Next Article in Journal
An Experimental Analysis and ANN Based Parameter Optimization of the Influence of Microalgae Spirulina Blends on CI Engine Attributes
Previous Article in Journal
Swirling Flame Combustion of Heavy Fuel Oil Blended with Diesel: Effect of Asphaltene Concentration
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 15
Issue 17
10.3390/en15176157
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Rural Households’ Perceptions of the Adoption of Rooftop Solar Photovoltaics in Vhembe District, South Africa

by
Ranganai Chidembo
*,
Joseph Francis
and
Simbarashe Kativhu
Institute for Rural Development, Faculty of Science, Engineering & Agriculture, University of Venda, Thohoyandou 0950, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2022, 15(17), 6157; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176157
Submission received: 20 July 2022 / Revised: 16 August 2022 / Accepted: 19 August 2022 / Published: 24 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Sustainable Environmental Technologies)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Rooftop solar photovoltaics have the potential to successfully electrify rural and scattered communities worldwide. However, access to clean, high-quality, reliable and affordable energy remains elusive for several households in rural areas of the developing world. To fully comprehend, unpack and proffer meaningful solutions to this mismatch, energy sources in use and types in areas where rural electrification through solar home systems are profiled. Furthermore, grassroot communities’ perceptions of rooftop solar photovoltaics (PVs) was explored. A case study design was adopted. Thirty (30) households were purposively sampled from three selected villages. Their perceptions on the adoption of solar photovoltaic home systems were analysed qualitatively using Atlas ti 8 software. Thematic network analysis was pursued. Households in the chosen villages use grid connections, paraffin, solar PV, firewood and candles to meet their energy needs. The chosen villages used energy for water heating, refrigeration, cooking, illumination, space heating, entertainment and ironing at the household level. In general, the participating households perceived solar PVs as a relatively cheap, easy-to-use, environmentally friendly alternative energy, and did not demand regular payments once installed. However, there was a discerning perception that solar was a weak technology that could not be relied on because it produces an inferior quality of energy, could be easily stolen and needed high capital investment beyond the reach of many consumers. The results obtained in this study highlight that the solar home system (SHS) rollout should be sensitive to rural communities’ financial situations and be innovative in that low-income households are included. In addition, there is a need for a robust awareness programme that highlights the energy availability, reliability, quality, cost effectiveness and legal, health and safety benefits of the SHS to the rural families in the district.

1. Introduction

Energy poverty is a global challenge [1] that affects about 2.67 billion people who rely on traditional fuels [1,2,3] for cooking and heating. Most people lack access to clean and affordable energy sources in rural areas. They depend on traditional biomass [1]. Throughout the world, dependence on traditional biomass has exposed them to dangerous health hazards associated with air pollution [4,5]. To respond to this scourge, governments and other stakeholders have mounted efforts to transition rural and unelectrified communities from traditional biomass to the adoption of renewable energy resources that are much safer and cleaner [6]. However, the expensive cost of grid extension, unreliable infrastructure, lack of political will and institutional weakness [7] jeopardise these efforts. Moreover, the availability and affordability of renewable energy sources [8] have been a setback that frustrates energy transitioning. Despite all these setbacks, adopting renewable energy sources remains the only promising alternative for universal access to affordable and clean energy among the rural-poor communities in developing nations.
In South Africa, the government has committed to the socio-economic transformation of rural and marginalised communities through the provision of off-grid connections (solar home systems) [9]. In 1999, the Integrated National Electrification Programme (INEP) introduced a fee-for-service programme for 300,000 installations [9]. It was piloted in 2002 by Shell–ESKOM Joint Venture at the same time as the other six concessionaires [10]. The assumption was that a typical indigent home would require a 50 kWh for domestic services such as charging mobile phones, outdoor and indoor illumination, television, radio player and water heating. Consequently, the government has mandated a monthly supply of 50 kWh for low-income customers [9,11,12]. Overall, the programme targeted to generate 10,000 GWh by 2013 [13]. The programme missed its target [14], failing dismally [15]. The INEP initially targeted to electrify 300,000 households, but in 2012 only 46,000 were still using the systems [16]. This is a cause for concern. The programme’s failure is attributed to the failure of the programme planners to factor in rural communities’ views, attitudes and perceptions of the SHS. Despite the nobility of the programme, without consideration of the consumers’ attitudes, the programme was bound to fail. Thus, this paper will unpack current energy sources, types and the rural communities’ perceptions of using SHS as an alternative energy source in the rural communities of South Africa.
The adoption of rooftop solar home systems (SHSs) is one way for energy transitioning for rural and scattered communities of South Africa. Rooftop SHS is ideal in South Africa because the country’s average solar radiation is 7 KWh.m2 [17]. Cognisant of the challenges that compromised the INEP, solar radiation potential and energy poverty situation among the rural communities, the cabinet launched a New Household Electrification Strategy (NHES) [18]. The NHES sought to achieve universal energy access by 2025 by ensuring that only 90% of new houses will utilise the national grid. The remaining 10% will be electrified with high-quality off-grid SHS (i.e., 50 to 100 Wp stand-alone SHS recommended for off-grid electrification). This decision resulted from the realisation that rooftop solar photovoltaic systems are the most promising technology for practical rural electrification. Secondly, SHSs are proving to be a more resilient and efficient electricity system for the rural unelectrified communities [19]. Generally, there is a rapid transition from traditional centralised electricity generation and intensive use of fossils to isolated rooftop solar home systems [20]. Thus, the NHES was launched in 2013. As a result of these two crucial attempts to electrify rural villages with rooftop SHSs, rural communities in South Africa were exposed to the use of solar home systems. In an effort to understand the SHS adoption impediments, this paper profiles energy sources and types used in three selected villages in the Vhembe District (Duvhuledza, Mbahe and Tshamutilikwa) that participated in both the INEP and NHES programmes in the past. Finally, the rural households’ perceptions of rooftop solar PV technology are explored.

2. Theoretical Background

(a)
Energy Ladder Approach
Fuel use and choice among households are explored through the energy ladder model (ELA) [21]. The model assumes that a household’s income will increase a family shifts to more modern and cleaner energy sources such as liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and electricity. In addition, the model assumes that energy consumption increases with more efficient fuels. Therefore, energy sources for most rural households are biomass, including fuelwood, charcoal and agricultural waste. According to this theory, homes move up the ladder, from biomass to paraffin and then LPG or electricity due to increased disposable income and improved lifestyles. Thus, technological advancements aimed at improving energy efficiency are only afforded and resorted to by households with disposable income. Central to the ELA is household income to move from one fuel to another in a linear trend. Many scholars have criticised this since households do not necessarily follow the energy ladder because of their financial position. Multiple fuel use approaches have debunked this approach. Due to these weaknesses of the energy ladder approach, ELA must be used alongside the multiple fuel approach.
(b)
Multiple Fuel Use Approach
This approach responds directly to the shortcomings of the energy ladder approach. It postulates that poorest rural households, particularly in developing nations, do not move from one fuel to another; instead, they use multiple fuel sources found at all levels of the energy ladder. Different fuels are not switched, but fuel staking is pursued whereby fuels for cooking are added, and even the most traditional ones are not displaced or abandoned [22]. For instance, in Zimbabwe, access and availability have been identified as the driving forces for fuel choice [23]. As such, household fuel choice is not dependent on economic factors alone but on several factors that include gender, the level of education and household head [24]. Cultural and taste preferences contribute to household fuel choice [25]. Households act rationally; thus, they move up and down the ladder due to several factors which might be cultural. Understanding the factors that influence household fuel choices is essential before concentrating on shifts [26]. Thus, in this paper, a more holistic approach combining the insights of ELA and MFUA was applied to understand energy sources, types and rural communities’ perceptions of renewable energy sources such as solar photovoltaics.

3. Materials and Methods

The current case study was conducted in Mbahe, Dhuvuledza and Tshamutilikwa which are in the Thulamela municipality of the Vhembe District in South Africa. The villages are found in the eastern part of the municipality towards the Kruger National Park (Figure 1). They are mainly rural with scattered households. Thirty (30) households, ten (10) per village, were selected via a case study design. Only those households that participated in the SHS Electrification Programme implemented by the Thulamela Local Municipality and Solar Vision Private Limited were purposively selected for the study. Before the actual data collection, SHS Electrification Programme beneficiaries were identified in each village. Out of the identified households, only ten were randomly selected per village. Creswell and Tashakkori (2007) contend that ten respondents constitute a large enough sample size for a phenomenological study in qualitative studies [27]. In contrast, Morse (1995) suggests that six respondents are sufficient to reach data saturation in a phenomenological study [28]. Furthermore, Bernard (2011) contends that the ideal standard for qualitative sample size is “to interview to redundancy” [29] or to interview to saturation [30]. Given the lack of consensus on the appropriate sample size in exploratory studies, this study targeted 30 respondents, far beyond the suggested sample size for explorative studies in the literature. In-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted to solicit individual households’ insights on the rooftop solar home systems and the current energy uses, types and principal fuel sources. The responses were recorded using a voice recorder. In all instances where the local language (Venda) was used, it was translated into the English at transcribing stage. Transcribe data were exported to Atlast ti as a Hermeneutic Unit. It was analysed using Thematic Network Analysis (TNA) in Atlas ti version 8. The data were analysed using open coding, code by list and in vivo. The relationship and logical pattern explaining the perceived advantages and disadvantages of adopting an SHS were extracted from the data using the linking and related functions under Network View Manager.

4. Results

4.1. Demography

Most of the study’s thirty respondents (83%) were females. Almost 36% of females were residents of Tshamutilikwa. Adults aged between 36 and 60 comprised 60% of the total number of the respondents, with the elderly constituting about a third, 30% of the respondents. Youths within the 18- and 35-year-old range made up 10% of the respondents. As indicated in Table 1, in Tshamutilikwa, no youth was interviewed. Duvhuledza village had the highest number of youths (7%) participating in this study.

4.2. Energy Types and Uses

The interviews revealed that families use various energy sources in the selected villages. The dominant prevalent energy sources in the chosen villages are grid electricity, paraffin, solar photovoltaics, firewood and candles. These sources meet household energy needs at the household level, ranging from cooking, water heating, indoor and outdoor illumination, refrigeration, ironing (straightening fabric), air conditioning, entertainment and space heating. Presented in Table 2 is how each energy source is used at the household level, as extracted by the interviews.
(a)
Grid electricity
Households are using grid electricity for space heating, refrigeration, cooking, household lights, water heating, entertainment and air conditioning at the household level in the selected villages. As presented in Table 2, 29 and 28 out of 30 participants use grid electricity for refrigeration and entertainment. As shown in Table 2, 22 of the 30 that were interviewed use it for illumination compared to 17 for cooking. About half of the survey households used it for water heating and air conditioning. These findings align with Motjoadi, Bokoro and Onibonoje, who concluded that the primary purpose of electricity for rural dwellers is domestic use [31]. Many rural communities that are connected to the grid in sub-Saharan Africa are restricted to lighting, television, radio and cell phone charging [1,32]. They further posit that rural communities cannot buy electrical appliances. This view is echoed by [31], who argue that electricity affordability remains a challenge for rural communities despite being connected to the grid. Overall, grid connections in rural communities of developing countries are struggling with reliability, stability, sustainability, power quality and efficiency [33]
(b)
Paraffin
As shown in Table 2, some households use paraffin as an energy source. It is mainly used for household lights. Earlier studies in South Africa have found a similar trend [34,35,36]. Interestingly, paraffin was only mentioned by one of the thirty households participating in this study. This is in line with the observation by [37], who observed that the reliance on paraffin for lights is not uniform across geographical areas and within individual communities. They said that only the poorest and vulnerable communities use paraffin with only limited access to other energy forms. According to the energy ladder hypothesis, the use of paraffin is one step from unclean sources such as biomass [38]. In other words, the use of paraffin for lights is a shift from low-quality fuels such as biomass to more convenient, versatile and cleaner modern sources [21]. Despite categorising the use of paraffin as an improvement on the energy ladder, it remains an unclean energy source that is detrimental to both human health and the environment. It is worth noting that a separate study in different villages of the Vhembe District revealed that paraffin is being used for cooking [39].
(c)
Solar Photovoltaics
Solar photovoltaics systems are one of the energy sources that emerged in the study. As indicated in Table 2, it is exclusively used for water heating and indoor and outdoor illumination. It is apparent from Table 2, that only one participant in the study mentioned solar PV systems. This is in line with the findings of [32], who observed that the use of solar PV systems is very minimal in Southern Africa. In South Africa, solar PV systems are for lighting and home appliances in rural communities [40]. Surprisingly, the solar module price is declining steadily [40], but there is still low uptake of the technology among the rural communities of the Vhembe District. If properly harnessed, solar PV technology would be contributing to about 14% of the total energy supply in the country by 2050 [41]. In addition, an installation of a 50 kWh/m can save ZAR 100 billion per annum and save the struggling national grid by generating 9720 GWh [42], ultimately cutting carbon dioxide emissions of about 5.8 million metric tonnes.
(d)
Firewood
The use of firewood among the rural households in the Vhembe District is predominantly for ironing clothes, water heating and space heating. Table 2 reveals that 8 out of the 30 homes who partook in this research mentioned using firewood for ironing clothes. The bulk (24) of the people among the participating families use firewood for cooking, while 21 used it for water heating. Only six used it to meet their space heating needs. These findings align with the studies by [32,39], which noted that some rural and remote communities rely on burning fuelwood for cooking and heating. The South African Energy Outlook of 2019 has predicted that about 10% of the South African population will still be using fuelwood for cooking by 2030 [43]. They observed that many families in sub-Saharan Africa still use dirty fuels such as firewood for light and cooking. About 730 million rely on biomass such as firewood in sub-Saharan Africa [44]. Notably, most families in rural South Africa are not employed and do not have a stable source of income [39]. Firewood is prevalent among the poor [45,46] because they can afford this source financially.
It is worth noting that households relying on firewood spend a considerable amount of time and labour gathering from near and afar [1]. Let alone the severe threat it poses to the environment and human health [47]. At the receiving end of these activities are children and women. The results conform with the findings of Statistics South Africa, which observed that about 40% of the rural dwellers in the Limpopo Province use firewood for cooking [48]. Currently, meeting energy needs using firewood is cheaper than using any other available energy source [39]. This explains why despite almost 100% grid connection in some villages of the district and incentives for using it such as offering accessible promotional units by the service provider, families still opt for fuelwood use as the energy of choice for their cooking and water heating needs. High fuelwood usage for cooking is driven by the belief that food cooked with firewood tastes better than that cooked with electricity [39]. Household energy preferences are multifaceted and dynamic. Thus, an attempt to promote new energy technology needs thorough socio-economic, cultural and taste research.
(e)
Candles
Some households were using candles for lighting purposes. Notably, as Figure 1 shows, candle usage was not that popular. Representatives of only two households were of this view. This is consistent with Rahut, Behera and Ali’s findings that only 2.9% of Eastern and Southern African households used candles for illumination [32]. This finding shows that rural communities still rely on unclean energy sources to meet their household illumination needs. Reliance on candles for lighting exposes rural families to both health and physical hazards.

4.3. Rural Communities’ Perceptions of Solar Home Systems

Several rural communities’ perceptions of the adoption and use of SHS among rural households in South Africa emerged and are presented in Table 3. Firstly, 23% of the rural households thought solar systems were unaffected by load shedding. As shown in Table 1, this view was shared across the villages. According to Piliso, Senzanje and Dhavu, since 2010, the South African electrical power distribution company ESKOM has struggled to provide enough electricity for the country [49]. As a result, load shedding has become perennial in the country. The prevalence and devastating effect of load shedding have been confirmed by Mabunda, who concluded that it has many stages [50]. Once effected, electricity-powered gadgets and devices switch off for hours. The households are restricted from doing or enjoying tasks and services that need electrical power. As a result, this has subjected the populace to continued bouts of load shedding. Thus, in the context of recurrent and intensifying load shedding, rural communities feel solar photovoltaic adoption has the potential to spare them from devasting effects of load shedding.
It also emerged that 23% of the rural communities perceive solar adoption as cheap, i.e., installation and maintenance. This perception mainly came from participants from Mbahe village. Indeed, SHS installation and maintenance are relatively cheap. In Bangladesh, Momotaz and Karim posit that rural communities share the same sentiment, with over 76% indicating that the SHS cost was within the purchasing ability [51]. In Pakistan, a similar trend among rural and scattered communities was observed, where SHS was considered an affordable technology for rural and scattered communities [52]. Notably, this could be a result of the general solar financing system. According to Ngoepe et al., the pay-as-you-go billing system has demonstrated that off-grid providers go beyond promoting and providing clean and sustainable rural electrification but providing affordable financial services for profit-making [53]. Notably, about 6.7% of the participating families felt that installation and maintenance are too expensive and beyond their reach. This sentiment mainly came from Mbahe and Duvhuledza villages. In other words, the affordability of SHS is contested among rural families. Thus, as much as installation and maintenance are generally cheap, this divided perception could explain why its uptake is not encouraging in the district, as the majority are not using it.
In addition, 6.7% of rural families participating in this study believe that SHS has the propensity to help them save household financial resources. Noticeably, this view is harboured in Duvhuledza and Mbahe. This observation is in sync with the findings of [54], which concluded that SHS is a low-cost solution to rural electrification if adopted and has the potential to help in energy spending. To further bolster this perception, [55,56] have observed that the price for SHS modules has become increasingly attractive. This same sentiment is echoed by [57,58], who noted that the prices of SHS modules have drastically dropped. According to the World Bank, using SHS reduces a household’s cost of lights and vulnerability to domestic health and safety hazards [3]. The SHS has become financially attractive due to heavy government subsidies [56,58].
Results have also revealed that 6.7% of the families in the selected villages perceive SHS as a simple and accessible technology. This view only emerged from Duvhuledza village. This sentiment was shared by [59] when they concluded that SHS is touted for technical quality in Bangladesh. This perception is also seen in Vietnam and Sweden [60,61]. Moreso, SHS is perceived as environmentally friendly. This is widely shared across all the participating villages. This is in sync with Missourian and Kopacek’s findings which concluded that SHS is one of the environmentally friendly technologies [62]. It has also emerged that SHS, once installed, does not need regular payments. This gives this technology a comparative advantage over other technologies in the district; mainly, electricity is widely used, but people are not affording it now. Finally, the rural households believe that adopting SHS helps ease the energy supply demand from the currently overwhelmed grid connection.
As much as the rural communities in the selected villages of the Vhembe District in South Africa had positive perceptions about the technology, it needs to be highlighted that some households have negative perceptions. For instance, the majority, i.e., 56.7% of the families, believe that SHS does not work well during cloudy and rainy climatic conditions. This finding conforms with the conclusions of [63], which conclude that indigent people targeted by off-grid entrepreneurs have trust issues with the technology. In Kenya, the SHS end-users also have trust issues; however, according to Faris, the M-Kope uses local pastors to create awareness and a market for SHS [64]. Thus, all these trust issues must be dealt with for rural electrification through SHS to succeed.
Some households believe that SHS photovoltaic cells can be easily stolen. About 13% of the families participating in this study shared this view. As indicated in Table 3, two households were from Duvhuledza, each from Mbahe and Tshamutilikwa. One of the unintended results was that the participating families showed that SHS’s efficiency is reduced by the accumulation of dust on the panels. A possible explanation for this result is that most of the roads in rural areas of Vhembe District are not tarred. Interestingly, system reduction due to the accumulation of dust particles was only mentioned in Tshamutilikwa, with about 3.3% of the families participating in this study. Finally, it also emerged that rural families in the Vhembe District felt that SHS does not produce adequate quality energy.
About a tenth of the respondents raised the fact that the household solar system is limited in terms of its capacity to power. They argued that an SHS could not be used to cook or iron clothes. This conforms to Taylor and So’s findings, which note that solar power generation is far lower than the grid supply [65]. This reinforces the results obtained in an earlier study [20]. The latter scholars concluded that a SHS could not constantly supply power because its sources varied from one season and geographical location to another.

5. Conclusions

Even though the participating families indicated positive perceptions of solar photovoltaic technology, its proliferation in rural areas is hindered by high capital and maintenance costs. In addition, the results reveal that families in the rural communities of South Africa are still reliant on unhealthy fuels such as wood, paraffin and candles. This situation is compounded by the fact that, in Africa, more than two-fifths of the population live under USD 1.90 a day; such people are not considered for basic financial services such as insurance, bank loans and others as they do not have a steady income, own a personal bank account and reliable credit history. Thus, SHS providers should not only leverage the financial implications of using unclean energy sources such as fossil fuels and biomass but also the financial capabilities of the end-users of the technology. Thus, Roberts suggests that solar home systems innovators need tailor-made service charges in line with the financial situation of the communities they intend to electrify.
Concisely, South African rural communities have the potential to adopt renewable energy sources, but they are not adequately harnessed. Currently, the government is subsidising more on-grid connections at the expense of off-grid connections. Central to this is the politicisation of rural electrification in South Africa. Areas earmarked for SHS encroached with grid electricity to score cheap electoral votes. Therefore, political and trade unions’ interference exacerbates rural electrification challenges through SHS in South Africa. In addition, the SHS implementation programme needs to be aware of the capacity and system types. Besides the system capacity, SHS should be evaluated to improve rural communities’ energy access regarding availability, reliability, quality, cost effectiveness, legal, health and safety. All this information needs should be shared with rural families who intend or who are willing to adopt an SHS. It will help decrease the prejudices harboured by the rural communities.

Author Contributions

R.C. carried out the conceptualisation, data collection, analysis and writing. J.F. and S.K. supervised and reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Human Development at the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in the Republic of South Africa. Opinions expressed and the conclusion arrived at are those of the authors and not attributed to the Centre of Excellence in Human Development.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The Animal, Environment and Biosafety Research Ethics Committee under the University of Venda, Research Ethics Committee approved the study as straightforward research without ethical problems (Category 1) under ethical clearance number SARDF/21/IRD/10/1210.

Informed Consent Statement

All the research participants voluntary participated in this study. All their rights were expressed and explained clearly both in writing and verbally.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Muhumuza, R.; Zacharopoulos, A.; Mondol, J.D.; Smyth, M.; Pugsley, A. Energy consumption levels and technical approaches for supporting development of alternative energy technologies for rural sectors of developing countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 97, 90–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook (WEO): Energy Access Database. 2016. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2016 (accessed on 23 May 2022).
  3. World Bank. World Development Indicators. 2017. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/26447 (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  4. Chafe, Z.A.; Brauer, M.; Klimont, Z.; Van Dingenen, R.; Mehta, S.; Rao, S.; Riahi, K.; Dentener, F.; Smith, K.R. Household cooking with solid fuels contributes to ambient PM2. 5 air pollution and the burden of disease. Environ. Health Perspect. 2014, 122, 1314–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Muller, C.; Yan, H. Household fuel use in developing countries: Review of theory and evidence. Energy Econ. 2018, 70, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mensah, J.T.; Adu, G. An empirical analysis of household energy choice in Ghana. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 1402–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yao, C.; Chen, C.; Li, M. Analysis of rural residential energy consumption and corresponding carbon emissions in China. Energy Policy 2012, 41, 445–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Momodu, I.M. Domestic energy needs and natural resources conservation: The case of fuelwood consumption in Nigeria. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 2013, 4, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Meyer, L.E.; Overen, O.K. Towards a sustainable rural electrification scheme in South Africa: Analysis of the Status quo. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 4273–4287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Borchers, M.; Qas, N.; Guant, T.; Mavhungu, J.; Winkler, H.; Afrane-Okese, Y.; Thom, C. National Electrification Programme Evaluations: Summary Report. 2001. Available online: https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/handle/11427/22682/Borchers_2001.pdf?sequence=6 (accessed on 10 March 2022).
  11. Kambule, N.; Yessoufou, K.; Nwulu, N.; Mbohwa, C. Exploring the driving factors of prepaid electricity meter rejection in the largest township of South Africa. Energy Policy 2019, 124, 199–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kelvin, O.O.; Edson, M.L.; Golden, M. Thermal, economic and environmental analysis of a low-cost house in Alice, South Africa. Sustainability 2017, 9, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Department of Minerals and Energy. 2003. Available online: https://www.gov.za/nso/documents/department-minerals-and-energy-annual-report-20022003 (accessed on 10 March 2022).
  14. Thopil, M.S.; Bansal, R.C.; Zhang, L.; Sharma, G. A review of grid connected distributed generation using renewable energy sources in South Africa. Energy Strategy Rev. 2018, 21, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. World Bank. Detailed Case Study: The South African Solar Home System (SHS) Concessions, Evaluation of Rural Electrification Concessions in Sub-Saharan Africa. Available online: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/708211498162775424/pdf/116659-WP-PUBLIC-P150241-37p-Detailed-Case-Study-South-Africa.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2022).
  16. Conway, D.; Robinson, B.; Mudimu, P.; Chitekwe, T.; Koranteng, K.; Swilling, M. Exploring hybrid models for universal access to basic solar energy services in informal settlements: Case studies from South Africa and Zimbabwe. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 56, 101202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Eberhard, A.; Kolker, J.; Leigland, J. South Africa’s Renewable Energy IPP Procurement Program: Success Factors and lLessons; World Bank Group 1202; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/20039 (accessed on 13 May 2022).
  18. Department of Minerals and Energy. 2015. Available online: https://www.platinumiris.co.za/wp-content/uploads/doe/01/2015%20-%202016%20Department%20of%20Energy%20Annual%20Report.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2022).
  19. Barrie, J.; Cruickshank, H.J. Shedding light on the last mile: A study on the diffusion of Pay as You Go Solar Home Systems in Central East Africa. Energy Policy 2017, 107, 425–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Akikur, R.K.; Saidur, R.; Ping, H.W.; Ullah, K.R. Comparative study of stand-alone and hybrid solar energy systems suitable for off-grid rural electrification: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 27, 738–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Van der Kroon, B.; Brouwer, R.; Van Beukering, P.J. The energy ladder: Theoretical myth or empirical truth? Results from a meta-analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 20, 504–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hoffman, H.; Uckert, G.; Reif, C.; Muller, K.; Sieber, S. Traditional biomass energy consumption and the potential introduction of firewood efficient stoves: Insight from western Tanzania. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2015, 15, 1191–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Campbell, B.M.; Vermeulen, S.J.; Mangono, J.J.; Mabugu, R. The energy transition in action: Urban domestic fuel choices in changing Zimbabwe. Energy Policy 2003, 31, 553–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Uhunamure, S.E.; Nethengwe, N.S.; Tinarwo, D. Correlating the factors influencing household decisions on adoption and utilisation of biogas technology in South Africa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 107, 264–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Arthur, M.; Bond, C.A.; Willson, B. Estimation of elasticities for domestic energy demand in Mozambique. Energy Econ. 2012, 34, 398–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zaku, S.G.; Abdallah, A.; Olayande, J.S.; Kabir, A.; Tukur, A. Comparative studies of household energy use in Nigeria: A case of Gwagwalada and Gwako in Gwagwalada Area Council of Abuja FCT. Swift J. Econ. Int. Financ. 2015, 1, 5–9. [Google Scholar]
  27. Creswell, J.W.; Tashakkori, A. Differing perspectives on mixed methods research. J. Mix. Methods Res. 2007, 1, 303–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Morse, J.M. The significance of saturation. Qual. Health Res. 1995, 5, 147–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bernard, H.R. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 5th ed.; Rowman Altamira: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  30. LeCompte, M.D.; Schensul, J.J. Designing and Conducting Ethnographic Research: An Introduction; Rowman Altamira: New York, NY, USA, 2010; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  31. Motjoadi, V.; Bokoro, P.N.; Onibonoje, M.O. A review of microgrid-based approach to rural electrification in South Africa: Architecture and policy framework. Energies 2020, 13, 2193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rahut, D.; Behera, B.; Ali, A. Factors determining household use of clean and renewable energy sources for lighting in Sub-Saharan Africa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 72, 661–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ahlborg, H.; Hammar, L. Drivers and barriers to rural electrification in Tanzania and Mozambique Grid-extension, off-grid, and renewable energy technologies. Renew. Energy 2014, 61, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Griffin, N.J.; Banks, D.I.; Mavrandonis, J.; Shackleton, C.M.; Shackleton, S.E. Household Energy and Wood Use in a Peripheral Rural Area of the Eastern Transvaal Lowveld; Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs: Pretoria, South Africa, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  35. Davis, M. Rural household energy consumption: The effects of access to electricity—Evidence from South Africa. Energy Policy 1998, 26, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Howells, M.I.; Alfstad, T.; Victor, D.G.; Goldstein, G.; Remme, U. A model of household energy services in a low-income rural African village. Energy Policy 2005, 33, 1833–1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Madubansi, M.; Shackleton, C.M. Changing energy profiles and consumption patterns following electrification in five rural villages, South Africa. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 4081–4092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sepp, S. Multiple Household Fuel Use: A Balanced Choice between Firewood, Charcoal and LPG; GIZ: Frankfurt, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  39. Uhunamure, S.E.; Nethengwe, N.S.; Musyoki, A. Driving forces for fuelwood use in households in the Thulamela Municipality, South Africa. J. Energy S. Afr. 2017, 28, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Aliyu, A.K.; Modu, B.; Tan, C.W. A review of renewable energy development in Africa: A focus in South Africa, Egypt and Nigeria. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 2502–2518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Banks, D.; Schäffler, J. The Potential Contribution of Renewable Energy in South Africa. Johannesburg, South Africa: Sustainable Energy & Climate Change Project (SECCP). 2006. Available online: https://www.ee.co.za/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Gener%201.pdf (accessed on 13 April 2022).
  42. Ab Kadir, M.Z.A.; Rafeeu, Y.; Adam, N.M. Prospective scenarios for the full solar energy development in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 3023–3031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. South African Energy Outlook. 2019. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/africa-energy-outlook-2019 (accessed on 3 March 2022).
  44. International Energy Agency. 2014. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2014 (accessed on 3 March 2022).
  45. Das, S.; De Groote, H.; Behera, B. Determinants of household energy use in Bhutan. Energy 2014, 69, 661–672. [Google Scholar]
  46. Behera, B.; Jeetendra, A.; Ali, A. Household collection and use of biomass energy sources in South Asia. Energy 2015, 85, 468–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mishra, V. Indoor air pollution from biomass combustion and acute respiratory illness in preschool age children in Zimbabwe. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2003, 32, 847–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Statistics South Africa. General Household Survey 2014. Report Number P0318. Available online: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0318/P03182014.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2022).
  49. Piliso, P.; Senzanje, A.; Dhavu, K. The extent, characteristics and potential of solar powered irrigation systems in South Africa. J. Energy S. Afr. 2021, 32, 26–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mabunda, N.E. Use of Photovoltaic Energy to Minimise the Impact of Load-shedding in South Africa. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Electrical 2021, Computer and Energy Technologies (ICECET), Cape Town, South Africa, 9–10 December 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  51. Momotaz, S.N.; Karim, A.M. Customer satisfaction of the solar home system service in Bangladesh. World 2012, 2, 193–210. [Google Scholar]
  52. Omara, Z.M.; Kabeel, A.E.; Abdullah, A.S. A review of solar still performance with reflectors. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 638–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ngoepe, T.; Henriksen, T.F.; Power, A.P.; Panulo, B.; Modungwa, B.; Scholtz, L.; Gulati, M. Switching on Finance for Off-Grid Energy. Bertha Centre, WWF-SA. 2016. Available online: https://gsbberthacentre.uct.ac.za/researching/switching-on-finance-for-off-grid-energy/ (accessed on 10 April 2022).
  54. IEA. Energy Access Outlook 2017: From Poverty to Prosperity; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mitscher, M.; Rüther, R. Economic performance and policies for grid-connected residential solar photovoltaic systems in Brazil. Energy Policy 2012, 49, 688–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Urmee, T.; Harries, D. Determinants of the success and sustainability of Bangladesh’s SHS program. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 2822–2830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Azimoh, C.L.; Klintenberg, P.; Wallin, F.; Karlsson, B. Illuminated but not electrified: An assessment of the impact of Solar Home System on rural households in South Africa. Appl. Energy 2015, 155, 354–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Waleedm, A.; Javed, M.R.; Riaz, M.T.; Virk, U.S.; Khan, S.; Mujtaba, A.; Ahmas, S.; Arshad, G. Study on Hybrid Wind-Solar System for Energy Saving Analysis in Energy Sector. In Proceedings of the 2020 3rd International Conference on Computing, Mathematics and Engineering Technologies (iCoMET), Sukkur, Pakistan, 29–30 January 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Qureshi, T.M.; Ullah, K.; Arentsen, M.J. Factors responsible for solar PV adoption at household level: A case of Lahore, Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 754–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Do, T.N.; Burke, P.J.; Baldwin, K.G.; Nguyen, C.T. Underlying drivers and barriers for solar photovoltaics diffusion: The case of Vietnam. Energy Policy 2020, 144, 111561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Palm, A. Local factors driving the diffusion of solar photovoltaics in Sweden: A case study of five municipalities in an early market. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 14, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Masoumian, M.; Kopacek, P. End-of-life management of photovoltaic modules. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2015, 48, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rastogi, C. M-Kopa solar: Lighting up the dark continent. South Asian J. Bus. Manag. Cases 2018, 7, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Faris, S.; Bloomberg. The Solar Company Making a Profit on Poor Africans. pp. 1–4. 2015. Available online: www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-mkopa-solar-in-africa/ (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  65. Taylor, M.; So, E.Y. Solar PV in Africa: Costs and Markets; IRENA: Bonn, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Energies 15 06157 g001 550
Figure 1. A map of the study site.
Figure 1. A map of the study site.
Energies 15 06157 g001
Table
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents in the study on the perception of solar PV adoption.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents in the study on the perception of solar PV adoption.
MbaheDuvhuledzaTshamutilikwaTotal Frequency (n = 30)Cumulative (%)
GenderMale221516.7
Female8892583.3
AgeYouths (18–35 years)120310
Adults (36–60 years)6751860
Elderly (61+ years)315930
Table
Table 2. Energy types and their uses in a household in the rural areas of the Vhembe District.
Table 2. Energy types and their uses in a household in the rural areas of the Vhembe District.
Domestic Energy UseEnergy Source(s)Frequency (N = 30)Cumulative Percentage (%)
1. Illumination• Candles310.0
• Paraffin lamps13.3
• Battery cells13.3
• Solar photovoltaics13.3
• Grid electricity2273.3
• Grid electricity2996.7
2. Water heating• Solar geyser13.3
• Grid electricity1446.7
• Liquefied petroleum gas26.6
• Firewood2170
3. Entertainment• Battery cells13.3
• Grid electricity2893.3
4. Cooking• Firewood2480.0
• Electricity1756.7
• Liquefied petroleum gas26.6
5. Space heating• Liquefied petroleum gas13.3
• Firewood620
6. Air conditioning• Nothing1653.3
• Electricity1343.3
7. Ironing clothes• Firewood826.7
Table
Table 3. Rural households’ perceptions of solar home systems (SHSs).
Table 3. Rural households’ perceptions of solar home systems (SHSs).
Perceived Advantages of a SHSVillage DistributionFrequency (n = 30)Cumulative (%)Perceived Disadvantages of Adopting a SHSVillage DistributionFrequency (n = 30)Cumulative (%)
A solar home system is not affected by load sheddingDuvhuledza (2)
Mbahe (4)
Tshamutilikwa (1)		723.0A SHS does not work well during cloudy or rainy climatic conditionsDuvhuledza (4)
Mbahe (7)
Tshamutilikwa (6)		1756.7
Solar technology is relatively cheap (Installation and maintenance)Duvhuledza (3)
Mbahe (4)		723.0Solar equipment is expensiveDuvhuledza (1)
Mbahe (11)		26.7
Solar technology is simple and easy to useDuvhuledza (2)26.7Solar PV panels can be stolen easilyDuvhuledza (2)
Mbahe (1)
Tshamutilikwa (1)		413.3
The energy is derived from a renewable resource, the sun, and is environmentally friendlyDuvhuledza (1)
Mbahe (1)
Tshamutilikwa (2)		413.3A SHS’s efficiency is reduced by the presence of dust particles which are prevalent in the rural villagesTshamutilikwa (1)13.3
Once installed, the SHS does not require regular paymentsMbahe (1)
Tshamutilikwa (1)		26.7Solar technology produces inferior quality energy, which can power limited household appliancesDuvhuledza (2)
Tshamutilikwa (1)		310
Solar home system adoption reduces energy supply demand on-grid connectionsTshamutshezi (1)13.3
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chidembo, R.; Francis, J.; Kativhu, S. Rural Households’ Perceptions of the Adoption of Rooftop Solar Photovoltaics in Vhembe District, South Africa. Energies 2022, 15, 6157. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176157

AMA Style

Chidembo R, Francis J, Kativhu S. Rural Households’ Perceptions of the Adoption of Rooftop Solar Photovoltaics in Vhembe District, South Africa. Energies. 2022; 15(17):6157. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176157

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chidembo, Ranganai, Joseph Francis, and Simbarashe Kativhu. 2022. "Rural Households’ Perceptions of the Adoption of Rooftop Solar Photovoltaics in Vhembe District, South Africa" Energies 15, no. 17: 6157. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176157

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop