Determinants of rural household energy choices an exemple from Pakistan

• Autorzy: Jan I. , Khan H. , Hayat S.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

'Multiple fuels-multiple choice' is a common notion associated with the energy choice theory. Following the same theoretical framework, this study aims to identify: (i) existing sources of energy (ii) the associated factors that determine a household choice of a particular source of energy. The study is based on primary data collected from 100 randomly selected households in two villages in northwest Pakistan. The study found that rural households, though having access to multiple sources of energy, persistently depend on biomass fuels for domestic energy consumption. Nonetheless, rural households exhibit inter-fuel switching according to changes in their socioeconomic conditions. The study concludes that income is not the only determinant of transition from traditional to more convenient forms of energy, other factors such as access to alternative energy sources and consumer preferences also account for a household energy choice.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: 21
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.635-641,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Jan I.

• Institute of Development Studies, (IDS), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural University Peshawar,Pakistan

autor

Khan H.

autor

Hayat S.

Bibliografia

• 1. EKHOLM T., KREY V., PACHAURI S„ RIAHI K. Determinants of household energy consumption in India. Ener. Poli. 38, (10), 5696, 2010.
• 2. LEE S.-C., SHIH L.-H. Enhancing renewable and sustainable energy development based on an options-based policy evaluation framework - case study of wind energy technology in Taiwan. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15, (5), 2185, 2011.
• 3. BARNES D.F., FLOOR W.M. Rural energy in developing countries: a challenge for economic development. Annu. Rev. Energ. Env. 21, (1), 497,1996.
• 4. IEA [International Energy Agency]. Energy and development. World Energy Outlook 2004. IEA, Paris, 2004.
• 5. SAGHIR J. Energy and poverty, myths, links and policy issues. Energy Working Notes No. 4. World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2006.
• 6. UNDP. Will tomorrow be brighter than today? Addressing gender concerns in energy for poverty reduction in the Asia Pacific region. Regional Energy Program for Poverty Reduction (REP-PoR). United National Development Program, New York, 2007.
• 7. MEKONNEN M., GEBREEGZIABHER Z., KASSIE M., KÖLIN G. Income alone doesn't determine adoption and choice of fuel types: evidence from households in Tigrai and major cities in Ethiopia. Environment for Development Discussion Paper Series, No. 08-18. Addis Ababa: Environmental Economics Policy Forum for Ethiopia &, Ethiopian Development Research Institute, 2009.
• 8. USAID. Gender assessment: South Asia regional initiative for energy. Draft final report, No. 386-C-00-07-00033-00, Task Order 4.13, 2010.
• 9. OECD/IEA. Energy poverty - how to make modern energy access universal? Special early excerpt of the World Energy Outlook, 2010. IEA, Paris, 2010.
• 10. BHATTACHARYYA C.S., AILAWADI V.S. Access to energy services by the poor in India: current situation and need for alternative strategies. Natur. Reso. Forum. 30, (1), 2, 2006.
• 11. NEWELL P., JENNER N., BAKER L. Governing clean development: a framework for analysis. Working Paper 1, the Governance of Clean Development Working Paper Series. School of International Development, University of East Anglia, UK, 2009.
• 12. WHO. Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2002.
• 13. WARWICK H., DOIG A. Smoke: the killer in the kitchen, indoor air pollution in developing countries. ITDG Publishing, London, 2004.
• 14. REHFUESS E. Fuel for life: household energy and health. WHO, Geneva, 2006.
• 15. MISHRA A. Fuel- for the clean energy debate - a study of fuelwood collection and purchase in rural India. South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE), Policy Brief. Kathmandu, 2008.
• 16. BRUCE N., PEREZ-PADILLA R., ALBALAK R. Indoor air pollution in developing countries: a major environmental and public health challenge for the new millennium. Bullet, of the Worl. Heal. Organi. 78, (9), 1078, 2000.
• 17. BOY E., BRUCE N., DELGADO H. Birth weight and exposure to kitchen wood smoke during pregnancy in rural Guatemala. Environ. Health Persp. 110, (1), 109, 2002.
• 18. WHO/CAH [Department for Child and Adolescent Health], Situation analysis of household energy use and indoor air pollution in Pakistan. Department of Child and Adolescent Health and Development World Health Organization, Report No. WHO/FCH/CAH/05.06, 2005.
• 19. CHEN L, VERRALL K., TONG S. Air particulate pollution due to bushfires and respiratory hospital admissions in Brisbane, Australia. Int. J. Environ. Heal. R. 16, (3), 181,2006.
• 20. WHO. Fuel for life, household energy and health. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2006.
• 21. TASLEEM A., ZAHOOR U., MIR H.K., NAZLI R. Chronic bronchitis in women using solid biomass fuel in rural Peshawar, Pakistan. Ches. 06, (2529), 1472, 2007.
• 22. KAREKEZI S., KHENNAS S., NATU S., RAKOS C. Status of biomass energy in developing countries and prospects for international collaboration. 5,h Global Forum on Sustainable Energy in Vienna, Austria, 11-13, May, 2005.
• 23. WORLD BANK. Gender issues in monitoring and evaluation in rural development: a tool kit. The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2005.
• 24. KUMAR S., HOTCHKISS D. Consequences of deforestation for women's time allocation, agricultural production, and nutrition in hill areas of Nepal. IFPRI Research Report 69. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., 1988.
• 25. JAN I. What makes people adopt improved cookstoves? Empirical evidence from rural northwest Pakistan. Renew. Sust. Energ. Revs. 16, (5), 3200, 2012.
• 26. REDDY B.S. A multi-logit model for fuel shifts in the domestic sector. Ener. 20, (9), 929,1995.
• 27. HELTBERG R. Factors determining household fuel choice in Guatemala. Environ. Develop. Econ. 10, (3), 337, 2005.
• 28. HOWELLS M., ALFSTAD T., VICTOR D., GOLDSTEIN G., REMME U. A model of household energy services in a low-income rural African village. Energ. Policy 33, (14), 1833,2005.
• 29. KANAGAWA M., NAKATA T. Analysis of the energy access improvement and its socio-economic impacts in rural areas of developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 62, (2), 319,2007.
• 30. LEE S.-C., SHIH L.-H. Renewable energy policy evaluation using real option model - The case of Taiwan. Energ. Econ. 32, S67, 2010.
• 31. HELTBERG R. Household fuel and energy use in developing countries - a multicountry study. Discussion Paper. Oil and Gas Policy Division, the World Bank. Washington, D.C., 2003.
• 32. BARNES D., FLOOR W.M. Biomass energy and the poor in the developing countries. Jour, of Internat. Aff. 53, (1), 237,1999.
• 33. BARDHAN P., BALAND J.M., DAS S., MOOKHERJEE D., SARKAR R. Household firewood collection in rural Nepal: the role of poverty, collective action and modernization. Paper presented in the Santa Fe Conference on Inequality, Collective Action and Environmental Sustainability. New Mexico, 2001.
• 34. LEACH G. The energy transition. Energ. Policy 20, (2), 116, 1992.
• 35. MASERA O.R., SAATKAMP B.D., KÄMMEN D.M. From linear switching to multiple cooking strategies: a critique and alternative to the energy ladder model. World Dev. 28,(12), 2083, 2000.
• 36. UNDP/ESMAP. Access of the poor to clean household fuels in India. Joint United Nations Development Program (UNDP)/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), South Asia Environment and Social Development Department. The World Bank, Washington D.C., 2003.
• 37. HYDE W.F., KOHLIN G. Social forestry reconsidered. Silva Fenn. 34, (3), 285, 2000.
• 38. PACHAURI S. An analysis of cross-sectional variations in total household energy requirements in India using micro survey data. Energ. Policy 32, (15), 1723, 2004.
• 39. NARAIN U., GUPTA S., VELD K. Poverty and resource dependence in rural India. Ecolo. Econ. 66, (1), 161, 2008.
• 40. VELD V.K., NARAIN U„ GUPTA S., CHOPRA N„ SINGH S. India's firewood crisis reexamined. RFF DP 06- 25, Resources for the Future, Washington D.C., 2006.
• 41. SIDDIQUI A.S., MARNAY C., WISER R.H. Real options valuation of US federal renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment. Energ. Policy 35, (1), 265, 2007.
• 42. COX J.C., ROSS S.A., RUBINSTEIN M. Option pricing: a simplified approach. J. Financ. Econ. 7, (3), 229,1979.
• 43. ASHRAF M.C., RAZA R, HAYAT S.A. Renewable energy technologies in Pakistan: Prospects and challenges. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 13, (6-7), 1657, 2009.
• 44. LEE S.-C., SHIH L.-H. Forecasting of electricity costs based on an enhanced grey-based learning model: a case study of renewable energy in Taiwan. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2011.02.009. 2011.
• 45. JAN I. Institutional changes in agricultural support services in rural northwest Pakistan. Socioeconomic Studies on Rural Development. Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel KG, Germany, pp. 125, 2007.
• 46. BABANYARA Y.Y., SALEH U.F. Urbanization and the choice of fuel wood as a source of energy in Nigeria. Jorn. Hum. Ecol. 31,(1), 19, 2010.
• 47. MASERA O.R., EDWARDS R., ARMENDÁRIZ C., BERRUETA V., JOHNSON M., ROJAS L., RIOJAS- RODRÍGUEZ H. Impact of "Patsari" improved cookstoves on indoor air quality in Michoacan, Mexico. Ener. Sustain. Deve. 11, (2), 45, 2007.
• 48. ARTHUR M.F.S.R, SAMMY Z., BUCINI G. On the adoption of electricity as a domestic source of Mozambican households. Energ. Policy 38, 7235, 2010.