Random error in willingness to pay measurement: A multiple indicators, latent variable approach to the reliability of contingent values

The reliability of measurement refers to unsystematic error in observed responses. Investigations of the prevalence of random error in stated estimates of willingness to pay (WTP) are important to an understanding of why tests of validity in CV can fail. However, published reliability studies have tended to adopt empirical methods that have practical and conceptual limitations when applied to WTP responses. This contention is supported in a review of contingent valuation reliability studies that demonstrate important limitations of existing approaches to WTP reliability. It is argued that empirical assessments of the reliability of contingent values may be better dealt with by using multiple indicators to measure the latent WTP distribution. This latent variable approach is demonstrated with data obtained from a WTP study for stormwater pollution abatement. Attitude variables were employed as a way of assessing the reliability of open-ended WTP (with benchmarked payment cards) for stormwater pollution abatement. The results indicated that participants' decisions to pay were reliably measured, but not the magnitude of the WTP bids. This finding highlights the need to better discern what is actually being measured in VVTP studies, (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

The role of uncertainty in the relationship between fairness evaluations and willingness to pay

Participants in contingent valuation studies may be uncertain about a number of aspects of the policy and survey context. The uncertainty management model of fairness judgments states that individuals will evaluate a policy in terms of its fairness when they do not know whether they can trust the relevant managing authority or experience uncertainty due to insufficient knowledge of the general issues surrounding the environmental policy. Similarly, some researchers have suggested that, not knowing how to answer WTP questions, participants convey their general attitudes toward the public good rather than report well-defined economic preferences. These contentions were investigated in a sample of 840 residents in four urban catchments across Australia who were interviewed about their WTP for stormwater pollution abatement. Four sources of uncertainty were measured: amount of prior issue-related thought, trustworthiness of the water authority, insufficient scenario information, and WTP response uncertainty. A logistic regression model was estimated in each subsample to test the main effects of the uncertainty sources on WTP as well as their interaction with fairness and proenvironmental attitudes. Results indicated support for the uncertainty management model in only one of the four samples. Similarly, proenvironmental attitudes interacted rarely with uncertainty to a significant level, and in ways that were more complex than hypothesised. It was concluded that uncertain individuals were generally not more likely than other participants to draw on either fairness evaluations or proenvironmental attitudes when making decisions about paying for stormwater pollution abatement.

The market valuation of environmental capital expenditures by pulp and paper companies

The objective of this study is to examine the market valuation of environmental capital expenditure investment related to pollution abatement in the pulp and paper industry. The total environmental capital expenditure of $8.7 billion by our sample firms during 1989-2000 supports the focus on this industry. In order to be capitalized, an asset should be associated with future economic benefits. The existing environmental literature suggests that investors condition their evaluation of the future economic benefits arising from environmental capital expenditure on an assessment of the firms' environmental performance. This literature predicts the emergence of two environmental stereotypes: low-polluting firms that overcomply with existing environmental regulations, and high-polluting firms that just meet minimal environmental requirements. Our valuation evidence indicates that there are incremental economic benefits associated with environmental capital expenditure investment by low-polluting firms but not high-polluting firms. We also find that investors use environmental performance information to assess unbooked environmental liabilities, which we interpret to represent the future abatement spending obligations of high-polluting firms in the pulp and paper industry. We estimate average unbooked liabilities of $560 million for high-polluting firms, or 16.6 percent of market capitalization.