Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
ENERGY ACCESS AND HOUSEHOLD RISK TRANSITIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA. David Kimemia & Harold Annegarn SeTAR Centre Dept. of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy Studies, University of Johannesburg. DUE Conference, CPUT 1-2 April 2014. The problem: “ fires, burns, scalds and poisonings ”.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
ENERGY ACCESS AND HOUSEHOLD RISK TRANSITIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA David Kimemia & Harold Annegarn SeTAR Centre Dept. of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy Studies, University of Johannesburg • DUE Conference, CPUT1-2 April 2014
The problem:“fires, burns, scalds and poisonings” • Accidents related to domestic energy use are common in S Africa’s low-income households (HHs). • Cause of morbidity and mortality; Economic losses • Poor disproportionately affected. • Underlying causes of the accidents not well understood • Questions • How do energy-related household risks vary with energy access and household incomes? • How has the introduction of LPG in certain communities impacted household safety?
Introduction – background • Solid fuels & kerosene widely used in deve’ countries • Inefficient combustion poses health problems • GBD estimates ~4 million deaths/yr. from HAP (Lim et al., 2012) • Significant health losses from fires, burns, poisonings • Lack of modern energy causes energy poverty; penalty • Greater efforts needed to broaden access to modern energy • HAP widely researched; research gap on safety aspects • ‘Environmental Risks Framework’ (Smith and Ezzati, 2005) • Scope: low-income HHs
Energy access situation in South Africa • Energy access differs by locality – rural/urban; formal/informal • Wood, paraffin, candles, coal, electricity, LPG • Low-income households use multiple fuels and stoves • Choice depends on availability and relative cost-effectiveness • General decrease in use of wood, coal and paraffin (StatsSA, 2011) • Reductions related to health/safety concerns & electrification • Energy poverty lingers in low-income settlements • LPG interventions – 50% lower PM & CO than solid fuels
Methods and data sources • Quantitative analysis of 3 national datasets (DoE, 2009; PASASA, 2011; PASASA, 2012 - Hospital data 2006-2013) • Compute fuel-specific risk rating for 6 fuels • From the fuel risk rating, derive a household risk index based on the combination of fuels used • Relate the household risk index to energy poverty and HH income • Evaluation of LPG intervention on HH safety: Quantitative survey of 200HHs, Atteridgeville, City of Tshwane
Results • Paraffin has high risk rating across all incidents • Household risk unevenly spread spatially - indicating energy use patterns • Risk is higher in non-electrified than electrified HHs • Substantially higher risk indices in paraffin-using HHs • Paraffin/candles combination have esp’ high risk of fires
Results cont’d:Risk variation with income Mean risk by per capita income • Non-linear variation between risk and income • Risk increases with income from R200 up to R450, then falls as income rises further • R200-450 - use of riskier transitional fuels • Similar variation between risk and energy poverty
Results cont’d:Risk variation with energy poverty • Non-linear variation between risk and energy poverty levels • As energy use rises to energy poverty threshold (2000 kWh/person/yr.), risk rises, but falls after the threshold. • Risk highest for HHs located half-way to poverty line • Contrasts with Smith & Ezzati (2005) postulation of monotonic increase of risk with development
Results cont’d • LPG intervention in Atteridgeville well received • 72% of beneficiaries continued to purchase and use LPG after free-gas supply ended • Impacts: Time saving; energy expenditure and safety have improved • LPG still perceived most risky fuel • Bomb-effect phobia associated with LPG • Education can dispel negative perceptions & increase uptake
Conclusions • Household risks related to general poverty and energy poverty in non-linear way • A pro-poor approach needed to promote modern energy • LPG intervention raises HH welfare and improves safety • Inclusion of safe stove as part of Gov’t subsidised houses • Need for comprehensive & well-enforced SABS regulations on appliances safety • Educate communities on safe-use of energy technologies • Programmes to raise per capita HH incomes above R500/m • Better data gathering and surveillance system needed
Acknowledgements • Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves [GACC] for a grant to SeTAR Centre stove laboratory • University of Johannesburg for research funds • PASASA (now HESASA) and DoE for the datasets • Colleagues and field research assistants
References Department of Energy. Socio-economic impact of electrification: household perspective. Pretoria, DoE, 2009 Pachauri, S., Spreng, D., 2011. Measuring and monitoring energy poverty. Energy Policy, 39, 2011, pp. 7497-7504. Smith, K. and Ezzati, M.: “How environmental health risks change with development: The epidemiologic and environmental risk transitions revisited” Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 2005, pp. 291-333. Statistics South Africa. 2011. Census 2011 methodology and key results. Available from www.StatsSA.gov.za, 2 February 2013/02/02. Smith, K.R.: “In praise of petroleum?” Science, 298, 2002, pp. 1847-47