Exploring the Effects of Attribute Translation on Scope Sensitivity in Contingent Valuation

References

1. 1. Aanesen, M.,
   2. Falk-Andersson, J.,
   3. Vondolia, G. K.,
   4. Borch, T.,
   5. Navrud, S., &
   6. Tinch, D.

   (2018). Valuing coastal recreation and the visual intrusion from commercial activities in Arctic Norway. Ocean and Coastal Management, 153, 157-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.12.017

   OpenUrl
2. 1. Abate, T. G.,
   2. Börger, T.,
   3. Aanesen, M.,
   4. Falk-Andersson, J.,
   5. Wyles, K. J., &
   6. Beaumont, N.

   (2020). Valuation of marine plastic pollution in the European Arctic: Applying an integrated choice and latent variable model to contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106521
3. 1. Ahi, J. C.,
   2. Aanesen, M., &
   3. Kipperberg, G.

   (2023). Testing the sensitivity of stated environmental preferences to variations in choice architecture. Ecological Economics, 205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107680
4. 1. Alhassan, M.,
   2. Gustafson, C. R., &
   3. Schoengold, K.

   (2022). Effects of information on smallholder irrigation farmers’ willingness to pay for groundwater protection. Agricultural Economics (United Kingdom), 53(2), 191-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12695

   OpenUrl
5. 1. Andersson, H., &
   2. Svensson, M.

   (2014). Scale sensitivity and question order in the contingent valuation method. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(11), 1746-1761. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.839442

   OpenUrl
6. 1. Andrés, M.,
   2. Delpey, M.,
   3. Ruiz, I.,
   4. Declerck, A.,
   5. Sarrade, C.,
   6. Bergeron, P., &
   7. Basurko, O. C.

   (2021). Measuring and comparing solutions for floating marine litter removal: Lessons learned in the south-east coast of the Bay of Biscay from an economic perspective. Marine Policy, 127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104450
7. 1. Arrow, K.,
   2. Leamer, E. E.,
   3. Schuman, H., &
   4. Solow, R.

   (1994). “Comments of Proposed NOAA Scope Test.” Appendix D of Comments of Proposed NOAA/DOI Regulations on Natural Resource Damage Assessment.
8. 1. Arrow, K.,
   2. Solow, R.,
   3. Portney, P. R.,
   4. Leamer, E. E.,
   5. Radner, R., &
   6. Schuman, H.

   (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.
9. 1. Ashenfarb, M., &
   2. Kotchen, M. J.

   (2025). A Method for Deriving Stated Preference Estimates of the Average Social Cost of Carbon. Environmental and Resource Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-025-01000-1
10. 1. Bardsley, N.,
    2. Ceddia, G.,
    3. McCloy, R., &
    4. Pfuderer, S.

    (2022). Why Economic Valuation Does Not Value the Environment: Climate Policy as Collective Endeavour. Environmental Values, 31(3), 277-293. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327121X16081160834740

    OpenUrl
11. 1. Bateman, I. J.,
    2. Cole, M.,
    3. Cooper, P.,
    4. Georgiou, S.,
    5. Hadley, D., &
    6. Poe, G. L.

    (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
12. 1. Bateman, I. J.,
    2. Day, B. H.,
    3. Jones, A. P., &
    4. Jude, S.

    (2009). Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 58(1), 106-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2008.05.003

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
13. 1. Bateman, I.,
    2. Munro, A.,
    3. Rhodes, B., &
    4. Sugden, R.

    (1997). Does Part-Whole Bias Exist? An Experimental Investigation. The Economic Journal, 107, 322-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-0133.1997.160.x

    OpenUrl
14. 1. Becker, N.,
    2. Farja, Y.,
    3. Majewski, J., &
    4. Sobolewska, A.

    (2019). Does nationality matter? The effect of cross-border information on willingness to pay for migratory species conservation. Regional Environmental Change, 19(7), 1987-1998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01536-1

    OpenUrl
15. 1. Beharry-Borg, N., &
    2. Scarpa, R.

    (2010). Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors. Ecological Economics, 69(5), 1124-1139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.12.007

    OpenUrlCrossRef
16. 1. Bishop, R. C., &
    2. Boyle, K. J.

    (2021). On Adding-Up as a Validity Criterion for Stated-Preference Studies. Environmental and Resource Economics, 80(3), 587-601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-021-00599-1

    OpenUrl
17. 1. Börger, T.,
    2. Hanley, N.,
    3. Johnston, R. J.,
    4. Meginnis, K.,
    5. Ndebele, T.,
    6. Ali Siyal, G. E., &
    7. de Vries, F.

    (2024). Equity preferences and abatement cost sharing in international environmental agreements. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 106(1), 416-441. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12392

    OpenUrl
18. 1. Börger, T.,
    2. Ngoc, Q. T. K.,
    3. Kuhfuss, L.,
    4. Hien, T. T.,
    5. Hanley, N., &
    6. Campbell, D.

    (2021). Preferences for coastal and marine conservation in Vietnam: Accounting for differences in individual choice set formation. Ecological Economics, 180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106885
19. 1. Borzykowski, N.,
    2. Baranzini, A., &
    3. Maradan, D.

    (2018). Scope Effects in Contingent Valuation: Does the Assumed Statistical Distribution of WTP Matter? Ecological Economics, 144, 319-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.09.005

    OpenUrl
20. 1. Boyle, K. J.

    (2017). Contingent Valuation in Practice. In P. A. Champ & T. C. Brown (Eds.), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation (2nd ed., pp.83-131). Springer Science+Business Media, BV. https://doi.org/10.1007978-94007-7104-8
21. 1. Bradt, J.

    (2022). Comparing the effects of behaviorally informed interventions on flood insurance demand: an experimental analysis of “boosts” and “nudges.” Behavioural Public Policy, 6(3), 485-515. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2019.31

    OpenUrl
22. 1. Brouwer, R.,
    2. Hadzhiyska, D.,
    3. Ioakeimidis, C., &
    4. Ouderdorp, H.

    (2017). The social costs of marine litter along European coasts. Ocean and Coastal Management, 138, 38-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.01.011

    OpenUrl
23. 1. Buhl-Mortensen, P., &
    2. Buhl-Mortensen, L.

    (2018). Impacts of bottom trawling and litter on the seabed in Norwegian waters. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4(FEB). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00042
24. 1. Burrows, J.,
    2. Newman, R.,
    3. Genser, J., &
    4. Plewes, J.

    (2017). Do contingent valuation estimates of willingness to pay for non-use environmental goods pass the scope test with adequacy? A review of the evidence from empirical studies in the literature. In D. McFadden & K. Train (Eds.), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: A Comprehensive Critique. Edward Elgar Publishing.
25. 1. Cameron, T. A., &
    2. Huppert, D. D.

    (1989). OLS versus ML Estimation of Non-market Resource Values with Payment Card Interval Data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 17, 230-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(89)90018-1

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
26. 1. Camilleri, A. R., &
    2. Larrick, R. P.

    (2014). Metric and scale design as choice architecture tools. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 33(1), 108-125. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.12.151

    OpenUrl
27. 1. Carlsson, F.

    (2010). Design of stated preference surveys: Is there more to learn from behavioral economics? Environmental and Resource Economics, 46(2), 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9359-4

    OpenUrl
28. 1. Carson, R. T.,
    2. Flores, N. E., &
    3. Meade, N. F.

    (2001). Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19, 173-210. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011128332243

    OpenUrl
29. 1. Carson, R. T.,
    2. Wilks, L., &
    3. Imber, D.

    (1994). Valuing the Preservation of Australia’s Kakadu Conservation Zone. Oxford Economic Papers, 46, 727-749. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/46.Supplement_1.727

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
30. 1. Chan, K. M. A.,
    2. Balvanera, P.,
    3. Benessaiah, K.,
    4. Chapman, M.,
    5. Díaz, S.,
    6. Gómez-Baggethun, E.,
    7. Gould, R.,
    8. Hannahs, N.,
    9. Jax, K.,
    10. Klain, S.,
    11. Luck, G. W.,
    12. Martín-López, B.,
    13. Muraca, B.,
    14. Norton, B.,
    15. Ott, K.,
    16. Pascual, U.,
    17. Satterfield, T.,
    18. Tadaki, M.,
    19. Taggart, J., &
    20. Turner, N.

    (2016). Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(6), 1462-1465. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.5146.0560

    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
31. 1. Clark, J., &
    2. Friesen, L.

    (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
32. 1. Cowell, F.

    (2018). Microeconomics. Principles and Analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
33. 1. Czajkowski, M.,
    2. Hanley, N., &
    3. LaRiviere, J.

    (2016). Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model. Environmental and Resource Economics, 63(3), 523-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9847-z

    OpenUrl
34. 1. Day, B.,
    2. Bateman, I. J.,
    3. Carson, R. T.,
    4. Dupont, D.,
    5. Louviere, J. J.,
    6. Morimoto, S.,
    7. Scarpa, R., &
    8. Wang, P.

    (2012). Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 63(1), 73-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2011.09.001

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
35. 1. DelBene, J. A.,
    2. Scheld, A. M., &
    3. Bilkovic, D. M.

    (2021). Preferences for derelict gear mitigation strategies by commercial fishers. Marine Policy, 132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104662
36. 1. Desvousges, W.,
    2. Mathews, K., &
    3. Train, K.

    (2012). Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 84, 121-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.10.003

    OpenUrlCrossRef
37. 1. Diamond, P.

    (1996). Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0023

    OpenUrl
38. 1. Diamond, P. A., &
    2. Hausman, J. A.

    (1994). Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 45-64. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.4.45

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
39. 1. Díaz, S.,
    2. Settele, J.,
    3. Brondízio, E. S.,
    4. Ngo, H. T.,
    5. Guèze, M.,
    6. Agard, J.,
    7. Arneth, A.,
    8. Balvanera, P.,
    9. Brauman, K. A.,
    10. Butchart, S. H. M.,
    11. Chan, K. M. A.,
    12. Garibaldi, L. A.,
    13. Ichii, K.,
    14. Liu, J.,
    15. Subramanian, S. M.,
    16. Midgley, G. F.,
    17. Miloslavich, P.,
    18. Molnár, Z.,
    19. Obura, D., ...
    20. Zayas, C.N.

    (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579
40. 1. Dugstad, A.,
    2. Grimsrud, K. M.,
    3. Kipperberg, G.,
    4. Lindhjem, H., &
    5. Navrud, S.

    (2021). Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 80(1), 21-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-021-00577-7

    OpenUrl
41. 1. Faccioli, M., &
    2. Glenk, K.

    (2022). More in Good Condition or Less in Bad Condition? Valence-Based Framing Effects in Environmental Valuation. Land Economics, 98(2), 314-336. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.98.2.051920-0067R1

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
42. 1. Fernandes, S., &
    2. Castelhano, M. S.

    (2021). The Foreground Bias: Initial Scene Representations Across the Depth Plane. Psychological Science, 32(6), 890-902. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620984464

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
43. 1. Frey, U. J., &
    2. Pirscher, F.

    (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
44. 1. Funder, D. C., &
    2. Ozer, D. J.

    (2019). Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202

    OpenUrl
45. 1. Goff, S. H.,
    2. Noblet, C. L., &
    3. Anthony, J. R.

    (2021). Economic Valuation as a Communication Device for Environmental Philanthropy: Evidence from the Lab and Field. Land Economics, 97(3), 588-607. https://doi.org/10.3368/wple.97.3.080319-0111R1

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
46. 1. Goff, S. H.,
    2. Waring, T. M., &
    3. Noblet, C. L.

    (2017). Does Pricing Nature Reduce Monetary Support for Conservation?: Evidence From Donation Behavior in an Online Experiment. Ecological Economics, 141, 119-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.027

    OpenUrl
47. 1. Grilli, G.,
    2. Andrews, B.,
    3. Ferrini, S., &
    4. Luisetti, T.

    (2022). Could a mix of short- and long-term policies be the solution to tackle marine litter? Insights from a choice experiment in England and Ireland. Ecological Economics, 201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107563
48. 1. Haaland, I.,
    2. Roth, C., &
    3. Wohlfart, J.

    (2023). Designing Information Provision Experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 61(1), 3-40. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20211658

    OpenUrl
49. 1. Hasselström, L., &
    2. Håkansson, C.

    (2014). Detailed vs. fuzzy information in non-market valuation studies: The role of familiarity. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(1), 123-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.736370

    OpenUrl
50. 1. Henrich, J.,
    2. Heine, S. J., &
    3. Norenzayan, A.

    (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466, 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
51. 1. Hille, S. L.,
    2. Geiger, C.,
    3. Loock, M., &
    4. Peloza, J.

    (2018). Best in class or simply the best? The impact of absolute versus relative ecolabeling approaches. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 37(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.15.030

    OpenUrl
52. 1. Ho, B.,
    2. Taber, J.,
    3. Poe, G., &
    4. Bento, A.

    (2016). The Effects of Moral Licensing and Moral Cleansing in Contingent Valuation and Laboratory Experiments on the Demand to Reduce Externalities. Environmental and Resource Economics, 64(2), 317-340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9872-y

    OpenUrl
53. 1. Holleman, G. A.,
    2. Hooge, I. T. C.,
    3. Kemner, C., &
    4. Hessels, R. S.

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

    OpenUrlPubMed
54. 1. Homar, A. R., &
    2. Cvelbar, L. K.

    (2021). The effects of framing on environmental decisions: A systematic literature review. Ecological Economics, 183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106950
55. 1. Hsee, C. K., &
    2. Zhang, J.

    (2010). General evaluability theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 343-355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610374586

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
56. 1. Jambeck, J. R.,
    2. Geyer, R.,
    3. Wilcox, C.,
    4. Siegler, T. R.,
    5. Perryman, M.,
    6. Andrady, A.,
    7. Narayan, R., &
    8. Law, K. L.

    (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347(6223), 768-771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
57. 1. Jie, Y.

    (2022). Frequency or total number? A comparison of different presentation formats on risk perception during COVID-19. Judgment and Decision Making, 17(1), 215-236. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500009086

    OpenUrl
58. 1. Johnson, E. J.,
    2. Shu, S. B.,
    3. Dellaert, B. G. C.,
    4. Fox, C.,
    5. Goldstein, D. G.,
    6. Häubl, G.,
    7. Larrick, R. P.,
    8. Payne, J. W.,
    9. Peters, E.,
    10. Schkade, D.,
    11. Wansink, B., &
    12. Weber, E. U.

    (2012). Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture. Marketing Letters, 23(2), 487-504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9186-1

    OpenUrl
59. 1. Johnston, R. J.,
    2. Börger, T.,
    3. Hanley, N.,
    4. Meginnis, K.,
    5. Ndebele, T.,
    6. Siyal, G. E. A.,
    7. Beaumont, N., &
    8. de Vries, F. P.

    (2024). Consequences of omitting non-lethal wildlife impacts from stated preference scenarios. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2024.103011
60. 1. Johnston, R. J.,
    2. Boyle, K. J.,
    3. Adamowicz, W.,
    4. Bennet, J.,
    5. Brouwer, R.,
    6. Cameron, T. A.,
    7. Hanemann, W. M.,
    8. Hanley, N.,
    9. Ryan, M.,
    10. Scarpa, R.,
    11. Tourangeau, R., &
    12. Vossler, C. A.

    (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
61. 1. Jones, B. A.,
    2. Berrens, R. P.,
    3. Jenkins-Smith, H. C.,
    4. Silva, C. L.,
    5. Carlson, D. E.,
    6. Ripberger, J. T.,
    7. Gupta, K., &
    8. Carlson, N.

    (2016). Valuation in the Anthropocene: Exploring options for alternative operations of the Glen Canyon Dam. Water Resources and Economics, 14, 13-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2016.02.003

    OpenUrl
62. 1. Khedr, S.,
    2. Rehdanz, K.,
    3. Brouwer, R.,
    4. van Beukering, P.,
    5. Dijkstra, H.,
    6. Duijndam, S., &
    7. Okoli, I. C.

    (2023). Public preferences for marine plastic litter management across Europe. Ecological Economics, 204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107609
63. 1. Kipperberg, G.,
    2. Dugstad, A.,
    3. Lopes, A. F.,
    4. Grimsrud, K.,
    5. Lindhjem, H., &
    6. Navrud, S.

    (2025). Scope Effects in Stated Preference Research. From Construct Validity to Economic Significance. In Handbook of Environmental Valuation.
64. 1. Kleiven, A. R.,
    2. Thorbjørnsen, S. H., &
    3. Aslaksen, T.

    (2021). Tiltak mot spøkelsesfiske i Raet nasjonalpark. Arbeidsrapport. Rapport fra Havforskningen nr. 2021-1.
65. 1. Kragt, M. E., &
    2. Bennett, J. W.

    (2012). Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates? Environmental and Resource Economics, 51(1), 43-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9487-5

    OpenUrl
66. 1. Lades, L. K.,
    2. Zawojska, E.,
    3. Johnston, R. J.,
    4. Hanley, N.,
    5. Delaney, L., &
    6. Czajkowski, M.

    (2025). Anomalies or Expected Behaviors? Understanding Stated Preferences and Welfare Implications in Light of Contemporary Behavioral Economics. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 19(1), 48-68. https://doi.org/10.1086/732191

    OpenUrl
67. 1. Lawton, R. N.,
    2. Mourato, S.,
    3. Fujiwara, D., &
    4. Bakhshi, H.

    (2020). Comparing the effect of oath commitments and cheap talk entreaties in contingent valuation surveys: a randomised field experiment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 9(3), 338-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2019.1689174

    OpenUrl
68. 1. Levin, I. P.,
    2. Schneider, S. L., &
    3. Gaeth, G. J.

    (1998). All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
69. 1. Liebe, U.,
    2. Preisendörfer, P., &
    3. Meyerhoff, J.

    (2011). To pay or not to pay: Competing theories to explain individuals’ willingness to pay for public environmental goods. Environment and Behavior, 43(1), 106-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509346229

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
70. 1. Lindhjem, H.,
    2. Grimsrud, K.,
    3. Navrud, S., &
    4. Kolle, S. O.

    (2015). The social benefits and costs of preserving forest biodiversity and ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 4(2), 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2014.982201

    OpenUrl
71. 1. Lindhjem, H., &
    2. Navrud, S.

    (2011a). Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation? Ecological Economics, 70(9), 1628-1637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.002

    OpenUrlCrossRef
72. 1. Lindhjem, H., &
    2. Navrud, S.

    (2011b). 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
73. 1. Loomis, J., &
    2. Santiago, L.

    (2013). Economic valuation of beach quality improvements: comparing incremental attribute values estimated from two stated preference valuation methods. Coastal Management, 41(1), 75-86. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2012.749754

    OpenUrlCrossRef
74. 1. Lopes, A. F., &
    2. Kipperberg, G.

    (2020). Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 77(1), 191-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00470-9

    OpenUrl
75. 1. Mahieu, P. A.,
    2. Riera, P., &
    3. Giergiczny, M.

    (2012). The influence of cheap talk on willingness-to-pay ranges: Some empirical evidence from a contingent valuation study. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(6), 753-763. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.626524

    OpenUrl
76. 1. Martin-Ortega, J.,
    2. Azahara Mesa-Jurado, M., &
    3. Berbel, J.

    (2015). Revisiting the Impact of Order Effects on Sensitivity to Scope: A Contingent Valuation of a Common-Pool Resource. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 705-726. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12105

    OpenUrl
77. 1. McCloskey, D. N., &
    2. Ziliak, S. T.

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

    OpenUrlWeb of Science
78. 1. McEwan, B.

    (2020). Sampling and validity. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(3), 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1792793

    OpenUrl
79. 1. McFadden, B. R., &
    2. Malone, T.

    (2018). How will mandatory labeling of genetically modified food nudge consumer decision-making? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics , 77, 186-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2018.09.004

    OpenUrl
80. 1. Meginnis, K.,
    2. Börger, T.,
    3. de Vries, F. P.,
    4. Hanley, N.,
    5. Johnston, R. J.,
    6. Ndebele, T., &
    7. Siyal, G. E. A.

    (2026). Locational Dimensions of Utility for Transboundary Pollutants. Land Economics, 102(1), 137-161. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.102.1.082924-0078r1

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
81. 1. Meginnis, K.,
    2. Domanski, A., &
    3. Toledo-Gallegos, V. M.

    (2022). Is it up to business, governments, or individuals to tackle the marine plastic problem? A hybrid mixed logit approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113169
82. 1. Mertens, S.,
    2. Hahnel, U. J. J., &
    3. Brosch, T.

    (2020). This way, please: Uncovering the directional effects of attribute translations on decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(1), 25-46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500006896

    OpenUrlCrossRef
83. 1. Milfont, T. L., &
    2. Duckitt, J.

    (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 80-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.001

    OpenUrlCrossRef
84. 1. Mitchell, R. C., &
    2. Carson, R. T.

    (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future.
85. 1. Münscher, R.,
    2. Vetter, M., &
    3. Scheuerle, T.

    (2016). A Review and Taxonomy of Choice Architecture Techniques. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29, 511-524. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1897

    OpenUrl
86. 1. Mutuku, J.,
    2. Tocock, M.,
    3. Yanotti, M.,
    4. Tinch, D., &
    5. Hatton MacDonald, D.

    (2024). Public perceptions of the value of reducing marine plastics in Australian waters. Ecological Economics, 217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.108065
87. 1. Mutuku, J.,
    2. Yanotti, M.,
    3. Tinch, D., &
    4. Hatton MacDonald, D.

    (2022). Willingness to pay for cleaning up beach litter: A meta-analysis. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114220
88. 1. Needham, K.,
    2. Czajkowski, M.,
    3. Hanley, N., &
    4. LaRiviere, J.

    (2018). What is the causal impact of information and knowledge in stated preference studies? Resource and Energy Economics, 54, 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2018.09.001

    OpenUrl
89. 1. Nielsen, J. S., &
    2. Kjær, T.

    (2011). Does question order influence sensitivity to scope? Empirical findings from a web-based contingent valuation study. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(3), 369-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.506087

    OpenUrl
90. 1. Pacini, R., &
    2. Epstein, S.

    (1999). The Relation of Rational and Experiential Information Processing Styles to Personality, Basic Beliefs, and the Ratio-Bias Phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 972-987. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.972

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
91. 1. Pinto-Prades, J. L.,
    2. Robles-Zurita, J. A.,
    3. Sánchez-Martínez, F. I.,
    4. Abellán-Perpiñán, J. M., &
    5. Martínez-Pérez, J.

    (2017). Improving scope sensitivity in contingent valuation: Joint and separate evaluation of health states. Health Economics (United Kingdom), 26(12). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3508
92. 1. Powe, N. A., &
    2. Bateman, I. J.

    (2003). Ordering effects in nested “top-down” and “bottom-up” contingent valuation designs. Ecological Economics, 45(2), 255-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00084-3

    OpenUrlCrossRef
93. 1. Reich, N., &
    2. Azar, O. H.

    (2025). The Measurement-Unit Bias: People Walk or Drive Less to Save a Constant Money Amount When Answering in Meters Compared to Miles. Behavioral Sciences, 15(3), 369. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15030369

    OpenUrlPubMed
94. 1. Reyna, V. F., &
    2. Brainerd, C. J.

    (1993). Fuzzy Memory and Mathematics in The Classroom. In G. M. Davies & R. H. Logie (Eds.), Advances in Psychology (Vol. 100, pp. 91-119). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61096-1

    OpenUrl
95. 1. Reyna, V. F., &
    2. Brainerd, C. J.

    (1995). Fuzzy-Trace Theory: An Interim Synthesis. Learning and Individual Differences, 7(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.1016/1041-6080(95)90031-4

    OpenUrl
96. 1. Schaafsma, M.,
    2. Brouwer, R.,
    3. Liekens, I., &
    4. de Nocker, L.

    (2014). Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: A test-retest. Resource and Energy Economics, 38, 243-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2014.09.001

    OpenUrl
97. 1. Schläpfer, F., &
    2. Getzner, M.

    (2020). Beyond Current Guidelines: A Proposal for Bringing Behavioral Economics to the Design and Analysis of Stated Preference Surveys. Ecological Economics, 176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106720
98. 1. Shen, M.,
    2. Mao, D.,
    3. Xie, H., &
    4. Li, C.

    (2019). The Social Costs of Marine Litter along the East China Sea: Evidence from Ten Coastal Scenic Spots of Zhejiang Province, China. Sustainability, 11(6), 1807. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061807

    OpenUrl
99. 1. Skeie, M. A.

    (2024). Decisions Affecting Choices: Current State and Future Directions for Applied Choice Architecture Research in Economics. Review of Behavioral Economics, 11(3), 395-429. https://doi.org/10.1561/105.00000194

    OpenUrl
100. 1. Skeie, M. A.,
     2. Lindhjem, H.,
     3. Navrud, S., &
     4. Otterbring, T.

     (2025). How Sensitive Are Environmental Values to Payment Card Design in Contingent Valuation? 101(3), 398-422. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.101.3.061924-0053R
101. 1. Skeie, M. A.,
     2. Lindhjem, H.,
     3. Skjeflo, S., &
     4. Navrud, S.

     (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
102. 1. Smith, V. K.,
     2. Zhang, X., &
     3. Palmquist, R. B.

     (1997). Marine debris, beach quality, and nonmarket values. Environmental and Resource Economics, 10(3), 223-247. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026465413899

     OpenUrl
103. 1. Stone, E. R.,
     2. Gabard, A. R.,
     3. Groves, A. E., &
     4. Lipkus, I. M.

     (2015). Effects of Numerical Versus Foreground-Only Icon Displays on Understanding of Risk Magnitudes. Journal of Health Communication, 20(10), 1230-1241. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1018594

     OpenUrlPubMed
104. 1. Stone, E. R.,
     2. Sieck, W. R.,
     3. Bull, B. E.,
     4. Yates, J. F.,
     5. Parks, S. C., &
     6. Rush, C. J.

     (2003). Foreground:background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00003-7

     OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
105. 1. Stone, E. R.,
     2. Yates, J. F.,
     3. Parker, A. M., &
     4. Yates, ; J Frank.

     (1997). Effects of Numerical and Graphical Displays on Professed Risk-Taking Behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(4), 243-256. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.3.4.243

     OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
106. 1. Thaler, R. H.,
     2. Sunstein, C., &
     3. Balz, J.

     (2013). Choice Architecture. In E. Shafir (Ed.), The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy (pp. 428-439). Princeton University Press.
107. 1. Thaler, R. H., &
     2. Sunstein, C. R.

     (2008). Nudge. Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Yale University Press.
108. 1. Tyllianakis, E., &
     2. Ferrini, S.

     (2021). Personal attitudes and beliefs and willingness to pay to reduce marine plastic pollution in Indonesia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113120
109. 1. Ungemach, C.,
     2. Camilleri, A. R.,
     3. Johnson, E. J.,
     4. Larrick, R. P., &
     5. Weber, E. U.

     (2018). Translated attributes as choice architecture: Aligning objectives and choices through decision signposts. Management Science, 64(5), 2445-2459. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2703

     OpenUrlCrossRef
110. 1. Veisten, K.,
     2. Hoen, H. F.,
     3. Navrud, S., &
     4. Strand, J.

     (2004). Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Management, 73, 317-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.008

     OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
111. 1. Vossler, C. A., &
     2. Holladay, J. S.

     (2018). Alternative value elicitation formats in contingent valuation: Mechanism design and convergent validity. Journal of Public Economics, 165, 133-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.07.004

     OpenUrl
112. 1. Vossler, C. A.,
     2. Keiser, D. A.,
     3. Kling, C. L., &
     4. Phaneuf, D. J.

     (2024). Information scripts and the incentive compatibility of discrete choice experiments. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. https://doi.org/10.1086/731527
113. 1. Vossler, C. A., &
     2. Zawojska, E.

     (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
114. 1. Whitehead, J. C.

     (2016). Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 128, 17-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.011

     OpenUrl
115. 1. Xu, Z.,
     2. Xu, J.,
     3. Meng, W., &
     4. Zhou, G.

     (2023). Understanding residents’ policy preferences to construct effective marine debris governance policies. Marine Policy, 158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105872
116. 1. Yamagishi, K.

     (1997). When a 12.86% Mortality is More Dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for Risk Communication. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11(6), 495-506. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199712)11:6<495::AID-ACP481>3.0.CO;2-J

     OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
117. 1. Zarghamee, H. S.,
     2. Messer, K. D.,
     3. Fooks, J. R.,
     4. Schulze, W. D.,
     5. Wu, S., &
     6. Yan, J.

     (2017). Nudging charitable giving: Three field experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66, 137-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOCEC.2016.04.008

     OpenUrl
118. 1. Zawojska, E.,
     2. Bartczak, A., &
     3. Czajkowski, M.

     (2019). Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 93, 63-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.11.007

     OpenUrl