Determinants of Household Carbon Footprints

Alice T. Valerio, Renz S. Mascardo

Abstract

Households mainly use fossil fuel in their various activities and, therefore, greatly

contribute to climate change. Since most households use electricity and other fossil fuels such as

gasoline, they contribute to the alarming level of carbon emissions in the country. There are

literatures in carbon footprints, however, an in-depth analysis on the carbon emission of

households in the Philippines is still scanty. This research focuses on identifying the factors

affecting the carbon emissions of households in Imus City and comparing the carbon footprints

across household characteristics. Using the conversion table for household activities, the

estimation of household carbon footprints was made possible. Multiple linear regression was used

to determine the effects of household characteristics on their carbon footprints. The results

indicated that the determinants of household carbon footprints are consistent with existing

literatures. The variables in the model positively affect the household carbon footprints. With

proper knowledge of carbon emissions, households and the concerned policy makers can identify

the best course of action to reduce carbon emissions.

Key words: Carbon footprints, climate change, carbon emissions, households

 1. Introduction

Over the past few years, carbon dioxide emissions, which is one of the leading causes of

global warming, have been significantly increasing. According to the World Bank (2014), in 1960,

the world’s carbon dioxide emissions per capita was 3.092MT, in 2013, the world’s carbon dioxide

emissions per capita reached 4.996MT, which is roughly 60% higher than the per capita level in

1960. Carbon dioxide is one of the key greenhouse gasses and according to the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change (2014), it accounts for 76% of the total greenhouse gasses caused by

human activities. Of the 76%, 65% is caused by the consumption of fossil fuel and the remaining

11% is caused by forestry and other land use.

Carbon footprints are the amount of greenhouse gases produced by human activities, and

is usually measured in equivalent tons of carbon dioxide. In other words, day-to-day activities such

as driving, cooking, watching the TV, etc. has an equivalent carbon emission. When taken as is,

the emission is not that significant, however, the collective amount of carbon footprints can harm

the environment (EPA, 2014). These emissions are the leading cause of global warming.

The Philippines has already suffered greatly from the effects of global warming. Due to

the warming of ocean temperatures, recurrent and more forceful typhoons hit the country and of

the 10 deadliest typhoons to ever hit the country, five of them stormed the country since 2006

(“How is Climate Change Affecting the Philippines,” 2016). These typhoons devastated cities and

took thousands of lives.

The Philippine government has done its part in spreading awareness and preventing the

further deterioration of the environment. Republic Act No. 8749 or more widely known as the

Clean Air Act of 1999 is one of the government’s answers to air pollution. The said law laid down
the government’s measures to reduce air pollution and promote environmental awareness. It

indicated the air quality standards set by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

(DENR) and how to reduce carbon emissions in the country since carbon emissions are the major

sources of air pollution and also a key greenhouse gas. In 2015, in compliance with the Paris

Agreement, the Philippines presented its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to

the United Nations declaring that it will reduce carbon emissions by up to 70% in the year 2030

(Ranada, 2015). This also stated that the reduction of carbon emissions will be from the transport,

waste, energy, industry, and forestry sectors.

In an article submitted to the UNFCCC, the DENR stated the country’s contributions in

fighting climate change despite not having any commitment to the UNFCCC since the

Philippines is not an Annex I Country Party where parties have the responsibility of preventing

climate change from worsening.

Despite the efforts of the government to reduce the impact of climate change in the country,

pollution is still widespread and carbon emissions are still high. According to the World Bank

(2014), the Philippines’ carbon dioxide emission per capita in 2013 is at 1.007MT which is at its

highest point ever since 1997, which was only at 0.974MT. This is alarming because despite the

government’s efforts to lessen the carbon emission of the country, the weight of the emissions is

increasing.

Most policies regarding carbon emissions are focused on the larger scale, such as

introducing greener technology while the household sector is often overlooked in terms of policy

making. In a similar study done by Dietz, Gardner, Gilligan, Stern, and Vandenbergh (2009), U.S.

households account for 38% of the total carbon emissions of the United States in 2005. This is

equal to 626 million MT of carbon, which consists of 8% of the global carbon emissions and is
comparatively bigger than the carbon emissions of all the other countries except China.

2. Theoretical and conceptual frameworks

The alarming changes in the atmosphere due to global warming initiated carbon computing. In

order to monitor the carbon emissions of businesses, the life cycle assessment was formulated. It

aimed to evaluate the environmental impacts of a product from its creation through its disposal.

Another technique used in offsetting the potential effects of an activity is the environment impact

assessment. The environment impact assessment determines the potential effects of an activity to

the environment and applies preventive measures to decrease the negative impact. To further

prevent the damage done by large businesses to the environment, the strategic environmental

assessment was made. It aims to include the potential effects on the environment in the planning

of a project.

2.1 Life Cycle Assessment

The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a technique used to evaluate the environmental impact of a

product or activity throughout the stages of its life cycle. The LCA has four interdependent phases

namely: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory analysis, life cycle impact assessment, and

interpretation (ISO, 2006).

The first step in the LCA is the goal and scope definition, this is the phase where the

context, scope, and purpose of the LCA are explained. The next phase is the life cycle inventory

analysis, this is the phase where an inventory of flows of the inputs such as energy, raw materials

and water are created. By-products such as gas emissions in the process of manufacturing of the

product are also included in the inventory. After the life cycle inventory analysis, the life cycle
impact assessment comes next. This phase of the LCA evaluates the environmental impacts of the

life cycle inventory and its significance. Finally, the interpretation of the LCA is done. The results

from the life cycle inventory and life cycle impact assessment are summarized and the outcome of

the interpretation is the set of recommendations for the study (ISO, 2006).

2.2 Environmental Impact Assessment

The environment impact assessment (EIA) is a technique used to measure the foreseen effects of

a project to the environment. Depending on the effects, different measures can be done. If the

effects are deemed to be too negative, mitigation measures can be taken to reduce the effects. The

purpose of this assessment is to ensure that environmental consequences are included in the

decision to proceed with the project (EPA, 2003).

Impacts to human beings, fauna, flora, soils and geology, water, air, noise, vibration,

radiation, climate, and landscape are the most common grounds for assessment in the EIA. An

environmental impact statement is the document created for the purpose of EIA. Depending on the

results of the environmental impact statement, measures may be added to the plan to decrease the

harmful effects of the project in the environment (EPA, 2003).

2.3 Strategic Environmental Assessment

The strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is a technique where the impacts on the

environment are required to be integrated in the plans or projects before they are executed in order

to promote environmental sustainability. Plans and programs regarding specific sectors must first

comply with the SEA requirements. The sectors covered in the SEA are: agriculture, forestry,
fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications,

tourism, and land use (EPA, 2011).

The SEA has a step-by-step process for it to be completely integrated in a project. The first

step is to screen a plan to determine whether SEA is required. If it is required, the next step would

be to determine the range of environmental issues covered by the SEA. The following would be to

prepare an environmental report which includes the scope of the SEA. After preparing the

environmental report, a project must then be consulted by an environmental agency along with the

report. The next step is to integrate the various environmental considerations into the plan. Lastly,

the information regarding the decisions on the SEA must be made public (EPA, 2011).

2.4 Conceptual framework

Various authors argued that income is a significant determinant of carbon emissions. Higher levels

of income tend to result in greater carbon emissions and vice versa (Amoncio, et al., 2012; Gough,

et al., 2011; Matthews and Weber, 2008; Buchs and Schnepf, 2013). In the Philippine setting,

Amoncio, et al. (2012) deduced that the level of income is significant in determining the carbon

footprint of households.

The structure of the household can also contribute in determining the carbon emission.

Sherwood (2011) deduced that the household size is a significant determinant of household carbon

emissions. Gough, et al. (2011) found that the number of employed members in a household and

the number of those attending school also determines the carbon footprint of a household.

Dietz, et al. (2009) reported that the number of appliances greatly contribute to a

household’s carbon footprint. Gardner and Stern (2009) also confirmed this in their study. The
number of vehicles of a household also contributes to its carbon emissions. Households with more

vehicles tend to emit more carbon than households without motor vehicles (Tiglao and Vegel,

2013; Buchs and Schnepf, 2013).

The characteristics of the household reference person also affects the household’s carbon

footprint since the household reference person is the one who generally makes the decisions in the

household. Buchs and Schnepf (2013) found that the educational attainment of the household

reference person affects the carbon footprint of the household since a highly educated person

would make smarter decisions regarding their consumptions.

 Characteristics of
Characteristics of the
Households Household Reference Person
 Income
 Gender
 Household Size
 Age
 Lot Size
 Educational Attainment
 Number of Vehicles
 Number of Appliances

Household Carbon Footprint

Figure 1. Conceptual framework showing the hypothesized impact of the selected variables on household

carbon footprint
3. Data description and analysis

The data that were used in the study were gathered through survey questionnaires that were

personally delivered to the respondents. The data were gathered in September 2017. The formula

used in determining the sample size was

Sample size = (Z-score)2 * standard deviation * (1-standard deviation)

(margin of error)2

In order to determine the sample size, a confidence level of 95% was utilized and the

corresponding Z-score for the said confidence level is 1.96. The standard deviation was 0.5 and

the margin of error was 5%. With the given formula, the resulting sample size was 385, however,

the study used 400 for better representation. Cluster sampling was used in gathering the data for

the study. The locale of the study was divided into groups and each group will have a simple

random sample that will be surveyed. The division of the population was based on the barangays

of Imus City. By doing this, each barangay was represented in the study and the study therefore

had a good representation of the entire population. At least 20 households were surveyed in each

barangay to complete the final sample of size of 400.

The household carbon footprints was computed by getting the total emissions of the

household using the data gathered from the survey questionnaire such as monthly electric

consumption, monthly expenses on the different kinds of public transportation, monthly fuel

expenses for transportation purposes, raw fuel, wastes generated per month, and daily cigarette

consumption, and then converting these data into their carbon equivalent using the Asian

Productivity Organization’s conversion table as shown in Table 1. The total household carbon
footprint was used in the ordinary least squares regression analysis as the dependent variable and

the independent variables were gender, age, educational attainment of the household reference

person, household size, number of household members attending school, number of household

members that are employed, income, number of owned vehicles, number of owned appliances, and

lot size of the house. An alternative robust regression analysis was also conducted for the model

in order to determine a result that is robust against outliers.

Table 1. Carbon emission multipliers for household consumption

Consumption Multiplier Consumption Multiplier

Electricity 0.0498 Raw Fuel: LPG 0.022454

Private Transportation: Gas 0.046 Charcoal 0.222

Diesel 0.066 Dry wood 1

LPG 0.022454 Others: Wastes (in kg) 1.59

Public Transportation: Bus 0.0017 Cigarettes 0.03

Taxi 0.004

MRT 0.000084

Tricycle 0.0022

Van 0.00104
 OLS regression was used to assess the determinants of household carbon footprints. For

the gender of the HRP, dummy variables will be used to represent each gender. The numerical

value for the highest educational attainment of the HRP is assumed to be 1 per year level of

education

Table 2. Numerical values for the educational attainment of the HRP

Educational Attainment Value Educational Attainment Value

No Grade Completed 0 2nd Year High School 8

Grade 1 1 3rd Year High School 9

Grade 2 2 4th Year High School 10

Grade 3 3 1st Year College 11

Grade 4 4 2nd Year College 12

Grade 5 5 3rd Year College 13

Grade 6 6 4th Year College 14

1st Year High School 7 Post Baccalaureate 15

Model:

HCF = β0 + β1I + β2HS + β3EM + β4ST + β5AGE + β6LS + β7V + β8APP +

β9G - β10E

Where:

HCF = Household carbon footprint, in C02e

I = Average monthly household income, in peso

HS = Household size

EM = Number of employed household members

ST = Number of household members attending school

AGE = Age of the HRP

LS = Lot size in m2

V = Number of vehicles owned by the household

APP = Number of electrical appliances owned by the household

G = Gender of the HRP, 1 if male, 0 if female

E = Educational attainment of the household reference person

4. Results and analysis

4.1 Profile of household respondents

The discussion of the respondents’ composition includes gender of the household reference

person, age of the household reference person, educational attainment of the household reference

person, household size, number of members attending school, number of members employed,

income, number of owned vehicles, number of owned appliances, and lot size of the house.

Age. The mean age of the HRPs was 44. The oldest was 61 years old while the youngest

was 35 years old. Most of the HRPs are 35 to 41 years old, which comprised 38.25% of the entire

sample size. HRPs that are 56 to 61 years old are the fewest, which comprised 6.5% of the

population.

Educational attainment. Majority of the HRPs are college degree holders which

comprised 39.75% of the population. Of the sample population, 45.75% finished college while

only 5.75% of the population are elementary undergraduates. Figure 2 shows the composition of

households by educational attainment.

Household size. The mean household size was six and majority of households are

composed of 6 members which is 22.5% of the entire sample population. The households with the

smallest size only had four members, which comprised 19.75% of the population while the mean

household size only comprised 18.5% of the entire sample size.

Number of household members attending school. The mean number of household

members attending school was one and comprised 25% of the sample size. Households that do not

have any member attending school comprised 24.25% of the sample population while 27.25% of
the sample size had three members attending school which is the highest number of students in a

household.

Number of household members employed. The mean number of employed household

members was one and accounted for 28% of the population. About 21.25% of the sample

population had no employed members and mostly relied on remittances. The highest number of

working household members was 2 and comprised of 31.25% of the sample population.

Income. The mean monthly income for the households was around ₱53,120.00. The

highest income was ₱100,000.00 and the lowest was ₱25,000.00. Table 3 shows the distribution

of households by monthly household income. It is important to note that majority of the households

in the study has an income level of ₱55,000 to 69,999, which comprised 29.75% of the population.

The lowest income class which is at ₱25,000 to 39,999 comprised 21.5% of the population while

only few households were in the highest income level of ₱85,000 to 100,000, which is only 2% of

the sample population.

Number of owned vehicles. The mean number of owned vehicles by a household was one.

Households that own one vehicle comprised 29.75% of the population while households that do

not own a vehicle comprised 23.25% of the population. The highest number of vehicles owned by

a household in the sample population was 3, and it accounted for 13.5% of the total population.

Figure 5 shows the composition of households based on the number of vehicles owned.

Number of owned appliances. The mean number of appliances that a household owns was

6 which accounts for 23.5% of the population. The lowest number of appliances owned was three,

which comprised 6.75% of the sample size and the highest number of appliances owned by a

household was 10, which encompassed four percent of the population.

 Lot size. The mean lot size for households was 128 m2. The smallest lot size was around

60 m2 and the largest was around 265 m2. Table 3 shows the frequency distribution of households

by its lot size. Most households’ lot size is around 100 to 149 m2. This comprised 35.75% of the

population while households with lot sizes around 250 to 299 m2 only comprised 6% of the

population.

4.2. Household carbon footprints across various household characteristics

Household carbon footprints were grouped into low, medium, and high based on the mean

HCF for all the households. The households with low HCF are those in which the carbon emissions

are between 123.88 to 305.55kg; households with medium HCF has carbon footprints of 305.55

to 487.21kg; and households that fall into high HCF are those who produce 487.21 to 668.88kg of

carbon every month. Figure 7 shows the distribution of households by their carbon footprint. Only

61 (15.25%) of the entire population emits low levels of carbon dioxide; 120 (30%) of the

respondents produce high levels of carbon dioxide; and 219 (55.75) of the total population produce

medium levels of carbon dioxide. The standard per capita carbon emission is around 72kg.
Figure 2. Distribution of households based on their HCF level
Table 3. Estimates of the one-way between subjects ANOVA of the variables

Variable df F p

Gender 1, 398 0.524 .4691

Age 30, 369 1.622 .0023

Education 16, 383 0.528 .0042

HouseholdSize 4, 395 1.564 .1835

Studying 3, 396 0.730 .5356

Employed 3, 396 1.760 .1543

Income 53, 346 1.030 .0035

Vehicles 3, 396 0.776 .0028

Appliances 8, 391 0.712 .6629

LotSize 105, 294 0.913 .7049

There was a significant difference of the household carbon footprints on the different age

groups. Households with HRPs that are younger tend to have higher carbon footprints than

households with older HRPs. Specifically, the results suggest that the older the HRP, the lower the

carbon emission of the household. Another finding in the one-way between subjects analysis of

variance is that the educational attainment of the household reference person has a significant
difference on the educational levels. Contradictory to the findings of Buchs and Schnepf (2013),

the results suggest that a more educated household reference person will produce more carbon than

households with a less educated reference person.

The monthly income of the households was also found to have a significant difference on

the different income levels based on the p-value of the one way between subjects analysis of

variance. Results of the study indicate that the higher the income of the household, the more carbon

the household produces. In a similar study done in the Philippines by Amoncio, et al. (2012), the

income of the households positively contributed to the carbon footprint, particularly, the greater

the household income, the greater the household’s carbon footprint. In their study, Matthews and

Weber (2008), also concluded that income positively affects the carbon emission of consumers.

The one-way between groups analysis of variance found that the number of vehicles owned

by the household has a significant difference on the different number of vehicles. In their study,

Tiglao and Vegel (2013), concluded that the number of vehicles a household owns greatly

contributes to the carbon that a household produces. More vehicles would mean greater

consumption of fossil fuels and in turn would emit more carbon. The findings of the study also

propose the same result: the greater the number of vehicles a household owns, the greater the

household carbon footprint.

4.3. Determinants of household carbon footprints

It was found in the regression that holding everything else constant, the effect of age on

household carbon footprints was negative. Conversely, the educational attainment of the household

reference person was determined to be positive, which is not in line with the results of the study

of Buchs and Schnepf (2013), which found that the more educated the reference person, the lower
the carbon footprint. The household size was also found to have a positive effect on carbon

footprints, this result conforms with the study of Sherwood (2011), which found that a household

with more members would have a greater carbon footprint than a household with fewer members.

The number of household members attending school also had a positive effect on household carbon

footprints which agrees with the results of the study of Gough, et al. (2011), that a household with

members that are attending school would use more transportation, which in turn would result to

more carbon emissions. Another finding is that the number of employed household members has

a positive effect on the households’ carbon footprint. In their study, Gough et al. (2011) explained

that households with working members tend to use more transportation to get to work, which will

result in either higher transportation expenses or higher consumption of fossil fuels if the

households use vehicles, the results of the study is consistent with these findings.

The results of the regression suggest that income has a positive effect on the household

carbon footprints. In accordance with previous literatures regarding income and carbon footprints

(Matthews & Weber, 2008; Gough, et al., 2011; Amoncio, et al., 2012; Buchs & Schenpf, 2013),

income was always found to have a positive effect on carbon footprints. Higher income would lead

to more consumption choices and would result in higher carbon emissions.

The number of vehicles owned also had a positive effect on the households’ carbon

footprints. This concurs with the study of Tiglao and Vegel (2009), that the more vehicles owned

by the household, the greater the demand of the household for fuel, that will result in a higher

amount of carbon produced. Accordingly, the number of appliances owned by the household also

had a positive effect on the carbon footprints, which is possibly due to the greater electrical

consumption with more appliances. Another result was that the lot size of the household had a

positive effect on carbon footprints.

 However, only income, age, number of vehicles owned, and highest educational attainment

were the only statistically significant results. At p < .05, household size, number of employed

members, number of members attending school, number of appliances owned, and gender where

insignificant. The R2 of the model was 0.421, which means that only 42.1% of the variance is

explained by the model.

Comparable to the results of the ordinary least squares regression, the only significant

variables in the robust regression at p < .05 are the same: age, income, number of vehicles owned

and educational attainment. There were also no changes in the effects of the variables in the robust

regression.

5. Policy implications and conclusions

Primarily, the study was conducted to ascertain the determinants of household carbon

footprints in Imus City, Cavite. In conclusion, four significant findings were derived from the

study. First, the age of the household reference person significantly affects the households’ carbon

footprint. The results of the study indicated that households with older HRPs tend to have lower

levels of carbon footprints compared to households with younger HRPs. Second, the educational

attainment of the HRP had a positive effect on the households’ carbon footprint. This finding does

not conform with the study of Buchs and Schnepf (2013) that a more educated HRP will be smarter

in their consumption and will produce lower levels of carbon. The results of the study suggested

that as the educational attainment of the HRP is higher, the household carbon footprint is greater.

Third, there is a significant positive effect of income on household carbon footprints. The results

indicate that greater income leads to higher carbon footprints. Finally, the study found that the
number of vehicles that a household owns significantly affects the carbon produced by the

household. The more vehicles that the household owns, the greater the household carbon footprint.

Primarily, the study was conducted to ascertain the determinants of household carbon

footprints in Imus City, Cavite. In conclusion, four significant findings were derived from the

study. First, the age of the household reference person significantly affects the households’ carbon

footprint. The results of the study indicated that households with older HRPs tend to have lower

levels of carbon footprints compared to households with younger HRPs. Second, the educational

attainment of the HRP had a positive effect on the households’ carbon footprint. This finding does

not conform with the study of Buchs and Schnepf (2013) that a more educated HRP will be smarter

in their consumption and will produce lower levels of carbon. The results of the study suggested

that as the educational attainment of the HRP is higher, the household carbon footprint is greater.

Third, there is a significant positive effect of income on household carbon footprints. The results

indicate that greater income leads to higher carbon footprints. Finally, the study found that the

number of vehicles that a household owns significantly affects the carbon produced by the

household. The more vehicles that the household owns, the greater the household carbon footprint.

The main issue found in the study is the large number of households that produce high levels of

carbon footprints. The study revealed that at least 30% of households produce high levels of

carbon. High carbon emissions in the city would lead to poor air quality and can cause respiratory

diseases.

It is recommended that the local government of Imus, together with concerned private

institutions to consistently monitor the carbon emissions of the households in the entire city.

Programs that promote the use of renewable energy or improve the consumption choices of the

citizens should be considered. The city government should also advocate for the use of solar energy
which is a good alternative for fossil fuels. Reducing the dependence on fossil fuels would

drastically reduce the amount of carbon footprints of households. An investment in renewable

energy would prove to be very efficient in reducing carbon emissions in the long-run.

Furthermore, the study revealed that households with more educated HRPs tend to have

high levels of carbon footprints. Increasing the awareness of the citizens by teaching the

importance of having low emissions could also help reduce the carbon produced by households. It

was further found in the study that the number of vehicles owned greatly affects the carbon

footprint of households. Implementing stricter laws regarding smoke belching vehicles would be

advisable. Introducing greener technology such as fuel-efficient vehicles would also be of great

help. It is highly recommended that the citizens should depend less on fossil fuels and instead use

more eco-friendly alternatives. Various lifestyle changes such as walking or riding a bicycle

instead of using motor vehicles for transportation would greatly reduce the carbon emissions of

the city. Using energy efficient appliances and turning off lights when not in use would also lessen

the carbon footprints of households due to lower energy consumption. Since the wastes generated

by households also contribute to their total carbon footprint, it is ideal that the households reduce

the wastes they produce. Recycling is also a good option and is recommended.

Moreover, further studies regarding this topic is recommended. Conducting a similar study

in a different location or adding more variables could help in further understanding of the topic.

This study can also be further explored by using a different approach in determining the household

carbon footprints. Comparing the results of the study with other cities would provide better insight.

A bigger scope will also be ideal in order to get a wider view of the situation of carbon footprints

in the Philippines. Regional data regarding carbon footprints will also be helpful in determining

the trends of the emissions.

Reducing the households’ carbon footprint would be essential in decreasing the overall carbon

emissions of the country. If each household could decrease their carbon footprint, the entire world,

not just the country, would benefit. This would help lessen the gravity of climate change and would

promote a better environment for generations to come.

References

Amoncio, H., Batulan, T., Josol, G., Langahid, K., Ong, D., Pique, K., Taula, J., & Yu, M.

(2012). Correlation between the Philippine science students’ annual family income and

carbon footprint.Retrievedfrom

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ua

ct=8&ved=0ahUKEwjzyLDF_PXSAhUJKo8KHYEEBF8QFghJMAc&url=http%3A%

2F%2Fwww.aag.org%2Fgalleries%2Fmycoegeoportal2012files%2Fmcasas3_r.pdf&us

g=AFQjCNGsDLfnHkD1SAvVvN4jVuyuIpNerg&bvm=bv.150729734,d.c2I

Attari, S., DeKay, M., Davidson, C., and Bruin, W. (2010). Public perceptions of energy

consumption and savings. Retrieved from

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16054.full.pdf. doi:10.1073/pnas.1001509107

Buchs, M., and Schnepf, S. (2013). UK households’ carbon footprint: a comparison of the

association between household characteristics and emissions from home energy, transport

and other goods and services. Retrieved from ftp.iza.org/dp7204.pdf

DENR requires cleaner fuel, sets new emission standards. (2015, March 25). Retrieved from:
 http://www.denr.gov.ph/news-and-features/latest-news/2141-denr-requires-cleaner-fuel-

sets-new-emission-standards.html

Dietz, T., Gardner, G., Gilligan, J., Stern, P., & Vandenbergh M. (2009). Household actions can

provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce u.s. carbon emissions. Retrieved from

behavioralwedge.msu.edu/documents/behavioral_wedge_paper.pdf. doi:

10.1073/pnas.0908738106

Esplanada, J. (2013, February 5). Diesel-powered motor vehicles blamed for most o ph’s air

pollution. Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/353117/diesel-powered-motor-

vehicles-blamed-for-most-of-phs-air-pollution

Finch, G., Burnett, E., & Knowles, W. (2009). Energy consumption in mid and high rise residential

buildings in British Columbia. Retrieved from

https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/BEST/BEST2_002_EE3-

1.pdf

Gardner, G., & Stern, P. (2009). The short list: the most effective actions U.S. households can take

to curb climate change. Retrieved from

http://www.environmentmagazine.org/archives/back%20issues/september-

october%202008/gardner-stern-full.html

Gough, I., Abdallah, S., Johnson, V., Ryan-Collins, J. & Smith, C. (2011). The distribution of total

greenhouse gas emissions by households in the UK, and some implications for social

policy. Retrieved from b.3cdn.net/nefoundation/ff3ed7d482cf03b852_lwm6b4r3a.pdf

How is climate change affecting the Philippines? (2016, January 19). Retrieved from:
 https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/how-climate-change-affecting-philippines

PH determined to cut emissions of carbon, other greenhouse gasses. (2016, April 17). Retrieved

from: http://www.denr.gov.ph/news-and-features/latest-news/2529-ph-determined-to-

cut-emissions-of-carbon-other-greenhouse-gases.html

Main sources of carbon dioxide emissions. (n.d.). Retrieved from:

http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-emissions

Matthews, S., & Weber, C. (2008). Quantifying the global and distributional aspects of American

household carbon footprint. Ecological economics, 66(2-3), 379-391. Retrieved from

www.cmu.edu/gdi/Research/HouseholdCF-onepager.pdf

Merilo, M. (2001). Greenhouse gas mitigation strategies: the Philippine experience. Retrieved

from https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/workshops/other_meetings/.../pdf/asuncion.pdf

Pacala, S., & Socolow, R. (2008) Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next

50 years with current technologies. Science, 305, 968-972. Retrieved from

qed.econ.queensu.ca/pub/faculty/garvie/econ443/pacala%20and%20socolow.pdf

Ranada, P. (2015, October 1). Philippines commits to reduce carbon emissions by 70%. Retrieved

from: http://www.rappler.com/science-nature/environment/107759-philippines-indc-

climate-change-united-nations

Shakun, J., Clark, P., He, F., Marcott, S., Mix, A., Liu, Z., . . . & Bard, E. (2012). Global warming

preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation.

Nature, 484, 49-53. doi: 10.1038/nature10915

Sherwood, C. (2011, April 26). How location, household size and income impact your carbon

footprint. Retrieved from http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-location-household-size-

and-income-impact-your-carbon-footprint/

Solomon, S., Plattner, G., Knutti, R., & Friedlingstein, P. (2009) Irreversible climate change due

to carbon dioxide emissions. PNAS, 106, 1704-1709. doi: 10.1073/pnas0812721106

Stern, D. (2003). The environmental Kuznets curve. Retrieved from isecoeco.org/pdf/stern.pdf

Tiglao, N., & Vergel K. (2013). Estimation of emissions and fuel consumption of sustainable

transport measures in metro manila. Retrieved from

journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/pej/article/download/3797/3484

United Nations, (1992). United Nations framework convention on climate change. Retrieved from:

http://unfccc.int/2860.php http://unfccc.int/2860.php