Energy Poverty Measures and the Identification of the Energy Poor: A Comparison between the Utilitarian and Multidimensional Approaches in Chile

C. Villalobos, Carlos Chávez, Adolfo Uribe
{"title":"Energy Poverty Measures and the Identification of the Energy Poor: A Comparison between the Utilitarian and Multidimensional Approaches in Chile","authors":"C. Villalobos, Carlos Chávez, Adolfo Uribe","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3564827","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This work explores the consequences that different energy poverty definitions might have in the energy policy debate. We estimate the ten percent rule index (TPRI) while proposing and measuring a multidimensional energy poverty index (PMEPI). Both indices uses the 2017 National Survey of Public Perception on Energy applied to a sample of 3,500 households in Chile. Although both measures find that the energy poor represents about 15% of the population, energy poverty levels vary differently across the population depending on the employed measure. Moreover, the indices produce different energy poverty rankings across the territory, and most energy poor households are either TPRI poor or PMEPI poor. We found that this discrepancy between both energy poverty measures is mostly explained by territorylinked factors such as public lighting, service quality, service reliability, and thermal comfort. Consequently, an energy poverty analysis based solely on income or energy expenditure information (TPRI) is likely to neglect supply side constraints that are captured by the PMEPI. When identifying and targeting the energy deprived, the conclusion is that both energy poverty measures should not be used as substitutes but as complements.","PeriodicalId":365767,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability & Economics eJournal","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability & Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3564827","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

This work explores the consequences that different energy poverty definitions might have in the energy policy debate. We estimate the ten percent rule index (TPRI) while proposing and measuring a multidimensional energy poverty index (PMEPI). Both indices uses the 2017 National Survey of Public Perception on Energy applied to a sample of 3,500 households in Chile. Although both measures find that the energy poor represents about 15% of the population, energy poverty levels vary differently across the population depending on the employed measure. Moreover, the indices produce different energy poverty rankings across the territory, and most energy poor households are either TPRI poor or PMEPI poor. We found that this discrepancy between both energy poverty measures is mostly explained by territorylinked factors such as public lighting, service quality, service reliability, and thermal comfort. Consequently, an energy poverty analysis based solely on income or energy expenditure information (TPRI) is likely to neglect supply side constraints that are captured by the PMEPI. When identifying and targeting the energy deprived, the conclusion is that both energy poverty measures should not be used as substitutes but as complements.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
能源贫困措施和能源贫困的识别:智利功利主义和多维方法的比较
这项工作探讨了不同的能源贫困定义在能源政策辩论中可能产生的后果。我们估计了10%规则指数(TPRI),同时提出并测量了多维能源贫困指数(PMEPI)。这两个指数都使用了2017年智利3500个家庭样本的公众能源认知全国调查。尽管这两项指标都发现能源贫困人口约占人口的15%,但能源贫困水平因所采用的指标而异。此外,这些指数在香港各地产生了不同的能源贫困排名,大多数能源贫困家庭要么是TPRI贫困家庭,要么是PMEPI贫困家庭。我们发现,两种能源贫困指标之间的差异主要是由公共照明、服务质量、服务可靠性和热舒适等与地域相关的因素来解释的。因此,仅基于收入或能源支出信息(TPRI)的能源贫困分析很可能忽视PMEPI所捕获的供应侧限制。在确定和针对能源匮乏人群时,结论是这两种能源贫困措施不应作为替代品,而应作为补充。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Effects of Mutual Fund Decarbonization on Stock Prices and Carbon Emissions ESG and Sovereign Risk: What is Priced in by the Bond Market and Credit Rating Agencies? Can green defaults reduce meat consumption? Carbon Emissions, Institutional Trading, and the Liquidity of Corporate Bonds Facilitating sustainable FDI for sustainable development in a WTO Investment Facilitation Framework: four concrete proposals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1