, 2024. "Public preferences for meat tax attributes in The Netherlands: A discrete choice experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    17. Sterner, Thomas & Ewald, Jens & Sterner, Erik, 2024. "Economists and the climate," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Adrien Fabre & Tobias Kruse & Bluebery Planterose & Ana Sanchez Chico & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2025. "Fighting Climate Change: International Attitudes toward Climate Policies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 115(4), pages 1258-1300, April.
    19. Thomas Douenne & Adrien Fabre, 2019. "Can We Reconcile French People with the Carbon Tax? Disentangling Beliefs from Preferences," Policy Papers 2019.05, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    20. Baranzini, Andrea & Borzykowski, Nicolas & Carattini, Stefano, 2018. "Carbon offsets out of the woods? Acceptability of domestic vs. international reforestation programmes in the lab," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-12.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0283131. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.