More in Good Condition or Less in Bad Condition? Valence-Based Framing Effects in Environmental Valuation

References

1. ↵
   1. Arrow Kenneth,
   2. Solow Robert,
   3. Portney Paul R.,
   4. Leamer Edward E.,
   5. Radner Roy,
   6. Schuman Howard

   . 1993. “Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.” Federal Register 58 (10): 4601–14.

   OpenUrl
2. ↵
   1. Avineri Erel,
   2. Owen E.,
   3. Waygood D.

   . 2013. “Applying Valence Framing to Enhance the Effect of Information on Transport-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 48: 31–38.

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   1. Bain C. G.,
   2. Bonn A.,
   3. Stoneman R.,
   4. Chapman S.,
   5. Coupar A.,
   6. Evans M.,
   7. Gearey B.,
   8. et al

   . 2011. Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands. Edinburgh, UK: IUCN UK Peatland Programme.
4. ↵
   1. Bateman Ian J.,
   2. Day Brett H.,
   3. Jones Andrew P.,
   4. Jude Simon

   . 2009. “Reducing Gain-Loss Asymmetry: A Virtual Reality Choice Experiment Valuing Land Use Change.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58 (1): 106–18.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
5. ↵
   1. Bateman Ian J.,
   2. Day Brett H.,
   3. Stavros Georgiou,
   4. Lake Iain

   . 2006. “The Aggregation of Environmental Benefit Values: Welfare Measures, Distance Decay and Total WTP.” Ecological Economics 60 (2): 450–60.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
6. ↵
   1. Bateman Ian J.,
   2. Munro Alistair

   . 2009. “Household versus Individual Valuation: What’s the Difference?” Environmental and Resource Economics 43 (1): 119–35.

   OpenUrl
7. ↵
   1. Bennett Jeff,
   2. Blamey Russell

   , eds. 2001. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
8. ↵
   1. Bergstrom John C.,
   2. Stoll John R.,
   3. Randall Alan

   . 1989. “Information Effects in Contingent Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 (3): 685–91.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
9. ↵
   1. Bergstrom John C.,
   2. Stoll John R.,
   3. Randall Alan

   . 1990. “The Impact of Information on Environmental Commodity Valuation Decisions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72 (3): 614–21.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
10. ↵
    1. Boyle Kevin J.

    1989. “Commodity Specification and the Framing of Contingent-Valuation Questions.” Land Economics 65 (1): 57–63.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
11. ↵
    1. Boyle Kevin J.,
    2. Morrison Mark,
    3. Macdonald Darla Hatton,
    4. Duncan Roderick,
    5. Rose John

    . 2016. “Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames.” Environmental and Resource Economics 64 (3): 401–19.

    OpenUrl
12. ↵
    1. Bruneau Patricia M. C.,
    2. Johnson Sally M.

    . 2014. Scotland’s Peatland: Definitions & Information Resources. Commissioned Report 701. Edinburgh, UK: NatureScot. Available at https://www.nature.scot/doc/naturescot-commissioned-report-701-scotlands-peatland-definitions-and-information-resources.
13. ↵
    1. Bulte Erwin,
    2. Gerking Shelby,
    3. List John A.,
    4. Zeeuw Aart de

    . 2005. “The Effect of Varying the Causes of Environmental Problems on Stated WTP Values: Evidence from a Field Study.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 49 (2): 330–42.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
14. ↵
    1. Campbell Danny,
    2. Hensher David A.,
    3. Scarpa Riccardo

    . 2011. “Non-attendance to Attributes in Environmental Choice Analysis: A Latent Class Specification.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54 (8): 1061–76.

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Caussade Sebastián,
    2. Ortúzar Juan de Dios,
    3. Rizzi Luis I.,
    4. Hensher David A.

    . 2005. “Assessing the Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choice Experiment Estimates.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 39 (7): 621–40.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
16. ↵
    1. Cerda Arcadio A.,
    2. Garcia Leidy Y.,
    3. Pastén Roberto A.,
    4. Damino Iván A.,
    5. Diaz Mónica T.

    . 2014. “The Effects of Visual Information on Willingness to Pay for a Recreational Site Improvement in Chile.” Innovar 24 (53): 141–48.

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Chorus Caspar G.

    2010. “A New Model of Random Regret Minimization.” European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 10 (2): 181–96.

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Chorus Caspar G.

    2011. “Random Regret Minimization: An Overview of Model Properties and Empirical Evidence.” Transport Reviews 32 (1): 75–92.

    OpenUrl
19. ↵
    1. Cook Joseph,
    2. Jeuland Marc,
    3. Maskery Brian,
    4. Whittington Dale

    . 2012. “Giving Stated Preference Respondents ‘Time to Think’: Results from Four Countries.” Environmental and Resource Economics 51 (4): 473–96.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
20. ↵
    1. Croson Rachel,
    2. Treich Nicolas

    . 2014. “Behavioural Environmental Economics: Promises and Challenges.” Environmental and Resource Economics 58: 335–51.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
21. 1. Czajkowski Mikołaj,
    2. Budziński Wiktor

    . 2019. “Simulation Error in Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Discrete Choice Models.” Journal of Choice Modelling 31: 73–85.

    OpenUrl
22. ↵
    1. Czajkowski Mikołaj,
    2. Hanley Nick,
    3. LaRiviere Jacob

    . 2014. “The Effects of Experience on Preferences: Theory and Empirics for Environmental Public Goods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 97 (1): 333–51.

    OpenUrl
23. ↵
    1. Czajkowski Mikołaj,
    2. Hanley Nick,
    3. LaRiviere Jacob

    . 2016. “Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model.” Environmental and Resource Economics 63 (3): 523–44.

    OpenUrl
24. ↵
    1. Day Brett,
    2. Bateman Ian J.,
    3. Carson Richard T.,
    4. Dupont Diane,
    5. Louviere Jordan J.,
    6. Morimoto Sanae,
    7. Scarpa Riccardo,
    8. Wang Paul

    . 2012. “Ordering Effects and Choice Set Awareness in Repeat-Response Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 63: 73–91.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
25. ↵
    1. DeShazo J. R.,
    2. Fermo German

    . 2002 “Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 (1): 123–43.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
26. ↵
    1. Dekker Thijs,
    2. Chorus Caspar G.

    . 2018. “Consumer Surplus for Random Regret Minimisation Models.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 7 (3): 269–86.

    OpenUrl
27. ↵
    eftec (Economics for the Environment Consultancy). 2015. The Economic Case for Investment in Natural Capital in England. Final Report for the Natural Capital Committee. London: eftec.
28. ↵
    1. Faccioli Michela,
    2. Kuhfuss Laure,
    3. Czajkowski Mikołaj

    . 2019. “Stated Preferences for Conservation Policies under Uncertainty: Insights on the Effect of Individuals’ Risk Attitudes in the Environmental Domain.” Environmental and Resource Economics 73 (2): 627–59.

    OpenUrl
29. ↵
    1. Ferretto Anna,
    2. Brooker Rob,
    3. Aitkenhead Matt,
    4. Matthews Robin,
    5. Smith Pete

    . 2019. “Potential Carbon Loss from Scottish Peatlands under Climate Change.” Regional Environmental Change 19 (7): 2101–11.

    OpenUrl
30. ↵
    1. Frisch Deborah

    . 1993. “Reasons for Framing Effects.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 54 (3): 399–429.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
31. ↵
    1. Gallego-Sala Angela V.,
    2. Clark Joanna M.,
    3. House Joanna I.,
    4. Orr Harriet G.,
    5. Prentice I. Colin,
    6. Smith Pete,
    7. Farewell Timothy,
    8. Chapman Stephen J.

    . 2010. “Bioclimatic Envelope Model of Climate Change Impacts on Blanket Peatland Distribution in Great Britain.” Climate Research 45: 151–62.

    OpenUrl
32. ↵
    1. Gallego-Sala Angela V.,
    2. Prentice I. Colin

    . 2013. “Blanket Peat Biome Endangered by Climate Change.” Nature Climate Change 3: 152–55.

    OpenUrl
33. ↵
    1. Gerlach Philipp,
    2. Jaeger Bastian

    . 2016. “Another Frame, Another Game? Explaining Framing Effects in Economic Games.” In Proceedings of Norms, Actions, Games (NAG 2016), edited by Hopfensitz Astrid, and Lorini Emiliano, 1–10. Toulouse, France: Institute for Advanced Studies.
34. ↵
    1. Glenk Klaus,
    2. Colombo Sergio

    . 2011. “How Sure Can You Be? A Framework for Considering Delivery Uncertainty in Benefit Assessments Based on Stated Preference Methods.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 62 (1): 25–46.

    OpenUrl
35. ↵
    1. Glenk Klaus,
    2. Colombo Sergio

    . 2013. “Modelling Outcome-Related Risk in Choice Experiments.” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 57 (4): 559–78.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
36. ↵
    1. Glenk Klaus,
    2. Martin-Ortega Julia

    . 2018. “The Economics of Peatland Restoration.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 7 (4): 345–62.

    OpenUrl
37. ↵
    1. Glenk Klaus,
    2. Martin-Ortega Julia,
    3. Pulido-Velazquez Manuel,
    4. Potts Jacqueline

    . 2015. “Inferring Attribute Non-attendance from Discrete Choice Experiments: Implications for Benefit Transfer.” Environmental and Resource Economics 60: 497–520.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
38. ↵
    1. Glenk Klaus,
    2. Meyerhoff Jürgen,
    3. Akaichi Faical,
    4. Martin-Ortega Julia

    . 2019. “Revisiting Cost Vector Effects in Discrete Choice Experiments.” Resource and Energy Economics 57: 135–55.

    OpenUrl
39. ↵
    1. Glenk Klaus,
    2. Novo Paula,
    3. Roberts Michaela,
    4. Sposato Matteo,
    5. Martin-Ortega Julia,
    6. Shirkhorshidi Mahboobeh,
    7. Potts Jacqueline

    . 2020. “The Costs of Peatland Restoration: Analysis of an Evolving Database Based on the Peatland Action Programme in Scotland.” Scottish Environment, Food and Agriculture Research Institutes report. Available at https://sefari.scot/document/the-costs-of-peatland-restoration-%E2%80%93-data-initial-analysis-2020.
40. ↵
    1. Günther Anke,
    2. Barthelmes Alexandra,
    3. Huth Vytas,
    4. Joosten Hans,
    5. Jurasinski Gerald,
    6. Koebsch Franziska,
    7. Couwenberg John

    . 2020. “Prompt Rewetting of Drained Peatlands Reduces Climate Warming Despite Methane Emissions.” Nature Communications 11: 1644.

    OpenUrl
41. ↵
    1. Hanley Nick,
    2. Boyce Christopher,
    3. Czajkowski Mikołaj,
    4. Tucker Steve,
    5. Noussair Charles,
    6. Townsend Michael

    . 2017. “Sad or Happy? The Effects of Emotions on Stated Preferences for Environmental Goods.” Environmental and Resource Economics 68 (4): 821–46.

    OpenUrl
42. ↵
    1. Hanley Nick,
    2. Czajkowski Mikołaj

    . 2019. “The Role of Stated Preference Valuation Methods in Understanding Choices and Informing Policy.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 13 (2): 248–66.

    OpenUrl
43. ↵
    1. Hassan Suziana,
    2. Olsen Søren Bøye,
    3. Thorsen Bo Jellesmark

    . 2018. “Appropriate Payment Vehicles in Stated Preference Studies in Developing Countries.” Environmental and Resource Economics 71: 1053–75.

    OpenUrl
44. ↵
    1. Hensher David A.

    2006. “How Do Respondents Process Stated Choice Experiments? Attribute Consideration under Varying Information Load.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 21 (6): 861–78.

    OpenUrl
45. ↵
    1. Hensher David A.,
    2. Greene William H.,
    3. Ho Chinh Q.

    . 2016. “Random Regret Minimization and Random Utility Maximization in the Presence of Preference Heterogeneity: An Empirical Contrast.” Journal of Transportation Engineering 142 (4): 04016009, 1–10.

    OpenUrl
46. ↵
    1. Hess Stephane,
    2. Daly Andrew,
    3. Dekker Thijs,
    4. Cabral Manuel Ojeda,
    5. Batley Richard

    . 2017. “A Framework for Capturing Heterogeneity, Heteroscedasticity, Non-linearity, Reference Dependence and Design Artefacts in Value of Time Research.” Transportation Research Part B 96: 126–49.

    OpenUrl
47. ↵
    1. H.M. Treasury

    . 2018. The Green Book. Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation.
48. ↵
    1. Hochman Guy,
    2. Yechiam Eldad

    . 2011. “Loss Aversion in the Eye and in the Heart: The Autonomic Nervous System’s Responses to Losses.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 24 (2): 140–56.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
49. ↵
    1. Hoehn John P.,
    2. Randall Alan

    . 2002. “The Effect of Resource Quality Information on Resource Injury Perceptions and Contingent Values.” Resource and Energy Economics 24 (1–2): 13–31.
50. ↵
    1. Ise Takeshi,
    2. Dunn Allison L.,
    3. Wofsy Steven C.,
    4. Moorcroft Paul R.

    . 2008. “High Sensitivity of Peat Decomposition to Climate Change through Water-Table Feedback.” Nature Geoscience 1: 763–66.

    OpenUrl
51. ↵
    1. Jin Wen,
    2. Jiang Hai,
    3. Liu Yimin,
    4. Klampfl Erica

    . 2017. “Do Labeled versus Unlabeled Treatments of Alternatives’ Names Influence Stated Choice Outputs? Results from a Mode Choice Study.” PLoS One 12 (8): e0178826.

    OpenUrl
52. ↵
    1. Johnston Robert J.,
    2. Boyle Kevin J.,
    3. Adamowicz Wiktor,
    4. Bennett Jeff,
    5. Brouwer Roy,
    6. Cameron Trudy Ann,
    7. Michael Hanemann W.,
    8. et al

    . 2017. “Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4 (2): 319–405.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
53. ↵
    1. Kahneman Daniel,
    2. Tversky Amos

    . 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47 (2): 263–91.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
54. ↵
    1. Knetsch Jack L.

    2010. “Values of Gains and Losses: Reference States and Choice of Measure.” Environmental and Resource Economics 46: 179–88.

    OpenUrl
55. ↵
    1. Kragt Marit E.

    2013. “The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity.” Environmental and Resource Economics 54: 201–21.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
56. ↵
    1. Kragt Marit E.,
    2. Bennett Jeffrey W.

    . 2012. “Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?” Environmental and Resource Economics 51 (1): 43–59.

    OpenUrl
57. ↵
    1. Le Coent Philippe,
    2. Préget Raphaële,
    3. Thoyer Sophie

    . 2017. “Compensating Environmental Losses versus Creating Environmental Gains: Implications for Biodiversity Offsets.” Ecological Economics 142: 120–29.

    OpenUrl
58. ↵
    1. Leifeld Jens,
    2. Wüst-Gallery Chloé,
    3. Page Susan

    . 2019. “Intact and Managed Peatland Soils as a Source and Sinks of GHGs from 1850 to 2100.” Nature Climate Change 9: 945–47.

    OpenUrl
59. ↵
    1. Levin Irwin P.,
    2. Gaeth Gary J.

    . 1988. “How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information before and after Consuming the Product.” Journal of Consumer Research 15 (3): 374–78.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
60. ↵
    1. Levin Irwin P.,
    2. Schneider Sandra L.,
    3. Gaeth Gary J.

    . 1998. “All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76 (2): 149–88.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
61. ↵
    1. Liebe Ulf,
    2. Hundeshagen Cordula,
    3. Beyer Heiko,
    4. Cramon-Taubadel Stephan von

    . 2016. “Context Effects and the Temporal Stability of Stated Preferences.” Social Science Research 60: 135–47.

    OpenUrl
62. 1. Luisetti Tiziana,
    2. Bateman Ian J.,
    3. Turner R. Kerry

    . 2011. “Testing the Fundamental Assumption of Choice Experiments: Are Values Absolute or Relative?” Land Economics 87 (2): 284–96.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
63. ↵
    1. Lundhede Thomas Hedemark,
    2. Jacobsen Jette Bredahl,
    3. Hanley Nick,
    4. Strange Niels,
    5. Thorsen Bo Jellesmark

    . 2015. “Incorporating Outcome Uncertainty and Prior Outcome Beliefs in Stated Preferences.” Land Economics 91: 296–316.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
64. ↵
    1. Martin-Ortega Julia,
    2. Glenk Klaus,
    3. Byg Anja

    . 2017. “How to Make Complexity Look Simple? Conveying Ecosystem Restoration Complexity for Socio-economic Research and Public Engagement.” PLOS One 12: e0181686. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181686.

    OpenUrl
65. ↵
    1. Matthews Yvonne,
    2. Scarpa Riccardo,
    3. Marsh Dan

    . 2017. “Using Virtual Environments to Improve the Realism of Choice Experiments: A Case Study about Coastal Erosion Management.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 81: 193–208.

    OpenUrl
66. ↵
    1. McFadden Daniel

    . 1974. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” In Frontiers in Econometrics, edited by Zarembka Paul, 105–42. New York: Academic Press.
67. ↵
    1. McFadden Daniel,
    2. Train Kenneth

    . 2000. “Mixed MNL Models for Discrete Response.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 15 (5): 447–70.

    OpenUrl
68. ↵
    1. Meyerhoff Jürgen,
    2. Oehlmann Malte,
    3. Weller Priska

    . 2015. “The Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choices in an Environmental Context.” Environmental and Resource Economics 61 (3): 385–407.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
69. ↵
    1. Moxey Andrew,
    2. Moran Dominic

    . 2014. “UK Peatland Restoration: Some Economic Arithmetic.” Science of the Total Environment 484: 114–20.

    OpenUrl
70. ↵
    1. Murphy J. M.,
    2. Sexton D. M.,
    3. Jenkins G. J.,
    4. Boorman P. M.,
    5. Booth B. B.,
    6. Brown C. C.,
    7. Clark R. T.,
    8. et al

    . 2009. “UK Climate Projections Science Report: Climate Change Projections.” Working paper. Exeter, UK: Met Office Hadley Centre. Available at https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20181204111026/http://ukclimateprojections-ukcp09.metoffice.gov.uk/22530.
71. ↵
    NatureScot. 2015. Scotland’s National Peatland Plan: Working For Our Future. Edinburgh, UK: NatureScot. Available at https://www.nature.scot/doc/scotlands-national-peatland-plan-working-our-future.
72. ↵
    1. Needham Katherine,
    2. Czajkowski Mikołaj,
    3. Hanley Nick,
    4. LaRiviere Jacob

    . 2018. “What Is the Causal Impact of Information and Knowledge in Stated Preference Studies?” Resource and Energy Economics 54: 69–89.

    OpenUrl
73. ↵
    1. Page Susan E.,
    2. Baird A. J.

    . 2016. “Peatlands and Global Change: Response and Resilience.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41: 35–57.

    OpenUrl
74. ↵
    1. Pleger Lyn E.,
    2. Lutz Philipp,
    3. Sager Fritz

    . 2018. “Public Acceptance of Incentive-Based Spatial Planning Policies: A Framing Experiment.” Land Use Policy 73: 225–38.

    OpenUrl
75. ↵
    1. Rolfe John,
    2. Bennett Jeff,
    3. Louviere Jordan

    . 2002. “Stated Values and Reminders of Substitute Goods: Testing for Framing Effects with Choice Modelling.” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 46 (1): 1–20.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
76. ↵
    1. Rolfe John,
    2. Windle Jill

    . 2015. “Do Respondents Adjust Their Expected Utility in the Presence of an Outcome Certainty Attribute in a Choice Experiment?” Environmental and Resource Economics 60 (1): 125–42.

    OpenUrl
77. ↵
    1. Rotherham Ian D.

    2011. Peat and Peat Cutting. Oxford, UK: Shire Library.
78. ↵
    1. Rozin Paul,
    2. Royzman Edward B.

    . 2001. “Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 5 (4): 296–320.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
79. ↵
    1. Samples Karl C.,
    2. Dixon John A.,
    3. Gowen Marcia M.

    . 1986. “Information Disclosure and Endangered Species Valuation.” Land Economics 62 (3): 306–12.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
80. ↵
    1. Schaafsma Marije,
    2. Brouwer Roy

    . 2013. “Testing Geographical Framing and Substitution Effects in Spatial Choice Experiments.” Journal of Choice Modelling 8: 32–48.

    OpenUrl
81. ↵
    1. Scheufele Dietram A.,
    2. Iyengar Shanto

    . 2017. “The State of Framing Research: A Call for New Directions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication, edited by Kenski Kate, and Jamieson Kathleen Hall, 619–32. New York: Oxford University Press.
82. ↵
    Scottish Government. 2018. Scotland’s People Annual Report 2017: A National Statistics Publication for Scotland. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Household Survey Project Team, Scottish Government.
83. ↵
    1. Spash Clive L.

    2007. “Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV): Issues in Combining Economic and Political Processes to Value Environmental Change.” Ecological Economics 63: 690–99.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
84. ↵
    1. Sudgen Robert

    . 2005. “Coping with Preference Anomalies in Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Market-Simulation Approach.” Environmental and Resource Economics 32: 129–60.

    OpenUrl
85. ↵
    1. Swait Joffre,
    2. Louviere Jordan

    . 1993. “The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models.” Journal of Marketing Research 30 (3): 305–14.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
86. ↵
    1. Thiene Mara,
    2. Boeri Marco,
    3. Chorus Caspar G.

    . 2012. “Random Regret Minimization: Exploration of a New Choice Model for Environmental and Resource Economics.” Environmental and Resource Economics 51: 413–29.

    OpenUrl
87. ↵
    1. Thomadsen Raphael,
    2. Rooderkerk Robert P.,
    3. Amir On,
    4. Arora Neeraj,
    5. Bollinger Bryan,
    6. Hansen Karsten,
    7. John Leslie,
    8. et al

    . 2018. “How Context Affects Choice.” Customer Needs and Solutions 5 (1-2): 3–14.

    OpenUrl
88. ↵
    1. Tinch Dugald,
    2. Colombo Sergio,
    3. Hanley Nick

    . 2015. “The Impacts of Elicitation Context on Stated Preferences for Agricultural Landscapes.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1): 87–107.

    OpenUrl
89. ↵
    1. Tkac Jennifer

    . 1998. “Award-Winning Undergraduate Paper: The Effects of Information on Willingness-to-Pay Values of Endangered Species.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 (5): 1214–20.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
90. ↵
    1. Train Kenneth E.

    2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
91. ↵
    1. Tversky Amos,
    2. Kahneman Daniel

    . 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 211 (4481): 453–58.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
92. ↵
    1. van Cranenburgh Sander,
    2. Guevara Cristian Angelo,
    3. Chorus Caspar G.

    . 2015. “New Insights on Random Regret Minimization Models.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 74: 91–109.

    OpenUrl
93. ↵
    1. Vossler Christian A.,
    2. Zawojska Ewa

    . 2020. “Behavioral Drivers or Economic Incentives? Toward a Better Understanding of Elicitation Effects in Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 7 (2): 279–303.

    OpenUrl
94. ↵
    1. Wilson Dawn K.,
    2. Kaplan Robert M.,
    3. Schneiderman Lawrence J.

    . 1987. “Framing of Decisions and Selections of Alternatives in Health Care.” Social Behaviour 2 (1): 51–59.

    OpenUrlWeb of Science