• editor.aipublications@gmail.com
  • Track Your Paper
  • Contact Us
  • ISSN: 2456-8678

International Journal Of Rural Development, Environment And Health Research(IJREH)

Household Perspectives and value of Low-Carbon off-grid Energy Technologies in the Kenyan Rangelands

Angela Mungai , Richard Mulwa , Stephen Anyango

International Journal of Rural Development, Environment and Health Research(IJREH), Vol-2,Issue-4, July - August 2018, Pages 1-7, 10.22161/ijreh.2.4.1

Download | Downloads : 12 | Total View : 1285


Kenya is constrained by low rural clean energy access, particularly among communities in remote settings. The objective of this study is to evaluate the social value and preferences of low-carbon off-grid technologies by households in Kenyan rangelands as an alternative to the national grid for powering isolated low-income communities. To this end a household survey was conducted on a settlement in Laikipia North using interview schedules to assess demographic characteristics, energy consumption patterns and average expenditure on traditional fuels, clean energy awareness, preferences and willingness to pay. Key findings revealed that residential off-grid clean energy options studied were largely found to be socially viable, as rural households are willing to switch from high-carbon fuels, but affordability is a key concern. The most acceptable off-grid low-carbon lighting technologies for remote low-income homesteads are Pico solar lamps and solar panels, while portable Liquid petroleum gas stoves and clean cook-stoves were found to be the most acceptable technology for low-carbon cooking at household level due to the relatively low cost, and portability factors which are favorable for pastoralist communities. It was also found that despite the Kenyan Government commitment towards a green economy, a change in policy direction would be necessary to ensure that there is inclusive access to clean energy through awareness programs and targeted financial interventions in support of low-income energy-deprived communities.

Acceptability, Energy, Low-carbon, households, Kenya, Rangelands

[1] Assefa, G., Frosttell, B. (2007). Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study on energy technologies. Technol. Soc. 29 (1), 63-79
[2] Department of Trade and Industry. (2003). Energy white paper: Our energy future, creating a low-carbon economy. DTI, London
[3] Devine-Wright, P. (2008). Reconsidering public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: A critical review. Department of Applied Economics Occasional Papers No 68. Cambridge University Press
[4] Devine-Wright, P. (2011) Place attachment and public acceptance of renewable energy: A tidal energy case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21 (4) 336-343
[5] Government of Kenya (2015) Kenya green economy strategy and implementation plan (GESIP), Kenya
[6] Hirmer, S. and Cruickshank, H. (2014) User value of rural electrification. An analysis and adoption of existing models and theories. Science Direct. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/article/pii
[7] International Finance Corporation (2011) Lighting Africa: Policy report note, Kenya. IFC, Washington DC.
[8] Mwangombe, A.., Ekaya, W., Muiru, W., Wasonga V., Mnene, W., Mongare, P. and Chege, S. (2011) Livelihoods under climate variability and change: An analysis of the adaptive capacity of rural poor to water scarcity in Kenyan drylands, Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 4, 403-410
[9] Northern Rangelands Trust (2016) Rangelands of Northern Kenya, NRT, Laikipia
[10] Pett, M. (1997) Non-parametric statistics in healthcare research. SAGE 28 March 1997
[11] World Bank (2015) Global poverty line update. Retrieved from http://www.wourldbank.org/povertybrief
[12] World Bank Data (2016) Access to electricity rural. Retrieved from http://www.data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.RU.ZS
[13] World Health Organization (2016) Indoor air pollution and health. WHO Fact Sheet No 292.
[14] Vorkinn, W. and Riese, H. (2001). Environmental concern in a local context: The significance of place attachment. Environ.Behav. (33), 249-283.