• •

### 不同类型农户家庭能源消费差异及其影响因素——以重庆市“两翼”地区为例

1. 西南大学资源环境学院,重庆 400716
• 收稿日期:2014-03-25 修回日期:2014-09-02 出版日期:2014-11-10 发布日期:2015-03-13
• 作者简介:

作者简介：何威风(1988- ),男,河南商丘人,硕士,主要从事土地利用规划研究。E-mail:hwf0525@163.com

• 基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(41161140352)

### Differences and influencing factors of rural household energy consumption of different household types: A case study in the "two wings" area of Chongqing

Weifeng HE(), Jianzhong YAN(), Xiaobo HUA

1. College of Resources and Environment, Southwest University, Chongqing 400716, China
• Received:2014-03-25 Revised:2014-09-02 Online:2014-11-10 Published:2015-03-13

Abstract:

With economic development, households' livelihoods began to be differentiated. The differences of household energy consumption of different household types become more and more obviously. However, the current empirical studies on it are scarce. Using the rural household energy consumption by 1015 survey questionnaires in the "two wings" area of Chongqing where its economy lags behind relatively and is ecologically fragile, this paper comparatively analyses the levels, structure, environmental cost and economic cost of household energy consumption through the questionnaire survey. Finally, based on the perspective of mountainous ecological environment and the current situation of rural household energy consumption, this study analyzes the influencing factors of firewood (the main energy of household) consumption ratio by the Tobit model. The results show that: (1) Among the four household types, for III-2 (human assets type household), whose livelihoods are mainly based on non-agricultural sectors, both per-capita firewood consumption and the ratio that firewood accounts for the total energy are the lowest. The other three household types are still relying on firewood, due to the differences of livelihood strategy and the restriction of other conditions, such as age. (2) Household firewood consumption can cause a larger cost, especially in the term of environmental cost. However, the environmental cost can be reduced with alternative energy. III-2 has a low per-capita total cost by reducing per-capita firewood consumption, but that of the other three household types are relatively high. (3) Both availability of alternative energy and per-capita livestock have great effects on household firewood consumption ratio. Besides, household health condition has a positive effect on firewood consumption ratio of II (Basic type household), but a negative effect on III-2; the ratio of people that are at home has a positive effect on the firewood consumption ratio in both III-1 (Natural assets type household) and III-2. Besides, other income has a negative effect on the firewood consumption ratio of II.