1 / 42

Migration and Fuel Use in Rural Mexico

Migration and Fuel Use in Rural Mexico. Dale T. Manning UC-Davis. USAEE/IAEE North American Conference July 2013. Why care about fuel use?. Health Biomass fuel causes bronchitis and other lung diseases, heart disease, premature death—US EPA Environmental impacts

omar
Download Presentation

Migration and Fuel Use in Rural Mexico

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Migration and Fuel Use in Rural Mexico Dale T. Manning UC-Davis USAEE/IAEE North American Conference July 2013

  2. Why care about fuel use? • Health • Biomass fuel causes bronchitis and other lung diseases, heart disease, premature death—US EPA • Environmental impacts • Forest depletion, erosion, loss of habitat/biodiversity • National parks less effective if people depend park’s resources • Climate change • Wood: 0.39 kg CO2 per kWh • Coal: 0.37 kg CO2 per kWh • Kerosene: 0.26 kg CO2 per kWh • Quality of life • Time-consuming activity, TOC http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-emission-fuels-d_1085.html

  3. 2 theories of fuel choice • Fuel ladder • Fuel stacking

  4. Main contributions • Present theoretical model of fuel choice • Use model to show how migration changes fuel-choice incentives • Show empirical impact of out-migration on household fuel use

  5. Research question • How does rural out-migration affect fuel choice in rural Mexico? Important because rural-urban migration is a part of development process!

  6. Theoretical framework • Household producer • Home-cooked food • Agriculture • Given capital • Woodstove, gas stove • Chooses inputs • Labor/leisure • ENERGY SOURCE—Firewood or gas?

  7. Theoretical framework • Non-separable model • Imperfect labor markets • Non-marketed resource, home-cooked food • Household makes consumption and labor allocation decisions simultaneously • Energy inputs chosen to minimized cost of meeting energy needs required for optimized consumption • Cost of gas: market price • Cost of firewood: value of time

  8. Migration and labor allocation $ Lto Ag labor Firewood Collection

  9. Migration and labor allocation $ VMP in Ag (market price) VMP in resource collection (non-market) Lto Ag labor Firewood Collection

  10. Migration and labor allocation $ VMP in Ag (market price) VMP in resource collection (non-market) Lto Ag labor Firewood Collection

  11. Migration and labor allocation $ VMP in Ag (market price) VMP in resource collection (non-market) Lto Ag labor Firewood Collection

  12. Migration and labor allocation $ What happens when a migrant goes to the US? Lto Ag labor Firewood Collection

  13. Migration and labor allocation $ 1. Less total time available Ltm Ag labor Firewood Collection

  14. Migration and labor allocation $ 2. Demand for firewood can change Ltm Ag labor Firewood Collection

  15. Migration and labor allocation $ Theoretically ambiguous net impact (will likely decrease) Ltm Ag labor Firewood Collection

  16. Theoretically ambiguous • Investigate empirically • Rural Mexico • National Household Survey of Rural Mexico • Representative of ruralMexico • 80 communities, 14 states, 5 regions • 1543 households

  17. Rural Population of Mexico http://www.tradingeconomics.com/mexico/rural-population-percent-of-total-population-wb-data.html 2010 rural population: 25,179,916

  18. As a percentage of total http://www.tradingeconomics.com/mexico/rural-population-percent-of-total-population-wb-data.html

  19. Econometric estimation Natural log of days per year collecting firewood : Indigenous Education Year Household size Hh income Community wage =1 if household has member in US  IV with networks

  20. Econometric estimation Natural log yearly gas expenditure : Indigenous Education Year Household size Hh income Community wage =1 if household has member in US  IV with networks

  21. Results

  22. Results

  23. Results Without a migrant, spend about 3 times as many person-days per year collecting firewood! Average is ~121 days

  24. Results

  25. Results

  26. Results Approximately double gas expenditure!

  27. Results

  28. Results

  29. Results Increase probability of having a gas stove by ~33%! Impact on gas expenditure larger when controlling for selection (Heckman)

  30. Results

  31. Results

  32. Results summary • Households with US migrant spend less time collecting firewood • Spend more on gas • More likely to have a gas stove • But they don’t stop collecting firewood

  33. Implications for policy • Gas stove investment can be an obstacle • Households will use gas if it is cheaper • Can lower price of gas (e.g., improve delivery) • Increase perceived cost of firewood (health effects) • Increase opportunity cost of time • Households may add gas into fuel mix without switching completely • Beware of firewood markets • Especially if common-property resource • Conventional management may become easier

  34. Thanks!

  35. Background • Fuel use/firewood collection connected to other sectors • Agriculture • Labor market development • Proposed theories: • Fuel ladder • Fuel stacking

  36. Data • National Household Survey of Rural Mexico • PRECESAM, Rural Economies of the Americas and Pacific Rim (REAP) • 2002, 2007 • Representative of rural Mexico—populations from 500 to 2499 people • 80 communities, 14 states, 5 regions • 1543 households, 10 states in 2010

  37. Household economy

More Related