Energy services and life satisfaction: a study on
households in two Mexican communities
Jordi Cravioto C.
Eiji Yamasue
College of Science and Technology
Ritsumeikan University, Japan

Energy for Society
1st International Conference on Energy Research & Social Science2017.04.03

Background of energy and well‐being research
Historical approaches• Human development and energy use (19th cent – Spencer 1880, White 1949)
Expansion of empirical work (20th/21st cent)• Economic indices as well‐being measures (60s～ Schurr 1960, Naseri 2000)• Alternative indices of well‐being (70s～Mazur 1974, 2011, Rosa 1988, Knight 2011)• Further connections: poverty, externalities, public opinion, behavioural aspects,etc. (80’s～ Boardman 1991, Jackson 2005, etc.)• Linking concepts between ends (Modi 2006, Sovacool 2011, Cravioto 2014)

Contributions: macroscale theory, disciplinary analyses
Research necessity:
bond using linking concepts, holistic perspectives, context
differences
How energy use exactly contributes to higher well‐being levels?
2

Energy consumption and life satisfaction diagram
Nonphyiscal
measures

External
effects

Measured inphysical units
3

Literature on household and energy services
Household‐scale descriptions of energy‐well‐being link
• Fewer in literature, isolating energy from other elements isdifficult
Energy services (ES): a novel approach• Previous analyses take ES for end‐uses (physical/economicalunits)• In reality ES are applications of end‐uses of energy (athouseholds) + other elements• ES can come closer to be human well‐being surrogates ofenergy consumption (using an alternative measurement)

4

Energy consumption and life satisfaction diagram
Nonphyiscal
measures

External
effects

Measured inphysical units
5Energy services and material predictors*• Household features can largely predict ES satisfactionlevels• Energy is relevant from mid incomes on6*Based on Cravioto et al, 2014

Theory: energy services ladder* / hypothesis

Fuels utilised

Energy services inhousehold

Driving force behindenergy use
How meaningful are
ES (for LS levels)?
*Sovacool, 2011Low
< $10kbiomass, charcoal,paraffin, kerosene,
petrol, LPG, gas,
electricity
cooking, lighting,entertainment,communication,transport
subsistence
More

Income levelMed$10‐20k
electricity, naturalgas, LPG, kerosene,
petrolHigh>$20kelectricity, naturalgas, petrol

all previous +all previous +heating‐cooling space,luxury related
advanced telecom, (heated pool, toilet
automatic clothes washlet & heated, TVwashing, etc.
sets in kitchens, etc.)
conspicuous
convenience, comfort,
consumption,cleanlinesssocial signallingLess

lesser7

Purpose•Measure six ES as real well‐being surrogates•Analyse relationship with overall life
satisfaction

8

Energy consumption and life satisfaction diagram
Nonphyiscal
measures

External
effects

Measured inphysical units
9Survey collection
Region selection
Two sites in the Mexican central plateau• Similar language, traditions, religion, climate (temperate)• Different socio‐economic levels.

Cuauhtémoc [15,636 dls/year]

Zoquitlán [2,208 dls/year]

Collection and sample
Survey in randomly selected households.
98 questionnaires: 58 from Cuauhtémoc and 40 from Zoquitlán

10

Method: Survey
Questionnaire• Well‐being measure (R. Veenhoven):• Six ES : illumination, temperature regulation, foodpreservation, communications, transport andentertainment (B. Sovacool, V. Modi):
11Analysis approach
Description by region• Statistics/distributions
ES as a single construct• Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
ES‐LS association• Correlations• Spearman Rho, Kendall Tau, Gamma (ordinal)
12

Results : ES and LS sample description (1)• Better general conditions of households at Cuauhtémoc reflected
more clearly in some ES.

Self‐rated score• Entertainment (> 1 point )• Transportation and communications ( ～ 0.8 points )• Food preservation, illumination and temperature reg. (< 0.5 points )• LS results more comparable (< 0.4 points )13

Results : ES and LS data description (2)LowFrequency• LS: left‐skewed at any income.

Mid‐High• ES: normal or right‐skewed low income
left‐skewed at mid‐higher incomes.
Low

Mid‐highMid‐highFrequency

Frequency

Low

Life Satisfaction

Food preservation

Entertainment14

Results: simplification of ES into single constructs (PCA)*Components significant to the 95% C.I. from a parallel analysis

ES condensed into a single measure observed differences:• At lower incomes (Zoquitlán), two components / at middle incomes(Cuauhtémoc), one.
Discussion: Preference for improving ES shifts from hierarchical to homogeneous?15

Results: ES‐LS associations
CORRELATION ES‐LS

0.100.060.03• Entertainment (relevant once income increase)

Discussion:More concern is placed on households
features as income increase?

0.21

0.23

0.36

Mid‐high income

0.180.19• Transport and temperature regulation

0.30

Most important ES for LS levels:

0.31

Low income

0.00

Low incomes:• Less ES relevant to enhance LS levels
Once income increase• Stronger linkage between ES and LS(e.g. entertainment taking place insidehouseholds in mid‐incomes, in contrast to lowincomes where it might be done outside).
16Summary of main findings
Theory on energy services:• Energy services at lower incomes do not bridge energy use and life
satisfaction• Only from mid incomes on, energy services become more important• As income increase ES shift from two “hierarchical” groups to a single
homogeneous one

Implications on policy (to enhance well‐being levels):• Low incomes: improve transportation services and ways to preserve
temperature in households• Mid incomes: focus more on other energy services (more important forwell‐being)17

Further research
Improve detail of findings• Further income levels• Distinguish beween household types• Detailed exploration of rural‐urban contexts• Intercultural differences
Energy services and methods• Further set of ES• Expand on direct vs indirect ES• Path analyses and SEM

18

Acknowledgements: Environment Research andTechnology Development Fund (S‐16) of the MOEJ andGraduate School of Energy Science, Kyoto University

Thank youfor your attention

Jordi Cravioto
jordi‐c@gst.ritsumei.ac.jp
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/~yamasue/

19

References:
1.
2.
3.

Spencer, H. (1880). First principles. New York: A.L. Burt.
White, L. (1949). Energy and the evolution of culture. In The Science of Culture (pp. 363‐93). New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.
Schurr, S.H. and Netscheret, B.C. (1960). Energy in the American economy, 1850‐1975. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.
4. Naseri, H. (2000). The relationship between energy and human development. In IAOS Conference on Statistics, Developmentand Human Rights, Session C‐Pa 6e, Montreux, CH.
5. Mazur, A. and Rosa, E.A. (1974). Energy and lifestyle: Cross‐national comparison of energy consumption and quality of lifeindicators. Science, 1(86), 607‐610.
6. Mazur, A. (2011). Does increasing energy or electricity consumption improve quality of life in industrial nations? Energy Policy,39(5), 2568‐2572.
7. Rosa, E.A., Machlis, G.E. and Keating, K.M. (1988). Energy and society. Annual Review of Sociology, 149‐172.
8. Knight, K.W. and Rosa, E.A. (2011). The environmental efficiency of well‐being: A cross‐national analysis. Social ScienceResearch, 40(3), 931‐949.
9. Boardman, B. (1991). Fuel poverty: from cold homes to affordable warmth. Pinter Pub Limited.
10. Cravioto, J., Bakr, M., Aoyagi, S., Park, S. and Utama, N.A. (2011). Community acceptance of nuclear power generation in Japanand relevant influencing factors. In Clean Energy and Technology (CET), 2011 IEEE First Conference on (pp. 248‐252). IEEE.
11. Cravioto, J., Yamasue, E., Okumura, H. and Ishihara, K.N. (2013). Road transport externalities in Mexico: Estimates andinternational comparisons. Transport Policy, 30, 63‐76.
12. Modi, V., McDade, S., Lallement, D. and Saghir, J. (2006). Energy services for the millennium development goals. New York:Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme, United Nations Development Programme. UN Millennium Project and The
World Bank.
13. Cravioto, J., Yamasue, E., Okumura, H. and Ishihara, K.N. (2014). Energy service satisfaction in two Mexican communities: Astudy on demographic, household, equipment and energy related predictors. Energy Policy, 73, 110‐126.
14. Sovacool, B.K. (2011). Conceptualizing urban household energy use: Climbing the "Energy Services Ladder". Energy Policy,
39(3), 1659‐1668.