THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT

Ignacio César Cruz Islas,

“Energy Consumption of Mexican Households,”
Volume 38, Number 2

Copyright 2013

ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF MEXICAN HOUSEHOLDS 
sar Cruz Islas* Ignacio Ce

Background n recent decades there has been a significant and widespread increase in energy consumption. This increase is due to the intensification of productive activities, but also to growing population energy usage for daily activities, both indoors and outdoors, such as transportation, lighting, and entertainment, among others. This trend of rising energy consumption has a number of developmental and environmental implications. Energy consumption is associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These are long-lived gases, whose concentration in the earth’s atmosphere increases when the volume of gas emitted exceeds the natural capacity of absorption processes that exist on the planet. Many of these gases are produced by fossil fuels used as energy sources. With detectable increases in the earth’s average temperature and irregular seasonal weather conditions occurring, GHG emissions have become linked with a phenomenon referred to as climate change (CC) or global warming. Given that these changes are linked to human activity, there is concern about CC in various public and private spheres. For that reason, it is a phenomenon that is being studied from various perspectives—many of which address the quantitative aspects—and a macro-level approach is commonly used.

I

*Ignacio C esar Cruz Islas, research professor at El Colegio del Estado de Hidalgo, in Pachuca, Mexico, holds a master’s degree in population studies from the Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Hidalgo, and a Ph.D. in the same field from El Colegio de Mexico. The author focuses his academic research on sustainable development and social vulnerability. The Journal of Energy and Development, Vol. 38, Nos. 1 and 2 Copyright Ó 2013 by the International Research Center for Energy and Economic Development (ICEED). All rights reserved.

189

190

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT

Thus, countries and regions are the main population reference of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in available studies. However, the microsocial approach is becoming more widely considered for general social research. In the arena of population studies, the development of this line of research is emerging. To conduct a study with a micro-social approach, a first consideration is that humans consume energy both individually and in groups, depending upon their daily activities. In that sense, domestic space intimacy is an ideal place to see firsthand population attitudes and energy consumption practices. To conduct a study, as presented in this paper, that utilizes a micro-social approach and analyzes activities taking place in the domestic space has both its pros and cons. The main advantage we have for this work is that there are various sources of information for Mexico where the analysis unit is households. Among these are income and spending surveys. The most notable disadvantage is the lack of information sources about energy consumption that would allow us to capture attitudes and practices surrounding daily life analysis. Household energy consumption is related to daily activities such as cooking, hot water use, and home lighting. It also is linked to the supply of goods and services and the transport of household members.1 Although it is important to study energy use linked to both sources, in this article we focus on energy consumption arising from everyday activities within households. It should be noted that it is somewhat more difficult to estimate energy consumption for household member transport and the provision of goods and services. To explain consumption from a macroeconomic perspective, various theories focus on household income. The propensity to consume depends on household disposable income at a moment along a time line.2 But it depends, too, on longterm expected income and thus involving loan financing probabilities.3 Other theories suggest that the propensity for household consumption is determined not only by income but by sociocultural elements, which must also come into consideration. For example, there is a social comparison effect that exists between members of the same socioeconomic environment.4 Because disposable income varies according to the social mobility possibilities of individuals and their needs along the life cycle, A. Ando and F. Modigliani suggest that household consumption is determined by income evolution.5 Under this view, the propensity to consume also involves household factors, such as age of household head, assets accumulated, and more than one income earner.6 The microeconomic approach addresses the fact that households are not a homogeneous unit. It is recognized that there is a dynamic within each household leading to its own style of consumption. Therefore, the propensity to consume involves individual preferences, the interaction of household members in decision making, and internal household income distribution.7 In summary, although income is the main determinant of household consumption, it also is mediated by other factors. Some of these factors are individual

ENERGY CONSUMPTION & MEXICAN HOUSEHOLDS

191

and family objectives, resource management for household spending, the comparison with other families or social groups, and the level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of household members with their consumption-satisfaction-comfort ideal.8 Thus, there is a distinction between traditional economic theory and the sociological approach regarding consumption. Economic theory usually assumes that individuals behave rationally and optimize consumption based on cost-effective decisions. The sociological approach refers to desires, attitudes, and aspirations of individuals as relevant factors in consumption decisions.9 Both approaches can be combined to better predict economic decisions.10 On the one hand, this involves considering subjective factors such as memory, motivation, and family relationship dynamics. These perceptions influence preferences of household members and affect consumption choices. Furthermore, we should take into account aspects such as household budget constraints, household size, gender and age of its members, housing size, and its equipment, as examples. In the case of socio-demographic factors, it should be noted that energy consumption patterns vary from place and time from one another depending upon each household’s characteristics. Thus, energy consumption intensity involves issues such as population aging, family organizational patterns, and social inequality, among others.11 Size and structure of households are among main determinants of residential energy demand.12 In fact, household size naturally is linked with total energy consumption. Moreover, we must consider consumption per household member in terms of economies of scale. Age composition of households, in addition, determines energy consumption patterns.13 For example, a young parent family with small children has a different consumption pattern than an elderly couple whose children have left the home. The social transformations that have occurred within households over the past decades are another important aspect. In Mexico, this transformation is characterized by women’s integration into the labor market, changes in family arrangements due to poverty and emigration, and the growing relative importance of one-person households. It could be said that these changes have led to new energy consumption patterns. Household energy consumption varies from one country to another, is different for each region of a country, and changes if the household belongs to an urban or non-urban context. In this regard, we should expand our focus to the urbanization process that has occurred in recent decades. In fact, use of energy resources is more intense in cities because of the features and characteristics of urban daily activities.14 Income differentials between rural and urban areas also would be linked with different patterns of energy consumption. The life-style in each environment is a further aspect.15 With technological change and globalization, the structural process of recent decades has been expanding and diversifying consumption possibilities.16

192

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT

Thus, the set of above mentioned factors related to household energy consumption implies that the analysis task we have proposed is complex. Therefore, it is necessary to establish what analysis level is suitable for our purpose. We must take into account not only related factors but also the scope of available information. The study of the socio-demographic determinants of household energy consumption is incipient. In many developing countries the main sources of information on energy consumption predominantly provide aggregate data. That is why this paper proposes to use available household income and expenditure surveys. To study these determinants and systematically analyze information, a proposed structure is suggested that incorporates contextual factors, such as geographic household location. Additionally, we study factors related to socio-demographic characteristics, including household income, size, and its composition by age and gender.

Scheme Analysis Household energy consumption is closely linked to domestic activities, the social and economic status of people, and practices that surround their daily productivity. The objective of this proposal is to study energy consumption patterns in Mexican households at a moment in time, looking at the following levels of analysis: (1) the link between household energy consumption belonging to a particular geographical context—urban and non-urban areas—and different country regions and (2) the relationship between energy consumption and sociodemographic household characteristics. In order to answer key questions about household energy consumption patterns, data from the Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH) were used. This survey contains extensive information about household spending on electricity and fuel. Using the ENIGH data, we constructed a proxy for household energy consumption. To obtain this proxy we used electricity and fuel spending and then calculated energy units according to their energy content. We considered variations in fuel prices and electricity tariffs across Mexico. Based on this proxy, we first present a descriptive analysis of the average energy consumption per household (in kilowatt-hours). It is calculated for total energy consumption and energy consumption of electricity, natural gas, and firewood. To conclude, we provide the results from two logistic regression models we developed. In these models we use energy consumption per household and per household member as dependent variables, respectively.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION & MEXICAN HOUSEHOLDS Data

193

There are various methods to collect information on energy consumption. Each of them has advantages and disadvantages depending upon the object of analysis and aggregation degree required.17 In the case of Mexico, the ENIGH is available. This survey is representative for the country as well as for four locality sizes. It is also representative of states such as Sonora, Estado de Mexico, and the Distrito Federal (Federal District) that includes Mexico City. The survey’s main aim is to gather information on trends in income and household spending. This survey does not have a specific module for measuring energy consumption. Thus, energy consumption analysis must be performed using a proxy of household spending on electricity and fuel. Another disadvantage is that results depend on the degree of accuracy of the interviewee’s responses and, thus, interviewee reliability. Additionally, it is difficult to estimate energy consumption associated with fuels that are collected or provided as non-cash expenses. ENIGH results are obtained from a probabilistic poly-stage stratified cluster sampling. Housing is used as the unit selection and the household is the analysis unit.18 The limitations of this information source are the underestimation of real income and the exclusion of higher- and lower-income households.19 This underestimation occurs due to the refusal of some households to be interviewed. We also should consider the low probability of being selected in the sample, especially on a sample frame with such a large proportion of the rural population.20 With respect to expenditure items, there has not been a systematic evaluation of the data quality. Considering this, it was necessary to assess data quality on energy expenditures. We compared published data of total expenditures on electricity and fuel with another calculated from a different data source. Our purpose was to verify the equality between the two variables in all sample households. With respect to ENIGH, the comparison reveals that the published data are valid in 88.1 percent of households (missing data at 11.9 percent). Meanwhile, calculations with the alternative data source indicate a similar relationship: 88 to 12 percent, respectively. This lack of information suggests that there are errors in data collection on household spending. Such errors could have been corrected with a mathematical adjustment procedure. However, it is important to note that we are probably underestimating energy consumption related to spending on electricity and fuels. Nevertheless, ENIGH offers different advantages. First, this survey has been held biannually since 1984. Second, the data have been given the status of public information; thus, they are easily accessible to users. Third, given the accumulated experience in gathering information, we consider that this energy consumption proxy is accurate enough to allow for a proper study of household energy consumption determinants.

194

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT

Mexican Household Energy Consumption According to the available information, between 1990 and 2008 total energy consumption grew just over 43 percent in Mexico and has a growth rate higher than its population size. This trend also is seen in the residential sector. Between 2005 and 2008 residential energy consumption grew 2.04 percent per year. Meanwhile, the population growth rate was 1.8 percent per year for the 2005 to 2010 period. The main energy sources in the residential sector are electricity, natural gas, and firewood. Below are the results of this analysis according to the proposed scheme analysis.
Geographical Context—Region: There are significant differences within the

regional social and economic development levels within Mexico. It might be inferred that different development stages are associated with a variety of energy consumption patterns. To investigate how household energy consumption patterns change from one region to another, a problem we face is how to build a suitable regionalization for the country. Regions do not exist per se but are constructed from aspects that could be highlighted as special scientific interest. Although it is assumed that a region is associated with a territory, it is required to establish territorial boundaries and contents that distinguish them. Therefore, it is useful to begin our analysis of household energy consumption behavior based on regions constructed with sufficiently correlated attributes. In this case, we must consider Mexico’s unequal integration pattern into the global economy, which has been observed over recent decades.21 By integrating information in this manner, we expect to preserve ENIGH’s sample representativeness. The following is the breakdown of Mexico’s states into three regions and the Distrito Federal: Northern region—Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon, San Luis Potosi, Sinaloa, Sonora, Tamaulipas, and Zacatecas; Central region—Aguascalientes, Colima, Estado de Mexico, Guanajuato, Hidalgo, Jalisco, Michoacan, Nayarit, Morelos, Queretaro, and Tlaxcala; and Southern region— Campeche, Chiapas, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Puebla, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Veracruz, and Yucatan.22 Figure 1 shows that the average energy consumption per household is higher in the Northern region, followed by households in Distrito Federal, then the Central region, and, finally, the Southern region. While household average energy consumption in the Northern region is 67 percent higher than the Southern region and 29 percent higher than the Central region, it is quite similar to the Distrito Federal. Household energy consumption is positively related to the socioeconomic development for the regions under study, but not when compared to the Distrito Federal. This is due to the high electricity consumption in households in the Northern region. This may be associated with behavioral and climatic factors.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION & MEXICAN HOUSEHOLDS Figure 1
MEXICO: AVERAGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD BY REGION (in kilowatts-hours)

195

Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

Figure 1 also shows that the average energy consumption for gas usage is higher in the Distrito Federal, followed by the Central, Northern, and Southern regions. The differences are not as remarkable as those for electricity use. Since in Northern region households there is an extensive use of electric heaters, an association between gas consumption and regional development can be noted. However, in the case of firewood there is a clear association—although negative—between average energy consumption and regional development. Results suggest that it is essential to address dimensions related to the geographical context for the study of household energy consumption determinants. There are contextual elements like weather or domestic technology availability and other household characteristics to be taken into account. If we consider the relationship between energy consumption per household member and region, table 1 shows that households where energy consumption is low are more common in the Southern region (30.5 percent) and least common in the Distrito Federal (6.6 percent). Meanwhile, households where energy consumption per household member is high have a greater presence in the Distrito Federal and Northern region—38.5 and 36.9 percent, respectively—and are less common in Southern region (16.3 percent). This is a statistically significant relationship. As a preliminary conclusion, we can say that there is a relationship between regional development and energy consumption patterns in Mexican households.

196

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT Table 1
MEXICO: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY PER-CAPITA a ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND REGION, 2008

Per-Capita Energy Consumption Low Medium High Total (N)
a

Region Distrito Federal 6.6 54.9 38.5 100.0 2,507 Northern 12.0 51.1 36.9 100.0 6,994 Central 16.1 60.8 23.1 100.0 9,316 Southern 30.5 53.2 16.3 100.0 6,522 Total 17.7 55.6 26.7 100.0 25,339

p < .01. Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

According to our analysis design, this suggests that the analysis of household energy consumption has to address dimensions related to geographical context. There are contextual factors like weather or availability of domestic technology that must also be taken into account.
Geographical Context—Urban and Non-Urban Locations: In Mexico there are large cities such as Mexico City, Monterrey, and Guadalajara. Additionally, there are cities with more than one million inhabitants including Puebla-Tlaxcala, Toluca, Tijuana, Leon, Ciudad Juarez, and La Laguna, along with many other smaller urban areas. In 2010 there were 630 cities with 15,000 inhabitants or more. They housed 62.5 percent of the Mexican population.23 On the other hand, land occupation in the country also is characterized by a pattern of population dispersion in thousands of small towns. In 2010, there were 188,594 towns in Mexico with less than 2,500 inhabitants. These communities were where 23.2 percent of the population lived.24 This population concentration-dispersion pattern makes it extremely important to distinguish between urban and non-urban households in evaluating their energy consumption practices. How to distinguish what is considered urban from rural is a question that can be addressed from a variety of perspectives. It can be made by taking into account territorial/land or population aspects. Additionally, one can differentiate urban versus rural by looking at production dynamics, social and family organizations, land and property ownership, and culture. The shift from rural to urban living is part of a historical process. This process refers to various transformations and, hence, is necessarily linked with different consumer practices.25 But the urbanization process is not merely quantitative. Population growth and resource accumulation associated with production are insufficient to explain qualitative issues such as life-style and social interaction. For that reason, the

ENERGY CONSUMPTION & MEXICAN HOUSEHOLDS

197

urban-rural dichotomy stands in opposition to an alternative view of a continuum going from the most rural or least urbanized to the most urban or least ruralized.26 Based on the abovementioned, it is complex to establish the variables that allow us to attribute a greater or lesser degree of urbanity and, thereby, distinguish different energy consumption patterns. For that reason, the distinction between rural and urban areas depends on arbitrary or conventional boundaries. The boundaries most used are those with a population approach attached to a specific geographical area.27 In this work, we proposed additional variables including the population size as population employed in non-agricultural activities, education, and employee population.28 We designate urban as 15,000 or more inhabitants and non-urban with less than 15,000 inhabitants. Figure 2 shows that household average energy consumption in urban areas is higher than non-urban households, both for total consumption (48 percent) and for electricity and gas use (57 and 20 percent, respectively). In contrast, energy consumption of firewood is higher in non-urban area households by 49 percent. It is important to note that the distinctions between urban and non-urban household energy consumption standards are observed in all cases. Since this does not occur for the regions under study, it can be asserted that the degree of urbanization is the best determinant of energy consumption patterns in Mexican households. We also confirmed observed inequalities between urban and rural areas. Among others factors were differences in health and education as well as fertility rates and mortality. In the case of energy consumption, it is more decisive that a household is sited in an urban area compared to households in a non-urban location. Table 2 shows that households with low energy consumption per household member are more common among non-urban households (30.7 percent) than their urban counterparts (11.7 percent). Conversely, one is more likely to find households with high consumption per household member in urban areas (31.5 percent) than in non-urban locations (16.4 percent). There is a statistically significant relationship reflecting the influence of urbanization on household energy consumption patterns.
Demographic Household Characteristics: To conduct a study that focuses on

household energy use one should take into consideration that people consume energy individually and in groups. It depends on their daily activities, specifically, the dynamics of domestic life. Thus, households can be seen as an ideal place to observe first-hand population energy consumption practices. A phenomenon of particular interest to our research is the internal restructuring of Mexican households that has occurred over recent decades. This process has had a significant influence on the relationships and exchanges among household members as well as their practices and attitudes. The main indication of this reshaping of the Mexican households is seen in the decline in mortality and fertility rates. Other key elements are the aging of the

198

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT Figure 2
MEXICO: AVERAGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD BY URBAN AND NON-URBAN LOCATION (in kilowatt-hours)

Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

population, the change in marriage patterns, and increased participation of women in economic activity. Together, these changes have led to a process of social change and greater diversity of family structures.29 In Mexico, the incidence of poverty and economic inequality are additional issues to contemplate. Usually households with lower income levels are grouped Table 2
MEXICO: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY PER-CAPITA ENERGY a CONSUMPTION AND URBAN AND NON-URBAN LOCATION, 2008 Per-Capita Energy Consumption Low Medium High Total (N)
a

Urban 11.7 56.8 31.5 100.0 17,283

Non-Urban 30.7 52.9 16.4 100.0 8,056

Total 17.7 55.6 26.7 100.0 25,339

p < .01. Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

ENERGY CONSUMPTION & MEXICAN HOUSEHOLDS

199

in extended family arrangements. Furthermore, migration also modifies household structure.30 A central question is whether it can be said that those transformations have a connection with energy consumption patterns. There is a degree of similarity with consumption patterns arising from the Western development model. However, household energy consumption patterns are disrupted by a different family reorganization process in Mexico. Household Income: Income distribution determines the likelihood of households having access to energy and meeting their basic energy requirements without compromising their satisfaction for other needs. Furthermore, income provides a measure of how affordable energy is for households.31 Income also indicates whether the household is likely to use energy more efficiently because it is associated with access to modern energy sources and the latest domestic technologies. In this paper we have grouped households into five income strata (quintiles). The goal is to verify if higher incomes are associated with higher energy consumption. As expected, figure 3 shows that the average energy consumption per household increases with income. The difference between households in the highest income stratum’s average energy consumption and the rest of the households is remarkable. On average, Quintile V households (the highest income level) consumed 66 percent more energy than Quintile IV households and 3.4 times more than Quintile I households (the lowest income level). In the case of energy consumption of electricity and gas, there is also a positive relationship with income. Note that Quintile V household consumption values for electricity and gas are very close, but this is not the case with the other income strata. This indicates that electricity is the main energy consumption component in households with higher incomes. Figure 3 also shows that households with higher incomes have a higher energy consumption of firewood. Differences range from 58 to 91 percent relative to other income strata. This probably has to do with firewood’s use as a second fuel for the highest income households. A preliminary conclusion can be established if there is a positive relationship between income and household energy consumption, but, in this case, it is obscured by the fuel type used for domestic energy needs. However, as is shown in table 3, the relationship between energy consumption per household member and income is statistically significant. It is more likely to find households with higher consumption standards in the fifth income quintile (47.7 percent) and less likely to be found in the first quintile (16.1 percent). In contrast, the proportion of households consuming less energy per household member is higher in the first quintile (34.4 percent) and lowest in the fifth quintile (5.9 percent). In conclusion it can be said that there is a positive relationship between income and energy consumption. However, we believe there is an effect linking the type of fuel used and the household size.

200

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT Figure 3
MEXICO: AVERAGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION a PER HOUSEHOLD BY INCOME QUINTILE (in kilowatt-hours)

Quintile I to V ranges from lowest to highest income. Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

a

Household Size: One consequence of demographic changes that have occurred in Mexico during the past decades—primarily lower fertility rates—is the change in the average size of Mexican households. Average household size fell from about 4.3 members in 2000 to 3.9 members in 2010.32 This decline changed the dynamics within households in a variety of ways; thus, household size is a key indicator for the analytical exercise performed in this paper. However, Mexican household size is diverse and the ENIGH data scope is limited. To facilitate their study and not to lose sample data representation, the following groups were selected based upon the average size of Mexican households as the demarcation point: (1) up to four members and (2) more than four members. As postulated in the literature, figure 4 shows that energy consumption increases with increasing household size. According to this chart, larger households consumed 19 percent more energy. In regard to energy consumption of electricity and gas, the difference is 16 and 18 percent, respectively. Energy consumption of firewood, meanwhile, is 2.8 times higher in households with more than four members. From the aforementioned, it can be said that, indeed, there is a positive association between energy consumption and household size. However, it should be noted that household size appears to be less decisive than income. Firewood consumption is an important aspect. As discussed in previous sections, firewood use is most noticeable in the Southern region and in non-urban locations. Since there also is an

ENERGY CONSUMPTION & MEXICAN HOUSEHOLDS Table 3
MEXICO: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY PER-CAPITA a ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND INCOME QUINTILE, 2008 Per-Capita Energy Consumption Low Medium High Total (N)
a

201

Income Quintile I 34.4 49.4 16.1 100.0 4,465 II 22.6 59.3 18.2 100.0 4,945 III 15.9 62.0 22.0 100.0 5,258 IV 13.0 60.0 27.0 100.0 5,341 V 5.9 46.4 47.7 100.0 5,330 Total 17.8 55.6 26.7 100.0 25,339

p < .01. Quintile I to V ranges from lowest to highest income. Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

association between development and demographic transition, we expect to have larger average household size in the less-developed regions and smaller locations. In fact, it is more likely to find households with higher consumption standards per capita in smaller household sizes (35.5 percent) than in larger households (11 percent). It is more common to find households consuming less energy per capita among larger household sizes (24.1 percent) than households with fewer members (14.2 percent), as is shown in table 4, where the relationship is statistically significant. It should be noted that household size is strongly correlated with energy consumption standards: larger households use more energy. However, there is a consistent behavior of economies of scale: per-capita energy consumption is greater in smaller households. Household Type: Household internal dynamics are conditioned by customs, norms, values, and the behavior of its members. In a household with a complex structure, interrelationships among its members are also more diverse. Therefore, household energy consumption patterns do not fit into a single model. In 1990, 74.9 percent of Mexican households were nuclear and 19.6 percent expanded or extended. A decade later the relative importance of nuclear households dropped to 69.1 percent and we began to see a noticeable trend in one-person households with 6.4 percent. In 2010, 64.3 percent of households were nuclear, expanded households represented 24.0 percent, and one-person households made up 8.8 percent.33 Considering these issues, since the data source is a survey, it is necessary to take care not to lose representation. This requires using an appropriate typology for available information without overlooking the associated energy consumption behaviors.

202

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT Figure 4
MEXICO: AVERAGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION a PER HOUSEHOLD BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE (in kilowatt-hours)

Household size weighted average. Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

a

The household typology of ENIGH is extensive. Using it as is, very likely may result in a representation loss of less common household types. Therefore, for this paper we chose to aggregate information on: one-person households, nuclear households, and extended households. Table 4
MEXICO: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY PER-CAPITA ENERGY a CONSUMPTION AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 2008 Per-Capita Energy Consumption Low Medium High Total (N)
a

Up to 4 Members 14.2 50.3 35.5 100.0 16,247

More than 4 Members 24.1 64.9 11.0 100.0 9,091

Total 17.7 55.6 26.7 100.0 25,338

p < .01 Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

ENERGY CONSUMPTION & MEXICAN HOUSEHOLDS

203

To answer what is the relationship between household energy consumption and household type, we also used weighted-average consumption by household size. Remember that the relative importance of one-person households grows using this approach. In addition, other household types do not have enough representation in the ENIGH sample and are excluded from this analysis. Figure 5 illustrates that extended households’ average energy consumption is 25 percent higher than that of nuclear households. Moreover, it is 2.5 times higher than that observed in one-person households. This mainly is explained by average household size. In the case of electricity usage, extended households consumed 22 and 124 percent more energy than nuclear and one-person households, respectively. For gas usage the difference is 25 and 153 percent for nuclear and one-person households, respectively. For firewood usage the most significant difference is observed (77 percent and 10.2 times more likely, respectively), indicating that the main consumers of firewood are larger households, which are more common in rural areas. It is worth mentioning that one-person households are more common in urban areas. In Mexico these households are composed predominantly of elderly people. Therefore, it is very likely that they have special energy consumption needs such as home lighting, hot water use, food preparation, and entertainment. In addition, it is linked to time use of its members. Figure 5
MEXICO: AVERAGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION a PER HOUSEHOLD BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE (in kilowatt-hours)

Household size weighted average. Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

a

204

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT

Since the relative importance of one-person households has increased in recent decades and this trend is expected to continue in the future, it is a particular household group of interest for future research in this field. Table 5 shows that among households consuming more energy per capita are single-person households (55.9 percent) followed by nuclear households (26.8 percent) and extended households (17.9 percent). In contrast, extended and nuclear households are among the households that consume less energy per member (20.6 percent and 17.6 percent, respectively), while 8.6 percent of one-person households are among the least energy-consuming overall. Household Life Cycle and Economic Dependents: Energy needs of household members change over time. In this sense, the age of household members is another feature that, to some extent, determines energy consumption patterns. Age composition of households, however, is an attribute with a certain degree of complexity. By the nature of the available data, in this paper we have decided to use the household life-cycle perspective to facilitate analysis.34 As roles of household members are somehow linked to age, the life-cycle notion of stages allows us to conceive of households as structured by age strata.35 There are four aspects that we believe may be linked to household energy consumption patterns utilizing this approach. First, work activity is associated with values hierarchy and social status, just as with consumption capability.36 Second, resources and household needs are not constant. In initial and final stages of their life cycle, households are more vulnerable to an adverse economic and social context.37 The third concerns the availability and quality of household assets, particularly everyday goods such as water heaters and appliances.38 Fourth, there is a relationship between household life-cycle stages and the historical Table 5
MEXICO: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY PER-CAPITA ENERGY a CONSUMPTION AND HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2008 Per-Capita Energy Consumption Low Medium High Total (N)
a

Household Type One-Person 8.6 35.5 55.9 100.0 1,923 Nuclear 17.6 55.6 26.8 100.0 16,635 Extended 20.6 61.4 17.9 100.0 6,561 Total 17.8 55.6 26.7 100.0 25,340

p < .01. Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

ENERGY CONSUMPTION & MEXICAN HOUSEHOLDS

205

moment in which they exist. The social, economic, and political context affects the behavior of each household in different ways.39 For purposes of analysis, the age of the household head is used as a marker to distinguish the following three groups: household head up to 40 years old; household head between 40 and 60 years old; and household head more than 60 years old. According to figure 6, the average energy consumption is highest in households whose head is 40 to 60 years of age. It is 10 percent higher than households with older heads (more than 60 years old) and 41 percent higher than households with younger heads (up to 40 years old). Figure 6 shows similar patterns for electricity and firewood consumption. In the first case, households with heads aged 40 to 60 years consume 20 and 46 percent more energy, respectively. In the second case, the difference is 2 and 23 percent, for electricity and firewood usage, respectively. Regarding gas use, households with heads aged over 60 years consume more energy than households headed by persons 40 to 60 years of age (2 percent). Also, they consume 29 percent more energy than households with heads up to 40 years of age. This may be related to patterns observed in one-person households. Moreover, it may be associated with the ‘‘empty nest’’ household energy consumption pattern. Additionally, these differences are seen in the relationship that is displayed in table 6. Households that consume more energy per capita are most common among Figure 6
MEXICO: AVERAGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD (in kilowatt-hours)

Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

206

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT Table 6

MEXICO: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY PER-CAPITA ENERGY a CONSUMPTION AND AGE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD, 2008 Age of Household Head Per-Capita Energy Consumption Low Medium High Total (N)
a

Up to 40 Years Old 23.0 59.8 17.3 100.0 8,978

40 to 60 Years Old 15.4 56.2 28.4 100.0 10,708

More than 60 Years Old 13.9 47.6 38.5 100.0 5,652

Total 17.8 55.6 26.7 100.0 25,338

p < .01. Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

households with heads aged 60 years or more (38.5 percent) and least common among households with heads aged 40 or less (17.3 percent). Instead, it is more likely to find households that consume less energy per capita among households with younger heads (23 percent) and less likely among households with older heads (13.9 percent). As shown, the life-cycle stage of the household is a determinant of energy consumption. In this study we found that more energy per household is consumed in consolidated households headed by members in the age category of 40 to 60 years. This group is followed in its per-capita energy consumption by aging households (heads over 60 years of age). In the first case, the main factor is electricity consumption, probably associated with the presence of adolescents and youth. In the second case, energy consumption practices of older adults and the presence of obsolete technology appear as likely causes. Age of household members is a useful category to observe energy consumption patterns. Therefore, pointing to the variety of family arrangements and diverse energy consumption practices, the analysis considers economic dependents too. The central idea is to relate household energy consumption patterns with the presence or absence of children and elderly in the household structure. The following four household groups are considered: no economic dependents under 12 years old or above 64 years old; economic dependents under 12 years old; economic dependents above 64 years old; and both types of economic dependents. Figure 7 shows that the average energy consumption per household is higher in those with both types of economic dependents. This is due to household size and households are likely to be extended. These households consume 20 percent more energy than households without dependents. Additionally, they consume more energy than households with dependents over 64 years old (25 percent) and than households with dependents under 12 years (31 percent), respectively.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION & MEXICAN HOUSEHOLDS Figure 7
MEXICO: AVERAGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD BY DEPENDENTS (in kilowatt-hours)

207

Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

Households with dependents in both ages also consumed more energy from the use of electricity, gas, and firewood. Observed patterns, however, are not homogeneous. It is likely that in these households, grandparents and grandchildren could be living together and their household heads are middle aged. They could also be households where children and their families are returning to a parental home. These phenomena are related to family culture in Mexico or are related to family survival strategies for those facing adverse circumstances. In table 7, one can observe that it is more likely to find high per-capita energy consumption in households with dependents over 64 years of age (43.4 percent) and those households without dependents in the ages studied (40.2 percent). It is less likely to find high per-capita energy consumption in households with dependent children (13 percent). On the other hand, households with low per-capita energy consumption are more common when they have dependents under 12 years of age (23.4 percent) and least common among those households with no children or older adults (11.6 percent). It can be said that households with high per-capita energy consumption are, indeed, households on the advanced stages of the life cycle (with seniors) and consolidated households (with young people). Moreover, the importance of considering the effect of economies of scale on the analysis is readily apparent.

208

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT Table 7

MEXICO: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY PER-CAPITA ENERGY a CONSUMPTION AND DEPENDENTS, 2008 Dependents Per-Capita Energy Consumption Low Medium High Total (N)
a

None 11.6 48.2 40.2 100.0 8,372

Less than 12 Years Old 23.4 63.6 13.0 100.0 11,762

More than 64 Years Old 11.9 44.7 43.4 100.0 3,838

Both 23.3 61.9 14.8 100.0 1,366

Total 17.7 55.6 26.7 100.0 25,338

p < .01. Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

Gender Issues: There are a variety of analytical perspectives on the concept of gender. A distinction must be made between biological sex and social gender, that is, the concept that relations between men and women are socially constructed. This social construction leads to the existence of particular ideas about femininity and masculinity that result in different concepts of what constitutes these roles. Finally, gender can be understood as a structuring principle that cuts across the material and symbolic societal organization. Between 2000 and 2010, households headed by women increased from 20.6 to 24.6 percent in Mexico.40 This trend also is associated with increased poverty, unemployment, job insecurity, and the decline of male participation in the labor market. Furthermore, because of migrant household heads’ prolonged absence, Mexican women have acquired new roles. Roles played by men and women in everyday domestic life are an essential expression of energy consumption practices. In Mexico it is more common for men to have a supplier role. Women, however, are considered predominately responsible for domestic activities. Therefore, it is likely that there are differences in household consumption patterns by gender member. There are three aspects that seem most likely to be seen in light of a gender perspective. These are domestic work, decision making, and time used in domestic life. Thus, we propose to measure energy consumption by grouping households as those headed by women and those headed by men. Figure 8 shows that households headed by men, on average, consumed 9 percent more energy than households headed by women. Male-headed household consumption of electricity, gas, and firewood is also higher at 11, 4, and 16 percent, respectively.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION & MEXICAN HOUSEHOLDS

209

Compared with those observed in previous sections, differences between these two household types are reduced in all cases. Since women-headed households have lower average size, this suggests that the witnessed patterns are more closely linked to household size. According to data in table 8, one is more likely to find high energy consumption per household member in female-headed households (32.5 percent) than male-headed households (24.8 percent). In contrast, among households that consume less energy per capita a higher proportion are male-headed households (18.6 percent) versus female-headed households (15.3 percent). However, when we used household head as a marker we are likely to lose sight of another energy consumption determinant related to gender. Thus, we decided to focus the analysis on the gender composition of the household members and made the following three distinctions: men only households; women only households; and households with both genders. Figure 9 shows that energy consumption is higher in households with both genders. This is related to household size. But if we compare men only households versus women only households, the latter group consumes more energy. In the case of total energy consumption, the women only households consumed 28 percent more energy than the men only households. In terms of electricity, gas, and firewood consumption, the differences are 15, 21, and 3 percent, respectively. Figure 8
MEXICO: AVERAGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD BY GENDER OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD (in kilowatt-hours)

Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

210

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT Table 8

MEXICO: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY PER-CAPITA ENERGY a CONSUMPTION AND GENDER OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD, 2008 Per-Capita Energy Consumption Low Medium High Total (N)
a

Male 18.6 56.7 24.8 100.0 19,077

Female 15.3 52.2 32.5 100.0 6,263

Total 17.8 55.6 26.7 100.0 25,340

p < .01. Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

According to table 9, it is more likely to find high per-capita energy consumption among households comprised only of women (49.1 percent) than in households comprised only by men (47.3 percent). On the other hand, it also is more likely that households with low energy consumption are composed only of men (12.3 percent) than composed only by women (10.9 percent). Since we consider the effects of economies of scale and the association is statistically significant, similar odds point to other determinants. To analyze energy consumption patterns based on our studied determinants, it is essential to point out the interferences among the set of socio-demographic variables. We also must factor in the influence of the geographical context in which the households are located. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a multivariate analysis. The aim is to explore the interplay of energy consumption determinants. The following section presents the results of the logistic regression models. These models are used to complement the statistical analysis performed up to this point.

Logistic Regression Models This section presents logistic regression models of Mexican household energy consumption. These models use household consumption and consumption per household member as dependent variables. Other variables are grouped according to the following: (1) households’ socio-demographic characteristics as independent variables and (2) geographical context as control variables. For purposes of analysis, some of these have been regrouped. We decided to define ‘‘high consumption households’’ as those that consume more than 2,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per household and more than 500 kWh per

ENERGY CONSUMPTION & MEXICAN HOUSEHOLDS Figure 9
MEXICO: AVERAGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD BY GENDER OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS (in kilowatt-hours)

211

Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

household member. To generate the models we tested linear correlations. Likewise we ran bivariate logistic regression models to detect interactions among the variables. The results of the per household energy consumption logistic regression model are given in table 10. Based on the results, it is more likely to have high energy Table 9
MEXICO: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY PER-CAPITA ENERGY a CONSUMPTION AND GENDER OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD, 2008 Per-Capita Energy Consumption Low Medium High Total (N)
a

Gender of Household Head Only Males 12.3 40.4 47.3 100.0 1,284 Only Females 10.9 40.0 49.1 100.0 1,956 Both 18.7 57.8 23.5 100.0 22,099 Total 17.8 55.6 26.7 100.0 25,339

p < .01. Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

212

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT

consumption per household in the highest income quintile. Quintile V households odds ratio is significantly higher than other quintiles. In the case of household size, those households with more than 4 members are more likely to have high energy consumption. Moreover, it is less likely to observe high energy consumption per household in one-person households. The probability of finding high energy consumption per household is greater in households with heads aged at least 60 years old, followed by households with heads aged 40 to 60 years old. But it is more likely to observe high energy consumption in households without children or older adults. This last result, however, is not statistically significant. With respect to gender of the household head, the probability of finding high energy consumption per household is lower in female-headed households than in male-headed ones. This confirms that there are gender-related practices that do affect Mexican household energy consumption. Finally, although the result is not statistically significant, it is more likely to find high energy consumption per household in women-only households, compared with other gender compositions. In this regard, it should be noted that using the gender of the household head best explains energy consumption patterns. The results of the logistic regression model generated for energy consumption per household member as a dependent variable is shown in table 11. According to the findings in table 11, the probability of finding high energy consumption per household member grows with household income. Here, too, is a remarkably high probability associated with Quintile V households. Thus, it can be said that this group of households is a priority for public policy aimed at encouraging less energy-intensive practices. In the case of household size, as opposed to energy consumption per household, you are less likely to observe high energy consumption per household member in larger households. This is due to the economies of scale effect on consumption patterns. On the other hand, you are more likely to find high energy consumption per household member in one-person households than in other households. Since this is a growing group of households, it also requires priority attention to reduce GHG emissions due to energy use. In the case of household member ages, as shown in table 11, the likelihood of high energy consumption per household member is higher in households with heads over the age of 60 years, followed by households with heads aged 40 to 60 years. It is a similar pattern to that observed with energy consumption per household but, in this case, it is linked to one-person households. Regarding economic dependents, you are more likely to find high energy consumption per capita in households without children or older adults. This is a statistically significant result suggesting that households with teenagers and middle-aged people require top priority for climate change policy.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION & MEXICAN HOUSEHOLDS Table 10
ODDS RATIOS OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS ON WHETHER ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD IS ‘‘HIGH’’ a (‘‘High’’ = more than 2,000 kilowatt-hours)

213

(n = 25,088) Socio-demographic characteristics Income Strata (Quintile I) Quintile II Quintile III Quintile IV Quintile V Household size (Up to 4 members) More than 4 members Household type (Other) One person Age of household head (Up to 40 years old) 40 to 60 years old Over 60 years old Dependents (Less than 12 and over 64 years old) None Sex of household head (Male) Female Sex of household members (Other) Only females Control variables Region (Distrito Federal) Northern Central region Southern Location (Non-urban) Urban

Controlling Without Control Controlling Controlling by Region Variables by Region by Location and Location

1.000 2.120* 3.522* 6.207* 20.260* 1.000 1.337* 1.000 0.491* 1.000 1.606* 2.050* 1.000 1.036 1.000 0.929 1.000 1.011

1.000 1.890* 3.019* 5.246* 17.067* 1.000 1.423* 1.000 0.460* 1.000 1.642* 2.107* 1.000 1.032 1.000 0.921 1.000 1.018

1.000 1.950* 3.104* 5.342* 17.102* 1.000 1.371* 1.000 0.477* 1.000 1.617* 2.070* 1.000 1.022 1.000 0.913 1.000 1.007

1.000 1.808* 2.824* 4.844* 15.598* 1.000 1.440* 1.000 0.454* 1.000 1.649* 2.121* 1.000 1.025 1.000 0.913* 1.000 1.017

1.000* 1.541* 0.757* 0.517* 1.000 1.397*

1.000* 1.587* 0.788* 0.550* 1.000 1.224*
(continued)

214

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT Table 10 (continued)
ODDS RATIOS OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS ON WHETHER ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD IS ‘‘HIGH’’ a (‘‘High’’ = more than 2,000 kilowatt-hours) Controlling Without Control Controlling Controlling by Region Variables by Region by Location and Location 0.028* 0.154 0.244 20,887.3 11 0.034* 0.171 0.272 20,357.2 14 0.024* 0.156 0.247 20,830.4 12 0.03* 0.172 0.273 20,338.0 15

(n = 25,088) Constant Cox & Snell R square Nagelkerke R square -2 Log Likelihood df
a

Omitted categories are presented in parentheses; * = p < .05. Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

With respect to energy consumption behavior related to gender, we are less likely to observe high energy consumption per household member in female-headed households compared to male-headed households. But the result is not statistically significant. On the other hand, one is more likely to find high energy consumption per household member in households composed entirely of women compared to other household gender composition. The latter result is statistically significant and, even though it is possible to say that gender helps to determine household energy consumption patterns, it is less relevant than other socio-demographic household characteristics.

Some Final Notes The first thing that should be noted is that controlling for region and location improves the models’ goodness of fit. For that reason, for the study of households’ energy consumption determinants, it is essential to include these and, as far as possible, other contextual factors. Additionally, it is important to recognize that the models’ goodness of fit improves when we use energy consumption per household member as a dependent variable. This suggests that consumption per household member is a better indicator when studying energy consumption patterns. To use information from ENIGH allowed us to achieve the outlined goals in this research. Its analysis was very useful for understanding key aspects of household energy consumption. However, it should be noted that irregular or illegal connections to electricity for domestic use is a significant issue in Mexico. These illegal practices affect

ENERGY CONSUMPTION & MEXICAN HOUSEHOLDS Table 11
ODDS RATIOS OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS ON WHETHER ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD MEMBER IS ‘‘HIGH’’ a (‘‘High’’ = more than 500 kilowatt-hours)

215

(n = 25,088) Socio-demographic characteristics Income Strata (Quintile I) Quintile II Quintile III Quintile IV Quintile V Household size (Up to 4 members) More than 4 members Household type (Other) One person Age of household head (Up to 40 years old) 40 to 60 years old Over 60 years old Dependents (Less than 12 and over 64 years old) None Sex of household head (Male) Female Sex of household members (Other) Only females Control variables Region (Distrito Federal) Northern Central region Southern Location (Non-urban) Urban

Controlling Without Control Controlling Controlling by Region Variables by Region by Location and Location

1.000 1.603* 2.437* 3.549* 10.076* 1.000 0.223* 1.000 2.699* 1.000 1.502* 3.003* 1.000 1.761* 1.000 0.997 1.000 1.501*

1.000 1.426* 2.095* 3.026* 8.469* 1.000 0.227* 1.000 2.560* 1.000 1.519* 3.060* 1.000 1.776* 1.000 0.986 1.000 1.542*

1.000 1.475* 2.171* 3.090* 8.606* 1.000 0.227* 1.000 2.613* 1.000 1.512* 3.038* 1.000 1.742* 1.000 0.980 1.000 1.501*

1.000 1.368* 1.977* 2.822* 7.821* 1.000 0.229* 1.000 2.518* 1.000 1.524* 3.080* 1.000 1.765* 1.000 0.978 1.000 1.542*

1.000* 1.291* 0.737* 0.492* 1.000 1.373*

1.000* 1.328* 0.766* 0.522* 1.000 1.201*
(continued)

216

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT Table 11 (continued)

ODDS RATIOS OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS ON WHETHER ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER HOUSEHOLD MEMBER IS ‘‘HIGH’’ a (‘‘High’’ = more than 500 kilowatt-hours) Controlling Without Control Controlling Controlling by Region Variables by Region by Location and Location 0.079* 0.154 0.244 20,887.3 11 0.107* 0.171 0.272 20,357.2 14 0.070* 0.156 0.247 20,830.4 12 0.095* 0.172 0.273 20,338.0 15

(n = 25,088) Constant Cox & Snell R square Nagelkerke R square -2 Log Likelihood df
a

Omitted categories are presented in parentheses; * = p < .05. Source: Author’s calculations based on Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008 (ENIGH).

energy consumption estimates and also limit the scope for public intervention to promote energy savings. It is worth highlighting the fact that the fuel used in Mexican households is associated with its distribution market. Natural gas distribution covers only specific areas of the country. Distribution of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), meanwhile, fails to reach a large number of small towns scattered throughout its territory. If we factor in gas prices, this helps to explain why firewood continues to have a strong presence among fuels used in Mexico. Because electricity is an energy source available in almost all Mexican households, we find that there is a distinction between the fuel types used for cooking and heating water. On the one hand, we have households with better social and economic development, where the main fuels are natural gas or liquefied gas. On the other hand, there are households residing in poverty, which use fuels such as firewood, coal, diesel, oil, paper, or cardboard. It can be said that these energy practices coexist, which may be called modern and non-modern with the latter related to technological backwardness, poverty, and socioeconomic inequality. However, there are indications that coal and firewood are used as a second fuel in households with better living conditions. To advance on this field of study, the next step is to consider other factors associated with household energy consumption patterns. In the case of ENIGH, there are data about household and housing equipment. Others variables to consider are equipment age and its energy efficiency as well as household members’ concern about daily energy consumption practices. Thus, data sources that address technological change and people’s life-style fields focusing on household energy consumption would be required.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION & MEXICAN HOUSEHOLDS
NOTES

217

Henri Moll, Klaas Jan Noorman, Rixt Kok, Rebecka Engstro ¨ m, Harald Throne-Holst, and Charlotte Clark, ‘‘Pursuing More Sustainable Consumption by Analyzing Household Metabolism in European Countries and Cities,’’ Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 9, nos. 1–2 (2005), pp. 259–75. ´n, el intere s y el dinero (Mexico City: Fondo de John Keynes, Teorı´a general de la ocupacio Cultura Econo ´ mica, 1951).
3 4 2

1

´n del consumo (Madrid, Spain: Editorial Alianza, 1973). Milton Friedman, Una teorı´a de la funcio

James Duesenberry, Income, Saving and the Theory of Consumer Behavior (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1949). Albert Ando and Franco Modigliani, ‘‘The Life Cycle Hypothesis of Saving: Aggregate Implications and Tests,’’ American Economic Review, vol. 53, part 1 (1963), pp. 55–84. ´n de los determinantes macroecono ´micos del consumo total de los Juan Herna ´ ndez, Revisio hogares para el caso colombiano (Bogota ´ , Colombia: Banco de la Repu ´ blica, Borradores de Economı ´a, 2006). Maria Chuiri, ‘‘Individual Decisions and Household Demand for Consumption and Leisure,’’ Work Paper no. 26, Universita ` degli Studi di Salerno, Italy, 1999. Niklas Karlsson, Peter Dellgran, Birgitta Klingander, and Tommy Garling, ‘‘Household Consumption: Influences of Aspiration Level, Social Comparison, and Money Management,’’ Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 25, no. 6 (2004), pp. 753–69. Steffen Kallbekken, Jostein Rise, and Hege Westskog ‘‘Combining Insights from Economics and Social Psychology to Explain Environmentally Significant Consumption,’’ Working Paper no. 2, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo, Norway, 2008. Daniel McFadden, ‘‘Economic Choices,’’ American Economic Review, vol. 91, no. 3 (2001), pp. 351–78. Lee Schipper, ‘‘Life-styles and the Environment: The Case of Energy,’’ in Technological Trajectories and the Human Environment, eds. Jesse H. Ausubel and H. Dale Langford (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 1997), pp. 89–109. Brian O’Neill and Belinda Chen, ‘‘Demographic Determinants of Household Energy Use in the United States,’’ Supplement: Population and Environment: Methods of Analysis, Population and Development Review, vol. 28, no. 2 (2002), pp. 53–88.
13 14 15 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5

Anne Pebley, ‘‘Demography and the Environment,’’ Demography, vol. 35, no. 4 (1998), pp. 377–89. L. Schipper, op. cit.

´blicos y estilos de vida (Montevideo, Uruguay: Agustı ´n Canzani and Nicola ´ s Somma, Pu Seminario Pu ´ blicos, 2002). Erling Holden, Attitudes and Sustainable Household Consumption (Sogndal, Norway: Western Norway Research Institute, 2005).
16

218
17

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT

Josef Leitman, ‘‘How to Collect Data on Household Energy Consumption,’’ Policy, Planning and Research Working Papers, no. 108, World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1989.
18 Instituto de Nacional de Geografı ´a y Estadı ´stica (INEGI), Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2008. Cambios y Adiciones (Mexico City: INEGI, 2009).

˜ o 2000,’’ Fernando Cort es, ‘‘Acerca de la medicio ´ n oficial de la pobreza en M exico en el an ´gicos, vol. 21, no. 2 (2003), pp. 463–70. Estudios Sociolo Araceli Damia ´ n, ‘‘Los problemas de comparabilidad de las ENIGH y su efecto en la medicio ´n ´n, vol. 51 (2007), pp. 111–46. de la pobreza,’’ Papeles de Poblacio Francisco Alba, ‘‘Tendencias de la desigualdad regional en M exico ante el TLC,’’ in Crecixico. Asimetrı´a Centro-Periferia, eds. miento con convergencia o divergencia en las regiones de Me Alejandro Dı ´az-Bautista, No e Aro ´ n Fuentes Flores, and Sarah Eva Martı ´nez Pell egrini (Mexico City: El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, 2003), pp. 151–66.
22 The Distrito Federal shares few characteristics with other states in the country. It has the highest rates of social and economic development. Distinctions may be useful as a benchmark. We must not lose sight of the fact that the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City goes far beyond its political limits. 21 20

19

Ignacio Cruz, ‘‘Determinantes sociodemogra ´ ficos del consumo de energı ´a en los hogares, en el marco de la Estrategia Nacional de Cambio Clima ´ tico,’’ (Ph.D. dissertation, El Colegio de M exico, Mexico City, Mexico, 2012).
24 25

23

I. Cruz, op. cit.

˜ ol de SocioArtemio Baigorri, De lo rural a lo urbano (Granada, Spain: V Congreso Espan logı ´a, 1995); Henri Lefebvre, De lo rural a lo urbano (Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Penı ´nsula, 1978); and P. Villalvazo, J. P. Corona-Medina, and S. Garcı ´a-Mora, ‘‘Urbano-rural, constante bu ´ squeda de ´n y Ana ´lisis, vol. 20 (2002), pp. 17–24. fronteras conceptuales,’’ Revista de Informacio A. Baigorri, op. cit., and Thierry Linck, ‘‘El campo en la ciudad: reflexiones en torno a las ruralidades emergentes,’’ Relaciones, vol. 22, no. 85 (2001), pp. 86–104. ´n de las ciuA. Baigorri, op. cit., and Consejo Nacional de Poblacio ´ n (CONAPO), Evolucio xico, 1900-1990 (Mexico City: CONAPO, 1994). dades de Me We believe that the conventional limit of 2,500 inhabitants neglects the rural-urban exchange dynamics. Moreover, it represents only 23 percent of households in the ENIGH sample. See Luis Unikel, ‘‘Ensayo sobre una nueva clasificacio ´ n de poblacio ´ n rural y urbana en M exico,’’ Demografı´a y Economı´a, vol. 11, no. 1 (1975), pp. 1–18.
29 Marina Ariza and Orlandina de Oliveira, ‘‘Familias en transicio ´ n y marcos conceptuales en ´n, vol. 28 (2001), pp. 9–39; Julieta Quilodra redefinicio ´ n,’’ Papeles de Poblacio ´ n, ‘‘La familia, ´n, vol. 37 (2003), pp. 51–82; and Alfonso Vela referentes en transicio ´ n,’’ Papeles de Poblacio ´ zquez ´n and Daniel Vega, ‘‘Dina ´ mica de los arreglos residenciales en M exico 2000-2005,’’ in Situacio ´fica de Me xico 2006 (Mexico City: Consejo Nacional de Poblacio Demogra ´ n, 2006), pp. 75–87. 28 27 26

Mariana Gabarrot, ‘‘La migracio ´ n como estrategia de vida y su impacto en los hogares migrantes: una perspectiva de g enero para hacer propuestas de polı ´tica pu ´ blica,’’ in Mujeres

30

ENERGY CONSUMPTION & MEXICAN HOUSEHOLDS

219

´meno migratorio en Me ´n desde la perspectiva de xico. Una aproximacio afectadas por el feno nero (Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de las Mujeres, 2007), pp. 217–24, and Mercedes Gonza ge ´ lez, ‘‘From the Resources of Poverty to the Poverty of Resources? The Erosion of a Survival Model,’’ Latin American Perspectives, vol. 28, no. 4 (2001), pp. 72–100. ticos del desarrollo Organismo Internacional de Energı ´a Ato ´ mica (OIEA), Indicadores energe sostenible: directrices y metodologı´a (Vienna: Organismo Internacional de Energı ´a Ato ´ mica, 2008).
32 33 31

I. Cruz, op. cit.

˜ uelos and Leonor Go Eunice Ban ´ mez, ‘‘Cambios en los hogares mexicanos,’’ Demos. Carta ´fica sobre Me xico, vol. 10 (1997), pp. 24–6; Consejo Nacional de Poblacio Demogra ´ n (CONAPO), ´n demogra ´fica de ‘‘Dina ´ mica de los arreglos residenciales en M exico 2000-2005,’’ in Situacio Me xico 2006 (Mexico City: CONAPO, 2006), pp. 75–87; and I. Cruz, op. cit. Stephen Hunt, The Life Course: A Sociological Introduction (Hampshire, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), and Anton Kuijsten, Advances in Family Demography (The Hague, Netherlands: Netherlands Interuniversity Demographic Institute, 1986).
35 It is pertinent to mention that various classifications of family or household stages can be found. ˜ ola See Salustiano and Marı ´a Rodrı ´guez Del Campo, ‘‘La gran transformacio ´ n de la familia espan ´gicas, vol. 100 durante la segunda mitad del Siglo XX,’’ Revista Espan ˜ola de Investigaciones Sociolo (2002), pp. 103–65, and Organizacio ´ n Mundial de la Salud (OMS), I´ ndices estadı´sticos de la salud de cnicos, 587 (Geneva, Switzerland: OMS, 1976). la familia, Serie de Informes Te 36 Victor Marshall and Margaret Mueller, ‘‘Life Course Concepts in North America,’’ in The Life Course: Social Dynamic of Transitions, Institutions and Interrelations, eds. W. R. Heinz and V. M. Muller (New York: Aldyne/De Gruyter, 2003). 34

F elix Acosta, ‘‘Jefatura de hogar femenina y bienestar familiar en M exico,’’ (Ph.D. dissertation, El Colegio de Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico, 2000). Luis Herna ´ ndez and Pablo Slon, ‘‘Tipologı ´a de la pobreza segu ´a del Ciclo de Vida,’’ ´ n la Teorı in Simposio Costa Rica a la luz de la Encuesta de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2004 (San Jos e, Costa Rica: INIG, 2006), pp. 433–53.
39 Peter Uhlenberg, ‘‘Changing Configurations of the Life Course,’’ in Transitions: The Family and the Life Course in Historical Perspective, ed. T. Hareven (New York: Academic Press, 1978), pp. 65–97. 40 38

37

I. Cruz, op. cit.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful