Determinants of energy poverty in South Africa

Ismail, Zaakirah; Khembo, Patrick

doi:10.17159/2413-3051/2015/v26i3a2130

Cited by 64 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The South African 2011 Census states that between 70% and 90% of surveyed households made use of electricity for heating, cooking and lighting and that less than 10% of households used paraffin or other dirty fuels for the same activities [24]. In Umlazi, in which almost a quarter of the people have no source of income [24] it is very likely that the concept of energy poverty, i.e., the lack of access to modern energy services necessary for human development [38] is a reality and electricity may not be used all-month long.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Household Fuel Use for Heating and Cooking and Respiratory Health in a Low-Income, South African Coastal Community

Buthelezi

Kapwata

Wernecke

et al. 2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In low-income communities, non-electric fuel sources are typically the main cause of Household Air Pollution (HAP). In Umlazi, a South African coastal, informal settlement, households use electric- and non-electric (coal, wood, gas, paraffin) energy sources for cooking and heating. The study aimed to determine whether respiratory ill health status varied by fuel type use. Using a questionnaire, respondents reported on a range of socio-demographic characteristics, dwelling type, energy use for cooking and heating as well as respiratory health symptoms. Multivariate Poisson regression was used to obtain the adjusted Odds Ratios (ORs) for the effects of electric and non-electric energy sources on prevalence of respiratory infections considering potential confounding factors. Among the 245 households that participated, Upper Respiratory Tract Infections (URTI, n = 27) were prevalent in respondents who used non-electric sources compared to electric sources for heating and cooking. There were statistically significant effects of non-electric sources for heating (adjusted OR = 3.6, 95% CI (confidence interval): 1.2–10.1, p < 0.05) and cooking (adjusted OR = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.1–7.9, p < 0.05) on prevalence of URTIs. There was a statistically significant effect of electric sources for heating (adjusted OR = 2.7, 95% CI: 1.1–6.4, p < 0.05) on prevalence of Lower Respiratory Tract Infections (LRTIs) but no evidence for relations between non-electric sources for heating and LRTIs, and electric or non-electric fuel use type for cooking and LRTIs. Energy switching, mixing or stacking could be common in these households that likely made use of multiple energy sources during a typical month depending on access to and availability of electricity, funds to pay for the energy source as well as other socio-economic or cultural factors. The importance of behaviour and social determinants of health in relation to HAP is emphasized.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Household Fuel Use for Heating and Cooking and Respiratory Health in a Low-Income, South African Coastal Community

Buthelezi

Kapwata

Wernecke

et al. 2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Household income is one of the significant factors contributing to energy security at the household level. 49 In general, households with high incomes are more energy secure 50 than low earning households. However, in some rural areas of South Africa, energy in the form of wood is freely available, and households can access it at all times.…”

Section: Independent Variables and Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ismail and Khembo concurred that households with a significant number of household members staying in one house are more likely to be energy poor than households with a low number of people residing in the same household. According to Ismail and Khembo (2015), when the number of the household increases, a fixed household budget must be distributed among more people causing energy poverty. Bridge 69 attested that an increase in household size is associated with a high consumption of resources.…”

Section: Determinants Of Energy Security Status In Rural Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of energy security for rural households: The case of Melani and Hamburg communities, Eastern Cape, South Africa

Ningi

Taruvinga

Zhou

2020

African Security Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Energy plays critical direct and indirect roles in the livelihoods of human beings. Despite its relevance, the literature highlights that a majority of rural households are energy insecure and very much rely on unclean energy sources that compromise their health. Against this background, this paper estimates the determinants of energy security at the household level based on evidence from Melani-inland and Hamburg-coastal communities in the rural Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. The study used the multidimensional energy poverty index (MEPI) to calculate the energy security status of households in the two communities while the Tobit regression model was used to investigate the main factors affecting household energy security. The results indicated that in both communities, households were energy secure. However, access to additional energy measures was low, which could affect their energy security if the primary source (ESKOM electricity) is interrupted. Tobit regression results revealed that factors like marital status, household size, electricity affordability and source of income are the most critical factors influencing the energy security status of households in the study areas. Therefore, the paper recommends policy options that improve access of rural households to additional measures on energy and affordability of electricity.

show abstract

“…A report from Integrated Energy Plan (2013) states that there are approximately 1.5 million rural and urban households in the country not connected to the national electricity grid, in addition to the millions that are connected to the grid but are not able to pay for electricity. With a high electrification rate, households at the low-income level cannot afford sufficient electricity to improve their welfare (Ismail and Khembo, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation of Multidimensional Energy Poverty among South African Low‐income Households

Israel‐Akinbo¹,

Snowball

Fraser

2018

South African J Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper empirically assesses multidimensional energy poverty for low‐income households in South Africa using the four waves of the National Income Dynamics Study. The study adopts the Nussbaumer et al. (Measuring Energy Poverty, 2011) methodology, the multidimensional energy poverty index (MEPI), to estimate energy poverty on 10,801 low‐income households. The results indicate that low‐income households in rural areas are more energy deprived than those in the urban areas. The MEPI score across the years in low‐income urban and rural households depicts a moderate state of energy poverty. Furthermore, low‐income households in both the urban and the rural areas are mostly deprived in the dimension of heating fuel. The study recommends that suitable measures to combat energy poverty be rural–urban specific.

show abstract

Determinants of energy poverty in South Africa

Cited by 64 publications

References 16 publications

Household Fuel Use for Heating and Cooking and Respiratory Health in a Low-Income, South African Coastal Community

Household Fuel Use for Heating and Cooking and Respiratory Health in a Low-Income, South African Coastal Community

Determinants of energy security for rural households: The case of Melani and Hamburg communities, Eastern Cape, South Africa

An Investigation of Multidimensional Energy Poverty among South African Low‐income Households

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About