¥ Respondents may make associations among environmental goods that the researcher had not intended.  For example, if asked for willingness to pay for improved visibility (through reduced pollution),  the respondent may actually answer based on the health risks that he or  she associates with dirty air.
¥ Some researchers argue that there is a fundamental difference in the way that people make hypothetical decisions relative  to the way they make actual decisions.  For example, respondents may fail to take questions seriously because they will not actually be required to pay the stated amount.  Responses may be unrealistically high if respondents believe they will not have to pay for the good or service and that their answer may influence the resulting supply of the good.   Conversely, responses may be unrealistically low if respondents believe they will have to pay.
¥ The payment question can either be phrased as the conventional ÔWhat are you willing to pay (WTP) to receive this environmental asset?Õ, or in the less usual form, ÔWhat are you willing  to accept (WTA) in compensation for giving up this environmental asset?Õ   In theory, the results should be very close.  However, when the two formats have been compared, WTA very significantly exceeds WTP.  Critics have claimed that this result invalidates the CVM approach, showing responses to be expressions of what individuals would like to have happen rather  than true valuations. 
¥ If people are first asked for their willingness to pay for one part of an environmental asset (e.g. one lake in an entire system of lakes) and then asked to value the whole asset (e.g. the whole lake system), the amounts stated may be similar.  This is referred to as the Òembedding effect.Ó
¥ In some cases, peopleÕs expressed willingness to pay for something has been found to depend on where it is placed on a list of things being valued.  This is referred to as the "ordering problem." 
¥ Respondents may give different willingness to pay amounts, depending on the specific payment vehicle chosen.   For example, some payment vehicles, such as taxes, may lead to protest responses from people who do not want increased taxes.  Others, such as a contribution or donation, may lead people to answer in terms of how much they think their Òfair shareÓ contribution is, rather than expressing their actual value for the good.
¥ Many early studies attempted to prompt respondents by suggesting a starting bid and then increasing or decreasing this bid based upon whether the respondent agreed or refused to pay a such sum.   However, it has been shown that the choice of starting bid affects respondents final willingness to pay response. 
Issues and Limitations of the Contingent Valuation Method: