ESD-00281; No.

of pages: 9; 4C:
Energy for Sustainable Development xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy for Sustainable Development

The effects of internal migration on residential energy consumption

and CO2 emissions: A case study in Hanoi
Satoru Komatsu a,⁎, Hieu Dinh Ha b, Shinji Kaneko a
a
Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation, Hiroshima University, 1-5-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-hiroshima, Hiroshima 739-8529, Japan
b
Ho Chi Minh City University of Technical Education, Vietnam, Vo Van Ngan Street, Thu Duc District, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The objective of this research is to estimate the potential effects of migration on residential energy use and CO2
Received 2 October 2013 emissions in Hanoi, Vietnam, a location in which urbanization and migration are occurring simultaneously. This
Accepted 6 October 2013 article estimates the effects of migration on residential energy use and CO2 emissions quantitatively, basing the
Available online xxxx
probability of being a migrant on the economic, demographic and dwelling characteristics of households. The
results of this study indicate that the effects of migration involve reductions in energy consumption and CO2
Keywords:
Urbanization
emissions. Urban-to-urban migration is shown to have no statistically significant impact on per capita energy
Migration consumption and CO2 emissions, which indicates that population increases through urban-to-urban population
Residential energy consumption growth and natural population growth have no statistically significant differences in this regard. However, rural-
Vietnam to-urban migration is shown to have a significant and negative influence on residential energy consumption
and CO2 emissions. Population growth led by rural-to-urban migration produces lower energy consumption
estimates than natural population growth. Thus, energy consumption estimates are lower when a city's
population increase is caused by rural-to-urban migration than when urban-to-urban migration and natural
population growth are the main drivers of population increases. These results have important policy implications
for developing urban cities regarding population growth and energy consumption.
© 2013 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction has been accompanied by an increased demand for energy in urban

Urbanization, a nearly universal phenomenon in rapidly emerging
economies, is a crucial factor when examining residential energy
consumption and CO2 emissions in those developing countries that
will be the source of the majority of newly generated CO2 emissions in
the future. The urban population has continued to grow over the past
60 years (UN, 2012a). In 2011, more than half of the world's population
resided in urban areas (52%), and urbanization is expected to increase
that percentage to 67.2% by 2050 (UN, 2012a). The main drivers of
urbanization are natural population growth in urban areas, changes in
administrative boundaries and net rural-to-urban migration. Various
empirical findings, such as those in Kojima (1996), Skeldon (1997),
Djamba et al. (1999), Chandra (2002), Skeldon (2005) and Tiwari
(2008), suggest that migration is one of the pivotal factors explaining
the rate of urbanization in developing countries. In Asia, net rural-to-
urban migration accounted for an estimated 40.4%, 46.7% and 63.6% of
overall urban population growth in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s,
respectively (Skeldon, 1998).1 Importantly, urban population growth
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 82 424 6908; fax: +81 82 424 6904.
E-mail addresses: satoru.komatsu@gmail.com (S. Komatsu), hadinhhieu@gmail.com
(H.D. Ha), kshinji@hiroshima-u.ac.jp (S. Kaneko).
1 has also been observed in other countries, such as India (Ekholm et al.,
These numbers were calculated using natural population growth and net migration;
the data ignore the reclassification of administrative areas because of the difficulty in
quantitatively identifying its effects (Skeldon, 1998).
areas (Donaghy, 2011). Emerging cities that have successfully managed
population inflows should be encouraged to manage their prospective
residential energy demands and carbon-emission mitigation initiatives.
Rapid urban population growth and urbanization, in addition to
the associated spatial distributions of urban populations, are related
to exposure and vulnerability to climate-change-related disasters
(Kebede and Nicholls, 2012).
With respect to energy issues, rural-to-urban migrants typically
experience two types of change in their residential energy consumption
after moving to an urban area. The first is a change in available
resources. People in rural areas depend on traditional biomass-origin
fuels such as fuel wood, straw and animal dung, depending on the
surrounding natural environment. Conversely, in urban areas in which
such natural resources are far less readily available, residents depend
on modern fossil-fuel-derived energy sources, such as kerosene and
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which are more efficient. For example,
Cai and Jiang (2008) compare residential energy consumption in rural,
periurban and urban areas in China and confirm that urbanized areas
shift the dependency from traditional fuels to commercial fuels. This
trend of heavy dependence on traditional energy resources in rural
areas but greater reliance on modern energy sources in urban areas
2010) and Bangladesh (Miah et al., 2011). The second type of change
experienced by rural-to-urban migrants is lifestyle transformation;

0973-0826/$ – see front matter © 2013 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.10.002

Please cite this article as: Komatsu S, et al, The effects of internal migration on residential energy consumption and CO2 emissions: A case study in
Hanoi, Energy Sustain Dev (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.10.002
2 S. Komatsu et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
such migrants use electricity and different types of fuel for cooking,
which influences the structure of energy consumption. The urban
lifestyle is characterized by a greater dependency on home appliances,
which leads to increased consumption of electricity and higher
incremental CO2 emissions. IEA (2011) shows the disparity in access
to electricity between urban and rural areas.
Based on these changes in resource endowments and lifestyles, the
“energy ladder model” is widely used as the theoretical framework
for examining household energy use in the process of urbanization.
Heltberg (2004) explains that the energy ladder model conceptualizes
fuel choice by dividing it into three phases. In the first phase, residents
universally depend on biomass resources. In the second phase,
households shift to a transitional type of resource, using kerosene, coal
and charcoal in response to higher household incomes, urbanization
and scarcity of biomass (Heltberg, 2004). In the final phase, households
switch to the most efficient types of fuels for cooking, such as LPG,
natural gas or electricity (Heltberg, 2004). Empirical evidence suggests
that the two major factors that encourage households to move up the
energy ladder are the level of affluence of the households, as measured
by income or expenditure (Cai and Jiang, 2008; Davis, 1998; Hosier and
Kipondya, 1993 and Sovacool, 2011), on the one hand, and the
availability of resources in the local environment (Peng et al., 2010;
Sovacool, 2011), on the other. The relative prices of available fuels also
play an important role in households' choices of energy sources
(Hosier and Kipondya, 1993; Kebede et al., 2002 and Peng et al.,
2010). Although relatively affluent household segments consume a
larger amount of modern fuels, empirical evidence also suggests that
some wealthier families continue to use inefficient fuels, such as fuel
wood (Bensel and Remedio, 1995; Hiemstra-van der Horst and
Hovorka, 2008), which indicates that households do not climb the
energy ladder in lockstep. Heltberg (2004) concludes that the choice
of fuel resembles a portfolio menu in which households use both
high-cost and low-cost items depending on their budgets, preferences
and needs. Kaneko et al. (2013) review the empirical literature on
urbanization and climate change and provide a proposal to address
urbanization issues by constructing future climate scenarios.
The effects of migration on residential energy consumption and CO2
emissions in urban areas
Although urbanization is one of the driving forces influencing energy
ladder models and inducing increased consumption of modern
fuels, how do we account for one of the major factors underlying
urbanization, i.e., rural-to-urban migration? If we employ the energy
ladder model blindly—without regard to whether urban residents
originate from migrants—energy consumption is assumed to depend
on residents' level of affluence, resource endowments and relative fuel
prices. In other words, migrants and nonmigrants are assumed to
exhibit similar patterns of energy consumption, if these groups have
similar levels of affluence under similar resource endowments and
relative fuel prices.
The question of whether the impacts of migration must be
accounted for depends first on whether the living conditions of
migrants and nonmigrants in urban areas are different. Anh (2003)
finds that migrants in southeast Asian countries remit money to
their home residential areas. Sheng (2003) demonstrates that
migrants maintain strong relationships with family in their former
villages and towns and that strong family ties between rural-to-
urban migrants and their rural families play a significant role in
determining the economic benefits and costs of migration. If familial
relationships positively or negatively influence the level of
disposable income, the characteristics of energy consumption
among migrants and nonmigrants might be different. In other
words, under such conditions, migrants and nonmigrants would
show different tendencies in the respective patterns of their energy
consumption in urban areas.
Please cite this article as: Komatsu S, et al, The effects of internal migration on residential energy consumption and CO2 emissions: A case study in
Hanoi, Energy Sustain Dev (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.10.002
Different tendencies regarding energy consumption among migrants
and nonmigrants may also be explained by changes in migrants' lifestyles
to suit their new urban homes. Recent migrants to cities may not be ready
to own and use home appliances or efficient cooking devices because
of personal preferences or insufficient savings. For example, Richter
et al. (2006) indicate that rural-to-urban migrants in South Africa
own fewer major home appliances such as televisions, refrigerators
and washing machines compared with long-term urban households
(such as those in Johannesburg). Lim et al. (2009) report that rural-
to-urban migrants are less likely to own washing machines, microwaves
or water heaters than long-term urban residents in Thailand. This
empirical research implies that migrants in urban areas may consume
less energy than nonmigrants in the same areas.
This study examines whether migrants exhibit different charac-
teristics than nonmigrants with respect to energy consumption and
CO2 emissions. It is probable that migrant status signifies a different
impact on energy consumption and CO2 emissions than nonmigrant
status. To determine whether the effect of migration must be taken
into account, this study proposes utilizing a method developed in
empirical research and applying it to the case study in Vietnam.
This research applies the concept of propensity score matching
proposed by Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983) to determine the effects of
migration. Using the propensity score matching method, we construct
two comparison groups based on the probabilities of being migrants
and nonmigrants that use observable characteristics, i.e., economic,
demographic and dwelling indicators. The migrants are then matched
based on their estimated similarity to nonmigrants. The average effects
of being a migrant are calculated as the mean differences in outcomes
across those groups, as measured in terms of energy consumption and
CO2 emissions.
The proposed approach yields important policy implications about
the nexus of migration and residential energy consumption. Policy
makers can see whether the effects of migration have a statistically
meaningful influence on energy consumption. If migration is positively
(or negatively) associated with energy consumption, policy makers
must account for such population dynamics when considering future
residential energy consumption. Furthermore, the policy implications
for energy use are expected to differ depending on whether
urbanization is driven by migration or by natural population growth.
These findings are useful for cities in which the population is expected
to increase substantially, particularly megacities in developing
countries. Furthermore, the research not only considers residential
energy consumption but also extends its analysis to CO2 emissions
from households.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The next section
presents the survey design. The third section describes the charac-
teristics of the households in the sample, and the fourth section explains
the methodology used for the estimation. The fifth section presents
the results of the estimation for the effects of migration on energy
consumption and CO2 emissions. The sixth section discusses the
effects of migration and policy implications for urban planners. The
final section summarizes the key findings of the study and suggests
remaining issues to be resolved.
Survey design
The case study country is Vietnam, which has experienced relatively
high GDP growth of approximately 5.3–8.5% per year between 2000 and
2010 (World Bank, 2013). Urban population growth rates are also high
at 3.1-3.6% per year over that same time period (World Bank, 2013).
As in other developing countries, urbanization and migration to
cities are common in Vietnam, where the urbanization ratio was 11.6%
in 1950, steadily increased to 27.3% in 2005 and is expected to reach
40.1% by 2025 (UN, 2012b). Hanoi, the capital of Vietnam, is one of
the primary destinations for migrants. According to Vietnam's “2009
Population and Housing Census,” the population of Hanoi was
 S. Komatsu et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
6.452 million (General Statistics Office of Vietnam, 2010). The
population growth rate in Hanoi was 1.41% in 2009, which was higher
than the national average (1.06%) (General Statistics Office of
Vietnam, 2011a). Hanoi's population is expected to reach 8.383 million
by 2034 (General Statistics Office of Vietnam, 2011b). UNFPA (United
Nations Population Fund) and GSO (General Statistics Office of
Vietnam) (2006) estimate that the inflow of migrants to Hanoi from
1994 to 1999 was 156,000.2 These sources all identify Hanoi as a site
where urbanization and migration are occurring simultaneously.
To obtain information on energy consumption and other key
determinants, a door-to-door household survey was conducted in
Hanoi in September 2009. Three urban districts (quan), Dong Da, Ha
Dong and Hai Ba Trung, were selected as the survey areas. Before the
main survey, a pilot survey was conducted in Hanoi in March 2009 to
obtain basic information regarding perceptions and opinions about
migration, energy access and consumption, income and household
structures and to assess the feasibility of the survey. Because the literacy
rate of some households was predicted to be low, skilled field
investigators were hired to administer the survey in individual face-
to-face interviews. The investigators received training to ensure that
they understood the survey objectives and design clearly and precisely
for both the pilot and main surveys. The questionnaire was first written
in English and then translated into Vietnamese. To validate the
translation, the questionnaire was then reverse translated from
Vietnamese into English.
Both migrants and nonmigrants were included in the sample.
Migrant households are defined as households whose province of
residence five years before the date of the main survey was outside
the Hanoi administrative area; all others are considered nonmigrants.3
To be eligible, respondents were required to be a household decision
maker, such as the household head or his/her spouse, and be able to
provide reliable information on energy consumption. People who had
migrated to Hanoi to join household members already living in Hanoi
were excluded because their behavior would not explain the effect of
migration on changes in energy use. Students were not eligible because
many live in dormitories and are unaware of consumption-based
energy tariffs.
The migrants were further subdivided based on whether their
hometowns were in an urban or rural area. However, challenges arose
in defining “urban.” The definitions of “urban” vary widely between
countries, and it is imperative for this variation to be considered when
comparing urban/rural distributions across countries (UN, 2008).
Following the definition of “urban” in Vietnam, urban areas are defined
in this study as including provincial cities (thanh pho truc thuoc tinh),
urban districts (quan) and county-level towns (thi xa) (UN, 2008).
Migrants from these types of urban areas are categorized as “urban–
urban migrants” (U-migrants), whereas migrants from other
administrative divisions are categorized as “rural–urban migrants” (R-
migrants).
Moreover, to minimize outlier effects, households that consumed
more or less than 2.5% of the total energy consumption of the entire
sample were excluded from the sample. Of the total sample size of
934, the final effective sample size was 746, including 81 U-migrants,
258 R-migrants and 407 nonmigrants. Table 1 shows the distribution
of the residential areas of each segment. According to the Vietnam
News Agency (2008), the populations of Dong Da, Ha Dong and Hai Ba
Trung are 352,000, 199,000 and 378,000, respectively; thus, the samples
are roughly proportional to the population.
2
Regarding other major destination cities for migrants, Ho Chi Minh City (southern
Vietnam) and Da Nang City (central Vietnam) received 489,000 and 45,000 migrants,
respectively, during the same period (UNFPA, United Nations Population Fund and GSO,
General Statistics Office of Vietnam, 2006).
3
Households in Ha Tay Province, which was merged into Hanoi in 2008, were excluded
from the sample.
Please cite this article as: Komatsu S, et al, The effects of internal migration on residential energy consumption and CO2 emissions: A case study in
Hanoi, Energy Sustain Dev (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.10.002
3
Table 1
Distribution of households across residential areas.
Districts U-migrants R-migrants Nonmigrants
(n = 81) (n = 258) (n = 407)
Dong Da 30 113 159
Ha Dong 18 62 69
Hai Ba Trung 33 83 179
Data and descriptive statistics
Table 2 presents the key socioeconomic and dwelling attributes of
migrants and nonmigrants.4 As shown, floor space is much larger for
nonmigrants, which indicates that migrants live in much smaller
houses, possibly because migrants have relatively few household
members. Per capita income is highest for U-migrants, followed by R-
migrants and then nonmigrants; this may be the consequence of
numerous migrants moving to Hanoi for the purpose of finding work,
which means that more members of migrant households have income
sources. This phenomenon is supported by empirical evidence showing
that migrants in urban areas tend to have higher labor force
participation rates than nonmigrants (Skeldon, 1997). Nonmigrants
have almost twice as many household members as U-migrants and R-
migrants; therefore, total household income is higher for nonmigrants
than migrants. Table 2 also includes data about educational attainment,
gender and district dummies as control variables. Migrants are found to
be slightly better educated than nonmigrants, which is consistent with
empirical evidence from surveys in Ho Chi Minh City (Anh et al.,
1996). There are only slight differences in terms of gender and district
dummies.
Fig. 1 compares the ownership of home appliances that increase
electricity consumption. Respondents were asked to respond “yes” if
their household has at least one device and “no” otherwise. For the
majority of home appliances, the ownership ratio of home appliances
is highest for nonmigrants, followed by U-migrants and R-migrants. In
all respondent categories, the majority of households have lighting
devices, electric fans and cellular phones. Nonmigrants' ownership
ratio is also high for color televisions. There are large discrepancies in
ownership ratios for relatively large electric appliances, such as
refrigerators, washing machines and air conditioners. For example,
93% of nonmigrants have a refrigerator, compared with 59% of
U-migrants and 35% of R-migrants. Similarly, 54% of nonmigrants own
an air conditioner, compared with 21% of U-migrants and only 13% of
R-migrants. The ownership of personal computers is higher for
nonmigrants and U-migrants than for R-migrants. These observations
suggest that nonmigrants tend to own more electric appliances than
migrants, and U-migrants own more appliances than R-migrants. The
evidence suggesting low ownership ratios among R-migrants resembles
that for Thailand (Lim et al., 2009).
Residential energy consumption is divided into electricity, coal and
LPG because these are the major residential energy sources in Hanoi
(we referred to Zyzniewski (2010) for the categories of residential
energy sources). Transportation fuel, such as gasoline, is excluded
from the analysis; fuel wood is also excluded because only a few
households utilize it. Household consumption for each fuel type is
provided in Table 3. The amounts of consumption are converted into
megajoules (MJ) (heat value), using World Resource Institute (2009).
CO2 emissions are calculated using World Resource Institute (2009).
Per capita residential energy consumption is highest for U-migrants,
followed by nonmigrants and R-migrants. CO2 emission levels show
similar trends.
4
Because migrants and nonmigrants may not be in the same population pool, this
section will not estimate the differences between migrants and nonmigrants with
statistical analyses (such as a t-test).
4 S. Komatsu et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Table 2
Sociodemographic characteristics of surveyed households.

Variable Definition Category Mean Std. dev. Min. Max.

INC Household income (1000 VND per capita per month) U-migrants 2987.52 3255.28 200.00 26,666.67
R-migrants 2245.99 1790.44 200.00 20,000.00
Nonmigrants 1730.03 1250.13 40.00 15,000.00
HH Number of household members U-migrants 2.41 1.54 1.00 7.00
R-migrants 2.39 1.50 1.00 9.00
Nonmigrants 4.29 1.53 1.00 11.00
FLR Floor space (m2) U-migrants 26.85 15.20 10.00 98.00
R-migrants 27.77 19.40 4.00 130.00
Nonmigrants 46.05 31.96 8.00 243.00
EDU Educational attainment (No education = 1, elementary school = 2, …, graduate school = 8) U-migrants 5.67 1.70 2.00 8.00
R-migrants 4.66 1.82 2.00 8.00
Nonmigrants 4.50 1.65 1.00 8.00
Dm_Gen Gender (male = 1, female = 0) U-migrants 0.36 0.48 0.00 1.00
R-migrants 0.32 0.47 0.00 1.00
Nonmigrants 0.27 0.44 0.00 1.00
Dm_DD Dummy variable taking value of 1 if respondents live in Dong Da, and 0 otherwise. U-migrants 0.37 0.49 0.00 1.00
R-migrants 0.44 0.50 0.00 1.00
Nonmigrants 0.39 0.49 0.00 1.00
Dm_HD Dummy variable taking value of 1 if respondents live in Ha Dong, and 0 otherwise. U-migrants 0.22 0.42 0.00 1.00
R-migrants 0.24 0.43 0.00 1.00
Nonmigrants 0.17 0.38 0.00 1.00

Sample size: nonmigrants = 407; U-migrants = 81; R-migrants = 258.

EDU and Dm_Gen refer to respondents' characteristics.

At this stage, it is impossible to draw any definite conclusions
regarding the effects of migration on energy consumption or CO2
emissions. We cannot be certain how much of the difference in energy
consumption is caused by migration, unless we take into account
other factors—such as household income, floor space, or the number
of household members—that are likely to contribute to such differences.
The next section discusses the methodologies employed to isolate and
illuminate the effect of migration itself.
Our research interest is to compare the effect of migration (the
treatment variable) on energy consumption and CO2 emissions. In
short, this study seeks to estimate the average effect of migration on
energy consumption and CO2 emissions, i.e., the average treatment
effects on the treated (ATT). Using energy consumption as an example,
ATT can be explained by the following:
ATT ¼ EðYm −Ynm jM ¼ 1Þ ¼ EðYm jM ¼ 1Þ−EðYnm jM ¼ 1Þ ð1Þ

where Ym is the energy consumption of migrants, Ynm is the energy

Estimation methodologies
Propensity score matching is applied to estimate the impact of
migration on energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Propensity
score matching is defined by Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983) as an
indicator of the conditional probability of receiving a treatment under
given observable characteristics. This definition was applied by Becker
and Ichino (2003) and was modified to suit our research design.
consumption of nonmigrants and M is a binary variable that takes a
value of 1 for migrants and 0 otherwise. E(Ynm|M = 1), which is the
energy consumption of the nonmigrants who were to be migrants,
is indeterminate, which denotes that this consumption cannot be
estimated by the empirical data. Therefore, E(Ynm|M = 0), the expected
energy consumption of nonmigrants, is used as a replacement for
E(Ynm|M = 1) with adjustments. To overcome the problem of the
unobserved component of Eq. (1), we set a conditional independence
assumption (CIA). The CIA assumes that, under similar observable
indicators (X), treatments (whether the households are migrants) are
independent for energy consumption.

ðYm ; Ynm Þ⊥M jX ð2Þ

Table 3
Residential energy consumption and CO2 emissions.

Mean Std. dev. Min. Max.

Residential energy Electricity U-Migrants 253.08 212.74 22.50 1098.00

consumption (per R-Migrants 174.90 142.35 10.80 900.00
capita, MJ/month) Nonmigrants 223.82 138.61 25.20 1125.00
Coal U-Migrants 41.29 112.73 0.00 621.00
R-Migrants 34.71 122.67 0.00 1035.00
Nonmigrants 74.25 147.77 0.00 1035.00
LPG U-Migrants 104.87 109.58 0.00 648.50
R-Migrants 88.70 91.03 0.00 598.60
Nonmigrants 78.26 49.66 0.00 311.79
Total U-Migrants 399.24 265.97 48.00 1129.60
R-Migrants 298.30 216.49 27.00 1409.00
Nonmigrants 376.33 194.26 113.45 1199.83
CO2 emissions from household U-Migrants 38.50 26.83 5.28 120.88
Sample size: Nonmigrants = 407; U-migrants = 80; R-migrants = 257 (256 in
the cases of electric fan and air conditioner). energy consumption R-Migrants 28.24 21.12 2.97 140.54
(per capita, kg/month) Nonmigrants 36.82 19.82 10.66 128.57

Fig. 1. Ownership ratio of home appliances. Sample size: nonmigrants = 407; U-migrants = 81; R-migrants = 258.

Please cite this article as: Komatsu S, et al, The effects of internal migration on residential energy consumption and CO2 emissions: A case study in
Hanoi, Energy Sustain Dev (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.10.002
 S. Komatsu et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 5

Table 4
Comparison of all migrants and nonmigrants.

Model (1) Model (2) Model (3)

Panel A: probit regression

INC 7.06 × 10−5⁎ 7.09 × 10−5⁎ 6.63 × 10−5⁎
(3.60 × 10−5) (3.63 × 10−5) (3.64 × 10−5)
HH −0.40⁎⁎⁎ −0.40⁎⁎⁎ −0.39⁎⁎⁎
(3.68 × 10−2) (3.69 × 10−2) (3.71 × 10−2)
FLR −1.26 × 10−2⁎⁎⁎ −1.28 × 10−2⁎⁎⁎ −1.32 × 10−2⁎⁎⁎
(2.64 × 10−3) (2.67 × 10−3) (2.66 × 10−3)
Dm_GEN 6.48 × 10−2
(0.12)
Dm_DD 0.18⁎ 0.26⁎⁎
(0.11) (0.12)
Dm_HD 0.25
(0.15)
Cons. 1.53⁎⁎⁎ 1.47⁎⁎⁎ 1.37⁎⁎⁎
(0.17) (0.17) (0.18)
Pseudo R2 0.26 0.27 0.27
Prob N χ2 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of observations 746 746 746

Panel B: estimation of average treatment effects on the treated (ATT)

Residential energy consumption (per capita, MJ) Kernela −116.40⁎⁎⁎ −114.72⁎⁎⁎ −113.49⁎⁎⁎
(29.07) (29.02) (30.68)
Radiusb −78.24⁎⁎⁎ −76.73⁎⁎⁎ −74.49⁎⁎⁎
(17.26) (18.66) (18.38)
CO2 emissions (per capita, kg) Kernela −12.08⁎⁎⁎ −11.91⁎⁎⁎ −11.8⁎⁎⁎
(3.19) (3.11) (2.94)
Radiusb −8.43⁎⁎⁎ −8.26⁎⁎⁎ −8.06⁎⁎⁎
(1.70) (1.93) (1.80)

Upper values indicate the estimated coefficients, and the lower values in the parentheses are standard errors.
⁎ Denotes significance at the 10% level.
⁎⁎ Denotes significance at the 5% level.
⁎⁎⁎ Denotes significance at the 1% level.
a
Kernel denotes use of the kernel matching method.
b
Radius denotes use of the radius matching method.

Here, X is the multidimensional vector of observable sample
characteristics. Eq. (2) means that when the value of X is similar for all
categories, treatment (M) is randomly assigned. Following the
estimation procedures for propensity score matching, M is regressed
on X using probit regressions and is used to calculate the probability
that a household is categorized as a migrant household (propensity
score p). Therefore, under the given propensity score, assignment to
treatment (M) is randomly set as follows:
ðYm ; Ynm Þ⊥M jpðX Þ:
Although the CIA is a strong assumption, this assumption is not
directly testable (Khandker et al., 2010). If the independent variables
of probit regressions cannot fully capture the determinants of
migration, then the application of propensity score matching is not
appropriate. The research checked whether probit estimations have
explanatory powers on migration using the value of R2.
The estimation should satisfy the balancing condition. In each
segment of the propensity score distribution, the balancing condition
indicates whether the average propensity score and the mean of X are
the same (Khandker et al., 2010), which further indicates that the
migrant (treatment) groups and nonmigrant (nontreatment) groups
must have similar observed characteristics of X when the groups have
a similar propensity score. The research investigates the combination of
X using household and respondent characteristics (INC, HH, FLR, EDU,
Dm_Gen, Dm_DD and Dm_HD in Table 2). The results of the estimation
without the balancing condition are not reported in the next section.
Because propensity is a continuous variable, it will never have exactly
the same value; therefore, ATT cannot be estimated.5 For reliable
estimates of the effect of migration (ATT), this study applies the following
two matching methods: radius matching and kernel matching. Using
radius matching, each treatment sample is matched only when
the control sample's propensity score falls into a predetermined
neighborhood of the propensity score of treatment samples (Becker and
Ichino, 2003).6 Kernel matching methods imply that all the treatment
samples are matched with a weighted average of all controls with weights
that are inversely proportional to the distance between the propensity
scores of the treatment and control samples (Becker and Ichino, 2003).
ð3Þ Because we cannot conclude which matching method is superior, the
results for both methods are reported below. Although the ATT values
may be different, this approach leads to a more reliable discussion
regarding the way in which migration influences residential energy
consumption and CO2 emissions.
Estimation results
Table 4 presents the effect of treatment (migration) for all migrants
and nonmigrants. Tables 5 and 6 divide the migrant sample into
U-migrants and R-migrants to provide separate estimates of the effects
of migration from another urban area (Table 5) and from a rural area
(Table 6). In Tables 4–6, Panel A estimates the probability of being
categorized into a treatment segment based on income (INC), the
number of household members (HH), floor space (FLR) and other
covariates. All the balancing hypotheses are satisfied in every estimation
result. Panel B in each table estimates the ATT using either kernel
matching or radius matching. The pseudo R2 values shown in
Tables 4–6 appear to be relatively low. Nevertheless, these values will

5
The effects of migration on energy consumption and CO2 emissions are estimated
6
separately. Therefore, the estimation results do not need to account for collinearity In this study, the size of the radius was set to 0.1, which is the default score in Stata
between energy consumption and CO2 emissions. (StataCorp, 2011).

Please cite this article as: Komatsu S, et al, The effects of internal migration on residential energy consumption and CO2 emissions: A case study in
Hanoi, Energy Sustain Dev (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.10.002
6 S. Komatsu et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Table 5
Comparison of U-migrants and nonmigrants.

Model (4) Model (5) Model (6)

Panel A: probit regression

INC 1.40 × 10−4⁎⁎⁎ 8.28 × 10−5⁎ 8.19 × 10−5⁎
(4.77 × 10−5) (4.34 × 10−5) (4.37 × 10−5)
HH −0.36⁎⁎⁎ −0.38⁎⁎⁎ −0.37⁎⁎⁎
(6.07 × 10−2) (6.17 × 10−2) (6.28 × 10−2)
FLR −1.75 × 10−2⁎⁎⁎ −1.91 × 10−2⁎⁎⁎ −1.95 × 10−2⁎⁎⁎
(5.05 × 10−3) (5.20 × 10−3) (5.25 × 10−3)
EDU 0.22⁎⁎⁎ 0.22⁎⁎⁎
(4.86 × 10−2) (5.00 × 10−2)
Dm_GEN 1.28 × 10−2
(0.18)
Dm_DD 0.11
(0.18)
Dm_HD 7.85 × 10−2
(0.24)
Cons. 0.59⁎⁎ −0.29 −0.36
(0.26) (0.32) (0.34)
Pseudo R2 0.27 0.32 0.32
Prob N χ2 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of observations 488 488 488

Panel B: estimation of average treatment effects on the treated (ATT)

Residential energy consumption (per capita, MJ) Kernela −30.23 −1.25 1.65
(49.77) (45.21) (45.44)
b
Radius 25.13 −5.01 3.23
(31.36) (33.58) (32.60)
CO2 emissions (per capita, kg) Kernela −3.02 0.28 0.54
(5.47) (4.35) (4.27)
Radiusb 1.91 −1.17 −0.57
(3.29) (2.79) (3.11)

Upper values indicate the estimated coefficients, and the lower values in the parentheses are standard errors.
⁎ Denotes significance at the 10% level.
⁎⁎ Denotes significance at the 5% level.
⁎⁎⁎ Denotes significance at the 1% level.
a
Kernel denotes use of the kernel matching method.
b
Radius denotes use of the radius matching method.

Table 6
Comparison of R-migrants and nonmigrants.

Model (7) Model (8) Model (9)

Panel A: probit regression

INC 4.56 × 10−5 2.25 × 10−5
(4.02 × 10−5) (4.10 × 10−5)
HH −0.42⁎⁎⁎ −0.43⁎⁎⁎ −0.42⁎⁎⁎
(4.00 × 10−2) (3.95 × 10−2) (4.08 × 10−2)
FLR −1.15 × 10−2⁎⁎⁎ −1.23 × 10−2⁎⁎⁎ −1.25 × 10−2⁎⁎⁎
(2.77 × 10−3) (2.80 × 10−3) (2.81 × 10−3)
EDU 6.39 × 10−2⁎ 5.91 × 10−2⁎
(3.32 × 10−2) (3.44 × 10−2)
Dm_DD 0.34⁎⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎⁎
(0.13) (0.13)
Dm_HD 0.32⁎ 0.31⁎
(0.16) (0.16)
Cons. 1.46⁎⁎⁎ 1.10⁎⁎⁎ 1.07⁎⁎⁎
(0.18) (0.22) (0.23)
Pseudo R2 0.26 0.27 0.27
Prob N χ2 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. of observations 665 665 665

Panel B: estimation of average treatment effects on the treated (ATT)

Residential energy consumption (per capita, MJ) Kernela −143.80⁎⁎⁎ −132.19⁎⁎⁎ −133.65⁎⁎⁎
(30.85) (37.66) (38.28)
b
Radius −103.18⁎⁎⁎ −94.49⁎⁎⁎ −95.45⁎⁎⁎
(17.39) (19.41) (16.27)
CO2 emissions (per capita, kg) Kernela −14.86⁎⁎⁎ −13.70⁎⁎⁎ −13.84⁎⁎⁎
(3.30) (3.90) (3.35)
Radiusb −10.97⁎⁎⁎ −10.12⁎⁎⁎ −10.22⁎⁎⁎
(1.74) (1.76) (1.82)

Upper values indicate the estimated coefficients, and the lower values in the parentheses are standard errors.
⁎ Denotes significance at the 10% level.
⁎⁎⁎ Denotes significance at the 1% level.
a
Kernel denotes use of the kernel matching method.
b
Radius denotes use of the radius matching method.

Please cite this article as: Komatsu S, et al, The effects of internal migration on residential energy consumption and CO2 emissions: A case study in
Hanoi, Energy Sustain Dev (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.10.002
 S. Komatsu et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
have sufficient explanatory power. Please refer to the examples of the R2
of probit estimation models in Baum (2006) or Wooldridge (2008).
Panel A of Model (1) indicates that migrants tend to have higher
monthly income, fewer household members and less floor space than
nonmigrants. Models (2) and (3) include other covariates that
potentially affect the probit regression model. The Dong Da dummy
shows statistically significant effects when the migrant and nonmigrant
categories are compared whereas both gender and the Ha Dong
dummies have no statistically significant influence. Including the district
and gender dummies does not change the statistical significance of INC, HH
and FLR. Panel B shows the average effects of migration on residential
energy consumption and CO2 emissions for similar characteristics
contained in Panel A. In other words, migrants and nonmigrants with
similar characteristics—such as income, the numbers of households and
floor space—are matched with one another. The differences in terms of
energy consumption and CO2 emissions are presented in Panel B.
Model (1) suggests that ATT, the average effect of migration on
residential energy consumption, is −116.40 MJ/capita (kernel
matching) or −78.24 MJ/capita (radius matching). Similarly, the effect
of migration on CO2 emissions is −12.08 kg/capita (kernel matching)
or −8.43 kg/capita (radius matching). Other variables included in
Panel B of Models (2) and (3) depict trends that are consistent with
those found in Model (1). The results indicate that even when migrants
and nonmigrants have similar characteristics in terms of income, the
number of household members, floor space and district dummies,
migrants consume less energy and emit less CO2 than nonmigrants.
Table 5 compares U-migrants and nonmigrants. The probit
estimation results in Panel A confirm that higher household income,
fewer household members and less floor space are characteristics of
U-migrants. Models (5) and (6) include other covariates; of these
covariates, only educational attainment has a significant impact for
U-migrants. Although the values in Panel B vary among the models,
the results do not show any statistically significant differences in
terms of residential energy use and CO2 emissions between the treatment
(U-migrants) and control (nonmigrants) groups. In other words, in any
combination of observable sample characteristics in Panel A, there are
no statistically significant differences in terms of energy consumption
and CO2 emissions between U-migrants and nonmigrants. The results
further indicate that migration from other cities has no significant
impacts on energy consumption and CO2 emissions in Hanoi.
Table 6 compares R-migrants and nonmigrants. Panel A shows that
R-migrants have less floor space and fewer household members but
no significant differences are observed in income. Panel B of Model (7)
shows that R-migrants consume less energy, by 143.80 MJ/capita
(kernel) or 103.18 MJ/capita (radius), and emit less CO2 than
nonmigrants, with 14.86 kg/capita (kernel) or 10.97 kg/capita (radius).
Models (8) and (9) show that educational attainment and district
dummies have a statistically significant influence on selection as
R-migrants. This finding indicates that R-migrants tend to have higher
educational levels and are more likely to live in Dong Da or Ha Dong
than nonmigrants. Panel B in Models (8) and (9) depicts similar
characteristics in residential energy consumption and CO2 emissions.
The results indicate that the treatment group, i.e., R-migrants, consumes
less energy from fossil fuels and emits less CO2.
Discussion
The estimation results suggest that migrants consume less energy
from fossil fuels and emit less CO2 than nonmigrants. However, after
dividing the migrants into U-migrants and R-migrants, the estimations
show contrasting results. Urban migration has no statistically
significant impact in terms of energy consumption and CO2 emissions.
Conversely, rural migration has significant impacts on residential
energy consumption and CO2 emissions. The estimation results not
only provide new findings about the nexus between migration and
Please cite this article as: Komatsu S, et al, The effects of internal migration on residential energy consumption and CO2 emissions: A case study in
Hanoi, Energy Sustain Dev (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.10.002
7
residential energy consumption but also have implications for urban
population dynamics through migration.
A comparison of the estimation results for both migrant and
nonmigrant populations suggests that migrants and nonmigrants
have different impacts on the management of urban residential
energy issues. Although the households of the two populations
demonstrate similar characteristics in terms of income, number of
household members and floor space, rural migrants consume less
energy and emit less CO2. The inclusion of district and gender
dummies does not change the estimation outputs. These results
suggest that in-migration from other areas and population growth
in cities have different implications for energy consumption.
Population growth in cities is driven primarily by the natural
increase in population in these cities or by in-migration from other
areas. Therefore, if the main drivers of population increase originate
from in-migration rather than from natural population growth, and
if migrants consume less residential energy than nonmigrants,
the city as a whole will require less residential energy. In other
words, cities that receive more migrants from other areas will require
less residential energy than cities whose population growth is driven
primarily by natural population increase. Because this research focuses
only on Hanoi, we must carefully consider whether the phenomena
analyzed here would be applicable to other cities. The results may offer
interesting policy implications regarding residential energy for other
urbanized cities in developing countries.
Dividing the migrants into U-migrants and R-migrants provides
further insights. Table 5 suggests that the treatment effect (urban
migration) has no statistically significant influence on energy
consumption and CO2 emissions. That is, the impacts on energy use
and CO2 emissions are identical irrespective of whether the population
growth is the result of migrants arriving from urban areas in other cities
or because of natural population increases within the city's own urban
area. These results suggest that the lifestyle of U-migrants does not
change considerably after migration because the migrants continue to
live in similar urban circumstances. From the viewpoint of population
dynamics, natural population growth and in-migration from other cities
have no statistically meaningful different effects when testing for
residential energy use and CO2 emissions. Conversely, the comparison
of R-migrants and nonmigrants in Table 6 indicates that there is a
statistically significant distinction in the treatment effect (rural-to-
urban migration) that reveals lower estimates of energy consumption
and CO2 emissions. This result implies that large population inflows
from rural areas and natural population growth in urban areas have
different implications with respect to residential energy consumption
and CO2 emissions. These findings may indicate that populations from
rural areas cannot attain the same level of home appliance ownership
for several years after migrating to Hanoi and therefore consume less
energy. If policy makers in cities assume that migrants from rural
areas consume the same amount of energy as nonmigrants, projected
residential energy use will be overestimated.
This research concludes that the influence of natural population growth
in urban areas and in-migration from other cities differs from that of in-
migration from rural areas into the same urban areas in terms of energy
consumption and CO2 emissions. In policy debates concerning population
growth, energy consumption and CO2 emissions, particularly in relation
to cities whose population growth is driven by inflows from rural areas,
the source of the population growth must be carefully examined to
account for the effects of the different sources of population growth.
The findings also have implications for debates concerning the
energy ladder hypothesis, which assumes that rural-to-urban
migrants have energy consumption patterns that are similar to the
patterns of long-term urban residents. In other words, the energy
ladder hypothesis does not separately consider the distribution of
energy consumption in cities among migrants and nonmigrants.
Although additional empirical research is required to generalize
the results, the results of this study suggest that it is necessary
8 S. Komatsu et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
to consider rural-to-urban migrants separately from others (urban-
to-urban migrants and nonmigrants) when debating energy
consumption and urbanization.
Conclusions
In contrast with the previous literature, this study empirically
investigated the effects of migration on modern residential energy use
and CO2 emissions, and considered the impacts of migration using
propensity score matching applied to survey datasets from Hanoi in
2009. The data in this study were collected from migrants and
nonmigrants, and we further divided the migrant category into rural-
to-urban migrants and urban-to-urban migrants. The estimation results
suggest that migration significantly influences energy consumption
and CO2 emissions. In particular, rural-to-urban migration has a
statistically significant negative influence on energy consumption and
CO2 emissions whereas urban-to-urban migration does not. These new
findings regarding population impacts on energy use and CO2 emissions
complement previous findings regarding homogeneous impacts across
migrants and nonmigrants. In particular, a population increase because
of rural-to-urban migration yields lower estimates for residential energy
consumption and CO2 emissions compared with natural population
growth. The findings also have implications for the use of the energy
ladder hypothesis when considering population dynamics in debates
on urbanization and energy consumption.
The findings have important policy implications for urban planners,
particularly in rapidly growing cities with rapid population growth and
migrant inflow occurring simultaneously. Because policy makers must
address issues related to population growth and energy requirements,
they must be aware that the additional energy demands differ according
to the type of population increase; thus, cities that experience
population growth resulting from rural-to-urban migration will require
less modern energy than cities experiencing growth due to urban-to-
urban migration or natural population growth. It is important for policy
makers to consider the population dynamics that will have a long-term
impact on residential energy requirements in their cities.
Because this research represents the first attempt to consider the
effect of migration dynamics on energy use and CO2 emissions, it
examines migrants who have lived in Hanoi for a relatively long time,
which indicates that temporary migrants (those who stay only a few
days or weeks) and seasonal migrants (those who come to a city only
in certain seasons) are yet to be included in research because of the
inaccessibility of sufficient relevant household data. These segments of
the population may potentially affect energy consumption and CO2
emissions; however, this situation is beyond the scope of our analysis.
Moreover, because the relationship between migration and residential
energy consumption and CO2 emissions is observed only in Hanoi, this
paper cannot conclude that similar patterns can be assumed for other
cities or even for other developing cities. Further research must take
into account factors that might enhance the impact of migration on
urban development and energy use.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (No. 21810019, 22310030, 23710057, 25257102); the
Strategic Funds for the Promotion of Science and Technology, “Global
Environmental Leaders Education Program for Designing a Low-
Carbon Society”; and the Environment Research and Technology
Development Fund of the Ministry of Environment, Japan, “Establishing
of Methodology to Evaluate Middle to Long Term Environmental Policy
Options toward Asian Low-Carbon Society (S-6).” The authors greatly
appreciate the assistance and cooperation of field investigators, survey
respondents and data entry personnel. The usual disclaimer applies.
Please cite this article as: Komatsu S, et al, The effects of internal migration on residential energy consumption and CO2 emissions: A case study in
Hanoi, Energy Sustain Dev (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.10.002
References
Anh DN. Internal migration policies in the ESCAP region. Asia Pac Popul J
2003;18(3).
Anh TS, Gubry P, Hong VT, Huguet J. Migration and employment in Ho Chi Minh City. Asia
Pac Popul J 1996;11(2):3–22.
Baum CF. An introduction to modern econometrics using stata. Texas: StataCorp LP;
2006.
Becker SO, Ichino A. Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores.
Stata J 2003;2(4):358–77.
Bensel TG, Remedio EM. Residential energy use patterns in Cebu City, Philippines. Energy
1995;20(3):173–87.
Cai J, Jiang Z. Changing of energy consumption patterns from rural households to urban
households in China: an example from Shaanxi Province, China. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2008;12(6):1667–80.
Chandra D. Socio-demographic and economic characteristics of migrant heads of
households and the consequences of their migration in Fiji, 1992-l993. Asia Pac
Popul J 2002;17(1):55–78.
Davis M. Rural household energy consumption—the effects of access to electricity—
evidence from South Africa. Energy Policy 1998;26(3):207–17.
Djamba Y, Goldstein A, Goldstein S. Permanent and temporary migration in Viet Nam
during a period of economic change. Asia Pac Popul J 1999;14(3):25–48.
Donaghy KP. Urban environmental imprints after globalization. Reg Environ Chang
2011;12:395–405.
Ekholm T, Krey V, Pachauri S, Riahi K. Determinants of household energy consumption in
India. Energy Policy 2010;38(10):5696–707.
General Statistics Office of Vietnam. The 2009 population and housing census;
2010.
General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Statistical yearbook of Vietnam 2010; 2011a.
General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Population projections for Vietnam 2009–2049;
2011b.
Heltberg R. Fuel switching: evidence from eight developing countries. Energy Econ
2004;26(5):869–87.
Hiemstra-van der Horst G, Hovorka AJ. Reassessing the “energy ladder”: household
energy use in Maun. Botswana. Energy Policy 2008;36(9):333–3344.
Hosier RH, Kipondya W. Urban household energy use in Tanzania—prices, substitutes and
poverty. Energy Policy 1993;21(5):454–73.
IEA (International Energy Agency). WEO-2011 new electricity access database.
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energydevelopment/accesstoelectricity/,
2011. [Accessed on November 22, 2012].
Kaneko S, Komatsu S, Poumanyvong P, Banchongohanith L, Chikaraishi M, Fujiwara A.
Does urbanization matter for developing long-term climate scenario? Glob Environ
Res 2013;17(1):29–38.
Kebede AS, Nicholls RJ. Exposure and vulnerability to climate extremes: population and
asset exposure to coastal flooding in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Reg Environ Chang
2012;12:81–94.
Kebede B, Bekele A, Kedir E. Can the urban poor afford modern energy? The case of
Ethiopia. Energy Policy 2002;30(11–12):1029–45.
Khandker SR, Koolwal GB, Samad HA. Handbook on impact evaluation: quantitative
methods and practices. World Bank; 2010.
Kojima R. Introduction: population migration and urbanization in developing countries.
Dev Econ 1996;34(4):349–69.
Lim LLY, Kjellstrom T, Sleigh A, Khamman S, Seubsman SA, Dixon J, et al. Associations
between urbanisation and components of the health-risk transition in Thailand.
A descriptive study of 87,000 Thai adults. Global Health Action, 2; 2009.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/gha.v52i0.1914.
Miah MD, Foysal MA, Koike M, Kobayashi H. Domestic energy-use pattern by the
households: a comparison between rural and semi-urban areas of Noakhali in
Bangladesh. Energy Policy 2011;39(6):3757–65.
Peng WY, Hisham Z, Pan JH. Household level fuel switching in rural Hubei. Energy Sustain
Dev 2010;14(3):238–44.
Richter LM, Norris SA, Swart TM, Ginsburg C. In-migration and living conditions of
young adolescents in greater Johannesburg, South Africa. Soc Dyn 2006;32(1):
195–216.
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies
for causal effects. Biometrika 1983;70(1):41–55.
Sheng YP. Urbanization and internal migration. Fifth Asian and Pacific population
conference: selected papers Asian Population Studies Series, 158; 2003.
Skeldon R. Rural-to-urban migration and its implications for poverty alleviation. Asia Pac
Popul J 1997;12(1).
Skeldon R. Urbanization and migration in the ESCAP region. Asia Pac Popul J 1998;13(1):
3–24.
Skeldon R. Migration and mobility: the critical population issues of our time. Asia Pac
Popul J 2005;20(3):5–9.
Sovacool BK. Conceptualizing urban household energy use: climbing the “energy services
ladder”. Energy Policy 2011;39(3):1659–68.
StataCorp. Stata special edition 12.1. http://www.stata.com/, 2011. [Accessed on July 12,
2012].
Tiwari IP. Urban migration and urbanization in Nepal. Asia Pac Popul J 2008;23(1):
79–104.
UN. Demographic yearbook 2005. United Nations; 2008.
UN. World urbanization prospects: the 2011 revision highlights. United Nations;
2012a.
UN. World urbanization prospects: the 2010 revision and world urbanization prospects:
the 2011 revision. http://esa.un.org/unup/unup/index_panel3.html, 2012. [Accessed
on June 18, 2013].
 S. Komatsu et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 9

UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund), GSO (General Statistics Office of Vietnam). The
quality of life of migrants in Vietnam. Vietnam: UNFPA; 2006.
Vietnam News Agency. About Hanoi, administration. http://en.hanoi.vietnamplus.vn/
Home/abouthanoi/abouthanoi2.vnplus, 2008. [Accessed on August 3, 2012].
Wooldridge JM. Introductory econometrics: a modern approach. 4th ed. South-Western
Cengage Learning; 2008.
World Bank. World development indicators (online database, database updated on
September 23, 2013). http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-
indicators, 2013. [Accessed on October 22, 2013].
World Resource Institute. GHG protocol took for stationary combustion.Version 4.0; 2009.
Zyzniewski A. The residential sector chapter, workshop on the manual on energy
statistics for energy efficiency indicators, Paris 29 November, 2010; 2010.

Please cite this article as: Komatsu S, et al, The effects of internal migration on residential energy consumption and CO2 emissions: A case study in
Hanoi, Energy Sustain Dev (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.10.002