Who consumes what and who emits more?

relationship be-
tween household dynamics and biomass consumption and Car-
bon Emission in Pakistan
Muhammad Imran1 Orhan Ozcatalbas2 3*Azlan Zahid Shamsheer Ul Haq4 Pomi Shahbaz5 6Muhammad
Muzammil Ramiz Murtaza

1Department of Economics and Business & Management, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, La-
hore, Pakistan
2Department of Agricultural Economics, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

3Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University System, Dallas, TX, 75252, USA

4Department of economics, Division of Management and Administrative science, university of Education,

Lahore
5Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricuture Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun Turkey

* Correspondence: Author: azlan.zahid@tamu.edu

Abstract: Over the years the household sector has become an important energy consumer and the
main source of greenhouse gases emissions (GHGs). The rural household sector has significant po-
tential for emission reduction due to its heavy reliance on traditional fuels and technologies. A great
number of academic efforts have been exerted to analyses patterns of household energy and their
determinants around the globe, particularly in developing countries. However, little is known about
the association between household dynamics and pattern of energy (biomass vs non-renewable)
use. This paper aims to analyses the relationship between different household dynamics such as
household size, income, climate, availability of resources, markets, awareness, consumption of en-
ergy, and carbon emissions. The study used the STIRPAT model to investigate the impact of income,
household size, housing dimensions, clean energy, and market accessibility on energy consumption.
The findings of the study revealed that biomass energy accounted for the majority of household
energy consumption, with dung cake accounting for 39.11% of household energy consumption. The
consumption of biomass rises with the size of the household and decreases with the level of income.
A one-kilogram oil equivalent (kgoe) increases in biomass consumption results in 15.355 kg of CO2,
but one kgoe increase in non-renewable energy consumption results in just 0.8675 kg of CO2. The
coefficient of housing unit size, distance from the LPG market, and livestock are the primary deter-
minants for choosing any fuel. Having knowledge of contemporary cookstoves, clean energy, and
the environmental impact of fuels reduces the consumption of both energy sources. Furthermore, it
was found that households with more reliance on biomass emit higher quantities of carbon com-
pared to the ones with low reliance on biomass. Based on the results of the study, it can be said that
a reduction in the use of biomass and non-renewable energy is possible with adequate interventions
and knowledge.

Keywords: Biomass energy; Non-renewable energy; Carbon Emission; STIRPAT; SDG7

Introduction
Single most prominent challenge of 21st century is global warming induced by surging level of greenhouse
gases (GHGs) emissions. Carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, methane, and
sulphur hexafluoride are the six major greenhouse gases which significantly influence environment through
global warming and reducing the quantity of these greenhouse gases is the foremost concern for global com-
munity (Zhang and Da, 2015). Among all the six greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is one of the significant

Sustainability 2020, 12, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 17

GHG which has a great influence on climate change (Abeydeera et al., 2019). Therefore, it is important to
understand factors responsible for increasing GHGs emission and what policy options can be taken to counter
this eminent threat. In last century, human activities have played a significant role in emission of GHGs (Oliv-
ier et al., 2017). Evidence suggests that aggregate pollution level and shift in world temperature have a strong
relationship to household activities and housing sector is one of the leading contributors to GHGs (Druckman
and Jackson, 2016). Abeydeera et al. (2019) pointed that household activities contribute 80 percent to global
carbon emissions. Transportation, construction, power generation, cooking and heating are the main house-
hold activities contributing to GHGs emissions (Heede, 2014; Yousaf et al., 2021).
Household sector is major consumer of energy and energy consumption has significant share in total GHG
emissions. It is predicted that household energy demand will rise in future, and which will definitely increase
the emissions of greenhouse gases (Nejat et al., 2015). Intensity of carbon emissions depend on energy sources.
Traditional fuels are main source of energy in major part of the world and contributing at large to carbon
emissions due to incomplete combustion. According to estimates combustion of traditional fuels by house-
holds contributes 21 percent in carbon dioxide emissions (Perera, 2018; Rahut et al., 2016). Traditional fuels
including firewood, coal, charcoal, crop reside and Dung; renewable energy composed of biogas and solar
and modern energy comprised of LPG, natural gas and electricity are three major classifications of household
energy. A significant majority of population around the globe consume traditional biomass for domestic pur-
poses (Jan et al., 2017). In developing countries, about 90 percent of the residents depend on traditional bio-
mass which is main contributor to carbon emissions (Imran et al., 2019). According to Behera and Das (2017)
carbon emissions are increasing swiftly in underdeveloped nations as compared to developed economies (Be-
hera and Dash 2017). Roughly 2.8 billion low-income households are using biomass which epitomises 9 per-
cent of primary energy supply and 55 percent wood harvest. Traditional biomass is an important source of
energy for low-income households in developing countries (Yousaf et al., 2021).
Biomass is used by 105 million individuals in Pakistan for cooking, and incomplete combustion of biomass
results in 28000 deaths and 40 million respiratory illness cases per annum in Pakistan (Fatmmi et al., 2010;
Imran et al., 2019). Almost 86 percent of individuals in Pakistan consume biomass (fuelwood, crop residue
and animal Dung) for cooking and heating and fuelwood is major biomass which is used by 54 percent of
households. High concentration of indoor air pollution is outcome of burning with open fire or traditional
stoves (Parajuli et al., 2016). And it has been found that, globally 3 million deaths per annum are caused by
indoor air pollution. Pakistan is 5th most populous country in the world, and it is estimated that its population
will reach 403 million in 2050. The increasing population and per capita income have increased the demand
for energy. While on the other hand, poor energy infrastructure, heavy reliance on thermal power, low afford-
ability of expensive imported fuels, high transmission and distribution losses, and other supply side factors
have widened the gap between supply and demand. More than 60 percent of the population lives in rural areas
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17

and due to both demand side and supply side factors, majority of this population relies on traditional fuels for
their domestic energy needs. Another reason for heavy reliance on traditional fuels is easy accessibility. Paki-
stan is an agricultural country and countryside is rich with traditional energy sources such as crop residues,
animal Dung, fuelwood etc.
Although, Pakistan is not among major contributors of CO2 emission. However, since its independence Paki-
stan have seen a sharp increase in per capita CO2 emission. From 0.02 tonne in 1947 to 1.13 tonne in 2017
(world Bank). The uncontrolled increase in CO2 emission is a threat to environmental sustainability of Paki-
stan. Pakistan has been ranked among ten countries most affected by the climate change. It is necessary for
Pakistan to prepare itself for climate change adaptation as well as investigate source those contributing to
climate change domestically. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to estimate biomass and non-renewable
energy consumption in households and carbon emissions from combustion of traditional biomass fuels and
non-renewable energy.
Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
The household energy consumption has significant proportion in the total energy consumption all over the
world. The energy use pattern of different households depicts high variance because there are many different
factors those affect the energy use decision by the households (Zhou and Yang, 2016). Changing energy con-
sumption behavior of households over the time exert the high pressure on energy use efficiency as well as at
environment. The household sector has high potential of energy saving. To improve the energy efficiency and
environment quality, the understanding of changing energy use behavior can be considered an effective way.
The behavioral factors are considered more important in achieving the energy conservation (Steg et al., 2005).
Therefore, the households’ behavior of energy consumption can be described in three different dimensions
(Zhou and Yang, 2016). First dimension is time dimension, which describes that the household’s energy con-
sumption behavior can be in an hour, day, a month, a year. It means the energy consumption behavior of the
households can be described in different time graininess. For example, energy consumption in a day can be
different form the energy consumption profile of a month. Second, user dimension describes that the energy
consumption behavior of the households varies greatly. It means the households energy consumption affected
by various factors including both external and internal factors. Former (external factors) includes the demo-
graphic characteristics, housing features and characteristics, income, and many others. Similarly, later (inter-
nal factors) includes habits of households’ members, and environmental awareness. The last third dimension
is spatial dimension, and energy consumption behavior also differs due to the area. The geographical, envi-
ronmental climatic characteristics and level of development in area also affect the energy consumption behav-
ior. The household energy consumption behavior has been described by different paradigms such as Economic
and behavioral oriented paradigms. In the economic paradigm, the rational choice theory is highly applicable
in energy consumption behavior. This theory explains the consumer has his/her rational behavior and seeks to
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17

obtain the maximum benefits with minimum cost to gain maximum utility (Elster, 1986: Homans 1961). Ra-
tional energy consumers make energy consumption decision based on the benefits and cost associated with
energy types and all of the available internal and external information. Therefore, the intellectual burden of
information processing always deteriorates the ability of the energy consumers to take purposely action, con-
sequently they are restricted to the rationality (Simon 1955). Similarly, the behavior-oriented paradigm de-
scribes that the energy consumption behavior is influenced by many different intrapersonal factors (like aware-
ness, information, habits etc.), interpersonal factors (like Norms, social environment etc.) and external factors
(like incentives, awards, punishment). It was observed from literature that the household behavior toward
energy consumption is also based on choice theory and behavior paradigm. Therefore, daily consumption
(time dimension) of different types of energy, by different households (user dimension) at home (spatial di-
mension) is extensively focused in this study. Moreover, following this energy consumption behavior, the
economic and behavior-oriented paradigm also considered in the selection of the different variables having
great effect on energy consumption.
The role of income as a significant determinant of household energy consumption has been extensively dis-
cussed in the literature. The role of income in energy consumption was first explained with the help of energy
ladder model, which states that with increase in income household switches from traditional to more sophis-
ticated fuels. Majority of the studies have relied on Gross Domestic Products (GDP) to investigate the rela-
tionship between income and energy consumption at national or state level (Payne et al., 2010). However, we
argue that the relationship could be different at household level. Therefore, in this study association between
annual income of the household and energy consumption and carbon emission is analyzed. The income of the
households is supposed to have positive effect on the consumption of non-renewable energy and negative
effect on biomass energy consumption. For example, the high-income families are supposed to use more non-
renewable energy sources as compared to biomass. Literature suggest that household energy consumption and
carbon emission are not just only influenced by income by also by numerous other factors (Campbell et al.,
2003; Heltberg, 2005; Nansairo, 2011). The consumption of energy also vary with spatiality, and some varia-
ble such as type of housing units, housing unit size, and number of rooms, distance from LPG market, presence
of fuel wood market in the village were considered to the spatiality dimension in the model. These variable
regarding the spatiality dimension of energy consumption also majorly affect the decision of energy use at
household level. For example, families owing large house with many rooms and big yard will prefer more
cheaper and easily available energy source. In big house, the consumption of expensive and rarely available
energy sources is difficult. The families at locality are unable to use them due to financial constraints. Addi-
tionally, the choice of energy sources is also affected by some demographic factors. Therefore, there are some
intrapersonal factors such as age and education of the household head, having information about clean cooking
technologies (improved cook stove), clean energy source, impact of fuels on environment, and information
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 17

about health impact of biomass. These factors play a major role in the selection of energy sources and its
consumption. For example, the highly educated person would prefer clean energy sources as compared to dirty
energy sources. Similarly, having the proper information regarding the impact of energy sources on environ-
ment and health would enhance the selection and consumption of clean energy source at household level.
Moreover, external factors such as adoption of clean energy, own land, own animal husbandry, and source of
fuelwood etc. also influence the energy consumption. For example, having the animal at farm may increase
the use of dung cake at home. Similarly, having own land may also increase the use of crop residual.
Material and method
Study Area and sampling
The study was conducted in rural areas of four randomly selected districts of Punjab province in Pakistan.
These districts were, Rawalpindi, Khushab, Faisalabad, Muzaffargarh. For the selection of district and house-
hold a multistage random sampling technique was used in this study. The Punjab province has 36 districts. In
the first stage, these districts were clustered into two agro-climatic zones, highland and lowland to capture
potential effects of agro-climatic related factors on household energy use. In the second stage, two districts
from each zone were selected randomly. Consequently, Rawalpindi and Khushab were selected from the high-
land category and Faisalabad and Muzaffargarh were selected from lowland category. In the third stage, ten
villages were selected from each district. Finally, 8-12 household were selected from each village for sample
survey. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to collected data from 400 randomly selected households.
To check validity of the questions included in the questionnaire, a pre-testing survey was conducted. Based
on the observation during pre-testing phase modifications were made in the questionnaire. The household was
considered as a unit of analysis in this study because household energy is an issue of concerns for the entire
household. Therefore, respondent of the survey were household heads. Information on different aspects of
energy such as, monthly consumption, energy expenditures, types of energy and technologies used, and, in-
formation related to household composition, income, wealth, housing unit characteristics, information about
pros and cons of different energy sources and their impact on environment and human health were collected
from the respondents. A team of data collectors having knowledge of different crops cultivated in the area and
about energy was recruited. Before going into the field, a training was given to data collectors on how to
handle interview. The overall process of survey was supervised by first author of this study.
Following Cochran (1963:75) sample size was determined as follows:

N= 𝑧 2 𝑃𝑄/𝑒 2
𝑁 = (1.96)2 . (0.5) (1 − 0.5)/0.052
𝑁 = 3.8416. (0.5). (0.5)/0.0025
𝑁 = 384.16

Where N is required sample size,

p is the estimated proportion of an attribute that is present in the population (assuming maximum variability
at p=0.5), Z2 is the abscissa of the normal curve that cuts off an area α at the tails (1 − α equals the desired
confidence level, e.g., 95%), The value for Z is found in statistical tables, 1.96 is the critical value for a
two-tailed hypothesis test at 5% significance level, Q is 1-p, and e desired level of precision (e=0.05 at
5%). The total sample size was calculated as 384.

Model specification
There are various models used for testing the effect of the different factors of energy consumption at household
level: for example, linear approximate almost ideal demand system (Irfan et al., 2018), multinomial logit
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17

(Rahut et al., 2019: Mensah and Adu, 2015: Azam and Ahmed 2015), energy demand of utility maximization
(Damette et al., 2018), dynamic panel regression model (Han et al., 2018), Engel curve by Heltberg
(2005) and Regression model by Huebner et al. (2016). Similarly, Wang and Yang (2019) used the STIRPAT
model. In this study, Stochastic impacts of regression on Population (P), Affluence (A) and Technology (T)
(STIRPAT) model was preferred to use due to its many advantages over all other model previously used in
many studies such as simple model modification, and inclusion of variable, easy interpretation of findings
(Yousaf et al., 2021), and high flexibility (Anser 2019). Moreover, there are two major reasons of using the
STIRPAT model. First, to predict the non-renewable and biomass energy consumption based on the key de-
riving forces like income, household size and clean energy technology etc. Second, to explore the casual ef-
fects portrayed by the coefficients different drivers (income, household size, and clean energy etc.) of energy
consumption in STIRPAT model.
STIRPAT model is extension of IPAT model (Zhou and Li, 2020). The IPAT (Influence = Population + Af-
fluence + Technology) model was first proposed by Ehrlich and Holdren (1971). The basic IPAT model is
expressed in following equation.
I = PAT
The above equation can be modified as following
𝛽1 𝛽 𝛽3
𝐼𝑖 = 𝛾𝜊 𝑃𝑖 𝐴𝑖 2 𝑇𝑖
By augmenting the stochastic variables in the above equation, the IPAT model has been converted into STIR-
PAT model. The following equation is depicting the STIRPAT model equation.
𝛽1 𝛽 𝛽
𝐼𝑖 = 𝛾𝜊 𝑃𝑖 𝐴𝑖 2 𝑇𝑖 3 𝑒 𝜀𝑖
By taking the logarithmic on both side of the equation of STIRPAT model, the impact of various factors/var-
iables on dependent variables are explored (Dietz, et al., 2007: Zhou and Li 2020). Finally, the energy con-
sumption STIRPAT model has been developed as given below.
ln 𝐼𝑖 = 𝛽𝜊 + 𝛽1 ln 𝑃𝑖 + 𝛽2 ln 𝐴𝑖 + 𝛽3 ln 𝑇𝑖 + 𝜀𝑖
Where 𝛽𝜊 𝑖𝑠 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑜 ln 𝛾𝜊 and lne is equal to 1. This re-specification of initial STIRPAT model is known as
elasticity model due to the coefficients associated with the variables in the model describe the elasticities. In
the current study, we have used the quantities of non-renewable and biomass energy (in Kg of oil equivalent)
at household level as dependent variables, and population (household Size), Affluence (income, number of
animals, Land owned, housing unit size, number of rooms) and Technology (use of clean energy sources such
as biogas or solar) and information about energy sources and their impacts, age and education as independent
variables in the model. Therefore, the 𝛽𝑠 are the coefficient values of the variables whose description is provide
in table 1. When the logarithm form of the variables was used then the coefficient value regarding the income
provided us the income elasticity value of energy consumption.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17

Table 1. Description of Variables

Age of the household head was measured in years and then performed
LnAge logarithm according to STIRPAT modeling
Education of household head was measured in years then performed
Education logarithm according to STIRPAT modeling
Total income (rupees) is incorporated for income effect upon energy
consumption choices, and performed logarithm for income elasticity
LnIncome and STIRPAT modeling
Ordinal: Single family detached = 1, single family attached =2, other =
House Type 3
Ln housing unit housing unit size was measured in Sq. ft and then performed logarithm
size according to STIRPAT modeling
Rooms in a house was measured in numbers and then performed loga-
Ln No. of Rooms rithm according to STIRPAT modeling
Ln distance from Distance form LPG market was measured in Km and then performed
LPG Market logarithm according to STIRPAT modeling
Foulewood mar-
ket in Village Dummy: 1 for availability of fuelwood market in village, otherwise 0
Info. About mod-
ernized Dummy: 1 for having information about the modern cookstove, other-
cookstoves wise 0
Info. about clean
energy Dummy: 1 for having information about the clean energy, otherwise 0
Info. About fuels
impact on Envi- Dummy: 1 for having information about the impact of fuels on en-
ronemnt viornment, otherwise 0
Info. About health Dummy: 1 for having information about the health impact of biomass,
impact of biomass otherwise 0
Use of any clean
enrgy source Dummy: 1 for using clean energy at house, otherwise 0
Land was measured in Acres and then performed logarithm according
Ln own land to STIRPAT modeling
Livestock was measured in numbers and then performed logarithm
Lnlivestock according to STIRPAT modeling
Primary factor for
chosing any fuel
type 1 for Conveniance, 2 for efficiency and 3 for Price
Source of fuel 1 for "collecting from own land": 2 for "collecting form others land"
wood and 3 for "Purchased form market"

Calculation energy equivalents of non-renewable energy and biomass energy

To proceed the empirical investigation and completing the objective of the study physical consumption quan-
tities were converted into standard units, kilogram of oil equivalents (Kgoe). Following energy equivalents
were used to measure the energy quantities form the two different sources of energy (non-renewable and
biomass).
Table 2: Energy Equivalents and emission coefficient of different Energy sources
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17

Biomass Energy Emission coef- Non-renewa- Energy Emission coef-

Fuel Type Equivalents ficients ble Energy Equiva- ficients
(KGOE) (t CO2/t fuel) Type lents (t CO2/t fuel)
(KGOE)
Crop resi- 0.023 1.174* LPG 11.7 0.401
dues
Fuelwood 0.3 0.03
Dung Cake 2.16 0.787*
Sources: Zhang et al. (2014) and Baul et al. (2018).
*emission coefficient for Dung cake is kg CO2/kg from Baul et al. (2018)
Non-Renewable Energy Consumption = LPG * 11.7 (Kgoe)
Biomass Energy Consumption = Fuel Wood * 0.3 (Kgoe) + Crop Residuals * 0.023 (Kgoe) + Dung Cake *
2.16 (Kgoe)
Calculating the carbon emission from different energy sources
LPG (CO2) = LPG x CEC LPG x 44/12
Fuelwood (CO2) = Firewood x CEC Firewood x 44/12
Crop-Residuals (CO2) = Crop-residual x CEC Crop-Residual x 44/12
Dung cake (CO2) = Dung cake x CEC (Dung cake) x 44/12
Total Carbon emission = ∑4𝑖=1 𝑒𝑠𝑖 × 𝐶𝐸𝐶𝑖 × 44⁄12
Where CEC denotes carbon emission coefficient, and es refers to different types of energy sources and i shows
these five energy sources (i =1, 2,….,5). The information about the carbon emission coefficient for non-re-
newable and biomass sources is also given in Table 2. Before calculating the total carbon emission, first the
units of crop residues and Dung cake were converted into t CO2/t fuel.
Results and Discussion
Energy Consumption Quantities
Consumption quantities of different fuels in the study area are presented in Table 2. Dung cake has the highest
share in total energy consumption of rural households in the study area. On the other hand, when converted
into standard energy unit electricity consumption has the least share (1.70%) in total household energy con-
sumption. Apart from animal Dung another important source of biomass energy in the study is fuelwood,
which contributes 17.20% of total energy consumption. Households also use a significant quantities of crop
residue (446 kg per month). Higher use of Biomass fuels such (Dung, fuelwood, crop residue) can be attributed
to easy availability and inexpensive nature of these fuels in the study area. Often electricity breakdown and
expensiveness have led to just essential use of electricity in the study area, such as cooling (mostly with fans)
and lighting. The Table 2 reveals that in daily life rural households rely more on biomass fuels as compared
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17

to modern or non-renewable fuels (LPG). A significant share of the population in study area also uses LPG
for cooking. However, it was found that LPG is used as secondary cooking fuel and primary cooking fuel is
fuelwood/crop residue in the study area. LPG is also an expensive fuel and is not affordable for low-income
households in the study area. Natural gas (piped gas) infrastructure is almost non-existent in rural areas with
exception to few. Therefore, natural gas consumption in rural households is almost negligible. Higher use of
biomass energy by households was also found by Zhou et al. (2015). Xiaohua et al., (2017) explored the
consumption of different sources of energy in 8 different counties of China and found that biomass energy
sources have highest share in total household energy consumption. Higher share of biomass energy in total
energy consumption is widely observed worldwide (Pokharel, 2007: Karekezi and Kithyoma, 2002). Wu et
al. (2019) also described the biomass is one of the majorly consumed energy sources in China.
Table 3: Fuel Types, Physical quantities, and Share in Total Consumption
Coefficient of
Physical Quan- Kilogram of oil
tity of Consump- equivalent Consumption Percent of total
Fuel Type tion per month (Kgoe) (Kgoe/month) consumption
LPG (kg) 10.72 11.70 125.42 24.22
Fuel Wood
(kg) 296.93 0.30 89.08 17.20
Crop Residual
(kg) 446.25 0.02 10.26 1.98
Dung Cake
(kg) 93.76 2.16 202.52 39.11
Natural Gas
(MMBTU) 3.27 25.00 81.75 15.79
Electricity
(kwh) 103.42 0.09 8.79 1.70

Association between income, household size and energy consumption

The association between household size and energy consumption (fuel-wise) is illustrated in Figure 1. The
figure shows how energy consumption varies with household size. The biomass consumption increases as
family size increases and LPG energy share decreases as family size increases. The biomass is main source of
energy contributing 43.04% in total energy consumption in the household with more than 12 members. While
on the other hand, LPG has the highest share (43.05%) in total energy consumption of household with small
family size (<5 members). This reveals that population has a negative association with LPG and positive
association with biomass fuels.
Figure 2. represents the relationship between income and share of different fuels in total energy consumption.
Figure reveals that low-income households rely more on biomass energy. Looking at other fuels, we can see
that with increasing income share of modern energy sources (mainly electricity) increases in total energy
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17

consumption. The share of LPG in total household energy consumption increases till 4 th income quantile,
however, richest population replaces LPG with electricity. Therefore, in 5th income quantile the share of LPG
is low compared 3rd and 4th income quantiles. The similar findings were presented by Cai and Jiang (2008),
they stated the biomass consumption increases with large family size and low-income level.

Energy Consumption (%) and Household Size

100%
Energy Consumption (%)

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
<5 Members 5-8 Members 9-12 Members >12 Members
Household size (No.)

LPG Biomass Gas Electricity

Figure 1: Distribution of different energy sources consumption by household size

Energy Consumption (%) and Income Quantiles

100%
Energy Consumption (%)

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
<250 251-500 501-750 751-1000 >1000
Per Capita Income Quantiles ($)

LPG Biomass Gas Electricity

Figure 2: Distribution of different energy sources consumption by income quantiles

Association between fuel types and CO2 emissions
The sources of electricity are complicated in Pakistan. Therefore, our analysis of Carbon emission from dif-
ferent energy sources is limited to biomass fuels and non-renewables (LPG). The biomass contribution in
emission of CO2 is 15.355 kg according to the coefficient value in the trend line depicted in Figure 3. The
increase of 1 kg in biomass consumption generates 15.355 kg CO2. It may conclude that biomass consumption
is majorly contributing to the CO2 emission which may leads to the harmful environment in the locality.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17

This emission of CO2 could be reduced by increasing the consumption of other energy sources those contrib-
uting less to CO2 emission. Among them, one is the non-renewable resource which is majorly used after the
biomass in the locality. The trend line of CO2 and non-renewable energy (Figure 4) shows that the increase in
consumption of non-renewable energy by 1 kg produces only 0.8675 kg CO2.

CO2 Emission and Biomass Energy

8000
7000 y = 15.355x + 36.108
R²= 0.9519
CO2 Emission (Kg)

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Biomass Energy (Kg)

Figure 3: CO2 emission and Biomass energy source

CO2 Emission and Non-Renewable Energy

8000
y = 0.8675x + 423.71
7000 R²= 0.004
CO2 Emission (Kg)

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Non-Renewable Energy (Kg)

Figure 4: CO2 emission and non-renewable energy sources

Association between household size, income, and Carbon Emissions
Figure 5 shows the association between CO2 emission and household size. The results show that as the house-
hold size increases the CO2 quantity also increases. The highest level of CO2 emission was observed at the
household with size of more than 12 family members. The lowest quantity of CO2 was observed at households
with less than 5 family members. It may be due to that the largest family sized households needs more energy,
and they normally use more biomass than other sources of energy as depicted in figure 1-a.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 17

Figure 6 represents association between CO2 emission and income. It can be observed from the figure that
rich households emit low CO2 as compared to the poor households. It means the highest income quantiles
households were consuming more clean energy sources as described in figure 1-b, in this way, the emission
of CO2 significantly reduced. The rich household uses more clean energy sources with low chance of CO2
emission as compared to the low-income families. Higher use of biomass energy by households is a threat for
environment sustainability of the country. It has been stated by the previous studies that, biomass combustion
emits several hazardous air pollutants (Tonooka et al., 2006) and contributes majorly to the environmental
degradation (Li et al., 2009).

CO2 Emission and Household Size

800
700
CO2 in Kg per Years

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
<5 Members 5-8 Members 9-12 Members >12 Members
Household Size (No.)

Figure 5: CO2 emission based on different household size

CO2 Emission and Income Quantiles

700

600
CO2 in Kg per year

500

400

300

200

100

0
<250 251-500 501-750 751-1000 >1000
Income Quantiles ($ Per Capita)

Figure 6: CO2 emission based on different income quantiles

Results of STIRPAT Model
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17

The results of STIRPAT model are presented in Table 4. The impact of different independent variables such
as population, Affluence and Technology on the household’s non-renewable and biomass energy consumption
were analyzed. The results reveal that education has significant positive impact on the NRE consumption and
significant negative impact on biomass energy consumption. This explain that the education plays an im-
portant role in selection of different energy sources which lower the consumption of biomass energy sources
and increase the consumption of NRE sources. Poortinga et al. (2004) and Nair et al. (2010) also founds
significant effect of education on energy use.
The econometric results regarding logarithmic income of the family describes significant positive association
with NRE sources. It shows that the LPG (NRE source in current study) is considered as necessity good by
households, and if income increases by 1% the consumption of NRE also increases by 0.010 %. Similarly, the
significant negative impact of income on biomass consumption describes the 1% increase in income reduces
the consumption of biomass energy sources (firewood, Dung cake, and crop residuals) by 0.012%. Cai and
Jiang, (2008) also reported the same result that high income lower the consumption of biomass source of
energy and increase the consumption of Non-renewable energy like LPG. Moreover, Yousaf et al. (2020)
described the similar results regarding the consumption of LPG. Moreover, they (Yousaf et al., 2020) also
stated different results regarding the consumption of different sources of biomass energy such as firewood and
Dung cake.
The housing unit size also affects the choices and consumption of different energy sources. The 1% change in
size of housing unit (Sq.Ft) lower the consumption of NRE by 0.004% while increase the consumption of
biomass 0.005%. The large houses in locality having big yard with few rooms. In this type of houses the
families are mostly using the biomass for heating, and cooking. Zou and Luo (2019) reported the positive but
insignificant results regarding the dwelling area and Non-Renewable energy like LPG and significant positive
effect of dwelling area on the consumption of biomass energy.
The distance from LPG market and availability of fuel wood market at locality plays also vital role in the
energy consumption. The reduction in distance from LPG market by 1% increases the consumption of LPG
by 1.621% and reduces the consumption of biomass energy by 1.082%. Behera et al. (2015) also described
the similar results that the easy access to the market increase the consumption of LPG and large distance to
market increase the consumption chances of different biomass sources. The market of fuelwood in village
does not affect the consumption of NRE but it affects significantly the consumption of biomass. The fuelwood
market availability increases the biomass consumption by 17.964%.
The information of different technologies and information about the impact of fuel on environment also affect
the use of NRE and biomass energy. The information of modernized cookstoves significantly reduces the
consumption of NRE by 4.636% and biomass energy by 4.628%. Similarly, the information about the clean
energy sources also significantly reduces the consumption of NRE and biomass by 12.23% and 4.11%,
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 17

respectively. Having the information of fuel impact on environment. Reduces the consumption of NRE by
2.602% and biomass by 7.071%. Similarly, having the information of biomass impact on health reduces the
consumption of biomass by 4.702% and increases the consumption of LPG by 2.380%.
The value associated with the use of clean energy sources is negative and it ensure that the adoption of clean
energy sources reduces the consumption of LPG by 26.096% and consumption of biomass by 20.243%.
The logarithmic of number of livestock at farm significantly reduces the consumption of NRE and increases
the consumption of biomass. The one percent increase in livestock at farm causes 0.105% reduction in NRE,
and 0.053% increase in consumption of biomass. When households considering the price of fuel as primary
factor in choosing the fuel type, then the consumption of NRE reduces by 0.293%, and increases the consump-
tion of biomass by 0.267%. The source of fuel wood like purchasing from market significantly reduce the
consumption of biomass energy by 5.267% and increases the consumption of NRE by 10.585%. this may be
because of that the purchase of fuel wood is substituted by the purchase of NRE sources which contributes to
consumption of NRE than biomass energy.
Table 4. Results of STIRPAT model
Non-Renewable Energy Biomass
Variables Coef. Std. Err. Coef. Std. Err.
Constant -53.065 26.146 48.621 36.650
LnAge -0.150 0.341 0.282 0.478
Education 3.216 1.093* -8.231 2.345*
LnIncome 0.010 0.002* -0.012 0.001*
House Type 6.312 7.265 -11.893 10.184
Ln housing unit size -0.004 0.002** 0.005 0.003**
Ln No. of Rooms -3.757 2.792 2.291 2.512
Ln distance from LPG Market -1.621 0.464* 1.082 0.651***
Foulewood market in Village 6.477 8.281 17.964 6.567*
Info. About modernized cookstoves -4.636 1.365* -4.628 1.098*
Info. about clean energy -12.237 3.276* -4.112 0.987*
Info. About fuels impact on Envi-
ronemnt -2.602 1.004** -7.071 0.789*
Info. About health impact of biomass 2.380 0.684* -4.702 1.009*
Use of any clean enrgy source -26.096 8.062* -20.243 11.301***
Ln own land -0.801 0.790 1.597 1.108
Lnlivestock -0.105 0.057** 0.053 0.012*
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 17

Primary factor for chosing any fuel

type -0.293 0.064* 0.267 0.099*
Source of fuel wood 10.585 2.586* -5.267 1.056*
*, **,*** depicts the significance at 1%, 5% and 10% respectively.

Conclusion
Rural households in the study area rely on variety of energy sources, crop residue, animal dung, fuelwood,
LPG, Natural gas, electricity, solar, and biogas. The major share in total household energy consumption is of
non-renewable and biomass energy. The share of biomass in energy consumption is highest than other energy
sources. Household size and income differential created the variation in the consumption of biomass and non-
renewable energy. The families with small household size and high-income level were consuming low bio-
mass energy quantities which is the major contributor in the CO2 emission.
Among the factors affecting the consumption of biomass and non-renewable energy, the households with
highly educated head were consuming more non-renewable energy and low biomass. The income elasticity of
energy consumption describes the LPG in non-renewable energy as necessary good and biomass as inferior
good. The consumption of biomass could be reduced by increasing the awareness about clean energy and its
associated health environmental benefits. Moreover, the provision of non-renewable energy and other clean
energy sources at locality may positively contribute toward the shifting from biomass energy to environmen-
tally friendly energy sources.

References
Simon H. A. (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 1955;69:99–118
Elster J (1986). Rational choice. New York: New York University Press.
Homans G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Zou, B., & Luo, B. (2019). Rural household energy consumption characteristics and determinants in China.
Energy, 182, 814-823.
Behera, B., Jeetendra, A., & Ali, A. (2015). Household collection and use of biomass energy sources in South
Asia. Energy, 85, 468-480.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 17

Poortinga W, Steg L, Vlek C. Values, environmental concern and environmental behavior: a study into house-
hold energy use. Environ Behav 2004;36:70–93.
Nair G, Gustavsson L, Mahapatra K. Factors influencing energy efficiency investments in existing Swedish
residential buildings. Energy Policy 2010;38(6):2956–63
Pokharel S. (2007) An econometric analysis of energy consumption in Nepal. Energy Policy, 35(1):350e61.
Cai, J., & Jiang, Z. (2008). Changing of energy consumption patterns from rural households to urban house-
holds in China: An example from Shaanxi Province, China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
12(6), 1667-1680.
Zhou Y, Liu, Y. S., Wu, W. X. and Li, Y. R. 2015. Effects of rural–urban development transformation on
energy consumption and CO2 emissions: a regional analysis in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev;52:863–
75.
Xiaohua, W., Kunquan, L., Hua, L., Di, B., & Jingru, L. (2017). Research on China’s rural household energy
consumption–Household investigation of typical counties in 8 economic zones. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 68, 28-32.
Wu S, Zheng X, You C, Wei C. Household energy consumption in rural China: historical development, present
pattern and policy implication. J Clean Prod 2019;211:981e91.
Karekezi S, Kithyoma W. Renewable energy strategies for rural Africa: is a PVled renewable energy strategy
the right approach for providing modern energy to the rural poor of sub Saharan Africa? Energy Policy
2002;30(11e12): 1071e86.
Li G, Niu S, Ma L, Zhang X. Assessment of environmental and economic costs of rural household energy
consumption in Loess Hilly Region, Gansu Province, China. Renew Energy 2009;34(6):1438e44.
Tonooka Y, Liu J, Kondou Y, Ning Y, Fukasawa O. A survey on energy consumption in rural households in
the fringes of Xian city. Energy Build 2006;38(11):1335e42.
Payne, J. E., & Taylor, J. P. (2010). Nuclear energy consumption and economic growth in the U.S: an empir-
ical note. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning and Policy, 5(3), 301-307.
Heltberg R. Factors determining household fuel choice in Guatemala. Environ Dev Econ 2005;10:337e61.
Nansairo A, Patanothai A, Rambo AT, Simaraks S. Climbing the energy ladder or diversifying energy
sources? The continuing importance of household use of biomass energy in urbanizing communities in north-
east Thailand. Biomass Energy 2011;35(10):4180e8.
Campbell BM, Vermeulen SJ, Mangono JJ, Mabugu R. The energy transition in action: urban domestic fuel
choices in a changing Zimbabwe. Energy Pol 2003;31(6):553e62.
Zhang, L. X., Wang, C. B., & Bahaj, A. S. (2014). Carbon emissions by rural energy in China. Renewable
energy, 66, 641-649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. renene.2014.01.005
aul TK, Datta D, Alam A (2018) A comparative study on household level energy consumption and related
emissions from renewable (biomass) and non-renewable energy sources in Bangladesh. Energy Policy 114
(December 2017):598–608. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.enpol.2017.12.037
Zhou, A., & Li, J. (2020). The nonlinear impact of industrial restructuring on economic growth and carbon
dioxide emissions: a panel threshold regression approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,
27(12), 14108-14123.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 17

Ehrlich PM, Holdren JP (1971) Impact of population growth. Am Assoc Advan Sci 70(6):1657–1664 url:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 1731166%0D
Dietz, T., Rosa, E. A., & York, R. (2007). Driving the human ecological footprint. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment, 5(1), 13-18.
Ali, A., Mottaleb, K. A., & Aryal, J. P. (2019). Wealth, education and cooking-fuel choices among rural
households in Pakistan. Energy Strategy Reviews, 24, 236-243.
Mensah, J. T., & Adu, G. (2015). An empirical analysis of household energy choice in Ghana. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 51, 1402-1411.
Azam, M., & Ahmed, A. M. (2015). Role of human capital and foreign direct investment in promoting eco-
nomic growth: evidence from Commonwealth of Independent States. International journal of social econom-
ics.
Damette, O., Delacote, P., & Del Lo, G. (2018). Households energy consumption and transition toward cleaner
energy sources. Energy Policy, 113, 751-764.
Han, H., Wu, S., & Zhang, Z. (2018). Factors underlying rural household energy transition: A case study of
China. Energy Policy, 114, 234-244.
Heltberg, R. (2005). Factors determining household fuel choice in Guatemala. Environment and development
economics, 10(3), 337-361.
Huebner, G., Shipworth, D., Hamilton, I., Chalabi, Z., & Oreszczyn, T. (2016). Understanding electricity
consumption: A comparative contribution of building factors, socio-demographics, appliances, behaviours
and attitudes. Applied energy, 177, 692-702.
Wang, Q., & Yang, X. (2019). Urbanization impact on residential energy consumption in China: the roles of
income, urbanization level, and urban density. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(4), 3542-
3555.
Yousaf, H., Amin, A., Baloch, A., & Akbar, M. (2021). Investigating household sector’s non-renewables,
biomass energy consumption and carbon emissions for Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Re-
search, 28(30), 40824-40834.