Selección y aplicación del procedimiento de MCC en la entidad objeto de estudio

All of the respondents in this study used electricity, mainly due to its ease of use and accessibility. All respondents were, however, unhappy with using electricity as their primary lighting fuel because it was expensive and unreliable and made use of an additional energy source also. Many respondents used an alternative energy supply for lighting during power cuts. However, more respondents considered the expense of electricity rather than the unreliability to be the main reason for being unhappy with this source. This could be because power cuts are expected when using electricity, and does not cause respondents to feel that this supply is particularly unreliable.

The Western world would consider electricity to be one of the most reliable sources of energy. However, the Indian electricity sector consistently has been peak shortages over 10% and has been troubled by black outs most notably during 2012 when 620 million people were affected for two days (Shukla et al. 2009). With this background, it becomes clear as to why there is a choice to rely on a primary and secondary source of energy for the lighting of homes in rural India. The high costs associated with using electricity paired with the aforementioned reliability issues force the residents of rural villages to have a backup option in this regard.

The most popular fuels used for household cooking were a combination of LP Gas and firewood or biomass. This is a mixture of traditional and modern energy supplies. The reasons why respondents chose each of these sources and the reasons why respondents may be unhappy with these sources are very different.

Many respondents were unhappy with firewood and biomass because it was ‘too smoky’. The level of smoke produced by firewood/biomass is an identified health risk and is a valid concern of the respondents. The average distribution of particles arising from biomass in Indian household is 2000µg m-3 (Smith 2000) which is far in excess of the 150µg m-3 level set by the US Environmental Protection Agency (IEA 2007). When expanded to consider villages and areas of domestic living, localised pollution can occur during peak cooking times. As a result, acute respiratory infections are now the largest single disease category in India (IEA 2007). Reducing this level of pollution by using RETs would have benefits in terms of health as well as modern energy services.

- 99 -

Due to the opposing positive and negative aspects of firewood/biomass and LP gas, respondents would switch between these as primary and secondary sources of fuel. The expense associated with using LP Gas compared to the cheapness of using firewood or biomass might mean that when the LP Gas supply become too expensive or disrupted users switch to the cheaper, more familiar firewood or biomass. Balachandra (Balachandra 2011a) and Pohekar et al., (Pohekar et al. 2005) showed that the use of LP Gas as a primary fuel for household cooking was limited to high income household in rural areas which would support the idea those who use firewood or biomass, but also make use LP Gas, do so but only in specific circumstances as its high cost prevents continuous use.

Balachandra’s (Balachandra 2011a) work however presents stark differences in comparison to the findings of this study for the proportion of households using LP Gas or firewood or biomass as their primary fuel for household cooking. Balachandra found that 84.1% of households made use of firewood or biomass, and only 8.6% of LP Gas for household cooking. This disparity can be put down to the fact Balachandra’s analysis is based upon national statistics whereas this study explores the energy usage of one village.

Respondents’ fuel usage was lower in the winter than in the summer, and the time respondents spent cooling their houses was lower in winter than in summer. This is most likely because they do not need to cool their houses to the same extent as in the summer periods. Average temperatures in the state of Maharashtra have a range of 24.1˚C, from as high as 38.6˚C in the summer to 14.5˚C in the winter (Lal 2005).

Fossil fuels were used by 87.5% of respondents as either their primary or alternative fuel for cooking. This is comparable to the global share fossil fuels represent for primary energy consumption which is also 87.0% (OPEC 2011). This comparison, however, is not reflected in the share of fuels used for lighting where 100.0% of the respondents made use of electricity derived from fossil fuel sources.

None of the respondents indicated that they were happy with the fuels they currently used primarily for household cooking or lighting, citing reasons mainly centred on ease of use, cost and reliability. The reasons given by respondents for being unhappy when using LP Gas and/or electricity are similar, as are the reasons the same respondents gave for using these two fuels. This is interesting as these two fuels are considered to be forms of modern energy (Balachandra 2011a), but despite being very different

- 100 -

resources, the reasons for using them and the issues respondents had with them are the same, which would indicate that there are common issues experienced with the acquisition and use of modern energies in these communities.

The results highlight that ‘availability’ is an important factor when selecting fuels for household tasks. Although only a small number of the respondents gave it as a reason in each separate question, a more in depth look at the results shows that 75% of respondents selected availability as a reason for their choice in using one or more fuels. In addition it was the only reason to be selected as an influencing factor across all fuels used in household lighting and cooking. Accessibility has been highlighted by several studies (Painuly 2001, Reddy & Painuly 2004) to be a major barrier for modern energy access and in particular to the uptake of RETs. As these technologies have however been shown to lend themselves to being used as decentralised energy resources (Chakrabarti & Chakrabarti 2002, Hiremath et al. 2009, Mahapatra & Dasappa 2012) this can remove some of the accessibility barriers as the energy generation can be put at the heart of the community. Thiam (2010) and Chakrabarti & Chakrabarti (2002) note that as these technologies can be installed close to the point of demand the costs relating to energy transport and distribution are reduced which will ultimately lower the cost to the end user.

The reasons ‘cost’ and ‘easy to use’ were also important factors for choosing particular fuels. However, these were never given simultaneously for choosing a fuel. For example, all the respondents who used firewood or biomass for cooking indicated that the reason for using this fuel was that it was cheap. However, none of them gave ‘easy to use’ as a reason. Conversely, none of the respondents who selected electricity or LP Gas indicated ‘cheap’ as a reason for choosing this fuel, but ‘easy to use’ was by far the most significant influencing factor. An explanation for this is that the ease of using a specific fuel is offset by an increased cost.

From these results it could therefore be reasoned that there is a direct relationship between the cost of a fuel and how easy it is to use. Of these two factors ease of use is the most significant in terms of what is desired by the user. The results indicate that people appear willing to pay more for an energy resource which is easy to use, such as electricity or LP Gas, despite the expense which they highlight as their main dissatisfaction when using them. This supports the DFIDs (DFID 2002b) theory that it is the benefits of an energy source, of which ease of use is one, that ultimately drive demand as these are the factors people desire over energy access itself.

- 101 -

If cost alone was the overriding factor influencing which fuels were chosen for household activities, the easy to use but expensive fuels would not be selected to the same degree that they were. Cost appears to be the principal limiting factor on fuel selection, as although people desire a fuel that is easy to use, they may be unable to afford those that are available. This is most likely the case with the respondents who primarily use firewood or biomass for cooking as all of them indicated that they selected this resource because it was cheap, not because it was easy to use. This, in conjunction with the fact that the majority of these respondents indicated that they also make use of LP Gas as a secondary fuel, supports the idea that if cost was removed as a factor, the majority of respondents would prefer a fuel that was easy to use.

Perception, Attitudes & Barriers Towards Renewable Or Sustainable Energy Sources The respondents were able to identify several low carbon energy sources from a given list. However, respondents although aware of fuels, were unaware of how they could be obtained. For example, despite all respondents having indicated using firewood or biomass as a primary or secondary fuel for household cooking, and many giving biogas as an example of a renewable energy resource, only 37.5% of respondents were aware of bio-digesters.

Lack of knowledge is the primary barrier to the adoption of any new technology. Lack of technical knowledge and awareness in RETs has been identified as a potential barrier to their uptake (Del Río 2007, Reddy & Painuly 2004). This may help explain why bio digesters became one of the preferred technologies after explanations were given, despite its low initial level of identification.

A lack of knowledge and understanding of the technologies available (as shown in the disparity between the LCT recognised and those which respondents thought would be a beneficial source of modern energy) and of the benefits and impacts associated with them, would explain why respondents were unable to identify a clear preference towards one energy source over another. Despite this, all of the respondents believed that rural communities, such as their own, should be provided with renewable or sustainable energy supplies.Furthermore many respondents indicated alternative energy sources should be used over current supplies.

Several studies (Moomow et al. 2011, Painuly 2001) have already highlighted acceptance as a vital factor in the implementation of RETs. Without it the likelihood of a successful project is reduced. This can damage the perception of RETs further,

- 102 -

resulting in additional barriers to any future projects. Moomow et al. highlights that in many cases overcoming these barriers can be achieved by establishing dedicated lines of communication between planner and stakeholders from an early stage of planning. By incorporating public participation into planning decisions and by educating the target population of the long and short term benefits of using such technologies for energy generation should greatly improve their acceptance and successful implementation. It is clear from the results exploring how cost affects a respondent’s choice to switch to a low carbon energy supply that cost is the biggest barrier to the implementation of RETs in rural Indian villages. It is however important to understand what the underlying influential factors could be once the use of cost has been mitigated. The results indicate that out of reliability and safety, the latter is of least importance to the respondents, because when given the option respondents were willing to contribute a ‘one-off’ payment for improved reliability even though they would not pay long term for it, but would not do the same for improved safety.

As with selecting a fuel resource to use for household activities cost was the principal factor to influence a respondent’s choice to switch to an alternative renewable or sustainable supply or contribute towards their set up costs.

The benefits of switching, such as reduced environmental impacts, reliability and safety, are insufficient on their own to persuade a respondent to switch. When cost is not a factor, when the energy resource price stays the same, respondents are more likely to be swayed to switch by these benefits. The desire for reducing the long term costs of energy provision were shown by the fact that all of respondents were willing to contribute to set up costs of a supply if ultimately it led to a cheaper supply.

The importance of cost was further emphasised as respondents indicated that a significant incentive which would encourage them to use renewable or sustainable energy supplies would be if it reduced the overall costs of energy consumption, furthermore the costs of setting up and the final cost of the energy supplied from these renewable or sustainable energy sources were highlighted as problems by respondents which might be experience during the set up and operation of these energy sources and could threaten their success.

Reliability was also shown to be an important factor that influenced a respondent’s decision to switch to an alternative energy supply or contribute towards set up costs. It is a property that is desired in an energy supply, much like ease of use, and although not

- 103 -

as significant as cost, respondents were more likely to pay in order to access an energy supply with this characteristic. This indicates that respondents were considering the long term benefits over the short term costs. As a reliable energy supply would reduce the need for alternatives, reducing energy expenditure, which combined with an affordable supply, will increase disposable income which could be used to improve other areas of day to day life.

Del Río (Del Río 2007) and Painuly (Painuly 2001) both identify that a lack of technical knowledge and skilled personnel for setting up and operating RETs in developing countries can affect their long term success and can lead to performance issues. With reliability being an important factor this is an important barrier which must be overcome if the introduction of RETs is to be successful and not lead to negative attitudes.

The high costs associated to RETs are one of the major barriers to their successful implementation. Gurung et al (Gurung et al. 2011), Painuly (Painuly 2001) and Reddy & Painuly (Reddy & Painuly 2004) highlight that high costs can often restrict access to these technologies as they become unaffordable solutions for energy provision. The need to improve infrastructure in many developing countries adds additional costs to RET projects. These costs may well be passed onto the consumer which can lead to problems of uptake when the costs start to exceed those in comparison to more conventional means of energy provision. This is reflected in the survey results where the costs of different energy resources are shown to play a significant role in the selection and extent of which a fuel is used.

Increased uncertainties and a lack of confidence can contribute to increased project costs and threaten the long term viability of a project (Mitchell et al. 2011, Painuly 2001). Painuly (Painuly 2001) and Reddy & Painuly (Reddy & Painuly 2004) both note that these elements can make attracting funding from financial and private investors difficult as they are often reluctant to provide funding for small scale projects that are associated with such risk. This can therefore make it almost impossible for people on low incomes to invest in RETs.

In addition the need to invest heavily in technical expertise and infrastructure, particularly in rural areas, can deter investors often leaving these areas isolated from sustainable development. However by evaluating the needs and attitudes of target communities many barriers can be overcome by using the appropriate energy resource to meet their needs, and by communicating with stakeholders from an early point.

- 104 -

The results show that there is interest in the use of sustainable or renewable energy sources over more traditional methods. This however must come in the form of an affordable, reliable and easy to use energy resource as these characteristic were highlighted by the respondents as the most influential drivers switching. They also represent two of the three main factors the UN AGECC highlight in their definition of energy access. The third factor (a clean energy source) although fulfilled by RETs seems of less importance to the respondents as the environmental benefits gained by using RETs are less influential when it comes to choosing an energy supply, the primary influencing factor has been demonstrated as being the cost of the energy supply.