RESUMO
An improved understanding of public support is essential to design effective and feasible climate policies for aviation. Our motivation is the contrast between high support for air travel restrictions responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and low support for restrictions to combat climate change. Can the same factors explain individuals' support for restrictive measures across two different problems? Using a survey, we find that largely the same factors explain support. Support increases with expected effectiveness, perceived threat and imminence of the problem, shorter expected duration of the measure, knowledge, and trust, while support decreases with expected negative consequences for self and the poor. When controlling for all perceptions, there is no significant residual difference in support depending on whether the measures address climate change or COVID-19. The level of support differs because COVID-19 is perceived as a more imminent threat, and because measures are expected to be shorter-lasting and more effective.
RESUMO
Cross-country skiing is important to many Norwegians as exercise and recreation during winter. The most heavily used areas for cross-country skiing are the forests near the capital city Oslo. Here, observed and predicted climate change lead to reduced snow days. A choice experiment estimates forest users' willingness to pay (WTP) for trips to the forest under different conditions: skiing conditions, bare ground, and wet snow not suitable for skiing. Snow conditions correlate with the highest WTP per trip, while the WTP for trips under bare conditions and wet snow is, respectively, 40 and 77% less. Expressed in terms of distance, the analysis indicates that the maximum willingness to travel (WTT) for the average trip is 45 km (each direction) for snow, 23 km for bare ground, while not significantly different from zero for wet snow. The large difference in value across different conditions suggests that climate change may reduce the recreational value for forest users considerably.
