Measuring Consumers' Willingness to Pay. Which Method fits best?

Gauging the maximum willingness to pay (WTP) of a product accurately is a critical success factor that determines not only market performance but also financial results. A number of approaches have therefore been developed to accurately estimate consumers’ willingness to pay. Here, four commonly used measurement approaches are compared using real purchase data as a benchmark. The relative strengths of each method are analyzed on the basis of statistical criteria and, more importantly, on their potential to predict managerially relevant criteria such as optimal price, quantity and profit. The results show a slight advantage of incentive-aligned approaches though the market settings need to be considered to choose the best-fitting procedure.

How Should Consumers’ Willingness to Pay Be Measured? An Empirical Comparison of State-of-the-Art Approaches

This study compares the performance of four commonly used approaches to measure consumers’ willingness to pay with real purchase data (REAL): the open-ended (OE) question format; choicebased conjoint (CBC) analysis; Becker, DeGroot, and Marschak’s (BDM) incentive-compatible mechanism; and incentive-aligned choice-based conjoint (ICBC) analysis. With this five-in-one approach, the authors test the relative strengths of the four measurement methods, using REAL as the benchmark, on the basis of statistical criteria and decision-relevant metrics. The results indicate that the BDM and ICBC approaches can pass statistical and decision-oriented tests. The authors find that respondents are more price sensitive in incentive-aligned settings than in non-incentive-aligned settings and the REAL setting. Furthermore, they find a large number of “none” choices under ICBC than under hypothetical conjoint analysis. This study uncovers an intriguing possibility: Even when the OE format and CBC analysis generate hypothetical bias, they may still lead to the right demand curves and right pricing decisions.

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.

Changing abundance of elephants and willingness to pay for their conservation

This paper explores the way in which the stated willingness to pay for the conservation of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka varies with hypothetical variations in their abundance. To do that, it relies on results from a sample of residents of Colombo. The willingness to pay function is found to be unusual. It increases at an increasing rate for hypothetical reductions in the elephant population compared to its current level (a level that makes the Asian elephant endangered) and also increases at a decreasing rate for increases in this population from its current level. Rational explanations are Oven for this relationship. The relationship is, however, at odds with relationships suggested in some of the literature for total economic value as a function of the abundance of a wildlife species. It is suggested that willingness to pay for conservation of a species rationally includes a strategic element and may not always measure the total economic value of it species. Nevertheless. willingness to pay is still policy relevant in such cases. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. 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.