| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
180854
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This work explores the consequences that different energy poverty definitions and measures might have for the identification of the energy poor. Using the 2017 National Survey of Public Energy Perception applied to a sample of 3,500 households in Chile, we compare the respective identification outcomes of applying the ten percent rule index (TPRI) and our proposed Perception-based Multidimensional Energy Poverty Index (PMEPI) against the monetary poverty identification outcome. Based on the findings of this comparation, we propose a classification system of first- and second-order energy poverty measures depending on their degree of association with income poverty (as indicated by the distribution of the income poverty status of households). A first-order energy poverty measure exhibits a high association level with income poverty. By contrast, a second-order energy poverty measure shows a low level of association. Coincidentally, our TPRI (first-order) and PMEPI (second-order) estimates each classify 15.5% of the population as energy poor. However, the adoption of any particular definition necessarily narrows the resulting set of energy-poor households in a way that is distinct from other definitions, meaning that the use of multiple definitions produces diverging energy poverty rankings across the territory. Moreover, the TPRI neglects supply-side constraints captured by the PMEPI. Consequently, when identifying and targeting the energy poor, first- and second-order definitions should not be used as substitutes but rather as complements. This fact needs to be considered in the energy policy debate on the implementation of energy poverty alleviation actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
168698
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper attempted to calculate a composite index that would represent the magnitude of incidence and intensity of multidimensional household energy poverty (MEPI) in the Philippines using seven indicators of energy deprivation to analyse 17 regions and 81 provinces. Generally, the MEPI scores of regions from 2011 to 2016 revealed that the proportion of the multidimensional energy poor across all regions improved. Moreover, the study systematically put together a composite index that aims to capture the multidimensional aspects of household energy poverty. It consciously avoided a uni-dimensional stance in measuring energy poverty. Among the seven indicators, access to communication and education related appliances consistently had the highest incidence of deprivation among households across all regions at 90.4 percent. Conversely, a Filipino household is identified as multidimensional energy poor if it is deprived in at least the equivalent of 50 percent of the weighted seven indicators to be considered multidimensional poor. On the average, households in the Philippines are experiencing lower moderate energy poverty. Among the regions, Luzon (except MIMAROPA and Bicol) experienced low energy poverty levels. The energy-poorest regions are ARMM and Region IX (Zamboanga Peninsula). The statistical result suggests the association of MEPI and income poverty incidence points out a high correlation. In conclusion, an increase in poverty incidence would lead to a more multidimensionally deprived household. The correlation outcome validates that a significant relationship exists between MEPI and income poverty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|