Search

To what extent citizens are willing not only to support ambitious climate policy but also willing to pay for such policy remains subject to debate. Our analysis addresses three issues in this regard: whether, as is widely assumed but not empirically established, willingness to support (WTS) is higher than willingness to pay (WTP); whether the determinants of the two are similar; and what accounts for within-subject similarity between WTS and WTP. We address these issues based on data from an original nationally representative survey ( N = 2500) on forest conservation in Brazil, arguably the key climate policy issue in the country. The findings reveal that WTP is much lower than WTS. The determinants differ to some extent as well, regarding the effects of age, gender, and trust in government. The analysis also provides insights into factors influencing how much WTS and WTP line up within individuals, with respect to age, education, political ideology, salience of the deforestation issue, and trust in government. Our findings provide a more nuanced picture of how strong public support for climate change policy is and a starting point for more targeted climate policy communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper updates the SCVI (Socio-Climatic Vulnerability Index) maps developed by Torres et al. () for Brazil, by using the new Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) projections and more recent 2010 social indicators data. The updated maps differ significantly from their earlier versions in two main ways. First, they show that heavily populated metropolitan areas - namely Belo Horizonte, Brasília, Salvador, Manaus, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo - and a large swath of land across the states of São Paulo, Minas Gerais and Bahia now have the highest SCVI values, that is, their populations are the most vulnerable to climate change in the country. Second, SCVI values for Northeast Brazil are considerably lower compared to the previous index version. An analysis of the causes of such difference reveals that changes in climate projections between CMIP3 and CMIP5 are responsible for most of the change between the different SCVI values and spatial distribution, while changes in social indicators have less influence, despite recent countrywide improvements in social indicators as a result of aggressive anti-poverty programs. These results raise the hypothesis that social reform alone may not be enough to decrease people's vulnerability to future climatic changes. Whereas the coarse spatial resolution and relatively simplistic formulation of the SCVI may limit how useful these maps are at informing decision-making at the local level, they can provide a valuable input for large-scale policies on climate change adaptation such as those of the Brazilian National Policy on Climate Change Adaptation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]