Population and Environment

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 365–378 | Cite as

Household dynamics and fuelwood consumption in developing countries: a cross-national analysis

Research Brief

Abstract

Previous research has suggested a link between household dynamics (i.e., average household size and number of households) and environmental impacts at the national level. Building on this work, we empirically test the relationship between household dynamics and fuelwood consumption, which has been implicated in anthropogenic threats to biodiversity. We focus our analysis on developing countries (where fuelwood is an important energy source). Our results show that nations with smaller average households consume more fuelwood per capita. This finding indicates that the household economies of scale are, indeed, associated with the consumption of fuelwood. In addition, we found that number of households is a better predictor of total fuelwood consumption than average household size suggesting a greater relative contribution to consumption levels. Thus, insofar as declining average household sizes result in increased number of households and higher per capita consumption, this trend may be a signal of serious threats to biodiversity and resource conservation. We also found further support for the “energy ladder” hypothesis that economic development reduces demand for traditional fuels.

Keywords

Households Fuelwood Ecological footprint STIRPAT 

References

  1. Amacher, G. S., Hyde, W. F., & Joshee, B. R. (1993). Joint production and consumption in traditional households: Fuelwood and crop residues in two districts in Nepal. The Journal of Development Studies, 30(1), 206–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, M., & Persson, R. (2003). Reassessing the fuelwood situation in developing countries. International Forestry Review, 5(4), 379–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bearer, S., Linderman, M., Huang, J., An, L., He, G., & Liu, J. (2008). Effects of fuelwood collection and timber harvesting on giant panda habitat use. Biological Conservation, 141, 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bin, S., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2005). Consumer lifestyle approach to US energy use and the related CO2 emissions. Energy Policy, 33, 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bongaarts, J. (2001). Household size and composition in the developing world in the 1990s. Population Studies, 55(3), 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brouwer, R., & Falcão, M. P. (2004). Woodfuel consumption in maputo, mozambique. Biomass and Bioenergy, 27, 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cole, M. A., & Neumayer, E. (2004). Examining the impact of demographic factors on air pollution. Population and Environment, 26(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Commoner, B. (1971). The closing circle. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  9. Cramer, J. C. (1998). Population growth and air quality in California. Demography, 35(1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, K., & Golden, H. H. (1954). Urbanization and the development of pre-industrial areas. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 3(1), 6–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietz, T., & Rosa, E. A. (1997). Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94, 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dietz, T., Frey, R. S., & Kalof, L. (1987). Estimation with cross-national data: robust and nonparametric methods. American Sociological Review, 52(3), 380–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dietz, T., Rosa, E. A., & York, R. (2007). Driving the human ecological footprint. Frontiers of Human Ecology, 5(1), 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Du Plessis, M. A. (1995). The effects of fuelwood removal on the diversity of some cavity-using birds and mammals in South Africa. Biological Conservation, 74, 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erlich, P., & Holdren, J. (1971). The impact of population growth. Science, 171, 1212–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ewing, B., Reed, A., Rizk, S. M., Galli, A., Wackernagel, M., & Kitzes, J. (2008). Calculation methodology for the national footprint accounts (2008th ed.). Oakland: Global Footprint Network.Google Scholar
  17. Fleuret, P. C., & Fleuret, A. K. (1978). Fuelwood use in a peasant community: A tanzanian case study. The Journal of Developing Areas, 12(3), 315–322.Google Scholar
  18. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2000). Global Forest Resources Assessment. Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
  19. Hamilton, L. (2003). Statistics with stata. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.Google Scholar
  20. Heltberg, R., Arndt, T. C., & Sekhar, N. U. (2000). Fuelwood consumption and forest degradation: A household model for domestic energy substitution in rural India. Land Economics, 76(2), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hosier, R. H., & Dowd, J. (1987). Household fuel choice in Zimbabwe: An empirical test of the energy ladder hypothesis. Resources and Energy, 9, 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ironmonger, D. S., Aitken, C. K., & Erbas, B. (1995). Economies of scale in energy use in adult-only households. Energy Economics, 17, 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jonsell, M. (2007). Effects on biodiversity of forest fuel extraction, governed by processes working on a large scale. Biomass and Bioenergy, 31, 726–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jorgenson, A. (2006). Unequal ecological exchange and environmental degradation: A theoretical proposition and cross-national study of deforestation, 1990–2000. Rural Sociology, 71(4), 685–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keilman, N. (2003). The threat of small households. Nature, 421, 489–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kitzes, J., Peller, A., Goldfinger, S., & Wackernagel, M. (2007). Current methods for calucating national ecological footprint accounts. Science for Environment and Sustainable Society, 4(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  27. Leach, G. (1992). The energy transition. Energy Policy, 20(2), 116–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liddle, B. (2004). Demographic dynamics and per capita environmental impact: Using panel regressions and household decompositions to examine population and transport. Population and Environment, 26(1), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liddle, B., & Lung, S. (2010). Age-structure, urbanization, and climate change in developed countries: Revisiting STIRPAT for disaggregated population and consumption-related environmental impacts. Population and Environment, 31(5), 317–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu, J., Linderman, M., Ouyang, Z., An, L., Yang, J., & Zhang, H. (2001). Ecological degradation in protected areas: The case of wolong nature reserve for giant pandas. Science, 292, 98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu, J., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., & Luck, G. (2003). Effects of household dynamics on resource consumption and biodiversity. Nature, 421, 530–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Macht, C., Axinn, W. G., & Ghimire, D. (2007). Household energy consumption: Community context and the fuelwood transition. Research report no. 07–629. The University of Michigan: Population Studies Center, Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  33. MacKellar, F. L., Lutz, W., Prinz, C., & Goujon, A. (1995). Population, households, And CO2 emissions. Population and Development Review, 21(4), 849–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Masera, O., Ghilardi, A., Drigo, R., & Angel Trossero, M. (2006). WISDOM: A GIS-based supply demand mapping tool for woodfuel management. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30, 618–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meyers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moll, H. C., Noorman, K. J., Kolk, R., Engstrom, R., Throne-Holst, H., & Clark, C. (2005). Pursuing more sustainable consumption by analyzing household metabolism in European countries and cities Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(1–2), 259–275.Google Scholar
  37. Moomaw, R. L., & Shatter, A. M. (1996). Urbanization and economic development: A bias toward large cities? Journal of Urban Economics, 40, 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nagothu, U. S. (2001). Fuelwood and fodder extraction and deforestation: Mainstream views in India discussed on the basis of data from the semi-arid region of Rajastahn. Geoforum, 32, 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nelson, J. (1988). Household economies of scale in consumption: Theory and evidence. Econometrica, 56(6), 1301–1314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Neill, B. C., & Chen, B. S. (2002). Demographic determinants of household energy use in the United States. Population and Development Review, 28, 53–88.Google Scholar
  41. Ouerghi, A. (1993). Woodfuel use in Pakistan: Sustainability of supply and socio-economic and environmental implications. In Wood energy development: Planning, policies, and strategies (pp. 61–84). Bangkok, Thailand: FAO Regional Wood Energy Development Programme in Asia.Google Scholar
  42. Population Action International. (1999). One in three people lives in forest-scarce countries. Washington, DC: Population Action International.Google Scholar
  43. Rosa, E. A., York, R., & Dietz, T. (2004). Tracking the anthropogenic drivers of ecological impacts. Ambio, 33(8), 509–512.Google Scholar
  44. Shankar, U., Hedge, R., & Bawa, K. S. (1998). Extraction of non-timber forest products in the forests of Biligiri Rangan Hills, India: Fuelwood pressure and management options. Economic Botany, 52(3), 320–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. United Nations (UN). (2009). World population prospects: The 2008 revision. NY: United Nations.Google Scholar
  46. United Nations Center for Human Settlements. (2001). Cities in a globalizing world: Global report on human settlements. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  47. Veregin, H. (Ed.). (2005). Goode’s world atlas. McNally: Rand.Google Scholar
  48. Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., Moran, D., Wermer, P., Goldfinger, S., Deumling, D., et al. (2005). National footprint and biocapacity accounts 2005: The underlying calculation method. Oakland, CA: Global Footprint Network.Google Scholar
  49. Whiteman, A., Broadhead, J., & Bahdon, J. (2002). The revision of woodfuel estimates in FAOSTAT. Unasylva, 53, 41–45.Google Scholar
  50. World Bank. (2007). World development indicators (CD). Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. World Bank. (2009). Historical income classifications. Washington, D.C: World Bank (http://www.worldbank.org). Retrieved 3 Dec 2009.
  52. World Energy Council. (2004). 2004 survey of energy resources. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  53. WRI (World Resources Institute). (n.d.). Earthtrends: Environmental Information. Data Table 94. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute (http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/forests-grasslands-drylands/data-table-4.txt). Accessed 6 Jan 2011.
  54. York, R., Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T. (2003a). Footprints on the earth: The environmental consequences of modernity. American Sociological Review, 68, 279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. York, R., Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T. (2003b). STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecological Economics, 46, 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations