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

2. 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 Why care about fuel use? http://www.engineeringto olbox.com/co2-emission- fuels-d_1085.html

3. 2 theories of fuel choice Fuel ladder Fuel stacking

4. Main contributions 1. Present theoretical model of fuel choice 2. Use model to show how migration changes fuel-choice incentives 3. 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 Ag labor $ Firewood Collection LtoLto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. Rural Population of Mexico http://www.tradingeconomics.com/mexico/rura l-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/rura l-population-percent-of-total-population-wb- data.html

20. Econometric estimation

22. Results

23. Results

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

25. Results

26. Results

27. Results Approximately double gas expenditure!

28. Results

29. Results

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

31. Results

32. Results

33. 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

34. 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

35. Thanks!

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

37. 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

38. Household economy