More in good condition or less in bad condition? Valence-based framing effects in environmental valuation

References

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

   . 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58(10): 4601-4614

   OpenUrl
2. 1. Avineri, Erel, and
   2. E. Owen D. Waygood

   . 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. A. Bonn,
   3. R. Stoneman,
   4. S. Chapman,
   5. A. Coupar,
   6. M. Evans,
   7. B. Gearey,
   8. M. Howat,
   9. H. Joosten,
   10. C. Keenleyside,
   11. J. Labadz,
   12. R. Lindsay,
   13. N. Littlewood,
   14. P. Lunt,
   15. C.J. Miller,
   16. A. Moxey,
   17. H. Orr,
   18. M. Reed,
   19. P. Smith,
   20. V. Swales,
   21. D.B.A. Thompson,
   22. P.S. Thompson,
   23. R. Van de Noort,
   24. J.D. Wilson, and
   25. F. Worrall

   . 2011. IUCN UK Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands. Published by the IUCN UK Peatland Programme. Edinburgh, UK.
4. 1. Bateman, Ian J.,
   2. Brett H. Day,
   3. B.H.,
   4. Stavros Georgiou, and
   5. Iain Lake

   . 2006. “The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP.” Ecological Economics 60(2): 450-460.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
5. 1. Bateman, Ian J.,
   2. Brett H. Day,
   3. Andrew P. Jones, and
   4. Simon Jude

   . 2009. “Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58(1): 106-118.

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

   . 2009. “Household versus individual valuation: what’s the difference?” Environmental and Resource Economics 43(1): 119-135.

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

   , eds. 2001. The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Northampton, MA & Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
8. 1. Bergstrom, John C.,
   2. John R. Stoll, and
   3. Alan Randall

   , 1989. “Information effects in contingent markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71(3): 685-691.

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

   . 1990. “The impact of information on environmental commodity valuation decisions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(3): 614-621.

   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. Mark Morrison,
    3. Darla Hatton Macdonald,
    4. Roderick Duncan, and
    5. John Rose

    . 2016. Investigating internet and mail implementation of stated-preference surveys while controlling for differences in sample frames. Environmental and Resource Economics 64(3): 401-419.

    OpenUrl
12. 1. Bruneau, P.M.C., and
    2. S.M. Johnson

    . 2014. Scotland’speatland - definitions & information resources. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No 701.
13. 1. Bulte, Erwin,
    2. Shelby Gerking,
    3. John A. List, and
    4. Aart de Zeeuw

    . 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): 330-342.

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

    . 2011. “Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54(8): 1061-1076.

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

    . 2005. “Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates.” Transportation research part B: Methodological 39(7): 621-640.

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

    2014. “The effects of visual information on willingness to pay for a recreational site improvement in Chile.” Innovar 24(53): 141-148.

    OpenUrl
17. 1. Chorus, Caspar G.

    2010. “A new model of random regret minimization.” European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 10(2): 181-196.

    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. Marc Jeuland,
    3. Brian Maskery, and
    4. Dale Whittington

    . 2012. “Giving stated preference respondents “time to think”: results from four countries.” Environmental and Resource Economics. 5l(4): 473-496.

    OpenUrl
20. 1. Croson, Rachel, and
    2. Treich, Nicolas

    . 2014. “Behavioural environmental economics: promises and challenges.” Environonmental and Resource Economics 58: 335-351.

    OpenUrl
21. 1. Czajkowski, Mikołaj, and
    2. Budziński, Wiktor

    . 2019. “Simulation error in maximum likelihood estimation of discrete choice models.” Journal of Choice Modelling 3l: 73-85.

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

    . 2014. “The Effects of Experience on Preferences: Theory and Empirics for Environmental Public Goods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 97(1): 333-351.

    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): 523-544.

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

    . 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 IR.,
    2. German Fermo

    . 2002 “Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44(1):123-143.

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

    . 2018. “Consumer surplus for random regret minimisation models,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 7(3): 269-286.

    OpenUrl
27. 1. eftec

    , 2015. The Economic Case for Investment in Natural Capital in England: Final Report for the Natural Capital Committee
28. 1. Faccioli, Michela,
    2. Laure Kuhfuss, and
    3. Mikołaj Czajkowski

    . 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): 627-659.

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

    . 2019. “Potential carbon loss from Scottish peatlands under climate change,” Regional Environmental Change 19(7): 2101-2111.

    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. Joanna M. Clark,
    3. Joanna I. House,
    4. Harriet G. Orr,
    5. I. Colin Prentice,
    6. Pete Smith,
    7. Timothy Farewell, and
    8. Stephen J. Chapman

    . 2010. “Bioclimatic envelope model of climate change impacts on blanket peatland distribution in Great Britain,” Climate Research 45: 151-162.

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

    . 2013. “Blanket peat biome endangered by climate change.” Nature climate change 3: 152-155.

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

    . 2016. “Another frame, another game? Explaining framing effects in economic games.” In Proceedings of norms, actions, games (NAG 2016), ed. Astrid Hopfensitz, and Emiliano Lorini, 1-10. Toulouse: Institute for Advanced Studies.
34. 1. Glenk, Klaus, and
    2. Sergio Colombo

    . 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, and
    2. Sergio Colombo

    . 2013. “Modelling outcome-related risk in choice experiments.” The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 57(4): 559-578.

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

    . 2015. “Inferring attribute non-attendance from discrete choice experiments: implications for benefit transfer.” Environmental and Resource Economics 60: 497-520.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
37. 1. Glenk, Klaus, and
    2. Julia Martin-Ortega

    . 2018. “The economics of peatland restoration.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 7(4): 345-362.

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

    . 2019. “Revisiting cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments.” Resource and Energy Economics 57: 135-155.

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

    . 2020. The costs of peatland restoration. Analysis of an evolving database based on the Peatland Action Programme in Scotland. SEFARI report.
40. 1. Günther, Anke,
    2. Alexandra Barthelmes,
    3. Vytas Huth,
    4. Hans Joosten,
    5. Gerald Jurasinski,
    6. Franziska Koebsch, and
    7. John Couwenberg

    . 2020. “Prompt rewetting of drained peatlands reduces climate warming despite methane emissions.” Nature Communications 11, 1644.

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

    . 2017. “Sad or Happy? The effects of emotions on stated preferences for environmental goods.” Environmental and Resource Economics 68(4): 821-846.

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

    . 2019. “The role of stated preference valuation methods in understanding choices and informing policy.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 13(2): 248-266.

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

    . 2018. “Appropriate payment vehicles in stated preference studies in developing countries.” Environmental and Resource Economics 71: 1053-1075.

    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): 861-878.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
45. 1. Hensher, David A.,
    2. William H. Greene, and
    3. Chinh Q. Ho

    . 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. Andrew Daly,
    3. Thijs Dekker,
    4. Manuel Ojeda Cabral, and
    5. Richard Batley

    . 2017. “A framework for capturing heterogeneity, heteroscedasticity, non-linearity, reference dependence and design artefacts in value of time research,” Transportation Research Part B 96: 126-149.

    OpenUrl
47. 1. H.M. Treasury

    2018. The Green Book, Central Government guidance on appraisal and evaluation.
48. 1. Hochman, Guy, and
    2. Eldad Yechiam

    . 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): 140-156.

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

    . 2002. “The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values,” Resource and Energy Economics 24(1-2): 13-31.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
50. 1. Jin, Wen,
    2. Hai Jiang,
    3. Yimin Liu, and
    4. Erica Klampfl

    . 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
51. 1. Johnston Robert J.,
    2. Kevin J. Boyle,
    3. Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz,
    4. Jeff Bennett,
    5. Roy Brouwer,
    6. Trudy Ann Cameron,
    7. W. Michael Hanemann,
    8. Nick Hanley,
    9. Mandy Ryan,
    10. Riccardo Scarpa,
    11. Roger Tourangeau, and
    12. Christian A. Vossler

    . 2017. “Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies,” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4(2): 319-405.

    OpenUrl
52. 1. Kahneman, Daniel, and
    2. Amos Tversky

    . 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica 47 (2): 263-291.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
53. 1. Knetsch, Jack L.

    2010. “Values of gains and losses: reference states and choice of measure,” Environmental and Resource Economics 46:179-188.

    OpenUrl
54. 1. Kragt, Marit Ellen

    . 2013. “The effects of changing cost vectors on choices and scale heterogeneity,” Environmental and Resource Economics 54: 201-221.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
55. 1. Kragt, Marit E., and
    2. Jeffrey W. Bennett

    . 2012. “Attribute framing in choice experiments: how do attribute level descriptions affect value estimates?” Environmental and Resource Economics 51(1): 43-59.

    OpenUrl
56. 1. Ise, Takeshi,
    2. Allison L. Dunn,
    3. Steven C. Wofsy, and
    4. Paul R. Moorcroft

    . 2008. “High sensitivity of peat decomposition to climate change through water-table feedback,” Nature Geoscience 1: 763-766.

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

    . 2017. “Compensating environmental losses versus creating environmental gains: implications for biodiversity offsets,” Ecological Economics 142: 120-129.

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

    . 2019. “Intact and managed peatland soils as a source and sinks of GHGs from 1850 to 2100.” Nature Climate Change 9: 945-947.

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

    . 1988. “How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product,” Journal of consumer research 15(3): 374-378.

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

    . 1998. “All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects.” Organizational behavior and human decision processes 76(2): 149-188.

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

    . 2016. “Context effects and the temporal stability of stated preferences.” Social Science Research 60: 135-147.

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

    . 2011. “Testing the fundamental assumption of choice experiments: are values absolute or relative.” Land Economics 87(2):284-296.

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

    . 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. Klaus Glenk, and
    3. Anja Byg

    . 2017. “How to make complexity look simple? Conveying ecosystem restoration complexity for socio-economic research and public engagement.” PlosOne 12: e0181686.
65. 1. Matthews, Yvonne,
    2. Riccardo Scarpa, and
    3. Dan Marsh

    . 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, ed. Paul Zarembka, 105-142. New York: Academic Press.
67. 1. McFadden, Daniel, and
    2. Kenneth Train

    . 2000. “Mixed MNL models for discrete response.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 15(5):447-470.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
68. 1. Meyerhoff, Jürgen,
    2. Malte Oehlmann, and
    3. Priska Weller

    . 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, and
    2. Dominic Moran

    . 2014. “UK peatland restoration: some economic arithmetic.” Science of the Total Environment 484: 114-120.

    OpenUrl
70. 1. Murphy, J.M.,
    2. Sexton, D.M.,
    3. Jenkins, G.J.,
    4. Booth, B.B.,
    5. Brown, C.C.,
    6. Clark, R.T.,
    7. Collins, M.,
    8. Harris, G.R.,
    9. Kendon, E.J.,
    10. Betts, R.A.,
    11. Brown, S.J.,
    12. Humphrey, K.A.,
    13. McCarthy, M.P.,
    14. McDonald, R.E.,
    15. Stephens, A.,
    16. Wallace, C.,
    17. Warren, R.,
    18. Wilby, R., and
    19. Wood, R. A.

    2009. “UK Climate Projections Science Report: Climate change projections,” Working paper, Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter.
71. 1. Needham, Katherine,
    2. Czajkowski, Mikołaj,
    3. Hanley, Nick, and
    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
72. 1. Page, Susan E., and
    2. A.J. Baird

    . 2016. “Peatlands and global change: response and resilience,” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41: 35-57.

    OpenUrl
73. 1. Pleger, Lyn E.,
    2. Philipp Lutz, and
    3. Fritz Sager

    . 2018. “Public acceptance of incentive-based spatial planning policies: A framing experiment,” Land use policy 73: 225-238.

    OpenUrl
74. 1. Rolfe, John,
    2. Jeff Bennett, and
    3. Jordan Louviere

    . 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
75. 1. Rolfe, John, and
    2. Jill Windle

    . 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): 125-142.

    OpenUrl
76. 1. Rotherham, Ian D.

    2011. Peat and peat cutting, Oxford: Shire Library.
77. 1. Rozin, Paul, and
    2. Edward B. Royzman

    . 2001. Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and social psychology review 5(4): 296-320.

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

    . 1986. “Information disclosure and endangered species valuation,” Land Economics 62(3): 306-312.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
79. 1. Schaafsma, Marije, and
    2. Roy Brouwer

    . 2013. “Testing geographical framing and substitution effects in spatial choice experiments.” Journal of Choice Modelling 8: 32-48.

    OpenUrl
80. 1. Scheufeie, Dietram A., and
    2. Shanto Iyengar

    . 2012. “The state of framing research: A call for new directions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication Theories, ed. Kate Kenski and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. New York: Oxford University Press.
81. 1. Scottish Government

    . 2018. Scotland’s People Annual Report 2017. A National Statistics publication for Scotland.
82. 1. Scottish Natural Heritage

    . 2015. Scotland’s National Peatland Plan - Working for our future, Scottish Natural Heritage Report
83. 1. Spash, Clive L.

    2007. “Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change.” Ecological Economics 63: 690-699.

    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: 129-160.

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

    . 1993. “The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models.” Journal of Marketing Research 30(3): 305-314.

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

    . 2012. “Random Regret Minimization: Exploration of a New Choice Model for Environmental and Resource Economics.” Environmental and Resource Economics 51:413-429.

    OpenUrl
87. 1. Thomadsen, Raphael,
    2. Robert P. Rooderkerk,
    3. On Amir,
    4. Neeraj Arora,
    5. Bryan Bollinger,
    6. Karsten Hansen,
    7. Leslie John,
    8. Wendy Liu,
    9. Aner Sela,
    10. Vishal Singh,
    11. K. Sudhir, and
    12. Wendy Wood

    . 2018. “How context affects choice.” Customer Needs and Solutions 5(1-2): 3-14.

    OpenUrl
88. 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): 1214-1220.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
89. 1. Tinch, Dugald,
    2. Sergio Colombo, and
    3. Nick Hanley

    . 2015. “The impacts of elicitation context on stated preferences for agricultural landscapes,” Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(1): 87-107.

    OpenUrl
90. 1. Train, Kenneth E.

    2009. Discrete choice methods with simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
91. 1. Tversky, Amos, and
    2. Daniel Kahneman

    . 1981. “The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice,” Science 211(4481): 453-458.

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

    . 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. Ewa Zawojska

    . 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. Robert M. Kaplan, and
    3. Lawrence J. Schneiderman

    . 1987. “Framing of decisions and selections of alternatives in health care,” Social Behaviour 2(1): 51-59.

    OpenUrlWeb of Science