School of Economics, Universidad Del Rosario, Bogota DC, Colombia.
Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Social Protection and Health Division, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington DC, United States.
Soc Sci Med. 2024 Aug;354:117069. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117069. Epub 2024 Jun 22.
Despite progress made by many countries on the adoption of plain tobacco packaging laws over the last years, low- and middle-income countries, with a large supply of loose cigarettes via informal vendors, remain far behind.
To study the potential effectiveness of plain tobacco packaging and dissuasive cigarette sticks, via willingness-to-pay estimates, when illicit cigarette options are available.
We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in which respondents chose licit and illicit products with three attributes: packaging (standard vs. plain packaging), stick design (branded stick vs. stick with warning), and price level. The sample, collected on 12/2021, consisted of 1761 respondents from an internet panel involving smokers and nonsmokers. Conditional logit and latent class models were used to estimate the willingness-to-pay (WTP) to avoid restrictive packaging elements.
Nonsmokers are willing to pay USD $5.63 for a pack of cigarettes to avoid plain packaging, which is higher than the actual commercial price of illicit cigarettes (USD $2.40). The WTP increases to USD $12.14 in the presence of illicit alternatives. Smokers are also willing to pay to avoid illicit options, which they also deem riskier, and the presence of such options increases the WTP to avoid plain packaging. However, nonsmokers do not perceive the illicit option as riskier. The dissuasive stick (stick with warning) does not affect perceptions of risk and plays a small role in terms of choice for both smokers and nonsmokers.
Even in the presence of illicit tobacco alternatives, plain packaging seems to be as effective in reducing the attractiveness of tobacco products in Colombia as in other countries that have already adopted it. Given conflicting results on the case for dissuasive sticks, there is a need for more research.
尽管近年来许多国家在采用普通烟草包装法方面取得了进展，但在通过非正规供应商大量供应散装香烟的中低收入国家，这方面仍远远落后。
通过支付意愿估计，研究在存在非法卷烟选择时，普通烟草包装和劝阻卷烟棒的潜在效果。
我们进行了一项离散选择实验（DCE），其中受访者选择合法和非法产品，这些产品有三个属性：包装（标准包装与普通包装）、烟支设计（有品牌的烟支与有警示语的烟支）和价格水平。样本于 2021 年 12 月通过互联网小组收集，由 1761 名吸烟者和非吸烟者组成。使用条件逻辑回归和潜在类别模型来估计避免限制包装元素的支付意愿（WTP）。
非吸烟者愿意为一包香烟支付 5.63 美元，以避免普通包装，这高于非法卷烟的实际商业价格（2.40 美元）。在存在非法替代品的情况下，WTP 增加到 12.14 美元。吸烟者也愿意支付以避免非法选择，他们也认为这些选择风险更大，而存在这些选择会增加他们避免普通包装的支付意愿。然而，非吸烟者并不认为非法选择风险更大。劝阻烟支（有警示语的烟支）并不会影响对风险的认知，而且对吸烟者和非吸烟者的选择影响都很小。
即使存在非法烟草替代品，普通包装在减少哥伦比亚烟草产品吸引力方面似乎与已经采用普通包装的其他国家一样有效。鉴于劝阻烟支的案例结果相互矛盾，需要进行更多的研究。
