household transportation use

8/4/2019 Household Transportation Use

1/36

POLLUTIONA Comparative Analysis of Thailand, M exico, and the United States

Household Transportation Use and Urban Air

By Roger-Mark De Souza


2/36

This report benefitedfrom the contributionsof many individuals. Firstand foremost, I wish tothank the teams thatconducted and wrote theinitial case studies. Theteams included AphichatChamratrithirong,Pramote Prasartkul,Sureeporn Punpuing,Wathinee Boonchalaksi,

and Thirapong Santiphopfrom the Institute forPopulation and SocialResearch at MahidolUniversity in Thailand;Jos Luis Lezama, SilviaLuna Santos, FortinoVela Pen, and Adriana

Oropeza Lliteras from theCenter for Demographicand Urban DevelopmentStudies at the Colegio deMxico in Mxico; and

Edmund Egan, PeterBonner, Amy Clemons,and Jonathan Cohen fromICF Kaiser International,Inc., in the United States.

I also recognize theefforts of Hamdou-RabbyWane and his colleaguesat the Center for AppliedResearch on Populationand Development(CERPOD) for their

efforts to have Maliincluded in the study.

External reviewers con-tributed their time anduseful advice to thereport. Special thanks toJim MacKenzie (WorldResources Institute);

Sara Curran (PrincetonUniversity); SureepornPunpuing (MahidolUniversity); and Alexde Sherbinin (WorldConservation Union).An earlier version of this

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T Sreport was reviewed byWolfgang Lutz (IIASA) atthe 1999 annual meetingof the PopulationAssociation of America.

Many colleagues havehelped with this project.I am indebted to Alex deSherbinin for his initialinvolvement in the pro-ject. Two colleaguesdeserve special mention:

Alene Gelbard andRhonda Smith. They bothprovided vital guidanceand support at criticalstages. I am also gratefulto Peter Donaldson,PRBs president, for hissupport, enthusiasm, and

review at various stages ofthe project.

Other colleagues pro-vided valuable support. Inparticular, I would like tomention Kimberly Crews

and Karen Semkow.Finally, I thank PRBspublications team,particularly AllisonTarmann, RebeccaSilvis, Sara Adkins-Blanch, Donna Clifton,and Ellen Carnevale fortheir assistance in editing,production, distribution,and outreach.

I gratefully acknowl-

edge the John D. andCatherine T. MacArthurFoundation and the U.S.Agency for InternationalDevelopment for theirfunding of the countryanalysis and this finalreport.

Roger-Mark De SouzaCoordinator, Population and

Environment Programs

September 1999


3/36

POLLUTIONA Comparative Analysis of Thailand, M exico, and the United States

Household Transportation Use and Urban Air

By Roger-Mark De Souza

MAHIDOL UNIVERSITYThailand

COLEGIO DE MXICOMxico

ICF KAISER INTERNATIONAL, INC.U.S.A.

POPULATION REFERENCE BUREAU1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 520Washington, DC 20009 U.S.A.

Tel.: (202) 483-1100Fax: (202) 328-3937E-mail: [email protected]

Web site: www.prb.org

PHOTO(ALSOONCOVE

R)BYCARLOSCONDE/INTERNATIONALDEV

ELOPMENTBANK


4/36

In the last half of thiscentury, the number ofpeople living in citieshas more than doubled.Because of this growth,the demand for trans-

portation within cities hasincreased substantially. Yettransportation networksthat often increase qualityof life, may also constraineconomic productivity,cause air pollution, anddamage peoples health.

Household Transporta-

tion Use and Urban Air

Pollution examines thisrelationship among popu-lation, transportation,and urban air pollution.The analysis sheds lighton ways that cities couldexpand transportation

services in a way that min-imizes air pollution andmaximizes economicdevelopment.

PRBs Coordinator ofPopulation and Environ-ment Programs, Roger-Mark De Souza, and

researchers from Thailand,Mexico, and the UnitedStates conducted thestudy using innovativemethodology. They com-bined statistical analysis of

national data sets withqualitative approaches toexamine (1) the impact ofhousehold transportationuse on urban air pollu-tion, (2) how varioushousehold characteristicsaffect impact, and (3) citydwellers and policymak-ers attitudes toward pol-lution and transportationchallenges. By clarifyingthe social and economiccontexts in which con-sumption aspirations areformed, the researchersgive policymakers insight

to explore measures thathave the greatest chancefor success in reducing airpollution without sacrific-ing equitable economicopportunities.

This work was madepossible with fundingfrom the John D. and

Catherine T. MacArthur

Foundation and the U.S.Agency for InternationalDevelopment. PRB valuesthis support and appreci-ates the hard work andcollaborative spirit of

the research teams thatworked on this analysis.We hope that this studywill inform policy deci-sions in the case-studycountries and elsewhereand lead to further policy-relevant research on link-ages between populationand the environment.We at PRB will continueto address the crucialissues related to popula-tion and the environment.More information onour efforts to do so canbe found on our Web site:

www.prb.org.

Peter J. DonaldsonPresidentPopulation Reference Bureau

F O R E W O R D


5/36

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Population Dynamics, Transportation, and Urban Air Pollution:Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Background Note: International Conferences on Population,Transportation, and Air Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

A P P EN D I CE S

1. Country Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

2. Notes on Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

3. Case Study Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

F I G U R E S

1. Map of Participating Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

2. A Glimpse at the Cities Included in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

3. Number of Motor Vehicles per 1,000 People, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

B O X E S

1. Air Quality in Bangkok, Mexico City, and Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . .9

2. Notes on Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

3. Methodology: Challenges and Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

4. The Perceived Effects of Urban Air Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

5. Measures Recommended in the Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

6. An Ideal Form of TransportationPerspectives From Mexico City . . . . . .18

7. Potential Results: Public Education and Community Participation . . . . . . 19

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S


6/36

F IG U R E 1 . Map of Participating Countries

M e xic o Tha ila nd Uni te d Sta te s

Population(in millions) 99.7 61.8 272.5

Percent urban 74 31 751998

Percent urban 82 39 852030

Urban growth rate 1.89 2.33 1.061995-2000

Sources:

Population: Population Reference Bureau, 1999 World Population DataSheet(Washing ton, D.C.: PRB, 1999); percent urban 1998: PopulationReference Bureau, 1999 World Population Data Sheet (Washington, D.C.:PRB, 1999); percent urban 2030: United Nations, World UrbanizationProspects, 1996 Revision(New York: UN, 1998); urban growth rate 1995-2000: United Nations, Urban and Rural Areas 1996 Wallchart(New York:United Nations, 1997).

B A N G K O K ,T H A I L A N D

M E X I C O C IT Y ,M E X IC O

W A S H I N G T O N , D . C. ,U N I T E D S TA T E S

4


7/36


8/36

Little internationallycomparative research hasbeen conducted on house-hold consumption pat-terns and consumeraspirations, and on how

these may affect theenvironment. This studyexamines current con-sumption levels and con-sumer aspirations in threecities: Bangkok, MexicoCity, and Washington,D.C. (see Appendix 1 forcountry teams).* Thesecities represent economic,demographic, cultural,and ecological diversity.This diversity providesinteresting insights (seeFigure 2). To establishthe context in which theseinsights come into play,

this introduction high-lights current and futureurbanization and motor-ization trends; traces

the environmental, health,and social effects of thesetrends; and outlines howthe research was designedto examine the impactof these trends (see p. 22

for a glossary of termsused).

U R B A N I Z A T IO N

A N D M O T OR IZ A T I ON

As much as 90 percentof future populationgrowth is expected tooccur in cities.1 This shift

toward urban areas willimprove quality of life

by bringing more peoplewithin reach of health careand education services,yet urbanization also willimpose costs. For example,with urbanization will

come the need for morehousing and transporta-tion services, the provisionof which will have envi-ronmental, health, andsocial consequences(see p. 20).

Motorizationin par-ticular the ownership ofautomobilesrises sharplyin response to urbaniza-

P O P U L A T I O N D Y N A M I CS , T R A N S P O RINTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

* Originally Mali was includedin the study, but because of diffi-culties with data, it had to beexcluded from the analysis.

F IG U R E 2 . A Glim pse at the Cities Includedin the Study

M exico City Bangkok W ashington, D.C.

Population 1995 16,562 6,547 3,685(in thousands)

Growth rate1995-2000 1.81 1.96 1.27

Averagehousehold size 4.7 4.5 2.26

Sources:Population 1995 and growth rate 1995-2000: United Nations, World UrbanizationProspects, 1996 Revision(New York: UN, 1998); average household size: UN Centre

for Human Settlements, An Urbanizing World(New York: UN, 1996) and U.S. CensusBureau, Statistical Abstr act of the United States 1998(Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Commerce, 1998).

DAVIDM.DOODY/MIRA


9/36

D


10/36

demand for cars, while atthe same time the increasein cars makes it easier toexpand cities. Since the1950s, for example, thedistribution of residential

areas and workplaces inBangkok has spilled overthe citys boundaries intoseveral adjacent provinces.Because new and popularhousing estates are increas-ingly located far fromthe center of Bangkok,they lead to longer com-mutes and ultimately tohigher levels of vehicularemissions.

A third factor is therelative cheapness of cars,especially in developedcountries, compared withland. This cost differential

motivates households tobuy low-priced housing inurban peripheries, eventhough living thererequires more travel. Highland prices in Bangkoknot only encourage rela-tively well-off residents tosell and relocate in new,

less central areas of theBangkok metropolitanarea, but also force inner-

city slum dwellers toperipheral locations. Thesedevelopments lead toincreasingly lengthy com-mutes in Bangkok andits environs.

I N C R E A S IN GM O T OR IZ A T I ON A N D

I T S E N V I R O N M E N T A L ,

H E A L T H , A N D

S O C IA L IM PA C T S

Environmental ImpactOne result of increas-

ing motorization is morefuel consumption, which

increases pollution. Whencar dependence increases,fuel consumption risesexponentially because ofgrowing road congestion,vehicles that use fuel inef-ficiently, and poor vehicleand road maintenance.

Globally, 20 percent of allenergy produced is used

for transportation. Of this,between 60 percent and70 percent is devoted tomoving people, and therest to moving freight.9

Transport-related energyconsumption is expectedto grow in both the devel-oped and the developingworld. From 1971 to1992, worldwide energyuse in the transportationsector grew on average 2.7percent per year, fasterthan in the industrial or

other sectors.10

Recent World Bankestimates suggest thatenergy demand in low-and middle-income coun-tries, now one-third ofenergy demand in OECDcountries, will matchdemand in OECD coun-

tries by the year 2015.11

Bangkok is alreadyplagued with notoriously

8

fifth of all householdsworldwide, and researchhas shown that they focustheir spending on nutri-tion and education, not

on private transportation.These households maytherefore use more publictransportation facilities, ifavailable.8

A second key factorinfluencing the number ofcars is city design. Sprawl-ing cities increase the

In 1994, almost 60 percent of U.S. households owned

two or more cars.

Vehicles emit greenhouse gases that contribute to smog.SUPERSTOCK

1994PETERCIN

TER;PETERMENZEL/MATERIALWORLD


11/36


12/36

of their income on public

transport than do mem-bers of wealthy house-holds. And in householdbudgets, the cost of thebreadwinners trip towork may be the top pri-ority, sometimes meaningthat trips for schooling

or health services aresacrificed.16

With increasing popu-lation growth and growingeconomic activity, thechallenge for cities is todevelop more efficienttransportation systemssystems that manage

urban travel demand with-

out degrading the quality

of life. One way to meetthis challenge is to consid-er the potential pollutionimpact of consumer inten-tions. This study looks atthese intentions and exam-ines their policy and pro-gram implications.

R E S E A R C H D E S IG N

The research teams soughtto answer three questions*:

1. How does consumptionvary among households ofdifferent sizes with differ-ent demographic charac-

combustion in vehiclesusing gasoline. Incompletecombustion occurs whenthe ratio of air to fuel isless than 14:1 or whenthere is a clotted filter.

Inhaled carbon monoxidetemporarily incapacitateshemoglobin, causes dizzi-ness, and constitutes a

danger for patients withheart disease.

Motor vehicles alsocontribute significantly toemissions of lead, the third

key pollutant. An estimat-ed 80 percent to 90 per-cent of lead in ambient airis derived from the com-bustion of leaded gasoline.When inhaled or ingested,lead attacks the systemthat produces hemoglobinand may lead to anemia

and nervous disorders,especially in children.Recognizing the healththreat, most developedcountries have reducedthe lead content of gaso-

line over the past decade.In most cities of the devel-oping world, however,ambient lead levels stillgreatly exceed the WHOstandard of 1 microgramper cubic meter.15

Social ImpactIn addition to the

threats to the environmentand to human health,urban transportationtrends also raise equityquestions. In cities wherelarge segments of low-income groups live in the

periphery of the urbanarea, questions of isolationand inaccessibility arisebecause opportunities foremployment, advancededucation, recreation, andshopping are often locatedin the city center.Members of poor house-

holds, for example, mayspend a larger percentage

10

he challenge for cities is to

manage urban travel demand without

degrading the quality of life.

T

Mexico Citys high altitude results in worsening air quality.

*See Appendix 2 for details onmethodology.


13/36


14/36

This section highlightsthe lessons of special in-terest from the countrystudies. The case studiesthemselves describenational trends in broad

terms, then report onindividual findings (casestudy summaries appear inAppendix 3, p. 28). Thequantitative and qualita-tive work suggest thatseveral structural andbehavioral factors deter-mine the level of impact

households have on urbanair pollution (see Box 3for lessons on using thismethodology).

S T R U CT U R A L

FA C T O R S T H A T

C O N T R I B U T E

T O U R BA N A IR

P O L L U T I O NQuantitative analysis

by the research teams ofhousehold-level datapointed to structural

factors that influenceair pollution. These factorsare essentially householdcharacteristics such ashousehold size and thesocioeconomic status

and gender of the house-hold head.

As income and education

rise, the level of pollution

generated by the household

rises. The case studiesconfirm the detrimentaleffect of higher socioeco-

nomic status on pollution.In Bangkok, white-collarhousehold heads producedbetween 3.7 kilograms and4.6 kilograms more ofSPM per year than thosewho worked in the salesand service or productionsectors. At the same time,

an increase of 1,000 baht(about U.S. $26 at currentrates) in monthly incomeled to a 0.1-kilogramincrease in emissionsper year. In Washington,D.C., people on averagespent more on both gaso-

line andpublic transporta-tion with additional

income and education.Elderly households withhigher income tended tospend more money onprivate travel. One-parenthouseholds tended to

spend far more than two-parent households on pub-lic transportation. InMexico, every additionalyear of formal educationof the household head waslinked to production of

L E S S O N S L E A R N E D

G iven thechoice between

carpooling and

driving alone,

Id rather drive

alone and pollute

the air.

High-income focus

group participant,

Washington, D.C.

1

ROBCRANDALL


15/36


16/36

Large households

spend more money on

transportation and, as a result,

generate more pollution. Notsurprisingly, the case stud-ies illustrate that house-hold size is an importantvariable. In Bangkok,extended families pro-duced about 5.3 morekilograms of SPM per yearthan one-adult householdsdid, and nuclear familiesproduced about 3.5 morekilograms. In Washington,

D.C., two-parent house-holds tended to spendmore on private trans-portation than smallerhouseholds, and their

14

average total transporta-tion expenditures werehigher as well. Elderlyhouseholds spent less thanother types of householdson total transportation,

but their expenditureswere also heavily biasedtoward private transporta-tion. One-parent or one-adult households, incontrast, tended to dividetheir expenditures moreequally between publicand private transport.

The contribution to pol-lution was higher amongWashington, D.C.,households that usedpublic transport thanamong those that did not

use public transportbecause the former hadlarger households. InWashington, on average,two-parent householdsspent the greatest amounton private (automobile)

transportation, while one-parent households spentthe most on public trans-portation.

B E H A V I O R A L

FA C T O R S T H A T

I N C RE A S E U R B A N

A I R P O L L U T I O N

The qualitative analysisallowed the research teamsto further explore whyurban dwellers make thetransportation choicesthey make. Behavioral fac-

tors center on attitudes of

we look for convenience. So, we buy a car. We know that when our car is added,

the traffic would increase but the traffic would be already congested if our car hadnt

been added. Middle-income focus group participant, 18-to-29 age group, Bangkok

3

Many Thai

families rely on

motorcycles

for their

transportation

needs. 1994 PETER MENZEL/MATERIAL WORLD


17/36


18/36

The findings of thecase studies lead to fourrecommendations forpolicies to reduce trans-portation-associated airpollution.

Combine improvements

in the public transporta-

tion system with regulations and

incentives to encourage the use

of less-polluting or nonpolluting

transportation alternatives such

as walking, cycling, and tele-

commuting. The variety of

solutions suggested by theurban dwellers and policy-makers in this projectclearly indicates that thereis no single answer (seeBox 5). Reducing air pollu-tion will require a mix ofactivities including incen-tives (high-occupancy-

vehicle lanes, recycling)and regulations (emissioncontrols, new technologies,and penalties).

Improving publictransport was seen asbeing of primary impor-tance. In all three casestudies, focus group par-ticipants said they would

use public transport moreif it offered comfort, secu-rity, adequate speed, andenough routesamongother characteristics.

Generally individuals werewilling to engage in non-polluting types of trans-port where possible.Walking, however, did notseem feasible to many, due

to the long distances thatthey traveled daily and tosafety concerns. Yet amongparticipants in the medi-um- and low-income

P O L I C Y R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

1

If I knew that bad air was going to affect my health in the

next 20 years, if it was linked to something concrete, I might dosomething about it.

High-income focus group participant, young group, Washington, D.C.

ROBCRANDALL

SUPERSTOCK


19/36


20/36


21/36

19

ships among householdstructure and needs, city

design, travel behavior,and pollution impacts.In addition, there are

almost certainly strongpersonal motives for dri-ving a car, even whenother options exist anddespite the increasinginconvenience and health

risks associated with trafficcongestion. The strongindividualism demonstrat-ed by many of the focusgroup participants, andthe perception frequently

Box 7

Potential Results: Public Education andCommunity Participation

Short terms Mass media campaigns increase public aware-

ness and a sense of mutual responsibility.

s Community groups such as schools, universities,churches, and c ompanies encourage c arpooling.

M edium terms Reputable scientific studies make clear the con-nection between air pollution and disease. Thesestudies provide evidence that behavior change (lessdriving) can lead to health benefits (decreased inci-

dence of headaches, heart attacks, lung cancer, andthe like).

Long terms Dissemination of the results of these studiesincreases knowledge among citizens of the effec tsof air pollution and leads to behavior c hange self-discipline, respect for the rights of others, and awi llingness to fight for protect ion of communityinterest.

Excerpted from case studies

heard among them thatindividual action cannot

affect the environment, areimportant components ofthe persistent decision todrive in the face of moreenvironmentally healthyoptions.

Given the interplay ofthese factors, combininginfrastructure improve-

ments with incentivesand regulation, targetededucation campaigns,and informed multidisci-plinary study would holdthe greatest promise forreducing transportation-induced pollution.

he use of

vehicles

in our country

is due

to necessity

and [to]

the status

attached to it.

We have to take

these two

causes of the

problem into

consideration.

In-depth interview,

male member of

parliament, Bangkok

T

1993 DML FAIRBANKS/MATERIAL WORLD


22/36


23/36


24/36


25/36

23

Ozone (O3). A pungent, colorless, toxic gas that containsthree atoms of oxygen in each molecule. It occursnaturally at a concentration of about 0.01 parts per mil-lion (p.p.m.) of air. Levels of 0.1 p.p.m. are consideredto be toxic. In the stratosphere (or upper layer of theatmosphere), ozone provides a protective layer shielding

human beings and other living organisms on Earth fromthe harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation. In the tropos-phere (layer of atmosphere extending about 10 kms.upward from Earths surface), ozone is a major compo-nent of photochemical smog, which seriously affects thehuman respiratory system.

Population density. Usually expressed as the numberof people per unit of land area.

Population policy. Explicit or implicit measures institutedby a government to influence population size, growth,distribution, or composition.

Quality of life. Notion of human welfare (well-being).Quality of life is measured by social indicators ratherthan by quantitative measures of income and produc-tion.

One-adult household. Household that does not containchildren and is maintained by one adult.

One-parent household. Household that contains childrenand is maintained by one parent as a result of an out-of-wedlock birth, divorce, separation, or the death of aspouse.

Smog. Combination of smoke and fog in which productsof combustion such as hydrocarbons, particulatematter, and oxides of sulfur and nitrogen occur inconcentrations that are harmful to human beings andother organisms.

Suspended particulate matter (SPM ). Finely divided solidsor liquids that may be dispersed through the air fromcombustion processes, industrial activities, or naturalsources.

Tw o-adult household. Household that does not containchildren and is maintained by two adults.

Tw o-parent household. Household that contains children

and is maintained by two parents.

Urban population. The population living in urban areas.Countries differ in the way they classify population asurban or rural. Typically, population living in a commu-nity or settlement with 2,000 people or more is consid-ered urban.

Sources: United Nations, Glossary of Environmental Statistics, 1997;

PRB, Population Handbook, International Edition, 1998; UN Centrefor Human Settlements,An Urbanizing World(New York: UN,1996): 12.


26/36

1. Robert Livernash and Eric Rodenburg, PopulationChange, Resources, and the Environment, PopulationBulletin, vol. 53, no. 1 (Washington, DC: PopulationReference Bureau, March 1998): 12.

2. Asif Faiz and Surhid Gautam, Motorization,Urbanization, and Air Pollution, discussion paper

(Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1994).

3. Livernash and Rodenburg, Population Change: 18.

4. Computed based on the American AutomobileManufacturers Associations World Motor Vehicle Data 1996(Detroit: AAMA, 1995).

5. Patricia S. Hu and Jennifer R. Young, Summary of TravelTrends: 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey,Draft (Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory,

1999): 28.6. Computed based on World Motor Vehicle Data 1996.

7. UN Centre for Human Settlements,An UrbanizingWorld(New York: United Nations, 1996); and WorldResources Institute, et al., World Resources Report 1996-97(New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).

8. UN Centre for Human Settlements,An UrbanizingWorld.

9. World Resources Institute, World Resources Report1996-97.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,National AirQuality and Emissions Trends Report, 1997(Washington,DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998).

14. UN Center for Human Settlements,An UrbanizingWorld.

15. World Resources Report 1996-97.

16. Ibid.

17. UN Development Programme, UN Conference onEnvironment and Development Agenda 21: SustainableHuman Settlements Development (New York: UNDevelopment Programme, 1992): chapters 7 and 9.

18.World Resources Institute,World Resources Report1996-97: Box 14.3.

19. Joby Warrick, 160 Nations Endorse Pact on GlobalWarming Compliance, The Washington Post, Nov. 15,1998, sec A: p.6.

20. UN Centre on Human Settlements, UN Conferenceon Human Settlements (Habitat Conference) IstanbulDeclaration on Human Settlements (Istanbul: UN Centreon Human Settlements, 1996): paragraph 4.

21. Ibid.

Aphichat Chamratrithirong, et al., The Study of

Population-Consumption-Environment Links: The Case ofAir Pollution in Bangkok (Bangkok: Mahidol University,1998).

Mary Debus,Handbook for Excellence in Focus GroupResearch, prepared by Porter Novelli for the Academy forEducational Development (Washington, DC: Academy forEducational Development, 1991).

Edmund Egan et al., Population-Consumption-

Environment Links: Air Pollution and Transport Use in theWashington, D.C., Region (Washington, DC: ICF KaiserInternational, Inc., 1998).

24

R E F E R E N C E S

A D D I T I O N A L R E F ER E N C E S


27/36


28/36

T H A I L A N D

INSTITUTE FOR POPULATIONAND SOCIAL RESEARCH,Mahidol University

Aphichat ChamratrithirongPramote PrasartkulSureeporn PunpuingWathinee BoonchalaksiThirapong Santiphop

M E X IC O

CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICAND URBAN DEVELOPMENTSTUDIES,El Colegio de Mxico

Jos Luis LezamaSilvia Luna SantosFortino Vela PenAdriana Oropeza Lliteras

U N I T E D S T A T E S

ICF KAISERINTERNATIONAL, INC.

Edmund EganPeter BonnerAmy ClemonsJonathan Cohen

POPULATION REFERENCEBUREAU

Roger-Mark De SouzaAlene GelbardKimberly CrewsRhonda SmithKaren Semkow

A P P E N D I X 2 :NOTES ON METHODOLOGY

26

A P P E N D I X 1 :COUNTRY TEAMS

Q U A N T I TA T I V E :

S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s

Research teams ran aseries of multiple regres-sions to determine statisti-cally significant relation-ships among householdstructure, consumption,and environmental impacts.To accomplish this, theteams calculated pollutioncoefficients using informa-tion on different pollution

emissions types, totalhousehold expenditures on

gasoline and public trans-port, total householdincome, and householdsize. Based on the differentpollution coefficients, theteams then constructeddependent variables (mea-sures of transportationexpenditures) and selected aset of household socioeco-

nomic variables as indepen-dent variables. Theseincluded household size,

percentage of householdmembers in certain age cat-

egories (those under age 2,those under age 18, andthose over age 64), years ofeducation of the head ofhousehold, and after-taxhousehold income. Finally,the teams employed differ-ent regression models toexamine the net effect ofeach variable and regression

equation as a whole on thedependent variables.


29/36


30/36


31/36


32/36


33/36


34/36


35/36

O R D ER I N G I N F O R M A T I O NTo request additional copies of this report or copies of theU.S. case study, please contact PRB (see address on back cover).The full text of this report is also available on PRBsWeb site atwww.prb.org. To request copies of the Thai and Mexican casestudies, please contact the following:

Thailand

Dr. Sureeporn PunpuingINSTITUTE FOR POPULATIONAND SOCIAL RESEARCH

Mahidol UniversitySalaya PhutthamonthonNakhon Pathom 73170Thailand

Tel.: 66-2-441-9666Fax: 66-2-441-9333E-mail: prspu@mahidol. ac.th

Mexico

Dr. Jos Luis LezamaCENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICAND URBAN DEVELOPMENTSTUDIES

El Colegio de Mxico, A.C.Camino al Ajusco No. 20Col. Peoregal Sta. TeresaCodigo Postal 01000Mxico, D.F.

Tel.: 525-645-1583Fax: 525-645-0464E-mail: jlezama@colmex. mx


36/36

POPULATION REFERENCE BUREAU1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 520

Washington, DC 20009 U.S.A.

Tel.: (202) 483-1100Fax: (202) 328-3937E-mail: [email protected] site: www.prb.org

household transportation use

Documents