Ayomide Samuel Famewo*
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Environmental Design and Management, University of Ibadan, Nigeria
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, The Federal Polytechnic Ilaro, Nigeria
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5342-2483
Vincent Abimbola Uwala
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Environmental Design and Management, University of Ibadan, Nigeria
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, The Federal Polytechnic Ilaro, Nigeria
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3412-8681
*Corresponding author: vincent.uwala@federalpolyilaro.edu.ng
Abstract
Energy poverty is a growing global challenge with significant adverse effects on well-being and health. However, its social impacts on vulnerable population in deprived communities have been largely ignored. Consequently, this study examines the social-economic impacts of energy poverty among women and students in Esa Oke, a hilly and rural and energy-deprived community in southwestern Nigeria. A cross-sectional survey design approach was adopted, while purposive and random sampling technique was used in selecting respondents. Findings from the study revealed differences in energy consumption behaviour of women and students in rural settings; while women adopt traditional biomass for cooking, students adopt modern energy services. Additionally, the impacts of poor energy access differ per women and students. For instance, on one hand, the use of traditional biomass significantly affects rural women's health, as the majority (95%) of women respondents reported exposure to emissions through indirect combustion of fuelwood. On the other hand, students' academic performance and academic activities were significantly disrupted due to the poor electricity supply in the area. Based on the foregoing, the study recommends an inclusive rural energy policy that captures all social groups affected by energy poverty.
Keywords: Consumption evidence, Energy poverty, Osun State, Rural women, Tertiary students
DOI: https://doi.org/x
Received 28.02.2022; Revised 02.05.2022; Accepted 06.05.2022
Cite This Article: Famewo, A.S., & Uwala, V.A. (2022). Socio-economic impacts of rural energy poverty on women and students in Esa-Oke, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainability and Environmental Management, 1(2), x-x. doi: xxxxxxxx
Download full article
1. Introduction
Energy poverty (EP) is a growing global challenge with
significant threats to well-being, health and environmental sustainability.
Despite academic and policy attention, an estimated 1.2 billion people still
lack access to electricity. Furthermore, approximately 2.8 billion people still
use traditional biomass as their main energy source for cooking and heating
(ESMAP, 2002; Pachauri, Mueller, Kemmler & Spreng, 2004). Annually, an
estimated 1.5 million people die from fumes and smoke associated with open
cooking (ESMAP, 2002).
EP is often conceptualized as fuel poverty and energy
burden in the West. Consequently, it is generally referred to as a situation
where a household spends more than 10% of its total income on energy services
(Boardman, 1991; Gilbertson, Stevens, Stiell, & Thorogood, 2006; Hernandez,
2016). Thus, income is the dominant yardstick for measuring EP, while its
effects are seen as lack of access to thermal heat, convenience and comfort.
However, in the global south, EP is often conceptualized as energy
vulnerability (Nussbaumer, Bazilian, & Modi, 2012), which is lack of modern
energy services and low energy consumption (Adusei, 2012; Sher, Abbas, &
Awan, 2014; Bouzarovski & Petrova; 2015). Thus, its impact cannot be
generally limited to thermal heat and comfort but would extend to essential
services such as health and education. Contextualizing EP in Nigeria and more
especially in rural settings, EP will imply unavailability of diverse energy
resources for households, unavailability of modern, safe and clean energy
resources and lack of financial power in accessing energy services.
As affirmed by the International Energy Agency (IEA,
2014) modern energy services have a significant impact on productivity, health
outcomes, education, communication, lifestyle and general well-being.
Consequently, increased consumption in modern energy services is essential for
meeting basic human needs. In addition, access to modern energy services, such
as electricity and gas, has been found to help mitigate poverty and essential
in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Kanagawa & Nakata, 2007;
Ouedraogo, 2013).
Recently, there has been increasing attention linking EP
with vulnerability (Clancy, Kelkar, Shakya & Ummar 2007; Pachauri and Rao,
2013; Carrere, et. al., 2020). For instance, Olivera et al., (2020) examined
the impact of EP on health and health care of women. Their study revealed that
older women's health is negatively affected by poor energy services. Similar
studies in England and Scotland also affirmed the negative impacts of EP on the
elderly, physically challenged and families with children (Matthews, 2014;
DECC, 2015). Despite strong evidence revealing the vulnerability of some social
groups to energy poverty (Chikaire, Ajaero, & Atoma, 2022). Yet, most of
the studies on EP have mainly focused on thermal comfort and income as captured
in the West.
Kumar (2020) averred that the impacts of EP will largely
be influenced by four main factors: geography, local customs and traditions,
weather conditions, and consumption preferences. Expectedly, this conceptual
differentiation also influences EP measurements. For instance, in Europe, the
commonly used measurements for EP include the Households Budget Surveys (HBS,
2010), EU Statistics on Income and Living conditions (EU-SILC) (Eurostat, 2018)
and European Building Stock Observatory (BSO, 2018).
According to the World Bank (2021), there has been significant
progress in the quest for global energy access but many African countries
including Nigeria, Democratic Republic of
Congo, Ethiopia, Madagascar and Ethiopia still top the list of countries
without clean fuels and technologies. Thus, more efforts are needed to ensure
the targets for SDG 7 are achieved by all countries in 2030. As averred by the
United Nations (2021), 789 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa still lack access to electricity and about 3 billion still rely on wood, coal, charcoal or animal
waste for cooking and heating. More so, indoor
air pollution from using combustible fuels will cause deaths among vulnerable
populations.
In Nigeria, the use of traditional biomass in rural areas
is largely attributed to the failure of the government to provide clean, safe,
affordable, modern energy services. For instance, Nigeria estimated
energy needs is put at 98,000MW, while
the total installed capacity stood at 12,522MW, which comprises of 142MW
from thermal sources and 2,380MW from
hydropower sources and the country generates between 3,000MW and 4,000MW, not
minding the seasonal fluctuations and management issues (Nwozor et al., 2019).
Hence rural areas often get less supply of electricity from the national grid.
Thus, the rural populace depends on the rich forest reserves both as a source
of energy option for cooking and heating and also as a means of livelihood.
However, this has great implication on environmental sustainability, as it
threatens the wildlife, timber and fuelwood that are hitherto abundant in the
forest. It was estimated that Nigeria recorded a forest cover loss of 400,000
hectares per annum and by 2047, Nigeria
forests would have been lost (Nwozor et al., 2019).
Broadly speaking, the socio-economic impacts of EP in
many rural areas in developing countries is largely understudy. There are many
lessons to be learned from studies that focus on examining the social-economic
impacts of EP in rural places in developing societies. First, such studies will
help to investigate the magnitude, complexity and impacts of energy poverty in
these places (Gouveia, Palma, & Simoes, 2019). In addition, such studies
will make it easier to assess the social-economic impacts of EP on the
vulnerable population in rural areas. Although, Kanagawa and Nakata (2007a,
2008b), studies attempted to examine socio-economic impacts of EP in rural
areas in Assam state, India. Yet, these studies and other similar studies such
as Barnes (2007); Brew-Hammond et al. (2012) and Watson et al. (2012) largely
focus on the supply side and are largely biased towards rural electrification,
leaving much of the demand side unattended to.
Therefore, this study focuses on the demand side by
investigating EP in a rural setting and its socio-economic impacts on two
socially vulnerable groups to energy poverty; students and women. Similarly,
the study conceptualizes social-economic impacts to include socio-cultural,
economic, health and educational dimensions, this is with a view to have a
robust understanding of the socio-economic impacts of energy poverty on
vulnerable population in rural areas of developing countries and to spin-off an
efficient rural energy policy framework that can be deployed in addressing the
impacts of EP on affected social groups on one hand, and the entire community
on the other hand.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Research locale
The study was conducted in Esa-Oke town, a hilly and
rural community in Obokun local government area of Osun State, Nigeria. The
town domains ranges from 70
45’’ 30’ N, 40 53’’ 00’E, to 70
46’ 0’N, 40 54’’ 00E’. Relatively, the town shares boundary with other
neighboring towns such as Oke-Imesi, Imesi-Ile, Ijebu-Ijesa, Esa-Odo and Efon
Alaaye. The town belongs to the hilly areas of the South-western Nigeria.
Predominantly, the people were farmers and the women also
engage in petty trades serving the student community. The community play host
to the Osun State College of Technology (OSCOTECH). The college started as a
campus satellite for the Polytechnic of Ibadan in January, 1993. It operates a
non-residential policy, thus most of the students lived within the community.
Often student lived in areas in close proximity with the school environment. \
2.2. Methods
The study adopts a cross-sectional survey design.
Purposive and random sampling techniques were adopted. First, purposive
sampling was used in selecting the sampling frame, which hinges on selecting a
rural community with distinct geo-climate, a strong dependency on rural energy
system, low-income and with the presence of a non-residential tertiary
institution. Thus, Esa-Oke community in Osun State was purposefully selected as
it meets all the criteria specified. The second stage of sampling involves dividing
the community into fairly homogenous spatial units; based on the dominant
residents in these areas; thus, “students’ area,” where majority of students
live was identified and the core areas, where majority of the indigenes lived.
According to the European Commission Joint Research Centre work, the total
number of female in Esa Oke in 2021 was 8,252. The study takes a sample size of
1.5% (120) of the total female population, as this is a better representative
of the population under study than the aggregated population data which does
not disaggregate the data based on sex. There was no accurate information on
the total number of students in the institution as at the time the research was
conducted. Thus, the study depends on several data from bulletins on the number
of intakes and graduates within the last two years preceding the research and
an estimated student population of 10,000 was adopted. This excludes students
that were on sandwich programs. A sample size of 1.2 % of the student
population was used for the study. Thus, 120 students and 120 women were
randomly selected as respondents for the study.
Several studies
have attempted to empirically investigate social-economic impacts of EP
(Kanagawa and Nakata, 2006; Kanagawa and Nakata, 2007; Kumar, 2020; Roberto et.
al., 2014; Scarpellini, Sanz, Moneva, Portillo-Tarragona & Rodriguez, 2019)
and have established different measures in measuring social-economic impacts of
EP in rural areas. This study chiefly adopted the methods advocated by Kumar (2020),
as the study focuses on rural energy poverty. These methods were expanded in
this study to reflect the peculiarity of the study area. The questionnaire was
sectionalized into three main sections. The first section captures information
on socio-economic characteristics of respondents. The second section sought
information on energy, energy demand and consumption evidence. The third
section focus on the socio-economic impacts of energy poverty based on the main
energy source, its health impacts on rural women and its educational impacts on
students.
On educational status, the study adopted the nine year
compulsory basic education (six-year
primary education plus three year Junior
Secondary School education) as advocated by the Universal Basic Education (UBE)
as the benchmark to determining
educational status. Further, on age cohort, two age cohort was used for rural
women; the elderly (those above 65 years) and those below 65 years. Similarly,
for students’ respondents, two age cohorts were adopted; those less than 20 and
those above 20 years. The choice of the age cohorts adopted was largely due to
the need to verify effects of EP on vulnerable population such as women, the
elderly, children and youths as results on this is still largely inconclusive.
Social-economic
characteristics considered for women include, age, occupation, income, marital
status, indigene status and educational status. For students, sex, age,
students' level, monthly stipends were considered. The primary focus of the
study is to assess the socio-economic impacts of energy poverty on women and
students in a typical African rural community. The study focuses on local,
residential and rural energy consumption spheres of energy poverty. It was
difficult to determine the income of respondents in the study area based on the
peculiarities of the study respondents; they were largely farmers whose income
is influenced by farming seasons. Thus, a preliminary survey was carried out to
determine average disposable income based on average monthly expenditure. For
students, the majority receive stipends from parents/guardians, while some
students also engage in income-generating activities but also finds it
difficult to arrive at a stable income range. Thus, the average stipends
received by the majority of students was used as a benchmark for student's
income. For the two groups, the average income arrived at was the #10,000
naira.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Social-economic characteristics of
sampled women and students
Table 1 shows socio-economic characteristics of
respondents. The study revealed that the majority (62.5%) of rural women
participants were above 65 years, while a majority (60.0%) of students’
participants were above 20 years. The study investigated occupational status of
women respondents. Investigations revealed that a majority (72.5%) of women
respondents were farmers, while about one-third (27.5%) engages in non-farming
activities. It was difficult to assess and ascertain average monthly income of
rural women and students, because a majority of women engage largely in agricultural
practices and trading activities. For agricultural practices, income is often
seasonal and cannot be determined on a monthly basis, and the trading
activities are only done to meet daily needs. Further, the average monthly
income of the women respondents and average monthly stipends received by
student were respectively examined. A majority (74.2%) of women respondents
reported that they earn below 10,000 naira, while 25.8% respondents earn above
10,000 naira. Similarly, a majority (70.0%) of students' participants reported
that they receive about 10,000 naira as a monthly stipend, while about one
third (30.0%) of student participants reported that they receive above 10,000
naira on as monthly stipends. Marital status of participants was also assessed.
A majority (87.5%) of the women respondents were married, while only 15% of
students’ participants were married. Further interrogations with the married
students revealed that none of them were living with their couples. About
two-thirds (65.0%) of sampled students were male, while 35% were female. On
educational status, only the educational status of women was assessed. The
study revealed that a majority (82.5%) of women respondents were illiterate while
15.5% were literate. For the students, it was found that 63.3% of respondents
were running their national diploma programs, while 36.7% respondents were
running their higher national diploma programs.
3.2. Energy
demand and Consumption Evidence of respondents
Table 2 shows
energy demand and energy consumption evidence of women and student respondents.
On the main source of energy used for cooking, the study revealed that about
two-thirds (66.7%) of women respondents uses traditional stove, while about 31.7%
of them uses stove. On the contrary, half (50.0%) of the students' respondents
use LPG (liquefied petroleum gas), while about two-fifths (37.5%) of students
use electric stove. At a glance, the results revealed broad differences between
the main source of energy used for cooking by women and students. For women,
the traditional stove which relies on traditional biomass fuel still remains
their dominant choice, while students use modern cooking energy options.
Traditional biomass has been reported to be responsible for fumes, smoke and
poor air quality as well as an estimated annual mortality of about 1.5 million
people (ESMAP, 2002, Gunnigham, 2013; Pachauri, et. al., 2004). Similarly, its
continuous use by rural women will affect the attainment of targets of the
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 7) on universal access to affordable and
clean energy, which is expected to be achieved by 2030. This will also have
negative effects on climate change, human health and leads to loss of
biodiversity and deforestation.
Furthermore, the
study assessed the type of cooking fuel used. More than half (55.8%) of women
respondents use forest produce, about two-fifths (35%) women respondents use
kerosene. For sampled students, the study revealed that more than half (54.2%)
sampled students reported that they use LPG, 39.2% uses electricity and 6.6%
uses kerosene. This evidence suggests the complexity of energy poverty in rural
areas of developing countries. Rural women adopted natural forest products that
are easily available and free to gather, while
students who adopted LPG. As averred by Quartey (2014), in rural areas
of Ghana, fuelwood accounted for 90% energy consumption for cooking. Its
adoption has been based on its availability and cost-free. Though the health
and climate implications of biomass fuels are grave, yet its relative
availability and free access made it become the choice for rural women. The
study assessed the main source of energy for lightning in the study area. For
the women participants, a majority (98.3%) respondents use electricity as their
main energy source for lightning, similarly, a majority (93.3%) of students'
participants also use electricity as the main energy source for lightning.
Chiefly, a majority (95.8%) of all respondents use electricity as the main
energy source for lightning. This finding suggests that electricity is adopted
for lightning purposes by the rural women and but not for cooking.
Furthermore, the
study assessed the main energy source adopted by respondents. It was revealed
that all the rural women adopted electricity as their main source of household
energy, while a majority (91.7%) of students' respondents also reported that
electricity was their main source of energy. Thus, it can be averred that
electricity is the main source of energy use in the study area.
Household/electrical appliances were assessed and documented in Table 3. A
majority of (95.8%) rural women respondents reported that they have a radio
set, while only one-quarter (25%) of students have a radio set. Generally,
about two-thirds (60.4%) of respondents have a radio set. On ownership of TV
set, a majority (94.2%) of women respondents do not have a TV, while a majority
of (80.8%) sampled students also do not have a TV set.
On ownership of
laptop/computer set, a majority (99.2%) of women respondents do not own a
laptop/computer, while a majority (95.8%) students reported that they have a
laptop/computer set. It is plausible that students will need ICT gadgets such
as laptops for studying and researching. The study revealed that majority
(98.3%) of women respondents do not use fluorescent lamp but a majority (99.2%)
of them uses the energy bulb. For students, the study revealed that a majority
(91.7%) of students uses fluorescent bulb, while, (93.3%) does not use the
light bulb. The fluorescent tube is energy-saving and more fashionable, hence
might appeal to students. On kerosene lamp, majority of rural women (95%) still
uses the kerosene lamp, while no student uses the kerosene lamp. Availability
of table fan was assessed in the study area. The study revealed that a about
two-thirds (62.5%) women do not have fan, while about 37.5% have ceiling fan.
For student, about two-thirds (65%) reported that they have table fan and
similarly, about two-thirds (68.3%) of students reported to having ceiling fan.
The choice of adaptive comfort and thermal responses in rural areas might
largely depends on income, socio-cultural factors and local-climate conditions
of residents. For instance, study conducted by Wong, et. al., (2017) affirmed
that in urban center of Kuala Lumpur, more than half of households adopted the use of air
conditioners and fans as cooling devices. Lastly, on the use of
internet-enabled mobile phone/ modem, the study revealed that majority (94.2%)
women respondents do not have an internet-enabled mobile phone/modem, while a
majority (96.7%) students have internet-enabled phone/modem. Broadly speaking,
the results revealed that students have higher energy demand than rural women.
Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the women are disproportionately
more prone to energy poverty. As averred in the previous analysis, the energy
poverty status of rural people, in this case, women and students might not be
attributed to economic factors alone. Similarly, the findings from these
results agree with previous studies such as (Papada & Kaliampakos, 2016) which
affirmed that habits, cultural beliefs, household appliances energy use and
constraints on energy expenditure will influence energy demands of different
household and create differentiation in resident energy demand.
3.3. Social-economic impacts of Energy
poverty on respondents
Social-impacts
of energy poverty based on main energy source
Table 3 reveals
the summary of social-economic impacts in relation to cooking with a main
energy source. The concept of opportunity cost, which assesses the best
alternative forgo in making a choice, was adopted to examine the social impacts of the main
energy source for cooking adopted by respondents. The study adopted a simplified
model for examining opportunity cost based on the available data available. A
2hr benchmark adopted from the World Health Organization (WHO) for an efficient
cooking device was used as a parameter to assess the opportunity cost of
respondents’ main cooking source. The study revealed that for women using
stove, a majority (78.9%) reported that they spent more than two hours on
average for cooking activities. For those cooking with fuelwood, a majority
(83.7%) reported that they spent more than two hours for each cooking activity.
However, women who use gas spent less
than two hours. For students, who uses stove, 86.7% reported that they spent more
than two hours for cooking, a majority (75.0%) of students who use LPG reported
that they spent less than two hours on average for cooking, similarly, a
majority (73.3%) of students who uses electric devices averred that they spent
less than two hours on average for cooking. The results indicated that the
opportunity cost for cooking was higher for the women who adopted traditional
means of cooking as compared to students who adopted modern energy cooking
options. This finding agrees with similar works done such by several
researchers (Kumar, 2020; Roberto, et. al., 2014; Scarpellini, et.al., 2015).
These works affirmed that poor energy is proportional to inefficiency and increase
indoor air pollution. As posited by the WHO, an efficient energy source for cooking
requires 4h /week for fuel collection.
Health
impacts of energy poverty on rural women
Table 4 presents
information on health impacts of energy poverty on rural women. Health impacts
captured in the study are in line with those captured in similar studies. The
4hr WHO benchmark for collecting fuel was used as a benchmark in assessing the
physical impacts of such activity on health. In rural areas of developing
countries, the task of collecting fuelwood largely falls on children and women
who are also responsible for cooking. The study revealed that more than
two-fifths (46.7%) of women reported spending between 4-8hrs collecting
fuelwood, about 34.1% spend above 8 hours, while only about one fifth (19.2%)
spend less than 4h per week in collecting fuelwood for cooking. It is expected
that the longer time spent on wood collection will have negative impacts on the
health of rural women, especially for the aged women who are the majority in
this study. To ascertain exposure to emission as a result of cooking with
traditional biomass, the study adopted the World Health Organization (WHO,
1979) and United Nations Development Programme UNDP (UNDP, 2004; 2010b)
benchmarks. According to the WHO/UNDP cooking with fuelwood and wood stove
exposes residents to hazardous components such as Respirable Suspended
Particulate Matter, Carbon monoxide, and Nitrogen oxide. These pollutants are
capable of causing respiratory problems. The WHO specified 30mg/m3 for 24hr
period as maximum concentration for Carbon monoxide and 10mg3for 8hr as minimum
exposure. Thus, the study assumes that women who use traditional mass for more
than 5 days/ week have been exposed to these pollutants. The study revealed
that more than nine-tenths (95%) of women respondents reported to have been
exposed to emission through indirect combustion of fuelwood, while 5% were
fairly exposed to emission through cooking. Lastly, tiredness as a result of
long time in gathering wood and cutting wood for fuelwood was assessed.
Investigations from the study revealed a majority (81.7%) of women reported to
be very tired, while about one-fifth (18.3%) women reported to be fairly tired.
The result is similar to evidence presented by Kanagawa and Nakata (2007b) who
found a similar pattern of longer time spent on collecting wood, exposure to
emission from fuelwood and tiredness/drudgery as a result of long time in
collecting and cutting wood for fuel among rural women in India.
Social-economic
impacts of energy poverty on students' education
Table 5 is the results of the social-economic impacts of energy poverty on education. Energy poverty in this context was conceived as the average electricity supply per day. A 6hr/day benchmark was adopted based on the average supply per day during the period of the survey. An index was created to measure students perceived impacts of electricity supply on their education. This was referred to as Education Perception Index (EPI). This index is in line with similar studies such as Central Connecticut State University Research (CCSR, 2005) and Afon (2007) that developed perception indices using Likert scales to measure the perception of respondents on different attributes. The study revealed that the greatest impacts of energy poverty on the education of students is on the utilization of ICT for learning purposes. The next ranked was on its impact on overall academic performance, as well as, making night reading difficult. Lastly, poor energy supply gives students little time to study was ranked 4th. These findings strongly posit that energy poverty will have negative impacts on education.
Table 1: Socio-economic characteristics of rural women and student
|
Variable |
Distribution |
Respondents |
Percent |
Student |
Distribution |
Respondent |
Percent |
|
Age |
Age cohort(years) |
|
|
|
Age cohort (years) |
|
|
|
|
Below 65 |
45 |
37.5 |
|
Less than
20 |
48 |
40.0 |
|
|
Above 65 |
75 |
62.5 |
|
Above 20 |
72 |
60.0 |
|
|
N |
120 |
100.0 |
|
N |
120 |
100.0 |
|
Main Occupation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Farm |
87 |
72.5 |
Students’ Level |
|
|
|
|
|
Non-farm |
33 |
27.5 |
|
National Diploma |
76 |
63.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher
national diploma |
44 |
56.7 |
|
|
N |
120 |
100.0 |
|
N |
120 |
100.0 |
|
Income |
|
|
|
Monthly stipend |
|
|
|
|
|
Less than 10,000 |
89 |
74.2 |
Less than 10,000 |
|
84 |
70.0 |
|
|
Above
10,000 |
31 |
25.8 |
Above
10,000 |
|
36 |
30.0 |
|
|
N |
120 |
100.0 |
N |
|
120 |
100.0 |
|
Marital Status |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Married |
105 |
87.5 |
Married/cohabiting |
|
18 |
15.0 |
|
|
Single |
15 |
12.5 |
Single |
|
102 |
85.0 |
|
|
N |
120 |
100.0 |
N |
|
120 |
100.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Gender |
|
|
|
|
Educational status |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Educated |
21 |
17.5 |
|
Male |
78 |
65.0 |
|
|
Not educated |
99 |
82.5 |
|
Female |
42 |
35.0 |
|
|
N |
120 |
100.0 |
|
N |
120 |
100.0 |
Table 2: Energy demands of rural women and student respondents
Table 3: Opportunity cost of cooking with main energy source (estimated in hrs/day)
Table 4: Health impacts of energy poverty
|
Impacts |
Indicators |
Res |
% |
|
*Time spent on collecting fuelwood |
|
|
|
|
|
Below 4h |
23 |
19.2 |
|
|
4-8 hrs |
56 |
46.7 |
|
|
Above
8hrs |
41 |
34.1 |
|
|
N |
120 |
100.0 |
|
**Expose to
emission through indirect combustion of fuelwood |
|
|
|
|
|
Exposed |
114 |
95.0 |
|
|
Fairly
exposed |
6 |
5.0 |
|
|
N |
120 |
100.0 |
|
Tiredness as a
result of long time in gathering woods and cutting wood for firewood |
|
|
|
|
|
Very Tired |
98 |
81.7 |
|
|
Fairly
tired |
22 |
18.3 |
|
|
N |
120 |
100.0 |
*4h was specified as benchmark by WHO as maximum
needed to get fuelwood for cooking. **Uses wood stove of fuelwood for more than
5 days a week
Table 5: Social economic
impacts of energy poverty on education
|
Education impacts |
SD |
D |
A |
SA |
SWV |
µ=SWV/n |
(µ-A) |
(µ-A)2 |
Rank |
|
Rank |
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Little time to
study |
2 |
3 |
5 |
100 |
423 |
3.53 |
-0.12 |
0.0144 |
4th
|
|
Make reading
difficult at night |
3 |
7 |
36 |
78 |
437 |
3.64 |
-0.01 |
0.0001 |
2nd |
|
Makes
utilization of ICT for learning purpose difficult |
1 |
1 |
23 |
95 |
452 |
3.77 |
0.12 |
0.0144 |
1st
|
|
Affects overall
academic performance |
1 |
1 |
38 |
80 |
437 |
3.64 |
-0.01 |
0.0001 |
2nd |
|
N |
|
|
|
|
|
14.58 |
|
0.029 |
|
4. Conclusion
The study
revealed different consumption patterns for women and students; while rural
women prefer traditional fuels to cooking and electricity for lighting. One of
the main findings from revealed the health implications of the unavailability
of modern energy services and lack of financial resources to obtain energy
services on rural people. The continuous depletion of forest resources in the
area also portends danger for environmental and energy sustainability. Students
studying in an energy-poor rural community will largely also be affected as
lack of electricity supply and other modern services will limit learning
potential and outcomes of students.
Therefore, the study suggests increased awareness in rural areas on the
dangers of traditional fuels and its negative impacts on health and well-being.
Also, government and energy providers need to make modern energy services
easily affordable for rural dwellers, so as to discourage the use of
traditional fuels. Lastly, efforts by the government in tapping into more
renewable energy sources such as wind, small hydroelectric projects, and
waste-to-energy can be used in resolving energy poverty in rural areas.
References
Adusei, L. (2012). Energy Poverty: Exploring household’s energy
constraints and coping strategies- epsilon archive for student projects.
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved from
https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/510
Afon, A. (2007). Informal
sector initiative in the primary sub-system of urban solid waste management in
Lagos, Nigeria. Habitat International,
31, 193-204.
Barnes, D. (2007). The challenge of rural electrification:
Strategies for developing countries.
Boardman, B. (1991). Fuel poverty: From cold homes to affordable
warmth. London: Belhaven Press.
Bouzarovski, S. and
Petrova, S. (2015). A global perspective on domestic energy deprivation:
Overcoming the energy poverty-fuel poverty binary. Energy Research & Social Science, 10, 31-40.
doi:http:doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.007
Brew-Hammond, A., Agrawi,
P., Bazilian, M., Eibs-Singer, C., Modi, V., Nussbaumer, P., Ramana, V., and
Sovacool, B. (2012). Improving access to modern energy services: Insight from
case studies. The Electricity Journal,
25(1), 93-114. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2012.01.007
BSO (2018). Building stock observatory. European
Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/eubuildings
Carrere, J., Peralta, A.,
Olivra, L., Jose-Lopez, M, MAri-Dell'Olmo, M., Benach, J., Novoa, A. (2020).
Energy poverty, its intensity and health in vulnerable populations in a
Southern European city. Gaceta Sanitaria.
doi:https:doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2020.07.007
Central Connecticut State
University Research, CCSR (2005). Citizen satisfaction survey. Manchester:
Central Connecticut State University.
Chikaire, J.U., Ajaero, J.O.,
& Atoma, C.N. (2022). Socio-economic effects of covid-19 pandemic on rural
farm families’ well-being and food systems in Imo State, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainability and Environmental
Management, 1(1), 18-21.
Chipango, E. (2021).
Constructing, understanding and interpreting energy poverty in Zimbabwe: A
postmodern perspective. Energy Research
& Social Science,75. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102026
Clancy, J., Kelkar, G.,
Shakya, I.,and Ummar, F.,. (2007). Appropriate gender-analysis tools for
unpacking the gender-energy-poverty nexus. Gender
and Development, 15(2), 241-257.
Day, R.,Walker, G., and
Simcock, N. (2016). Conceptualizing energy use and energy poverty using a
capabilities framework. Energy Policy,
93, 255-264.
Department for Environment.
(2015). Cutting the cost of keeping Wam:
A fuel poverty strategy for England. London: DECC.
Energy Sector Management
Assistance Programme ESMAP (2002). Annual
report the energy sector management assistance programme. The International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development. World Bank Group.
EUROSTAT. (2018). European commission. Europa. Retrieved
from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
Gilbertson, J., Stevens,
M., Stiell, B., Thorogood, N.,. (2006). Home is where the hearth is: Grant
recipients' views of England's home energy efficiency scheme (Warm Front). Social Science and Medicine,63,946-956.
doi:https://doi.10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.02.021
Gouveia, J., Palma, P., and
Simoes, S. (2019). Energy poverty vulnerability index: A multidimensional tool
to identify hotspots for local action. Energy
Reports, 5,187-201. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2018.12.004
Gunnigham, N. (2013).
Managing the energy trilemma: The case of Indonesia. Energy Policy, 54, 184-193.
Hernandez, D. (2016).
Understanding energy insecurity and why it matters to health. Social Science & Medicine,167,1-10.
doi:https://doi.org/j.socscimed.2016.08.029
IBRD-IDA. (2021). Universal access to sustainable energy will
remain elusive without addressing inequalities. Washington DC: The World
Bank.
IEA (2014). World energy outlook special report.
Retrieved from http://www.iea.org/publications
Kanagawa, M. and Nakata, T.
(2006). Analysis of the energy access
improvement in developing countries through rural electrification. 25th
USAEE/IAEE North American conference.
Kanagawa, M., and Nakata,
T. (2007a). Analysis of the energy access improvement and its socio-economic
impacts in rural areas of developing countries. Ecological Economics, 62, 319-329.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.005
Kanagawa, M., and Nakata, T.
(2008b). Assessment of access to electricity and the socio-economic impacts in
rural areas of developing countries. Energy
Policy, 36, 2016-2029.
Kumar, M. (2020).
Non-universal nature of energy poverty: Energy services, assessment of needs
and consumption evidences from rural Himachal Pradesh. Energy Policy, 138. doi:https//doi.org/1016/j.enpol.2019.111235
Laldjebaev, M. (2018).
Energy poverty in rural areas of Tajikstan. Behave
5th European Conference on Behaviour and Energy Efficiency, 210-211.
Zurich: BEHAVE.
Li, K., Lloyd, B., Liang,
X., and Wei, Y. (2014). Energy poor or fuel poor: What are the differences? Energy Policy, 68, 476-481.
Liddell, C., and Morris, C.
(2010). Fuel poverty and human health: A review of recent evidence. Energy Policy,2987-2997.
doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.037
Masud, J., Sharan, D., and
Lohani, B. (2007). Energy for all:
Addressing the energy, environment, and poverty nexus in Asia. Manila:
Asian Development Bank.
Matthews, P. (2014). Scottish fuel poverty definition-evidence
review. Department for Environment. London: CAG consultants.
Munasinghe, M. (1990).
Rural electrification in the world. Power
Engineering Journal, 4, 189-202.
Niu, S., Jia, Y., Wang, W.,
He, R., Hu, L., and Liu, Y. (2013). Electricity consumption and human
development level: A comparative analysis based on panel date for 50 countries.
International Electrical Power, 53,
338-347.
Nord, M., Andrews, M.,
Carlson, S. (2005). Household food security in the United States. SSRN The Electricity Journal, 11, 1-6.
doi:doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.878333
Nussbaumer, P., Baziliaan,
M., and Modi, V. (2012). Measuring energy poverty: Focusing on what matters. Renewable Sustainable Energy Review, 16,
231-243. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.150
Nwozor, A. O. Oshewolo, S.,
Ogundele, O. (2019). Energy poverty and environmental sustainability in
Nigeria: an exploratory assessment. International
Conference on Energy and Sustainable Environment. IOP Publishing. doi:
10.1088/1755-1315/331/1/012033
Oliveras, L., Artazcoz, L.,
Borrel, C., Palencia, L., Lopez, M., Gotsens, M., Peralta, A., Mari-Dell'Olmo,
M. (2020). The association of energy poverty with health, health care
utilisation and medication use in Southern Europe. SSM Population Health, 12.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100665
OSCOTECH. (2021, May 20).
OSCOTECH Osun State College of Technology Esa Oke.
Ouedraogo, N. (2013).
Energy consumption and economic growth: Evidence from the economic community of
West African States (ECOWAS). Energy
Economy, 36, 637-647.
Pachauri, S. and Rao, N.
(2017). Energy Access and living
standards: Some observations on recent trends,
doi:https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5b0d, 025011.IOP
Pachauri, S., Mueller, A.,
Kemmler, A., & Spreng, D. (2004). On measuring energy poverty in Indian households.
World Development, 32, 2083-2104.
doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.08.005
Papada, L., and
Kaliampakos, D. (2016). Measuring energy poverty in Greece. Energy Policy, 94,
157-165. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.004
Quartey, J. (2014). Energy
poverty and climate change mitigation in Ghana: An economic assessment. Journal of Economics and Sustainable
Development, 5(8).
Roberto Valer, L., Mocelin,
A., zilles, R., Moura, E., Claudeise, A., and Nascimento, S. (2014). Assessment
of socio-economic impacts of access to electricity in Brazilian Amazon: case
study in two communities in Mamiraua Reserve. Energy for Sustainable Development, 20, 58-65.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016.j.esd.2014.03.002
Sadath, A., and Acharya, R.
(2017). Assessing the extent and intensity of energy poverty using
multidimensional energy poverty index: Empirical evidence from households in
India. Energy Policy, 102, 540-548.
Sarkodie, S.,and Adams, S.
(2020). Electricity access, human development index, governance and income
inequality in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy
Reports, 6, 455-466. doi:https:doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.02.009
Scarpellini, S., Sanz
Hernandez, M., Moneva, J., Portillo-Tarragona, P., Rodriguez, M. (2019).
Measurement of spatial socio-economic impact of energy poverty. Energy Policy, 124, 320-331.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.011
Scarperllini, S.,
Rivera-Trorres, Suarez-Perales, P., and Aranda-Uson, A. (2015). Analysis of
energy poverty intensity from the perspective of the regional administration:
Empirical Evidence from households in southern Europe. Energy Policy,729-738.doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.009
Shahbaz, M., Khan, S., and
Tahir, M. (2013). The dynamic links between energy consumption, economic
growth, financial development and trade in China: Fresh evidence from
multivariate framework analysis. Energy
Economy, 40, 8-21.
Sher, F., Abbas, A., &
Awan, R. (2014). An Investigation of multidimensional energy poverty in
Pakistan: A province level analysis.
International Journal Energy, 4, 65-75.
SIRTE. (2008). Water for agriculture and energy in Africa:
The challenges of climate change. Retrieved from
http://www.sirtewaterandenergy.org/docs
Suvarna, V.Y., Rodrigues,
L.L.R., Rao, P.S., R., & Nair, G. (2022). Social, economic and
environmental sustainability as perceived by inhabitants: A mixed method study
of impact assessment. Journal of
Sustainability and Environmental Management, 1(1), 1-9.
United Nations (2021). Ensure access to affordable, reliable,
sustainable and modern energy. United Nations.
United Nations Development
Programme, UNDP (2004). Human development
report 2004. New York: United Nations Development Programme.
Watson, J., Byre, R.,
Morgan, J., Tsang, M., Opazo, F., Fry, C., and Castle-Clarke, C. (2012). What
are the major barriers to increased use of modern energy services among the
world's poorest people and are interventions to overcome these effective? Collaboration for Environmental Evidence,
11, 1-91.
Wong, L., Alias, H.,
Aghamohammadi, N.,Aghazadeh, S.,Sulaiman, N. (2017). Urban heat island
experience, control measures and health impact: A survey among working
community in the city of Kuala Lumpur. Sustainable
Cities and Society, 35, 660-668. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.09.026
World Health Organization, W. H. (1979). Environmental health criteria 8: Sulfur oxides and suspended particulate matter. Geneva: World Health Organization.
|
|
©
The Author(s)
2022. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. |
