Climatic Change

, Volume 145, Issue 1–2, pp 15–26 | Cite as

Citizens show strong support for climate policy, but are they also willing to pay?

  • Zorzeta BakakiEmail author
  • Thomas Bernauer


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.



The research for this article was funded by the ERC Advanced Grant “Sources of Legitimacy in Global Environmental Governance” (Grant: 295456) and supported by ETH Zurich.

Supplementary material

10584_2017_2078_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.5 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1497 kb)


  1. Aldy JE, Kotchen MJ, Leiserowitz A (2012) Willingness to pay and political support for a US national clean energy standard. Nat Clim Chang 2(8):596–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechtel M, Scheve K (2013) Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(34):13763–13768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernauer T, McGrath L (2016) Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nat Clim Chang 6(7):680–683Google Scholar
  4. Binstock RH, Quadagno J (2001) Aging and politics. In: Binstock RH, George LK (eds) Handbook of aging and the social sciences. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 333–351Google Scholar
  5. Brechin SR (2003) Comparative public opinion and knowledge on global climatic change and the Kyoto Protocol: the US versus the world? Int J Sociol Soc Policy 23(10):106–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breffle WS, Eiswerth ME, Muralidharan D, Thornton J (2015) Understanding how income influences willingness to pay for joint programs: a more equitable value measure for the less wealthy. Ecol Econ 109:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brouwer RL, Brander, Van Beukering P (2008) “A convenient truth”: air travel passengers’ willingness to pay to offset their CO2 emissions. Clim Chang 90(3):299–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruderer E, Diekmann HA, Meyer R (2014) Subjective discount rates in the general population and their predictive power for energy saving behavior. Energ Policy 65:524–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bürer MJ, Wüstenhagen R (2009) Which renewable energy policy is a venture capitalist’s best friend? Empirical evidence from a survey of international cleantech investors. Energ Policy 37(12):4997–5006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cameron TA (2005) Individual option prices for climate change mitigation. J Public Econ 89(2):283–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment. J Environ Econ Manag 41:179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econ Perspect 8(4):45–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diederich J, Goeschl T (2014) Willingness to pay for voluntary climate action and its determinants: field-experimental evidence. Environ Resour Econ 57(3):405–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diekmann A, Preisendörfer P (2003) Green and greenback the behavioral rffects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Ration Soc 15(4):441–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dolan P, Hallsworth M, Halpern D, King D, Metcalfe R, Vlaev I (2012) Influencing behaviour: the mindspace way. J Econ Psychol 33(1):264–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drews S, Van den Bergh JC (2016) What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies. Clim Pol 16(7):855–876Google Scholar
  17. Fairbrother M (2016) Trust and public support for environmental protection in diverse national contexts. Sociol Sci 3:359–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gampfer R, Bernauer T, Kachi A (2014) Obtaining public support for north-south climate funding: evidence from conjoint experiments in donor countries. Glob Environ Chang 29:118–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gebara MF, Fatorelli L, May P, Zhang S (2014) REDD+ policy networks in Brazil: constraints and opportunities for successful policy making. Ecol Soc 19(3):329–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geels FW (2013) The impact of the financial–economic crisis on sustainability transitions: financial investment governance and public discourse. Environ Innov Soc Trans 6:67–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goerres A (2008) The grey vote: determinants of older voters’ party choice in Britain and West Germany. Elect Stud 27(2):285–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grothmann T, Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ Chang 15(3):199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanemann WM (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J Econ Perspect 8(4):19–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harring N, Jagers S (2013) Should we trust in values? Explaining public support for pro-environmental taxes. Sustainability 5(1):210–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Inglehart R (1995) Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Pol Sci Polit 28(01):57–72Google Scholar
  26. Jaccard M, Nyboer J, Bataille C, Sadownik B (2003) Modeling the cost of climate policy: distinguishing between alternative cost definitions and long-run cost dynamics. Energy J 24:49–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacobsen JB, Hanley N (2009) Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation? Environ Resour Econ 43(2):137–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kachi A, Bernauer T, Gampfer R (2015) Climate policy in hard times: are the pessimists, right? Ecol Econ 114:227–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kane S, Shogren J (2000) Linking adaptation and mitigation in climate change policy. Clim Chang 45(1):75–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kotchen J, Boyle K, Leiserowitz A (2013) Willingness-to-pay and policy-instrument choice for climate-change policy in the United States Energy. Policy 55:617–625Google Scholar
  31. Krosnick JA, MacInnis B (2013) Does the American public support legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Daedalus 142(1):26–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindhjem H, Tuan T (2012) Valuation of species and nature conservation in Asia and Oceania: a meta-analysis. Environ Econ Policy Stud 14(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McCollum D, Krey V, Riahi K, Kolp P, Grubler A, Makowski M, Nakicenovic N (2013) Climate policies can help resolve energy security and air pollution challenges. Clim Chang 119(2):479–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCright A (2010) The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Popul Environ 32(1):66–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nisbet EC, Cooper KE, Garrett RK (2015) The partisan brain: how dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis) trust science. ANNALS Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 658(1):36–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nordhaus W (2015) Climate clubs: overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. Am Econ Rev 105(4):1339–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pew Research Center (2015) Pew global attitudes project. Available at Accessed September 2017
  38. Randall A, Stoll JR (1980) Consumer’s surplus in commodity space. Am Econ Rev 70(3):449–455Google Scholar
  39. Ryan AM, Spash CL (2011) Is WTP an attitudinal measure? Empirical analysis of the psychological explanation for contingent values. J Econ Psychol 32(5):674–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scruggs L, Benegal S (2012) Declining public concern about climate change: can we blame the great recession? Glob Environ Chang 22(2):505–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seip K, Strand J (1992) Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: a contingent valuation study with real payment. Environ Resour Econ 2(1):91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Solomon BD, Johnson NH (2009) Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol. Ecol Econ 68(7):2137–2144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stern NH, Peters S, Bakhshi V, Bowen A, Cameron C, Catovsky S, Crane D, Cruickshank S, Dietz S, Edmonson N, Garbett SL (2006) Stern review: the economics of climate change (Vol 30). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Tobler C, Visschers VH, Siegrist M (2012) Addressing climate change: determinants of consumers’ willingness to act and to support policy measures. J Environ Psychol 32(3):197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Turpie JK (2003) The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest experience knowledge income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay. Ecol Econ 46(2):199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Victor DG, House JC, Joy S (2005) A Madisonian approach to climate policy. Science 309(5742):1820–1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vincent JR, Carson RT, DeShazo JR, Schwabe KA, Ahmad I, Chong SK, Chang YT, Potts MD (2014) Tropical countries may be willing to pay more to protect their forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(28):10113–10118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wiseman J, Edwards T, Luckins K (2013) Post carbon pathways: towards a just and resilient post carbon future. Environ Innov Soc Trans 8:76–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Government DepartmentUniversity of EssexColchesterUK
  2. 2.Center for Comparative and International Studies and Institute of Science, Technology and PolicyETH ZurichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations