How Sensitive are Environmental Values to Payment Card Design in Contingent Valuation?

References

1. 1. Ahi, Jülide Ceren,
   2. Margrethe Aanesen, and
   3. Gorm Kipperberg

   . 2023. ‘Testing the Sensitivity of Stated Environmental Preferences to Variations in Choice Architecture’. Ecological Economics 205 (March). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107680.
2. 1. Akinc, Deniz,
   2. Deborah J. Street, and
   3. Martina Vandebroek

   . 2024. ‘Varying Choice Set Sizes in Discrete Choice Experiments’. Journal of Choice Modelling 52 (September). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2024.100493.
3. 1. Alberini, Anna,
   2. Kevin Boyle, and
   3. Michael Welsh

   . 2003. ‘Analysis of Contingent Valuation Data with Multiple Bids and Response Options Allowing Respondents to Express Uncertainty’. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45:40–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00010-4.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
4. 1. Alevy, Jonathan E.,
   2. John A. List, and
   3. Wiktor L. Adamowicz

   . 2011. ‘How Can Behavioral Economics Inform Nonmarket Valuation? An Example from the Preference Reversal Literature’. Land Economics 87 (3): 365–81. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.87.3.365.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
5. 1. Ariely, Dan,
   2. George Loewenstein, and
   3. Drazen Prelec

   . 2003. ‘“Coherent Arbitrariness”: Stable Demand Curves without Stable Preferences’. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (1): 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360535153.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
6. 1. Bateman, Ian J.,
   2. Matthew Cole,
   3. Philip Cooper,
   4. Stavros Georgiou,
   5. David Hadley, and
   6. Gregory L. Poe

   . 2004. ‘On Visible Choice Sets and Scope Sensitivity’. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47 (1): 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00057-3.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
7. 1. Bateman, Ian J,
   2. Ian H Langford,
   3. R Kerry Turner,
   4. Ken G Willis, and
   5. Guy D Garrod

   . 1995. ‘Elicitation and Truncation Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies’. Ecological Economics 12:161–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(94)00044-V.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
8. 1. Bishop, Richard C.,
   2. Kevin J. Boyle,
   3. Richard T. Carson,
   4. David Chapman,
   5. W. Michael Hanemann,
   6. Barbara Kanninen,
   7. Raymond J. Kopp,
   8. Jon A. Krosnick,
   9. John List,
   10. Norman Meade,
   11. Robert Patterson,
   12. Stanley Presser,
   13. V. Kerry Smith,
   14. Roger Tourangeau,
   15. Michael Welsh,
   16. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,
   17. Matthew DeBell,
   18. Colleen Donovan,
   19. Matthew Konopka,
   20. Nora Scherer

   . 2017. ‘Putting a Value on Injuries to Natural Assets: The BP Oil Spill’. Science 356 (6335): 253–54. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam8124.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
9. 1. Blaine, Thomas W.,
   2. Frank R. Lichtkoppler,
   3. Keith R. Jones, and
   4. Randall H. Zondag

   . 2005. ‘An Assessment of Household Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling: A Comparison of Payment Card and Referendum Approaches’. Journal of Environmental Management 76 (1): 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.01.004.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 1. Börger, Tobias,
    2. Tenaw G. Abate,
    3. Margrethe Aanesen, and
    4. Ewa Zawojska

    . 2021. ‘Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation: Experimental Design Effects on Self-Reported Perceptions’. Land Economics 97 (2): 407–24. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.97.2.407.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
11. 1. Boyle, Kevin J.

    2003. ‘Contingent Valuation in Practice’. In A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, edited by Patricia A Champ and Thomas C Brown, 111–69. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
12. 1. Boyle, Kevin J,
    2. Richard C Bishop, and
    3. Michael P Welsh

    . 1985. ‘Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games’. Land Economics 61 (2): 188–94. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3145811.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
13. 1. Boyle, Kevin J,
    2. Hugh F Macdonald,
    3. Hsiang-Tai Cheng, and
    4. Daniel W Mccollum

    . 1998. ‘Bid Design and Yea Saying in Single-Bounded, Dichotomous-Choice Questions’. Land Economics 74 (1): 49–64. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3147212.

    OpenUrl
14. 1. Cameron, Trudy Ann, and
    2. Daniel D Huppert

    . 1989. ‘OLS versus ML Estimation of Non-Market Resource Values with Payment Card Interval Data’. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17:230–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(89)90018-1.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
15. 1. Carson, Richard T,
    2. Nicholas E Flores, and
    3. Norman F Meade

    . 2001. ‘Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence’. Environmental and Resource Economics 19:173–210. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011128332243.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
16. 1. Carson, R T,
    2. R C Mitchell,
    3. W M Hanemann,
    4. R J Kopp,
    5. S Presser, and
    6. P A Ruud

    . 1992. ‘A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill’. Munich. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/6984/.
17. 1. Carson, Richard T,
    2. Robert C Mitchell,
    3. Michael Hanemann,
    4. Raymond J Kopp,
    5. Stanley Presser, and
    6. Paul A Ruud

    . 2003. ‘Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill’. Environmental and Resource Economics 25:257–86. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024486702104.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
18. 1. Carson, Richard T, and
    2. Theodore Groves

    . 2007. ‘Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference’. Environmental and Resource Economics 37:181–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
19. 1. Carson, Richard T,
    2. Leanne Wilks, and
    3. David Imber

    . 1994. ‘Valuing the Preservation of Australia’s Kakadu Conservation Zone’. Oxford Economic Papers 46:727–49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2663496.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
20. 1. Carthy, Trevor,
    2. Susan Chilton,
    3. Judith Covey,
    4. Lorraine Hopkins,
    5. Michael Jones-Lee,
    6. Graham Loomes,
    7. Nick Pidgeon, and
    8. Anne Spencer

    . 1999. ‘On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 2-The CV/SG “Chained” Approach’. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17 (3): 187–213. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007782800868.

    OpenUrl
21. 1. Champ, Patricia A, and
    2. Richard C Bishop

    . 2006. ‘Is Willingness to Pay for a Public Good Sensitive to the Elicitation Format?’ Land Economics 82 (2): 162–73. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.82.2.162.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
22. 1. Champonnois, Victor,
    2. Olivier Chanel, and
    3. Khaled Makhloufi

    . 2018. ‘Reducing the Anchoring Bias in Multiple Question CV Surveys’. Journal of Choice Modelling 28 (September):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOCM.2018.04.005.

    OpenUrl
23. 1. Chanel, Olivier,
    2. Khaled Makhloufi, and
    3. Mohammad Abu-Zaineh

    . 2017. ‘Can a Circular Payment Card Format Effectively Elicit Preferences? Evidence From a Survey on a Mandatory Health Insurance Scheme in Tunisia’. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 15 (3): 385–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-016-0287-5.

    OpenUrlPubMed
24. 1. Chestnut, Lauraine G.,
    2. Robert D. Rowe, and
    3. William S. Breffle

    . 2012. ‘Economic Valuation of Mortality-Risk Reduction: Stated Preference Estimates from the United States and Canada’. Contemporary Economic Policy 30 (3): 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2011.00269.x.

    OpenUrl
25. 1. Clark, Jeremy, and
    2. Lana Friesen

    . 2008. ‘The Causes of Order Effects in Contingent Valuation Surveys: An Experimental Investigation’. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 56 (2): 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2007.12.005.

    OpenUrl
26. 1. Cooper, Joseph, and
    2. John Loomis

    . 1992. ‘Sensitivity of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates to Bid Design in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Models’. Land Economics 68 (2): 211–24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3146775.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
27. 1. Covey, Judith,
    2. Graham Loomes, and
    3. Ian J. Bateman

    . 2007. ‘Valuing Risk Reductions: Testing for Range Biases in Payment Card and Random Card Sorting Methods’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (4): 467–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560701401986.

    OpenUrl
28. 1. Dietz, Thomas,
    2. Paul C Stern, and
    3. Amy Dan

    . 2009. ‘How Deliberation Affects Stated Willingness to Pay for Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Experiment’. Land Economics 85 (2): 329–47. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/466902/summaryhttps://muse.jhu.edu/related_content?type=article&id=466902.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
29. 1. Dubourg, W R,
    2. M W Jones-Lee, and
    3. Graham Loomes

    . 1997. ‘Imprecise Preferences and Survey Design in Contingent Valuation’. Economica 64:681–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0335.00106.

    OpenUrl
30. 1. Epley, Nicholas, and
    2. Thomas Gilovich

    . 2006. ‘The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic: Why the Adjustments Are Insufficient’. Psychological Science 17 (4): 311–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 1. Faccioli, Michela, and
    2. Klaus Glenk

    . 2022. ‘More in Good Condition or Less in Bad Condition? Valence-Based Framing Effects in Environmental Valuation’. Land Economics 98 (2): 314–36. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.98.2.051920-0067R1.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
32. 1. Faul, Franz,
    2. Edgar Erdfelder,
    3. Albert-Georg Lang, and
    4. Axel Buchner

    . 2007. ‘G*Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences’. Behavior Research Methods 39 (2): 175–91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
33. 1. Fischhoff, Baruch.

    1991. ‘Value Elicitation. Is There Anything in There?’ American Psychologist 46 (8): 835–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.835.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
34. 1. Frew, Emma J.,
    2. David K. Whynes, and
    3. Jane L. Wolstenholme

    . 2003. ‘Eliciting Willingness to Pay: Comparing Closed-Ended with Open-Ended and Payment Scale Formats’. Medical Decision Making 23 (2): 150–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X03251245.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 1. Frew, Emma J.,
    2. Jane L. Wolstenholme, and
    3. David K. Whynes

    . 2004. ‘Comparing Willingness-to-Pay: Bidding Game Format versus Open-Ended and Payment Scale Formats’. Health Policy 68 (3): 289–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2003.10.003.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
36. 1. Frey, Ulrich J., and
    2. Frauke Pirscher

    . 2018. ‘Willingness to Pay and Moral Stance: The Case of Farm Animal Welfare in Germany’. PLoS ONE 13 (8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202193.
37. 1. Funder, David C., and
    2. Daniel J. Ozer

    . 2019. ‘Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense’. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 2 (2): 156–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
38. 1. Grant, Laura, and
    2. Christian Langpap

    . 2020. ‘Willingness to Contribute as a Component of the Social Cost of Water Pollution’. Land Economics 96 (4): 573–88. https://doi.org/10.3368/wple.96.4.573.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
39. 1. Green, Donald,
    2. Karen E Jacowitz,
    3. Daniel Kahneman, and
    4. Daniel Mcfadden

    . 1998. ‘Referendum Contingent Valuation, Anchoring, and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods’. Resource and Energy Economics 20:85–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0928-7655(97)00031-6.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
40. 1. Gregory, Robin,
    2. Sarah Lichtenstein, and
    3. Paul Slovic

    . 1993. ‘Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach’. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7:177–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01065813.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
41. 1. Harrison, Glenn W, and
    2. John A List

    . 2004. ‘Field Experiments’. Journal of Economic Literature 42 (4): 1009–55. https://doi.org/10.1257/0022051043004577.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
42. 1. Herriges, Joseph A, and
    2. Jason F Shogren

    . 1996. ‘Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning’. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30:112–31. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0008.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
43. 1. Holleman, Gijs A., Ignace
    2. T.C. Hooge,
    3. Chantal Kemner, and
    4. Roy S. Hessels

    . 2020. ‘The “Real-World Approach” and Its Problems: A Critique of the Term Ecological Validity’. Frontiers in Psychology 11 (April):1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00721.

    OpenUrlPubMed
44. 1. Holmes, Thomas P., and
    2. Randall A. Kramer

    . 1995. ‘An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation’. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29:121–32. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1035.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
45. 1. Jensen, Anne Kejser,
    2. Robert J. Johnston, and
    3. Søren B. Olsen

    . 2019. ‘Does One Size Really Fit All? Ecological Endpoint Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Welfare Analysis’. Land Economics 95 (3): 307–32. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.95.3.307.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
46. 1. Jødestøl, Kjell Andreas,
    2. Bjørge Fredheim,
    3. Espen Edward Hoell,
    4. Sami Wakili,
    5. Jan Erik Vinnem,
    6. Arne Uno Myhrvold,
    7. Jon Rytter Hasle, and
    8. Gina Ytterborg

    . 2001. ‘Achieving an Industry Standard in the Assessment of Environmental Risk: Oil Spill Risk Management and the Mira Method’. In International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, 155–65. http://meridian.allenpress.com/iosc/article-pdf/2001/1/155/1747507/2169-3358-2001-1-155.pdf.
47. 1. Johnston, Robert J.,
    2. Kevin J. Boyle,
    3. Wiktor Adamowicz,
    4. Jeff Bennet,
    5. Roy Brouwer,
    6. Trudy A. Cameron,
    7. W. Michael Hanemann,
    8. Nick Hanley,
    9. Mandy Ryan,
    10. Riccardo Scarpa,
    11. Roger Tourangeau,
    12. Christian A. Vossler

    . 2017. ‘Contemporary Guidance for SP Studies’. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4 (2): 319–405. https://doi.org/10.1086/691697.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
48. 1. Kahneman, Daniel,
    2. Ilana Ritov,
    3. Karen E Jacowitz, and
    4. Paul Grant

    . 1993. ‘Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Psychological Perspective’. Psychological Science 4 (5): 310–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00570.x.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
49. 1. Kanninen, Barbara J.

    1995. ‘Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation’. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28:114–25. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1008.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
50. 1. Kling, Catherine L.,
    2. Daniel J. Phaneuf, and
    3. Jinhua Zhao

    . 2012. ‘From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better than No Number?’ Journal of Economic Perspectives 26 (4): 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.3.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
51. 1. Li, Tongzhe,
    2. Jacob R. Fooks,
    3. Kent D. Messer, and
    4. Paul J. Ferraro

    . 2021. ‘A Field Experiment to Estimate the Effects of Anchoring and Framing on Residents’ Willingness to Purchase Water Runoff Management Technologies’. Resource and Energy Economics 63 (February):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESENEEC0.2019.07.001.

    OpenUrl
52. 1. Lichtenstein, Sarah, and
    2. Paul Slovic

    . 2009. ‘The Construction of Preference: An Overview’. In The Construction of Preference, edited by Sarah Lichtenstein and Paul Slovic, 1–40. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511618031.002.
53. 1. Lindhjem, Henrik,
    2. Kristin Magnussen,
    3. Ståle Navrud,
    4. Sofie Skjeflo, and
    5. Odd Willy Brude

    . 2016. ‘Verdsetting Av Miljørelatert Velferdstap Ved Oljeutslipp Fra Skip: Kalkulasjonspriser for Samfunnsøkonomiske Analyser’. Oslo.
54. 1. Lindhjem, Henrik, and
    2. Ståle Navrud

    . 2009. ‘Asking for Individual or Household Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods? : Implication for Aggregate Welfare Measures’. Environmental and Resource Economics 43 (1): 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9261-0.

    OpenUrl
55. 1. Lindhjem, Henrik, and
    2. Ståle Navrud

    . 2011. ‘Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes’. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 5 (4). https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000045.
56. 1. List, John A.

    2022. The Voltage Effect: How to Make Good Ideas Great and Great Ideas Scale. New York: Penguin Random House.
57. 1. Lusk, Jayson L, and
    2. F Bailey Norwood

    . 2009. ‘An Inferred Valuation Method’. Land Economics 85 (3): 500–514. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.85.3.500.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
58. 1. Luther, Zachary R.,
    2. Scott M. Swinton, and
    3. Braeden Van Deynze

    . 2022. ‘Potential Supply of Midwest Cropland for Conversion to In-Field Prairie Strips’. Land Economics 98 (2): 274–91. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.98.2.082020-0129R1.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
59. 1. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre,
    2. Romain Crastes dit Sourd,
    3. Pascal Gastineau,
    4. Benoît Chèze, and
    5. Andrea Taylor

    . 2024. ‘How Does the Cost Vector Affect Payment Consequentiality in a Binary Choice Contingent Valuation Survey?’ Land Economics 100 (2): 245–55. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.100.2.111821-0135r1.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
60. 1. Maineri, Angelica M.,
    2. Ivano Bison, and
    3. Ruud Luijkx

    . 2021. ‘Slider Bars in Multi-Device Web Surveys’. Social Science Computer Review 39 (4): 573–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319879132.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
61. 1. McCloskey, Deirdre N, and
    2. Stephen T Ziliak

    . 1996. ‘The Standard Error of Regressions’. Journal of Economic Literature 34 (1): 97–114. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2729411.

    OpenUrlWeb of Science
62. 1. McEwan, Bree.

    2020. ‘Sampling and Validity’. Annals of the International Communication Association 44 (3): 235–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1792793.

    OpenUrl
63. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9797-5.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
64. 1. Mitchell, Robert C, and
    2. Richard T Carson

    . 1981. ‘An Experiment In Determining Willingness To Pay For National Water Quality Improvements’. Washington, D.C.
65. 1. Mitchell, Robert C., and
    2. Richard T. Carson

    . 1989. ‘Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method’. In. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
66. 1. Morales, Andrea C.,
    2. On Amir, and
    3. Leonard Lee

    . 2017. ‘Keeping It Real in Experimental Research-Understanding When, Where, and How to Enhance Realism and Measure Consumer Behavior’. Journal of Consumer Research 44 (2): 465–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx048.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
67. 1. Navrud, Ståle,
    2. Henrik Lindhjem, and
    3. Kristin Magnussen

    . 2017. ‘Valuing Marine Ecosystem Services Loss from Oil Spills for Use in Cost-Benefit Analysis of Preventive Measures’. In Handbook on the Economics and Management for Sustainable Oceans, 124–37. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
68. 1. Ndambiri, Hilary,
    2. Roy Brouwer, and
    3. Eric Mungatana

    . 2016. ‘Comparing Welfare Estimates across Stated Preference and Uncertainty Elicitation Formats for Air Quality Improvements in Nairobi, Kenya’. Environment and Development Economics 21 (5): 649–68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X15000455.

    OpenUrl
69. 1. Ndambiri, Hilary,
    2. Eric Mungatana, and
    3. Roy Brouwer

    . 2017. ‘Scope Effects of Respondent Uncertainty in Contingent Valuation: Evidence from Motorized Emission Reductions in the City of Nairobi, Kenya’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 60 (1): 22–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1140024.

    OpenUrl
70. 1. Payne, John W,
    2. James R Bettman, and
    3. Eric J Johnson

    . 1992. ‘Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Perspective’. Annual Review of Psychology 43:87–131. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.000511.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
71. 1. Powe, N. A., and
    2. I. J. Bateman

    . 2003. ‘Ordering Effects in Nested “Top-Down” and “Bottom-Up” Contingent Valuation Designs’. Ecological Economics 45 (2): 255–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00084-3.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
72. 1. Ready, Richard C,
    2. Ståle Navrud, and
    3. W Richard Dubourg

    . 2001. ‘How Do Respondents with Uncertain Willingness to Pay Answer Contingent Valuation Questions?’ Land Economics 77 (3): 315–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/3147126.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
73. 1. Reaves, Dixie Watts,
    2. Randall A Kramer, and
    3. Thomas P Holmes

    . 1999. ‘Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species’. Environmental and Resource Economics 14:365–83. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008320621720.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
74. 1. Roach, Brian,
    2. Kevin J. Boyle, and
    3. Michael Welsh

    . 2002. ‘Testing Bid Design Effects in Multiple-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions’. Land Economics 78 (1): 121–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146927.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
75. 1. Rowe, Robert D,
    2. William D Schulze, and
    3. William S Breffle

    . 1996. ‘A Test for Payment Card Biases’. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31:178–85. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0039.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
76. 1. Ryan, Mandy,
    2. David A. Scott, and
    3. Cam Donaldson

    . 2004. ‘Valuing Health Care Using Willingness to Pay: A Comparison of the Payment Card and Dichotomous Choice Methods’. Journal of Health Economics 23 (2): 237–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2003.09.003.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
77. 1. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke,
    2. Margrethe Aanesen, and
    3. Ståle Navrud

    . 2016. ‘Valuing Unfamiliar and Complex Environmental Goods: A Comparison of Valuation Workshops and Internet Panel Surveys with Videos’. Ecological Economics 129 (September):50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.008.

    OpenUrl
78. 1. Schläpfer, Felix, and
    2. Michael Getzner

    . 2020. ‘Beyond Current Guidelines: A Proposal for Bringing Behavioral Economics to the Design and Analysis of Stated Preference Surveys’. Ecological Economics 176 (October). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106720.
79. 1. Schwarz, Norbert.

    1997. ‘Cognition, Communication, and Survey Measurement: Some Implications for Contingent Valuation Surveys’. In Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods, edited by Raymond J. Kopp, Werner W. Pommerehne, and Norbert Schwarz, 165–88. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
80. 1. Shackley, Phil, and
    2. Simon Dixon

    . 2014. ‘The Random Card Sort Method and Respondent Certainty in Contingent Valuation: An Exploratory Investigation of Range Bias’. Health Economics (United Kingdom) 23 (10): 1213–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.2980.

    OpenUrl
81. 1. Skeie, M.A.,
    2. H. Lindhjem,
    3. S. Skjeflo, and
    4. S. Navrud

    . 2019. ‘Smartphone and Tablet Effects in Contingent Valuation Web Surveys – No Reason to Worry?’ Ecological Economics 165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106390.
82. 1. Slovic, Paul.

    1995. ‘The Construction of Preference’. American Psychologist 50 (5): 364–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.5.364.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
83. 1. Smith, Richard D.

    2006. ‘It’s Not Just What You Do, It’s the Way That You Do It: The Effect of Different Payment Card Formats and Survey Administration on Willingness to Pay for Health Gain’. Health Economics 15 (3): 281–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1055.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
84. 1. Soeteman, Lotte,
    2. Job van Exel, and
    3. Ana Bobinac

    . 2017. ‘The Impact of the Design of Payment Scales on the Willingness to Pay for Health Gains’. European Journal of Health Economics 18 (6): 743–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0825-y.

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

    . 1974. ‘Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases’. Science 185 (4157): 1124–31. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.112.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
86. 1. Ungemach, Christoph,
    2. Adrian R. Camilleri,
    3. Eric J. Johnson,
    4. Richard P. Larrick, and
    5. Elke U. Weber

    . 2018. ‘Translated Attributes as Choice Architecture: Aligning Objectives and Choices through Decision Signposts’. Management Science 64 (5): 2445–59. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2703.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
87. 1. Veisten, Knut,
    2. Hans Fredrik Hoen,
    3. Ståle Navrud, and
    4. Jon Strand

    . 2004. ‘Scope Insensitivity in Contingent Valuation of Complex Environmental Amenities’. Journal of Environmental Management 73:317–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.008.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
88. 1. Verbeek, Marno.

    2017. A Guide to Modern Econometrics. 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
89. 1. Veronesi, Marcella,
    2. Anna Alberini, and
    3. Joseph C. Cooper

    . 2011. ‘Implications of Bid Design and Willingness-To-Pay Distribution for Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys’. Environmental and Resource Economics 49 (2): 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9430-1.

    OpenUrl
90. 1. Voltaire, Louinord,
    2. P. Wilner Jeanty,
    3. Claudio Pirrone, and
    4. Pierre Alexandre Mahieu

    . 2019. ‘A Convergent Validity Test within the Payment Card Format Using Simulation Techniques’. Applied Economics 51 (34): 3770–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2019.1584382.

    OpenUrl
91. 1. Vossler, Christian A., and
    2. J. Scott Holladay

    . 2018. ‘Alternative Value Elicitation Formats in Contingent Valuation: Mechanism Design and Convergent Validity’. Journal of Public Economics 165 (September):133–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.07.004.

    OpenUrl
92. 1. Vossler, Christian A, and
    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. https://doi.org/10.1086/706645.

    OpenUrl
93. 1. Wang, Hua.

    1997. ‘Treatment of “‘Don’t-Know’” Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model’. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32:219–32. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0965.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
94. 1. Wang, Hua,
    2. Jie He,
    3. Yoonhee Kim, and
    4. Takuya Kamata

    . 2013. ‘Willingness-to-Pay for Water Quality Improvements in Chinese Rivers: An Empirical Test on the Ordering Effects of Multiple-Bounded Discrete Choices’. Journal of Environmental Management 131 (December):256–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.07.034.

    OpenUrlPubMed
95. 1. Wang, Hua, and
    2. Dale Whittington

    . 2005. ‘Measuring Individuals’ Valuation Distributions Using a Stochastic Payment Card Approach’. Ecological Economics 55 (2): 143–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.11.011.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
96. 1. Welsh, Michael P., and
    2. Gregory L. Poe

    . 1998. ‘Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach’. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36 (2). https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1998.1043.
97. 1. Whitehead, John C.

    2002. ‘Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions’. Land Economics 78 (2): 285–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/3147274.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
98. 1. Zawojska, Ewa,
    2. Malte Welling, and
    3. Julian Sagebiel

    . 2024. ‘Effects of Varying the Location of Perceived Consequentiality Elicitation in a Discrete Choice Experiment Survey’. Land Economics 100 (2): 223–44. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.100.2.040320-0048R1.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
99. 1. Zhang, Jing, and
    2. Wiktor L Adamowicz

    . 2011. ‘Unraveling the Choice Format Effect: A Context-Dependent Random Utility Model’. Land Economics 87 (4): 730–43. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.87.4.730.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text