• Andreoni J (1989) Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. J Polit Econ 97(6):447–1458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banzhaf HS, Smith VK (2007) Meta-analysis in model implementation: choice sets and the valuation of air quality improvements. J App Econom 22(6):1013–1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman I, Munro A, Rhodes B, Starmer C, Sugden R (1997) Does part–whole bias exist? An experimental investigation. Econ J 107(441):322–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertini M, Wathieu L (2008) Research note—attention arousal through price partitioning. Mark Sci 27(2):236–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binger BR, Copple RF, Hoffman E (1995a) The use of contingent valuation methodology in natural resource damage assessments: legal fact and economic fiction. Northwest Univ Law Rev 89(3):1029–1053

    Google Scholar 

  • Binger BR, Copple R, Hoffman E (1995b) Contingent valuation methodology in the natural resource damage regulatory process: choice theory and the embedding phenomenon. Nat Res J 35(3):443–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop RC (2018) Warm glow, good feelings, and contingent valuation. J Agric Res Econ 43(3):307–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop RC, Boyle KJ (2019) Reliability and validity in nonmarket valuation. Environ Res Econ 72(2):559–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop RC, Heberlein TA (1979) Measuring values of extramarket goods: are indirect measures biased? Am J Agric Econ 61(5):926–930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop RC, Boyle KJ, Carson RT, Chapman D, Hanemann WM, Kanninen B, Kopp RJ, Krosnick JA, List J, Meade N, Paterson R (2017) Putting a value on injuries to natural assets: the BP oil spill. Sci 356(6335):253–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borghi J, Shrestha DL, Shrestha D, Jan S (2007) Using focus groups to develop contingent valuation scenarios—a case study of women’s groups in rural Nepal. Soc Sci & Medi 64(3):531–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxall PC, Englin J, Adamowicz WL (2003) Valuing aboriginal artifacts: a combined revealed-stated preference approach. J Env Econ Man 45(2):213–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson JP, Weathers D (2008) Examining differences in consumer reactions to partitioned prices with a variable number of price components. J Bus Res 61(7):724–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT, Mitchell RC (1993) The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water. Water Resour Res 29(7):2445–2454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Res Econ 37(1):181–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT, Groves T, List JA (2014) Consequentiality: A theoretical and experimental exploration of a single binary choice. J Assoc Environ Res Econ 1(1/2):171–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarti D, Krish R, Paul P, Srivastava J (2002) Partitioned presentation of multicomponent bundle prices: evaluation, choice and underlying processing effects. J Consult Psychol 12(3):215–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman DJ, Bishop RC, Hanemann WM, Kanninen BJ, Krosnick JA, Morey ER, Tourangeau R (2009) Natural resource damages associated with aesthetic and ecosystem injuries to Oklahoma's Illinois River System and Tenkiller Lake. Expert Report for State of Oklahoma. Stratus Consulting, Boulder CO

  • Chapman DJ, Bishop RC, Hanemann WM, Kanninen BJ, Krosnick JA, Morey ER, Tourangeau R (2016) On the adequacy of scope test results: comments on Desvousges, Mathews, and Train. Ecol Econ 130:356–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark J (2002) House money effects in public good experiments. Exp Econ 5(3):223–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corona J, Doley T, Griffiths C, Massey M, Moore C, Muela S, Rashleigh B, Wheeler W, Whitlock SD, Hewitt J (2020) An integrated assessment model for valuing water quality changes in the United States. Land Econ 96(4):478–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desvousges W, Mathews K, Train K (2012) Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 84:121–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desvousges W, Mathews K, Train K (2015) An adding-up test on contingent valuations of river and lake quality. Land Econ 91(3):556–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond P (1996) Testing the internal consistency of contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manag 30(3):337–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econ Perspect 8(4):45–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond PA, Hausman JA, Leonard GK (1993) Does contingent valuation measure preferences? In: Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 41–89

  • Elbakidze L, Nayga M Jr (2018) The adding-up test in an incentivized value elicitation mechanism: the role of the income effect. Environ Resource Econ 71:625–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epley N, Gneezy A (2007) The framing of financial windfalls and implications for public policy. J Socio-Econ 36:36–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haab TC, Interis MG, Petrolia DR, Whitehead JC (2013) From hopeless to curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s “dubious to hopeless” critique of contingent valuation. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 35(4):593–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haupt H, Oberhofer W (2006) Generalized adding-up in systems of regression equations. Econ Lett 92(2):263–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman J (2012) Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. J Econ Perspect 26(4):43–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heberlein TA, Wilson MA, Bishop RC, Schaeffer NC (2005) Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 50(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston RJ, Boyle KJ, Adamowicz W, Bennett J, Brouwer R, Cameron TA, Hanemann WM, Hanley N, Ryan M, Scarpa R, Tourangeau R (2017) Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J Assoc Environ Res Econ 4(2):319–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Just RE, Hueth DL, Schmitz A (2008) The welfare economics of public policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplowitz MD, Hoehn JP (2001) Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation? Ecol Econ 36(2):237–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klemick H, Griffiths C, Guignet D, Walsh P (2018) Improving water quality in an iconic estuary: an internal meta-analysis of property value impacts around the Chesapeake Bay. Environ Res Econ 69(2):265–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kling CL, Phaneuf DJ, Zhao J (2012) From Exxon to BP: has some number become better than no number? J Econ Perspect 26(4):3–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotchen MJ, Reiling SD (1999) Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Another comment. Land Econ 75(3):478–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick JA, Narayan S, Smith WR (1996) Satisficing in surveys: initial evidence. New Dir Eval 70:29–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuminoff NV, Zhang C, Rudi J (2010) Are travelers willing to pay a premium to stay at a “green” hotel? Evidence from an internal meta-analysis of hedonic price premia. Agric Res Econ Rev 39(3):468–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzner T, Kaczmirek L, Lenzner A (2010) Cognitive burden of survey questions and response times: a psycholinguistic experiment. Appl Cognit Psychol 24(7):1003–1020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List JA, Gallet CA (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ Res Econ 20(3):241–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morwitz VG, Greenleaf EA, Johnson EJ (1998) Divide and prosper: consumers’ reactions to partitioned prices. J Mark Res 35(4):453–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy JJ, Allen PG, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Res Econ 30(3):313–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newbold SC, Walsh PJ, Massey DM, Hewitt J (2018) Using structural restrictions to achieve theoretical consistency in benefit transfers. Environ Resour Econ 69(3):529–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravikumar B, Ray S, Savin NE (2000) Robust Wald tests in SUR systems with adding-up restrictions. Econometrica 68(3):715–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samples KC, Hollyer JR (1990) Contingent valuation of wildlife resources in the presence of substitutes and complements. In: Johnson RL, Johnson GV (eds) Economic valuation of natural resources: issues, theory, and applications. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 177–203

  • Schultze WD, McClelland GH, Lazo JK (1998) Embedding and calibration in measuring non-use values. Resour Energy Econ 20(2):163–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheng S, Bao Y, Pan Y (2007) Partitioning or bundling? Perceived fairness of the surcharge makes a difference. Psychol Mark 24(12):1025–1041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith RD (2005) Sensitivity to scale in contingent valuation: the importance of the budget constraint. J Health Econ 24(3):515–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stilley KM, Inman JJ, Wakefield KL (2010) Planning to make unplanned purchases? The role of in-store slack in budget deviation. J Consum Res 37(2):264–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler RH (1999) Mental accounts matter. J Behav Decis Mak 12:183–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler RH (2015) Misbehaving. WW Norton and Co, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Völckner F, Rühle A, Spann M (2012) To divide or not to divide? The impact of partitioned pricing on the informational and sacrifice effects of price. Mark Lett 23(3):719–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Haefen RH, Phaneuf DJ (2008) Identifying demand parameters in the presence of unobservables: a combined revealed and stated preference approach. J Environ Econ Man 56(1):19–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vossler CA, Doyon M, Rondeau D (2012) Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. Am Econ J Microecon 4(4):45–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead JC (2016) Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 128:17–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead JC, Pattanayak SK, Van Houtven GL, Gelso BR (2008) Combining revealed and stated preference data to estimate the nonmarket value of ecological services: an assessment of the state of the science. J Econ Surv 22(5):872–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitney P, Rinehart CA, Hinson JM (2008) Framing effects under cognitive load: the role of working memory in risky decisions. Psychol Bull Rev 15(6):1179–1184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood M (2005) Discretionary unplanned buying in consumer society. J Consum Behav Intern Res Rev 4(4):268–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia L, Monroe KB (2004) Price partitioning on the internet. J Interact Mark 18(4):63–73

    Article  Google Scholar