Rural electrification in East Timor: the development impact of solar home systems
Matthew Robert Peter Bond
Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
MELBOURNE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE
June 2009
Produced on archival quality paper
Abstract
East Timor is rebuilding its stock of infrastructure after decades of underdevelopment and a wave of violent destruction in 1999. As part of this process the Government of East Timor aims to improve access to electricity from less than five percent of the population today to eighty percent by 2020. An important strategy to meeting this aim will be the use of solar home systems (SHS) in remote rural locations. To develop its policy for the deployment of SHS, the Government of East Timor must decide what size of SHS is optimal. This research investigates whether there is a relationship between SHS size and development.
The research adapts an evaluation approach developed by World Bank/UNDP Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. This approach uses a combination of participatory and quantitative tools tailored to the East Timorese context through consultations with rural households about electrification and their use of SHS. Three SHS projects in East Timor were selected for evaluation, each of which had adopted a different sized SHS for their program. The smallest systems installed were 10 Wp single-lamp systems. The largest system was rated at 80
Wp and was supplied with four or six lamps. The third type of system was 40 Wp and provided three lamps.
To assess the development impact of these different sizes of SHS, a set of Participatory Evaluation exercises were conducted with seventy-seven small groups of SHS users in twenty- four rural communities. These exercises were supplemented with a Socio-economic Household Survey of 195 SHS users. The combined results of these evaluation processes enabled the three sizes of SHS to be compared for two types of benefits—assistance with carrying out important household tasks (i.e. ‘lighting-derived’ benefits) and attributes of SHS which were advantageous in comparison to use of non-electric lighting sources (i.e. ‘intrinsic’ benefits).
Analysis of the research results showed that the small 10 Wp SHS provided much of the development impact of the larger systems. For lighting-derived benefits, there was little difference between the development impact of small and large systems. The larger systems provided greater benefit for domestic tasks undertaken in kitchen buildings, since the small and medium sized SHS did not provide lighting in these areas. For intrinsic benefits related to health and convenience, the small systems provided much the same benefits as larger systems. For financial benefits—considered by East Timorese SHS users to be the most important of the intrinsic benefits—smaller systems were found to offer slightly positive benefits due to their lower operating costs. Larger systems, however, were found to have a negative overall financial impact.
i The research suggests three significant implications for the design of SHS programs in East Timor and comparable situations elsewhere: programs should focus on providing smaller systems rather than larger ones; systems should be designed to provide a light in the kitchen wherever possible to maximise the overall development impact; and SHS operating costs should be carefully matched to the incomes of rural householders to ensure that operation of the systems can be sustained by user households.
ii Declaration
This is to certify that: the thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD, due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used, the thesis is less than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices.
Acknowledgements
The author expresses sincere thanks to the following people: the many users of solar home systems in East Timor who participated in the research and freely gave of their time to share their knowledge and experience. Without this generous contribution the research could not have been undertaken. the Timorese community facilitators and enumerators who assisted in running the Participatory Evaluations and collecting survey data. Special thanks goes to Constantino Belo whose tireless commitment to the research process, boundless stores of good humour and highly-developed skills as a community facilitator contributed enormously to the quality of the data collected. staff of the Communidade Edmund Rice program in Railaco, East Timor and of the UNDP Participatory Rural Energy Development Programme in East Timor. Gratitude is especially owed to Brother Bill Tynan, not just for sharing his knowledge of the program in Railaco and for providing introductions to community leaders there but also for providing access to transport for the duration of the research program in East Timor.
Marnie Collins of The University of Melbourne’s Statistical Consulting Centre for advice concerning the statistical processing of research data. and finally to my research supervisors—Dr Lu Aye and Dr Robert Fuller for their generosity in adding me to their cohort of PhD candidates and to their tireless attention to the details of my work.
iii Contents
1 Introduction...... 2
2 Background ...... 6
2.1 East Timor—demography, geography and history ...... 6
2.2 Solar home systems ...... 15
2.3 Rural electrification in East Timor ...... 25
2.4 Electrification and development outcomes ...... 35
2.5 Conclusions ...... 50
3 Research design ...... 53
3.1 Research hypothesis ...... 53
3.2 Selection of method ...... 59
3.3 Conclusions ...... 80
4 Research method ...... 82
4.1 Initial community consultations...... 82
4.2 Requirements for evaluation data ...... 98
4.3 Participatory evaluation tools ...... 107
4.4 Socio-economic household survey ...... 116
4.5 Conclusions ...... 122
5 Research sites ...... 125
5.1 CER sites ...... 126
5.2 UNDP sites ...... 135
5.3 RDTL sites ...... 142
5.4 Comparability of project communities ...... 148
5.5 Community priorities ...... 159
5.6 Conclusions ...... 168
6 Comparison of lighting-derived benefits ...... 170
6.1 Study and reading ...... 170
iv 6.2 Domestic tasks ...... 178
6.3 Productive tasks ...... 185
6.4 Social interaction ...... 189
6.5 Conclusions ...... 193
7 Comparison of intrinsic benefits ...... 196
7.1 Light ...... 196
7.2 Finances ...... 201
7.3 Convenience ...... 213
7.4 Health...... 216
7.5 Other user perceptions ...... 218
7.6 Conclusions ...... 223
8 Discussion ...... 225
8.1 Interpretation of results ...... 225
8.2 SHS size and development impact ...... 235
8.3 Implications for SHS program design and evaluation ...... 245
8.4 Areas for further research ...... 250
9 Conclusions ...... 255
References ...... 258
Appendices
Appendix A Ethics protocol ...... 265 Appendix B Results of initial community consultations ...... 279 Appendix C Participatory evaluation processes...... 304 Appendix D Socio-economic household survey questionnaire ...... 326 Appendix E Statistical analysis of participatory evaluation and socio-economic household survey data ...... 346
v Figures
Figure 2-1 East Timor (Timor-Leste) in relation to its nearest neighbours ...... 6 Figure 2-2 Diagram of typical SHS components ...... 17 Figure 2-3 Battery life cycle vs depth of discharge, Trojan TMX270 battery ...... 21 Figure 2-4 SHS component costs for increasing system capacity ...... 24 Figure 3-1 Determination of consumer surplus for lighting ...... 61 Figure 4-1 Location of Initial Community Consultations sites ...... 84 Figure 4-2 Initial Community Consultations exercises being conducted in Burlete and Kitutu ...... 89 Figure 4-3 Typical three-stone cooking stove used in rural Timorese homes ...... 103 Figure 4-4 Typical home-made kerosene lamp used in rural Timorese homes ...... 104 Figure 4-5 Participatory Evaluation tools—pictures representing four activity categories ...... 109 Figure 4-6 Participatory Evaluation activity category scoring templates; ease (above), duration (below) 110 Figure 4-7 Participatory Evaluation tools—pictures representing four attribute categories ...... 111 Figure 4-8 Participatory Evaluation tools—scoring templates for lighting sufficiency...... 113 Figure 4-9 Participatory Evaluation tools—SHS comparative value, pictures of alternative assets ...... 113 Figure 5-1 Location of CER, UNDP and RDTL project sites ...... 126 Figure 5-2 Typical housing construction in Railaco sub-district ...... 128 Figure 5-3 Typical house in Kolhuinamu with kitchen (left) built separately to the main house ...... 129 Figure 5-4 Typical house in Kolhuinamu with internal partitions and without ceiling ...... 129 Figure 5-5 Location of CER Participatory Evaluation and survey sites...... 134 Figure 5-6 Location of UNDP Participatory Evaluation and survey sites ...... 135 Figure 5-7 Typical housing construction in Pandevou, Liquica district ...... 138 Figure 5-8 Typical housing construction and proximity to neighbours in Cairui, Manatuto district ...... 143 Figure 5-9 Location of RDTL Participatory Evaluation and survey sites ...... 147 Figure 5-10 Number of rooms per dwelling, frequencies for entire sample ...... 151 Figure 5-11 Share of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th ranking for lighting-derived benefits by project ...... 161 Figure 5-12 Lighting-derived benefits, weighting of activity types by project ...... 164 Figure 5-13 Share of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th ranking for intrinsic benefit types by project ...... 165 Figure 5-14 Intrinsic benefits, weighting of benefit types by project ...... 167 Figure 6-1 Study, ease, response frequencies for all groups ...... 171 Figure 6-2 Study, duration, response frequencies for all groups ...... 172 Figure 6-3 Domestic tasks, ease, response for all groups (percentage) ...... 179 Figure 6-4 Domestic tasks, ease—scoring template for Aidila group, Bohemata village, CER project ...... 180 Figure 6-5 Domestic tasks, duration, response for all groups (percentage) ...... 182 Figure 6-6 Productive tasks, ease, response for all groups (percentage) ...... 185 Figure 6-7 Productive tasks, duration, response for all groups (percentage) ...... 187 Figure 6-8 Social interaction, ease, response for all groups (percentage) ...... 190
vi Figure 6-9 Social interaction, duration, response for all groups (percentage) ...... 192 Figure 7-1 Light output, household averages by project (hours) ...... 197 Figure 7-2 Demand for additional SHS lamps, frequency by project...... 199 Figure 7-3 Demand for increased lighting duration, frequency by project ...... 199 Figure 7-4 Monthly household expenditure on candles and kerosene, mean values by project...... 203 Figure 7-5 Pre-SHS monthly household expenditure on candles and kerosene, mean values by project . 205 Figure 7-6 Reported reduction in monthly household expenditure on candles and kerosene, mean values by project ...... 206 Figure 7-7 Probable reduction in monthly household expenditure on candles and kerosene by project . 207 Figure 7-8 Willingness-to-pay for existing SHS, monthly contributions, women and men by project ...... 212 Figure 7-9 Elimination of candle and kerosene use, percentage of households by project ...... 215 Figure 7-10 Comparison of potential health benefits arising from candle/kerosene elimination for study/reading ...... 217 Figure 7-11 User perceptions of satisfaction with their SHS, female respondents ...... 219 Figure 7-12 User perceptions of security arising from their SHS, male respondents ...... 220 Figure 7-13 User perceptions of the magnitude of change arising from a SHS, all respondents ...... 222
vii Tables
Table 2-1 Component sizing for SHS of increasing capacity ...... 23 Table 2-2 Expansion plans for electrification in East Timor to 2025 ...... 27 Table 2-3 Timeframes for suco electrification based on likely demand ...... 29 Table 4-1 Initial Community Consultations exercises conducted in the five participating communities ..... 86 Table 4-2 Activities for which SHS lighting is a priority ...... 93 Table 4-3 Rating of activity categories during initial community consultations...... 95 Table 4-4 Priority attributes of SHS lighting and their likely relationship to SHS size ...... 96 Table 5-1 CER SHS theoretical system performance characteristics ...... 132 Table 5-2 CER Participatory Evaluations, summary of locations and participants ...... 133 Table 5-3 UNDP SHS, theoretical system performance characteristics ...... 140 Table 5-4 UNDP Participatory Evaluations, summary of locations and participants ...... 141 Table 5-5 RDTL SHS theoretical system performance characteristics ...... 145 Table 5-6 RDTL Participatory Evaluations, summary of locations and participants ...... 146 Table 5-7 Difference in geography, ethnicity and agriculture in the project communities ...... 148 Table 5-8 Household composition, data for entire survey sample ...... 150 Table 5-9 Female/male headed households ...... 150 Table 5-10 Dwelling construction materials, frequencies by project sample ...... 152 Table 5-11 Educational parameters by project sample ...... 153 Table 5-12 Pre-SHS expenditure on candles and kerosene by project sample ...... 155 Table 5-13 Incidence of broken systems and systems repaired in last twelve months ...... 158 Table 5-14 Ranking of lighting-derived benefits, frequencies and percentages for all groups ...... 160 Table 5-15 Lighting-derived benefits rankings, frequencies by project ...... 160 Table 5-16 Lighting-derived benefits, two highest ranked benefits, frequencies by project ...... 162 Table 5-17 Ranking of lighting-derived benefits for all projects, frequencies for groups of women and men ...... 162 Table 5-18 Lighting-derived benefits, two highest ranked benefits, frequencies for women and men by project ...... 163 Table 5-19 Intrinsic benefit rankings, frequencies and percentages for all groups ...... 164 Table 5-20 Intrinsic benefits rankings, frequencies by project ...... 164 Table 5-21 Intrinsic benefits, two highest ranked benefits, frequencies by project ...... 166 Table 6-1 Study, ease, frequencies by project ...... 171 Table 6-2 Study, duration, frequencies by project ...... 172 Table 6-3 Study, duration, little more/more or much more, frequencies by project ...... 173 Table 6-4 Proportion of children and adults studying/reading in each household by project ...... 174 Table 6-5 Use of candles/kerosene for study/reading where SHS functions by project (frequency) ...... 175 Table 6-6 Use of candles/kerosene for study/reading in UNDP households (frequency) ...... 176 Table 6-7 Study duration for students, mean of household averages by project (minutes) ...... 178
viii Table 6-8 Perceptions that children study more at night due to good light, survey responses (frequency)178 Table 6-9 Domestic tasks, ease, frequencies by project ...... 179 Table 6-10 Domestic tasks, easier or much easier, frequencies for women & men by project ...... 181 Table 6-11 Domestic tasks, duration, frequencies by project ...... 183 Table 6-12 Domestic tasks, duration, much more or other, frequencies by project ...... 183 Table 6-13 Usefulness of electricity for domestic tasks, perceptions of users (frequency) ...... 184 Table 6-14 Waking hours for adults, children, women and men (hours) ...... 184 Table 6-15 Productive tasks, ease, frequencies by project ...... 185 Table 6-16 Productive tasks, ease, frequencies for groups of women and men ...... 186 Table 6-17 Productive tasks, duration, frequencies by project ...... 187 Table 6-18 Operation of household businesses, frequencies by project ...... 188 Table 6-19 Home business types, frequencies by project ...... 189 Table 6-20 Perceptions of SHS usefulness for running a business at home, frequencies by project ...... 189 Table 6-21 Social interaction, ease, frequencies by project ...... 190 Table 6-22 Social interaction, duration, frequencies by project ...... 192 Table 6-23 Visits by neighbours, frequencies by project for women and men ...... 193 Table 6-24 Visits by neighbours, responses by women frequencies by project ...... 193 Table 7-1 System panel size compared to lamp-hour, Watt-hour and lumen-hour outputs by project .... 197 Table 7-2 Households leaving a lamp switched on overnight, frequency by project ...... 198 Table 7-3 Demand for extra lights and duration, mean results for Participatory Evaluation exercises by project ...... 200 Table 7-4 Monthly household expenditure on candles and kerosene, all projects...... 202 Table 7-5 Household candles and kerosene use, frequency by project ...... 203 Table 7-6 Post-SHS household candle and kerosene expenditure, CER and UNDP samples ...... 204 Table 7-7 Estimates of system recurrent costs on a monthly basis, by project ...... 209 Table 7-8 Estimates of system capital costs on a monthly basis, by project ...... 210 Table 7-9 Willingness-to-pay for the existing SHS, monthly contribution mean value by project ...... 211 Table 7-10 CER candle and kerosene use, frequency by number of lighting systems...... 215 Table 7-11 CER candle and kerosene use, expenditure by number of lighting systems ...... 216 Table 7-12 Kolhuinamu, perceptions of the health impacts of different smoke types ...... 218 Table 7-13 User willingness to trade SHS for alternative items , % of PE participants by project ...... 222 Table 8-1 Influence of project-specific factors on evaluation results ...... 234 Table 8-2 Summary of impact versus size for lighting-derived benefits ...... 240 Table 8-3 Summary of impact versus size for intrinsic benefits ...... 244
ix Abbreviations
ADB Asian Development Bank ASTAE Asia Sustainable and Alternative Energy Program ATA-IPG Alternative Technology Association’s International Project Group CER Edmund Rice Community (Comunidade Edmund Rice) CFL Compact fluorescent lamp DC Direct current DOA Demand oriented approach (to evaluation) EnPoGen Energy, Poverty and Gender Initiative ESMAP Energy Sector Management Assistance Program IDS Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex IRG International Resources Group Ltd PSDP Power Sector Development Plan RDTL Government of East Timor (República Democrática de Timor-Leste) REMP Rural Electrification Master Plan SHS Solar home system(s) SIP Sector Investment Program UN United Nations UNDESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs UNDP United Nations Development Programme
Wp peak watt
Throughout the thesis the acronyms ‘CER’, ‘UNDP’ and ‘RDTL’ are used to refer to the SHS programs funded by these different agencies.
All monetary values are presented in US dollars which is the currency used in East Timor.
x
Chapter 1
Introduction
1 1 Introduction.
East Timor, a small country bordering Indonesia and lying just to the north of Australia, is both one of the world newest nations and one of its poorest. Following independence from Indonesia in 1999, the people of East Timor have been working to rebuild the country’s infrastructure and meet the demands for basic services throughout the nation. Providing electricity forms part of this challenge. Only about one fifth of households in East Timor are connected to an electricity network and by far the majority of these households are located in the capital city, Dili (RDTL 2006). Outside Dili and the other twelve district capitals, access to electricity is a rarity.
The government intends to turn this situation around in the coming decades by greatly expanding access to electricity. Their aim is for eighty percent of households to have access to electricity by 2025 (RDTL 2003a). Central to these plans is the creation of a national electricity grid which will connect all the major urban centres and adjacent towns and villages. For the more isolated communities off-grid technology is envisaged and is likely to use a mixture of energy sources, both renewable and non-renewable. For those communities in the most remote locations, and where the concentration of housing is most sparse, the government is considering using solar homes systems (SHS) to provide a very basic service at the household level (RDTL 2006).
The people of East Timor have had a limited exposure to SHS technology already. A number of systems were installed during the period of Indonesian administration by the government electricity utility as part of a national Indonesian SHS program (ADB 2003b). More recently, a range of donors acting independently have installed a variety of systems in several locations.
These systems vary significantly in capacity—from 10 Wp to 80 Wp—and consequently also vary significantly in cost. As the Government of East Timor develops its plan to introduce SHS in remote locations across the country a decision will be required as to which size of SHS should be used.
In developing its SHS policy, the Government of East Timor will need to consider how many households will require systems, how much that might cost and how much funding is available. Information regarding the location, number and characteristics of communities likely to remain isolated from the grid and the approximate funding available to the government are available from extant material. The key question for which very limited information is available concerns the merits of different sized systems. Do the benefits of the larger SHS differ from those of the smaller systems; if so, how significant is that difference in relation to the
2 additional cost? Answering this question is central to the process of selecting the optimal size of system when developing a SHS policy in East Timor. The lack of currently available information to do that is the problem which this thesis tackles. Consequently, this research assesses development impact for a variety of SHS currently installed in East Timor with the aim of determining how development impact is related to the size—and hence cost—of these systems.
The research uses the values of East Timorese SHS users to determine the framework within which development impact is evaluated. Consequently, the scope of the study is restricted to the use of SHS in remote, off-grid locations in East Timor. It is further restricted to the evaluation of SHS that produce electricity for lighting only, not to power other devices. The other principal boundary for the research relates to sustainability. Overall development impact is dependent on sustained, long-term use of SHS. This sustainability is dependent in turn on a multiplicity of factors that are independent of system size ranging from the quality of components used to the management structures put in place to collect fees and provide maintenance support. These factors relating to sustainability of SHS operation have been purposefully excluded from the scope of the research. Development impact is compared for the different sizes of SHS on the basis that they are operating in accordance with their original design specifications.
Before setting out the research method, the thesis commences with an introduction to East Timor and to SHS. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the demography and geography of East Timor and a brief outline of its recent history. This is followed by an explanation of how solar PV electricity is provided in a typical SHS package. Having introduced East Timor and SHS, Chapter 2 concludes with two sections concerning rural electrification. The first of these describes the factors governing access to electricity in rural areas of East Timor and the potential for the use of SHS there. The final section in Chapter 2 defines the term ‘development impact’ and reviews the linkages between rural electrification and development and the contributions that SHS make to rural electrification in developing countries.
Chapter 3 deals with the design of the research and commences by setting out the research hypothesis. This is followed by an examination of a range of evaluation methodologies used by other researchers to evaluate the development impact of SHS programs. The selection of a preferred evaluation method that combines qualitative, participatory techniques with a quantitative household survey is then justified. The theoretical underpinnings of this method are discussed and an outline provided of how the method might be adapted for use in East Timor.
3 The process for adapting the research method to the East Timorese context commenced with community-based investigations into the use of electricity in rural East Timor. These investigations, labelled ‘Initial Community Consultations’, are set out in the first section of Chapter 4. The Initial Community Consultations identified two categories of benefits that East Timorese SHS users perceived as important. One relates to how the lighting from SHS provided assistance with four different types of activities undertaken at the household level. For this thesis, these benefits have been termed ‘lighting-derived benefits’. The other category of benefits identified relates to the operation of SHS in comparison to the use of non-electric lighting sources. These have been termed ‘intrinsic benefits’. The second section of Chapter 4 describes how evaluation of the lighting-derived and intrinsic benefits can be combined to test the research hypothesis. Chapter 4 concludes with a detailed description of the two sets of evaluation tools used in the research—Participatory Evaluations and Socio-economic Household Survey.
Conducting this research required the evaluation of different sized SHS. Three different sizes of system were identified in East Timor for inclusion in the research—10 Wp, 40 Wp and 80 Wp. The settings within which these different sized SHS were installed in East Timor are described in Chapter 5. This is followed by an analysis of the potential for bias in the results due to difference in the communities. A selection of results from the Participatory Evaluation and Socio-economic Household Survey are tested to demonstrate that the communities within which the different sized SHS were installed are sufficiently similar to enable comparison. Of particular importance are the priorities that different user communities placed on the lighting- derived and intrinsic benefits and a section on this topic concludes Chapter 5.
Chapters 6 and 7 detail the balance of results from the evaluations carried out with the combined Participatory Evaluation and Socio-economic Household Survey tools. For the three sizes of SHS included in the research, Participatory Evaluations were carried out with seventy- seven small groups of SHS users. These participatory exercises were supplemented with a Socio-economic Household Survey conducted in the homes of 195 SHS users. Chapter 6 presents the results for lighting-derived benefits and Chapter 7 for intrinsic benefits.
The results presented in Chapters 6 and 7 are discussed in detail in Chapter 8. This discussion is drawn together to set out the implications of the research for the design and implementation of SHS programs. The limits of the research are also revisited in Chapter 8 and areas for further research suggested. The thesis is brought to a close with the brief presentation of formal conclusions in Chapter 9.
4
Chapter 2
Background
5 Chapter 2
2 Background
Before setting out the research method in Chapter 3, the thesis commences with an introduction to East Timor and to SHS. The setting for the research is outlined with information about the development context in East Timor, rural lifestyles and the country’s recent history, particularly concerning the destruction of infrastructure following the 1999 independence ballot. This is followed by a description of the components provided in a typical SHS package. Having introduced East Timor and SHS, Chapter 2 concludes with two sections concerning rural electrification. The first of these describes the factors influencing access to electricity in rural areas of East Timor and the potential for the use of SHS in such locations. The final section in Chapter 2 defines the term ‘development impact’ and reviews the linkages between rural electrification and development and the contributions that SHS make to rural electrification in developing countries.
2.1 East Timor—demography, geography and history
East Timor is a small half-island nation situated in the Asia Pacific region. It is a new nation building its own path to an independent future in the shadow of much larger neighbours. Indonesia borders East Timor’s west, east and north and Australia lies to the south (Figure 2-1) across the Timor Sea. This section begins by describing the government’s aspirations for development in East Timor and the development challenges it faces. This is followed by a description of the land and the people. The section concludes with a brief overview of history since European colonisation and notes the widespread destruction of infrastructure that occurred in 1999 following the plebiscite for East Timorese independence.
Figure 2-1 East Timor (Timor-Leste) in relation to its nearest neighbours (Source: GERTIL, http://www.gertil.fa.utl.pt)
6 Chapter 2
2.1.1 Development challenges in East Timor
At the close of the twentieth century the political climate of East Timor underwent an enormous change. After almost 500 years of foreign interference Timorese people were finally able to express their own desires for their nation and set their own path for its development. A Timorese vision for the future was expressed in the East Timor National Development Plan, prepared just prior to the declaration of independence, which envisages a society with the following characteristics in the year 2020:
East Timor will be a democratic country with a vibrant traditional culture and a sustainable environment;
It will be a prosperous society with adequate food, shelter and clothing for all people;
Communities will live in safety, with no discrimination;
People will be literate, knowledgeable and skilled. They will be healthy, and live a long, productive life. They will actively participate in economic, social and political development, promoting social equality and national unity;
People will no longer be isolated, because there will be good roads, transport, electricity, and communications in the towns and villages, in all regions of the country;
Production and employment will increase in all sectors—agriculture, fisheries and forestry;
Living standards and services will improve for all East Timorese, and income will be fairly distributed;
Prices will be stable, and food supplies secure, based on sound management and sustainable utilization of natural resources;
The economy and finances of the state will be managed efficiently, transparently, and will be free from corruption; and
The state will be based on the rule of law. Government, private sector, civil society and community leaders will be fully responsible to those by whom they were chosen or elected. (RDTL 2003a, p. xviii)
Progress is being made towards this laudable vision but much remains to be achieved. The Human Development Report for 2005, produced for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), ranked East Timor in the ‘medium human development’ category (UNDP 2005). The ranking is derived by a combination of statistics for life expectancy, education and GDP. Based on a life expectancy of 56 years, adult literacy rate of 59%1 and an estimated GDP
1 The literacy rate used for the 2005 Human Development Report was from 1999. Figures for 2004 indicated that the literacy rate had fallen to 50% during the post-independence turmoil.
7 Chapter 2
per capita of US$1,0332, East Timor was ranked 140 of 177 nations. This was the lowest Human Development Index ranking of any Asian or Pacific Island nation and reflects the social and economic problems which East Timor confronts. The UNDP Human Development Report for East Timor characterised the country’s human development as follows:
Timor-Leste’s human development indicators…although steadily improving, remain far lower than those in most other countries in the region. Life expectancy is short, education levels are low and a high proportion of the population live below the poverty line. (UNDP 2006, p. 1)
This UNDP report describes in detail the difficulties of life in East Timor. Most households do not have access to safe water supplies or sanitation infrastructure. Diseases such as respiratory infections, diarrhoeal disease, malaria, dengue fever, tuberculosis and leprosy give rise to high rates of morbidity. Rates of child immunisation are low and almost one in ten children die before their first birthday. Nearly one in one hundred women die during childbirth. Access to medical facilities is limited, particularly in rural areas where health clinics may be several hours walk away and provide no guarantee of access to a nurse or doctor. Adult literacy rates are low (44% for women and 56% for men). Fewer than half of all children complete six or more years of education and between ten and thirty percent of children do not attend school at all. Literacy rates for older people are very low, with only nineteen percent of those aged over fifty being literate.
Income poverty afflicts large segments of the population. Forty percent of the population fails to receive income in excess of the poverty line of US$0.55 per person per day (UNDP 2006). This figures rises to forty-six percent in rural areas, particularly those in the western part of the country. The incidence of ‘human poverty’—which attempts to account for other deprivation such as lack of access to services, poor health, illiteracy and malnutrition—are also severe in East Timor. For women aged between fifteen and forty-nine, for example, one third are malnourished and suffer from chronic energy depletion. The government Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries notes that food insecurity is a major problem for the two- thirds of rural households who can expect to suffer some form of food shortage each year (RDTL 2005c). In addition to several decades of political turmoil which has interrupted farming practices, Timorese farming is prone to droughts, floods and other natural disasters. Such events are often sufficient to create a food crisis for subsistence farmers. The use of modern forms of energy is low. Wood is the major source of energy for most of the rural population
2 This figure is based on purchasing power parity. Nominal GDP per capita is approximately US$340 (UNDP 2005).
8 Chapter 2
which leads to environmental damage and respiratory illnesses, particularly amongst women and children (UNDP 2006).
Despite the pressing problems presented by under-development in rural areas, the government’s key concern for management of the Timorese economy is creation of employment. Due to the high population growth rate and a population profile dominated by young people, 15,000 new entrants are expected to join the labour market each year. Unemployment, however, is already high. In 2004 the national unemployment level was estimated at nine percent and national youth unemployment (i.e. those unemployed and aged from 15 to 24) to be twenty-three percent. In urban areas the rate of youth unemployment is likely to be well over forty percent (UNDP 2006).
The economy which needs to absorb this expanding labour force is almost equally divided between agriculture, non-farm private sector and the public sector, when viewed from the perspective of contribution to GDP (RDTL 2005d). Most of the workforce, however, is associated with the farming sector which provides more than three quarters of all employment. Within the agriculture sector, forty percent of farming is subsistence only, neither producing a marketable surplus nor generating non-farm income. Coffee is the main agricultural export and those farming households producing a surplus for sale are largely doing so by producing coffee, and also rice. Within the private sector, the main areas of activity are wholesale trade, retail trade, construction and land transport. These four categories were responsible for more than eighty percent of business licences issued in East Timor to 2004 (RDTL 2005d). The economy contracted between 2002 and 2004, however, and political instability in 2006 has further disrupted the economy. The UNDP (2006) report on Human Development in Timor-Leste estimates that GDP must grow at a rate of five to seven percent to achieve the MDG goal of reducing poverty by one third by 2015. This would, the report notes, require a pro-poor approach.
A pro-poor approach to development in East Timor will of necessity be directed to rural areas. If investment and GDP growth is centred on urban development and/or tourism, the benefits are unlikely to be shared by income-poor, rural people. The government recognises the need to make life in rural areas as attractive as possible to minimise growing burdens on urban centres, stating in their overview of the sector investment plans for East Timor that:
it is even more important that measures are taken in order to develop [rural areas], by investing in the development of basic infrastructures that contribute to raising the living standards in rural areas, making them more appealing to the population. (RDTL 2005b, p. v)
9 Chapter 2
2.1.2 East Timor and its people
The country of East Timor lies on the eastern half of the island of Timor. The island is long in relation to its width and Timorese mythology recounts that the land was formed by a giant crocodile which when it died turned itself into an island to create a homeland for the Timorese people (Hull 1999). The ‘giant crocodile’ lies in an east-west orientation and along its back runs a chain of mountains, higher in the eastern part of the island than the west and rising to nearly 3000 m at their highest point. Artefacts found on the island suggest that Timor may have been inhabited up to a million years ago by hominoid ancestors. Modern human occupation reaches as least as far back as 13,000 years when the island was thought to have been settled by Austronesian people migrating eastwards from Asia (Dunn 1983; Nicol 1978; Wheeler 2004).
Timorese oral traditions for different ethnic groups record their ancestors as either having been created on the island of Timor or trace them back to invaders from mythical homelands across the sea (Traube 1986). Traditional customs and practices remain strong in rural areas of East Timor and govern both the agricultural cycle and social interaction. Traube (1986) describes the powerful place ritual has in the thinking of the Mambai people who occupy the central part of East Timor:
Mambai identify themselves as the original inhabitants of the land, and its guardians by right of birth. This collective self-image shapes their view of their relations to other ethnic groups. On Timor…the earthbound Mambai claim for themselves unique ritual obligations toward the rest of humanity. Thus Mambai ritual has a universal reach; it is performed for the benefit of the entire world, with all its inhabitants. In Mambai thought, they alone promote life for humanity as a whole. (Traube 1986, p. 27)
Timor today remains ethnically very diverse despite its small size. A range of local cultures are evident, including the Mambai noted above, reflecting a mix of Austronesian ancestors and more recent Melanesian influences. Within the eastern half of the island alone there are thirty different languages and dialects spoken and sixteen distinct ethno-linguistic groups, including the Tetun (approximately 250,000 people), the Mambai (90,000), the Kemak (60,000), Bunak (50,000), Fataluku (35,000) and Makasai (80,000). Each of these cultures has its own distinctive style of architecture and craft, and a strong sense of cultural identity (Hull 1999). Aditjondro (1994) describes this mix of cultural and ethnic influences as representative of many other peoples in the Indonesian region, noting that ‘the architectural diversity of East Timor can be seen as a “microcosm” of nearly the entire eastern part of the Indonesian archipelago, with glimpses of the Melanesian and Polynesian archipelagos as well’ (Aditjondro 1994, p. 28).
10 Chapter 2
The great diversity within East Timor—both culturally and ecologically—can be found within a land mass of only 14,600 km2 , including the islands of Atauro and Jaco and the enclave of Oecussi.3 Aside from urban areas, there are five main ecological zones: mountainous areas, highland plains, high-rainfall lowland areas on the south coast; arid lowland areas on the north coast; and marine and coastal areas (RDTL 2005c). The mountainous areas predominate with much of East Timor having a slope in excess of forty percent. The land is formed from limestone and clay which results in relatively infertile, unproductive, shallow soils—unlike the volcanic soils of many neighbouring islands. The soils are highly prone to erosion (RDTL 2005c).
The population of East Timor was estimated to be just over one million in 2005 and this number is increasing rapidly (UNDP 2006). The population growth rate is four percent and half the population are aged under fifteen. This growth rate is well above that for East Asia and the Pacific which averages 0.8% (World Bank 2006). The population density, however, is still low in comparison to that of East Timor’s populous neighbour, Indonesia. The population density in East Timor is 68 persons/km2, whilst in Indonesia it is 114.
Administratively, East Timor is divided into three levels of government below the national level. There are thirteen districts and sixty-five sub-districts or ‘postos’ (RDTL 2005f). Political leadership at these levels are appointed by the central Government. Below the sub-district level there are 445 villages (or ‘suco’). Use of the term ‘village’ can be misleading in the Timorese context. A village (suco) is an administrative classification and the lowest level at which government administration engages with the community. Villages, however, do not represent endogamous, cohesive social groupings. Communities exist at the hamlet (or ‘aldeia’) level which consist of related families living in a small number of households (Dunn 2003). Groups of five to ten such hamlets comprise a ‘village’, although these may be spread out over a distance of several kilometres.
At the aldeia level communities appoint a leader (Chefe Aldeia). Leaders at the suco level (Chefe Suco) are elected along with a village council (Conselho do Suco). These political structures at the local rural level, however, were only recently introduced with the advent of East Timor’s independence. Hohe (2002) describes the ongoing importance of locally recognised ritual and political authority in rural communities, noting how social cohesion and traditional power structures survived the influence of both Portuguese and Indonesian colonisers. Ritual leaders, through their relationships with ancestors, authorise political leadership.
3 The small district of Oecussi is situated on the north coast of the Indonesian province of West Timor, approximately 30 km west of the East Timor-West Timor border.
11 Chapter 2
In traditional thought, human ritual is seen as central to ensuring the ongoing cycle of agricultural fertility and production (Taylor 1999). It is unsurprising that perceptions of agricultural fertility associated with ritual hold such importance in East Timorese society. As noted above, three quarters of the people of East Timor live in rural areas and practise subsistence agriculture. East Timor is a difficult land to farm. Poor soils, variable rainfall and largely mountainous terrain all present challenges. Annual rainfall varies from 500 mm on the northern coast to over 2000 mm on the southern coast. Land holdings are generally small (averaging 1.2 ha per household) and used to produce staple crops such as maize, cassava, rice and sweet potatoes. Most rural households also raise livestock, particularly chickens and pigs, and these are generally the second most important asset for a rural household after access to land (RDTL 2005c).
Taylor (1999) reports that agriculture is based around the extended family or clan, which operate at aldeia level, and is:
‘characterised by distinct sexual divisions, and governed by ritual. In the cycle of rice cultivation, for example, planting was undertaken by women and harvesting by men. Outside agriculture, weaving was a female task, whilst the males produced iron implements, and so on.’ (Taylor 1999, p. 6)
Families are the smallest unit within an aldeia. A married couple will live with their unmarried children in a single house. When a marriage occurs, a new house will be built on land belonging to the man’s family for patrilineal ethnic groups or the woman’s in matrilineal societies (Ospina & Hohe 2001). Since rural Timorese houses are designed for only a single family, there is no requirement for them to be particularly large. Aditjondro (1994) notes that there are seven different styles of traditional architecture used amongst East Timor’s many cultures, each typically with only two or three rooms and built using different combinations of wood, bamboo, thatch and palm as the main materials.
2.1.3 A brief historical overview
Taylor (1999) notes that Timorese history is often only seen in a European context. The questions asked revolve around how the people of Timor responded to or were affected by the actions of European colonial powers and of what significance these responses and effects were to the colonisers. Taylor reminds his readers, however, that there is a Timorese oral history for the pre-colonial period and also for the history of Timorese societies during the Portuguese rule. Prior to European arrival, Timor was already part of a large trading network centred on East Java and Sulawesi (then Celebes) and was important for its supply of sandalwood, prized
12 Chapter 2
both in China and in India. Taylor views export of these goods as a natural extension of the internal trading between clans and local kings which characterised Timorese societies at that time.
Evolution of the political entity which is today East Timor commenced with the arrival of Portuguese explorers in 1511. The Portuguese were also most interested in sandalwood but trade items sought from Timor included honey, wax and people in the form of slaves. Arrival of the Portuguese traders was soon followed by that of Dominican missionaries working to convert the Timorese to Catholicism. Portuguese political influence permeated the eastern half of Timor for almost 500 years after their first arrival. For much of this time, however, power was only loosely exercised by the Portuguese with real control being held by the many local kings on the island. Dutch colonists also sought to exercise power in Timor and a treaty struck in 1859 divided the island between the two European powers vying for control. The Portuguese claimed the eastern half of the island and it is the boundary agreed in 1859 which today defines East Timor and separates it from the western half of the island which is a province of Indonesia (Dunn 1983; Taylor 1999).
Aside from a brief period of Japanese occupation during the Second World War4, Portugal continued to rule East Timor until 1974. Following the left-wing military coup in 1974 to remove the Portuguese dictator Caetano, the people of Portuguese Timor were precipitously handed their independence as the newly established Portuguese government in Lisbon divested itself of the colonies it still ruled in Africa and elsewhere. East Timorese independence, however, had little chance to flourish. A month-long civil war in 1975 was followed by East Timor’s Fretlin (Frente Revolucionaria de Timor Leste Independente) leadership declaring independence for the Democratic Republic of East Timor on 28 November 1975. Nine days later Indonesian military forces invaded the new nation and a further twenty- five years of foreign rule ensued, this time at the hands of neighbouring Indonesia. The fledgling Democratic Republic of East Timor became the 27th province of the Republic of Indonesia and was renamed Timor Timur (Dunn 1983; Taylor 1999).
Indonesian annexation was catastrophic for the population of East Timor. Dunn (2003) cites estimates by the Catholic Church that 200,000 people were either killed or died through starvation and disease as the Indonesian military reorganised the country under its control. A small resistance movement working inside East Timor and abroad struggled to keep the idea of
4 Japan invaded the Portuguese colony of Timor in 1942 after it was occupied by Australian and Dutch military forces in contravention of Portuguese neutrality. Dunn (1983) estimates that 40-60,000 Timorese died as a consequence of Timor being drawn into this conflict.
13 Chapter 2
independence alive. After President Suharto stepped down from the Indonesian presidency in 1998, the newly appointed President Habibe offered the people of East Timor a ballot to choose between independence and autonomy within Indonesia. The vote was overwhelmingly (78%) in favour of independence. A UN mission, the United Nations Transitional Administration for East Timor, was established to manage the transition to independence. After a constituent assembly had been elected in 2001, a new constitution was drafted and the creation of the Democratic Republic of East Timor declared in May 2002 (Dunn 2003).
The Timorese people, however, paid a heavy price for choosing their independence. After the results of the ballot were announced pro-autonomy militia, supported by the Indonesian military, rampaged through the country destroying nearly all government infrastructure and many domestic dwellings (Dunn 2003). There was a considerable stock of infrastructure to destroy.
Nicol (1978) reports that when the Portuguese withdrew in 1974 the only sealed roads in the country were to be found in Dili and these had only been constructed as late as 1963. Electricity was not introduced until 1962 and there was no wharf in Dili until 1964. Educational opportunities were also very limited and in 1974 there was only one state high school for the whole colony.
Despite the repressive nature of the Indonesian regime, during Indonesian occupation roads were sealed, reticulated water supplies and electricity were extended throughout the country, government offices were constructed in the capital and throughout the province, and a new airport was built in Dili. Many schools were built and a university was established in East Timor (Dunn 2003). Whilst many of these developments were directed principally to the benefit of the Indonesian military—and facilitated their operations, both business and military—the infrastructure of East Timor was in a much more developed state by at the end of Indonesian occupation than it had been when the Portuguese departed in 1974.
The violence unleashed by the pro-integration militia following the independence ballot destroyed much of what had been built up under Indonesian rule. Dunn (2003) describes how the militia looted and set fire to buildings throughout the country. Goods were shipped and trucked out of the country to neighbouring West Timor and Flores. This destruction continued unabated for almost a month before a multinational peace keeping force was deployed under UN mandate to quell the violence. When the peacekeepers arrived and Timorese who had fled the capital began returning to their homes they were met with scenes of absolute destruction. Dunn (2003) describes Dili as:
14 Chapter 2
a near totally destroyed city where there were no services, no water, no electricity. The schools were in ruins with their books burnt. There was nothing left of the state infrastructure—no police, no courts, no postal service, no aid services. (Dunn 2003, p. 360)
This level of destruction was repeated throughout the country, from district capitals to tiny hamlets, many of which were completely burnt to the ground. An East Timorese Government report notes that approximately seventy percent of all buildings in the country were destroyed in 1999 including 68,000 houses—forty percent of the housing stock (RDTL 2005g). A decade after those violent events the country remains in the process of rebuilding and expanding its stock of infrastructure. These efforts include rehabilitation of the electricity sector as is described in Section 2.3.1. This research is framed in the context of making a small contribution to the ongoing nation-building process in East Timor.
2.2 Solar home systems
This research evaluates a particular type of technology for rural electrification, namely solar home systems (SHS). Before considering the specific application of SHS in East Timor, a basic understanding of photovoltaic (PV) technology is required and is set out in this section. The fundamental science behind PV generation of electricity is introduced and the evolution of PV use in developing countries is summarised. The standard package of equipment now called a ‘solar home system’ is described and an overview provided of each of the components. This information is followed by a review of the approach to designing SHS for specific purposes and how components and systems are sized. The design approach described underpins the analysis in Sections 5.1.2, 5.2.2 and 5.3.2 where the sizing and intended performance of the three SHS evaluated in this research are reviewed.
2.2.1 SHS components
Generation of electricity within a SHS relies upon PV cells, the physics and evolution of which are described by Green (2000). PV cells produce electricity when light strikes a semiconductor material, commonly silicon, and releases electrons. Development of commercially produced PV cells followed discoveries regarding the nature of light and the movement of electrons within metals and semi-conductors. Green reports that Ohl discovered the first silicon PV cell by accident in 1940 when investigating the properties of silicon. Impurities in the silicon created positive-negative (p-n) junctions and these allowed electrons to flow within the silicon. This
15 Chapter 2
was followed by the development of transistors and to the development of the first useful solar cells in 1954.
Most commercial PV cells are currently created from silicon wafers—either monocrystalline wafers cut from a single silicon crystal or multicrystalline wafers cut from a cast silicon ingot— doped with boron and phosphorus to provide the p-n junction. A fine network of contacts are applied to the surface of the cells and an anti-reflection coating may be added to the top surface of each cell. Each PV cell will produce a voltage of 0.5 to 1 V depending on the type of semiconductor material from which it is made (Green 2000). For most applications individual cells are connected together in series to produce PV ‘modules’. Typically, thirty-six cells are used per module creating modules with a nominal voltage of 12 V suitable for charging lead acid batteries (SEI 2007). (Higher voltage modules, however, are also produced. The Schott ASE 165W panel, for example, uses 72 PV cells to produce a nominal 36 V output and may be wired in series to produce an array of 1000 V (Schott Solar GmbH 2008)). PV cells produced in this manner convert only a small portion of the light to which they are subjected into electricity, with efficiency of commercial cells being in the range of 15 to 20% (Deubener et al. 2009). An alternative approach to creating PV modules is to deposit a thin film of semiconductor material onto another substrate, such as is used to create amorphous silicon cells. Thin-film cells offer a lower efficiency than monocrystalline or multicrystalline cells, but offer production and application advantages.
The first commercial use of a PV cell was to power a telephone repeater in the USA in the late 1950s. This was followed by their use to power satellites and space craft (SEI 2007)—industries for which high cost did not present an insurmountable barrier. With respect to developing countries, Lorenzo (1997) reports that the earliest documented use of PV technology for rural electrification occurred in Niger in 1968 where a 48 Wp PV array was installed to run a television as part of an education program funded by the French Government. The success of this installation was repeated at another 120 sites in Niger in the 1970s. At about the same time, PV technology started to be used for water pumping in other African countries and for generating electricity in India and Mexico. Installation of household PV systems spread throughout the developing world in the later part of the twentieth century and Nieuwenhout et al. (2001) estimated that by 2000 1.3 million PV systems had been installed in developing countries. These systems served only 0.14% of the total population for the developing world, however, leaving considerable room for growth in the household PV sector.
16 Chapter 2
As PV technology developed, household installations were installed with a standard package of equipment. This package became known as a solar home system (SHS)5 and is described by Cabraal, Cosgrove-Davies and Schaeffer (1996) as follows:
A typical solar home system includes a 20- to 100-Wp photovoltaic array; a rechargeable battery for energy storage; a battery charge controller; one or more lights (generally fluorescent); an outlet for a television, radio/cassette player, or other low-power-consuming appliance; switches; interconnecting wires; and mounting hardware. (Cabraal, Cosgrove-Davies & Schaeffer, 1996, p 7)
The arrangement of these components is shown in Figure 2-2. The PV modules used in SHS may be one of three types—monocrystalline, multicrystalline and amorphous—as noted above. For a given rated power output, all types of PV module offer similar performance (Nieuwenhout et al. 2001). In their review of 104 different SHS projects in developing countries, Nieuwenhout et al. (2001) noted that the system sizes ranged from 10 to 110 Wp. Large PV installations might require several PV modules wired together into a PV ‘array’.
Within this 10-110 Wp range, each SHS can be supplied with a single panel.
Figure 2-2 Diagram of typical SHS components (Source: Cabraal, Cosgrove-Davies & Schaeffer, 1996)
5 Throughout this thesis ‘SHS’ is used to abbreviate ‘solar home system’ and ‘solar home systems’. The context in which the SHS acronym is used indicates whether it is singular or plural.
17 Chapter 2
Batteries used in SHS are generally the lead acid type and should be deep-cycle models manufactured to withstand heavy discharge between charging cycles. Automotive batteries, whilst often used with PV systems in developing countries, are not recommended for SHS. They are designed to provide a short burst of very high current and have a very short cycle life if regularly subjected to deep discharge (SEI 2007). In settings like East Timor, where maintenance is difficult, sealed lead acid batteries (SLA) are recommended since they do not require the user to monitor or maintain the liquid electrolyte, nor to equalise the battery cells. Whilst SLA batteries are better suited to PV applications, they are also more expensive than commonly available automotive lead acid batteries and this discourages their use, particularly when users are faced with purchasing a replacement battery. Writing in the mid 1990s, Cabraal, Cosgrove-Davies and Schaeffer (1996) included an automotive lead-acid battery as part of the standard SHS package and Nieuwenhout et al. (2001) found that automotive batteries were the most commonly used type of battery in the systems they reviewed. Nieuwenhout et al. (2001) also note, however, that over the life of a system, batteries are the most expensive component and typically last only one to three years. For this reason, batteries must be carefully specified and selected with the system operating cost in mind.
The primary function of the controller in the SHS package is to ensure that the battery is not over-charged (SEI 2007). Many controllers will also protect batteries against over-discharge by disconnecting the load from the battery at low battery voltage. For systems in East Timor, where arranging battery replacement is expensive and difficult, this is an important feature for controllers. Simple SHS such as that shown in Figure 2-2 operate entirely on direct current (DC). Low system voltages are usually employed (generally 12 V) and wiring must be sized to avoid excessive losses. Additionally, components should be located to minimise wiring length.
The purpose of installing a SHS is to meet the electricity demand for an electrical load. In Figure 2-2 this is shown as lights, a television and a radio cassette player. The number of lights and other appliances that can be operated is determined by the system size—the larger the system the more devices that can be operated. Nieuwenhout et al. (2001) found that lights were the devices most commonly powered by SHS. Operating a television set, however, requires considerably more power than one or two fluorescent lights. A small colour television set might demand 60 W (SEI 2007) which could be two or three times the peak demand for lighting. Consequently, a PV panel size of at least 50 Wp would be expected if households intend to use a television or other devices with a combined power demand of a similar wattage.
18 Chapter 2
2.2.2 SHS design
To specify a SHS for a particular household the design process should commence with a study of the electrical appliances to be used in the home and the overall demand they would place on the SHS. The PV design and installation guide developed by Solar Energy International (SEI 2007) sets out a process for sizing stand-alone PV systems which starts by determining the electricity demand and is based on the following steps6:
estimating electric loads;
sizing and specifing batteries;
sizing and specifying arrays;
specifying a controller; and
sizing system wiring.
This process starts by considering the loads that will be met by a SHS and requires that both the peak demand (or ‘total connected watts’) and the average daily demand be determined. In thinking about these parameters within the context of rural East Timor it is useful, as an example, to imagine a small house with three 10 W CFLs. Perhaps one of the lamps, located in the living area is used for four hours each night and one hour before dawn. The other two lamps, located in the kitchen and bedroom, might each be used for two hours each per night.
The peak demand, 30 W, is experienced when all three lights are used at the one time and is the sum of their individual power demands—i.e. 3 x 10 W. The average daily demand, 90 Wh, is the sum of the power demand for each light multiplied by the duration for which it is used— i.e. 10 W x 5 hrs + 10 W x 2 hrs x 2). Allowing for approximately ten percent system losses, this daily demand becomes 100 Wh.
The next step in the design process is battery sizing which is dependent on two interrelated variables that are set by the system designer—days of system autonomy and battery maximum depth of discharge. These parameters will determine the service life of the battery. The SEI
(2007) guide recommends two to three days of autonomy for ‘non-essential’ loads, which is the category that might be applied to domestic lighting. For Timorese homes, where most SHS
6 The SEI guide also includes a step for sizing inverters for AC loads but this is not considered here since the PV systems involved in the study do not include inverters.
19 Chapter 2
are used only for lighting7, the degree of ‘autonomy’ specified is dependent on how the system designer views the trade-off between system cost and level of service provided. In a dwelling, if the charge controller shuts off the power in the evening several times a month during the wet season due to low battery voltage, this is inconvenient for the households and may require the use of alternative lighting sources. The benefit to sizing the battery in this manner, however, is that it may lead to considerably lower system costs and hence greater affordability to the household. Users may be content to trade several days each year without light for reduced system costs. In contrast, in a rural health clinic where a PV system is required to operate a vaccine storage refrigerator, autonomy is critical. If the PV system shuts down due to low battery voltage the vaccines may be damaged and the system prove to be of no value at all.
Depth of discharge (DOD) refers to the proportion of a battery’s stored energy that is delivered to the system before the battery is recharged. A 100 Ah battery that discharged 10 Ah would be said to have experienced a 10% DOD. Manufacturers generally state battery ‘life’ in terms of the number of cycles that a battery can provide whilst retaining at least 80% of its original storage capacity. Shallow discharging increases the number of charge/discharge cycles that a battery can deliver, i.e. it increases battery life. SEI (2007) report that cycling a battery through a 10% discharge will generally extend battery life to about five times that of a battery cycled to
50% DOD. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 2-3 which shows the theoretical cycle life versus DOD for batteries used in the UNDP Participatory Rural Energy Development
Programme (one of the SHS evaluated in this research). As Figure 2-3 shows, subjecting a battery to high DOD leads to short battery life (i.e. a low number of charge-discharge cycles).
SEI recommend that systems are designed for a maximum DOD of 50%. Designing a system with a very small DOD, however, may lead to the battery capacity being too large. The SEI guide notes that if the battery capacity is very large in comparison to the output of the charging source (which for SHS are the PV modules) there is a risk that the battery or batteries will remain at less than fully charged for extended periods and that this will reduce battery life.
7 The three SHS evaluated in this research are all lighting-only systems, as detailed in Chapter 5.
20 Chapter 2
100
90
80
70 Trojan 27TMX battery life 60
50
40
30
20
Depth of Discharge of Depth (%) 10
0 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 Theoretical Life Cycles
Figure 2-3 Battery life cycle vs depth of discharge, Trojan TMX270 battery (Source: Trojan Battery Company 2008)
The SEI guide explains that there are a number of other variables which in combination with DOD determine battery operating life. These include rate of discharge, battery temperature, age and recharging characteristics. Rate of discharge is an important factor in determining a battery’s capacity. The faster a battery is discharged, the less energy it is able to deliver before being recharged. Manufacturer ratings for battery capacity are most often provided based on a discharge rate that would fully discharge a battery in twenty hours (termed the ‘C20’ capacity). SEI report that an increase in battery capacity of about 25% could be expected by reducing discharge rate from C8 to a C72 (that is from a rate that would discharge the battery within eight hours to one that would require seventy-two hours). Use of batteries where the ambient temperature is high, such as is the case in much of East Timor, exerts two influences on battery performance. It increases storage capacity and decreases battery life. SEI suggest that the increase in storage capacity is small but that battery life can be severely curtailed, reducing by up to half for each 10°C increase in ambient temperature above 25°C.
Sizing a battery for the situation of the theoretical Timorese household described above would first require the designer to set the autonomy and maximum DOD. If two days autonomy and
21 Chapter 2
a maximum DOD of 50% were chosen, then a daily demand of 100 Wh would require a 12V battery with a capacity of 33 Ah (i.e. 100 Wh x 2 days / 12 V / 0.5). The average draw on the battery would be 1.2 A and the discharge rate would be equivalent to full discharge in 15 hours (i.e. the battery would need to have a 33 Ah capacity at a C15 discharge rate).
As with battery sizing, the average daily demand is also used to determine the required PV module size. The SEI design process recommends dividing the average daily demand (in ampere-hours) by the insolation to which the PV module will be exposed. This step requires specific insolation data for the location in which the system will be used. Insolation—and hence PV module output—varies with geographical location, installation orientation and environmental conditions. NASA provides insolation data for locations across the globe based on twenty-two years of satellite observation data (NASA 2006). For the locations in East Timor considered in this study, NASA data indicates average monthly insolation ranging from 5 to 7 kWh/m2/day for a surface orientated to the north and installed at an angle of 8° above horizontal. The lower insolation values belong to the cloudy wet season and the higher values to the dry season months, particularly September and October. These values can be used to determine the average daily output for a PV module of any given capacity. For example, a 10
Wp PV module could be expected to provide 50 to 70 Wh/day under these conditions.
When determining the sizing of the PV module(s) required the SEI guide recommends that an allowance be made for system losses, particularly associated with charging the battery, which typically amount to twenty percent of battery capacity. The current required from the PV module is then calculated by dividing the daily current load by the peak sun hours and multiplying by a factor to offset charging losses. In the example used above, the daily demand was 100 Wh. Based on a 12 V system and allowing for losses of twenty percent, this equates to 10.4 Ah per day. Designing a system for East Timor with average insolation of 6 kWh/m2/day, the maximum current required from the PV module is 1.7 A. A 30 Wp panel, for example the BP 330SX multicrystalline panel (BP Solar 2007), would typically provide a maximum current of this amount. Module output in East Timor where ambient temperatures are high may be lower than the manufacturer rating. The output of PV modules is rated by manufacturers for an ambient temperature of 25° Celsius and decreases as temperature increases (SEI 2007).
Once the load, battery and PV module have been specified a controller and wiring can also be specified. The controller must be sized to suit the PV module short circuit current, multiplied by a suitable factor of safety (the SEI guide recommends a factor of 1.25). For the example
22 Chapter 2
here, the BP 330SX panel has a short circuit current of 1.9 A and would require a controller capable of receiving a 2.4 A input. As with the controller, wiring size is based on system current and must be specified so as to ensure that voltage drop is not excessive in long lengths of cable. SEI recommend no more than a five percent voltage drop in system wiring.
Using the SEI design approach outlined above it is possible to specify system components for use in East Timor for a range of SHS sizes—from small (5 W peak load) to large (80 W peak load). Based on an average insolation value for East Timor throughout the year of 6 kWh/m2/day, two days of autonomy and five hours of usage per day, the required battery, panel and controller sizes can be determined for each peak load size (Table 2-1).
Table 2-1 Component sizing for SHS of increasing capacity Peak load [W] 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 Average daily operation [h] 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Average daily demand [Wh] 25 50 100 150 200 250 300 400 Battery, 12 V [Ah] 8 17 33 50 67 83 100 133 Panel [Wp] 7 15 30 44 59 74 89 118 Controller [A max] 0.6 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.9 6.1 7.3 9.7
The cost of providing each of the systems within this range would depend principally upon component costs and this in turn upon the quality of the components and the country in which they were purchased. The country-specific nature of system cost is illustrated by data from
Africa reported by Neiuwenhout et al (2001). They note system capital costs per peak-watt ranging from as low as $10 in South Africa to $14-17 in Ghana, Botswana and Swaziland, and up to $22 in Namibia. Clearly, to enable a useful comparison of the costs of different sized systems all costs must be taken from the same country (or countries with similar cost structures) and preferably from a single set of component suppliers. Component prices for all the system sizes shown in Table 2-1 were sourced from the catalogue of a single Australian supplier (Rainbow Power Company 2008). The resulting battery, PV module, controller and total system costs for the 5 to 80 Wp systems are set out in Figure 2-4.
The linear relationship between system capacity and system cost within the typical SHS range is clearly evident. Other costs for providing SHS in developing countries, such as wiring and lamps, and to a lesser extent transport and installation, might reasonably be expected also to be proportional to system size.
23 Chapter 2
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
] $800 Battery $ PV module
Cost [ Cost $600 Controller Total $400 Linear (Total) $200
$$0- 0 100 200 300 400 500 System capacity - average daily demand [Wh]
Figure 2-4 SHS component costs for increasing system capacity
System sizing in practice The design process set out above, which starts with determining the load that a system must meet for a household, is not generally the approach followed when SHS are introduced into developing countries as part of a donor-assisted project. In contrast, such systems commonly adopt a standard package based on a single PV module and require households to match their demand to the system—rather than matching the system to household demand. Following their review of SHS in developing countries, Nieuwenhout et al. (2001) make the following comment regarding system sizing:
There is a clear peak in the number of projects using PV modules in the range 45-54 Wp. This appears to be determined by choices made by project planners. Where users have sufficient choice, such as in Kenya, a large range of system sizes is encountered. (Nieuwenhout et al. 2001, p. 465)
Lorenzo (1997) also notes the predominance of 45-50 Wp systems installed in developing countries. He suggests that this is a combination of two factors: manufacturers restricting production of components to a few standard sizes to achieve efficiencies of scale; and systems of this size reflecting the perceived needs for a wide range of users.
24 Chapter 2
Household demand within user communities, however, is highly unlikely to be uniform. As demonstrated by a study of SHS users in Brazil and Peru (Morante & Zilles 2008), household demand in similar communities varies widely. This study examined the monthly electricity usage for thirty-eight households in four different communities. The SHS varied in size from 35 to 140 Wp with half of the systems sized between 48 and 56 Wp. The average monthly electricity consumption varied from 0.25 to 4.9 kWh. For those households with the 48 and 56
Wp systems the range was 0.7 to 4.9 kWh/month. Analysis by Morante and Zilles (2008) showed that the pattern of consumption within each community fitted a Gamma distribution function. As a consequence they argue that SHS programs should be designed to accommodate those few users who will require much larger SHS than the average within a community.
The information on SHS components and design presented here in Section 2.2 provides the basis for understanding theoretical system performance. Chapter 5 draws upon this understanding to estimate the likely technical performance of the three types of SHS evaluated in this thesis.
2.3 Rural electrification in East Timor
The previous two sections provided some background information about life in East Timor and described the components and design of SHS. This section brings these two topics together. First, the extent of access to electricity in East Timor and the plans to extend service are considered. Many isolated, rural households are unlikely to receive access to grid-based electricity for decades to come. For these households, solar PV in the form of SHS is an alternative option for accessing electricity. The section concludes with a review of East Timor’s current experience with PV electricity including SHS.
2.3.1 Access to electricity in East Timor
Access to electricity has always been a rarity in East Timor, even prior to the destruction of electricity infrastructure by pro-Indonesian militia in 1999. In 1998, only twenty percent of households in Timor Timur (the name given to East Timor when it was a province of Indonesia) were connected to a national grid—the second lowest rate of electrification in Indonesia at that time (ADB 2003a). During the violence which erupted after the independence referendum in 1999, much of the electricity infrastructure was damaged or destroyed, particularly in the western parts of East Timor. This included generation equipment, transmission and distribution networks, administration buildings and workshops. By 2005, following six years of effort towards rehabilitating generating capacity and distribution networks, the rate of household connections had improved only slightly from Indonesian times. Government of East
25 Chapter 2
Timor estimates for 2005 indicated that twenty-two percent of households were connected to electricity. Nearly two thirds of these 42,600 households are in Dili, the capital city. The 16,000 electrified households outside the capital use only ten percent of the total electricity generated—6.9 GWh of 69 GWh generated in 2005 (RDTL 2006). Most of this generation relates to urban use in the district capitals leaving only a tiny fraction used in rural areas. The Power Sector Development Plan (ADB 2003a) estimated that only 1.8% of electricity generated in Timor is used in rural areas and that ninety-five percent of rural homes lack access to electricity.
These data for electricity consumption are low even by the standards of other Least Developed Countries (LDC). The UN Human Development Report for 2005 provides data on electricity consumption per capita and reports that the LDC average is 106 kWh p.a. (UNDP 2005). The report does not provide a figure for East Timor but using the Timorese government’s 2005 estimate of 69 GWh generated and a population of one million people, annual electricity consumption in East Timor averages only 69 kWh per person, well below the LDC average. Noting that ninety-eight percent of what is generated is used in Dili and other district capitals, it may be seen that electricity consumption in rural areas is very low by world standards.
Even if more electricity was generated in East Timor and transmission lines made it available in rural areas, using electricity supplied from a national grid would be an expensive proposition if the current charges were applied. As noted in the government’s Sector Investment Plan (RDTL 2006), tariffs are high by international standards at $0.16 to $0.20 per kWh for metered connections and between $3 and $25 per month for unmetered connections outside Dili depending on the amperage of the connection and the hours of service per day. Whilst tariffs may be high, the quality of service is poor with frequent load shedding and lengthy blackouts. Outside the capital these blackouts can last for months when either fuel is unavailable or while waiting for the delivery of spare parts to repair equipment. As a result of the poor quality of service many organisations generate their own electricity. In Dili, for example, one third of generating capacity is owned and operated by private individuals and organisations (RDTL 2006).
During the period of UN administration from 1999 to 2002 and the initial phase of independent government, two major policy documents were prepared in relation to the electricity sector in East Timor. The first of these was the Power Sector Development Plan (PSDP) for East Timor (ADB 2003a) commissioned by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Initial planning and the setting of priorities for most sectors during the UN administration were managed by international advisers who were engaged with funding administered by multilateral development agencies. In the case of the power sector, activities were administered by the ADB. The PSDP surveyed the situation with respect to electricity in 2003
26 Chapter 2
and mapped out potential paths to achieve the National Development Plan’s vision for significantly improved access to electricity and the government’s subsequent target of providing eighty percent of households with access to electricity by 2025. A mix of hydro and diesel generation was recommended as the most likely option for meeting the baseload generation demand, subject to assessment of the potential for use of onshore oil and natural gas. Establishment of a national grid was envisaged starting with construction of a 132 kV transmission line connecting Dili with a new hydroelectric power station in the far east of the country. Much of the PSDP, however, dealt with immediate priorities such as improving cost recovery (no tariffs were being collected for electricity at the time the PSDP was prepared) and restructuring the national utility, Electricidade de Timor-Leste (EDTL), into a commercial entity to be run under a private management contract.
Building on the foundation provided by the PSDP, the Government of East Timor prepared two ‘Sector Investment Program’ (SIP) reports for the power sector.8 An initial Power Sector SIP was prepared in 2005 (RDTL 2005a) and a revised version was released in April 2006 (RDTL 2006). The Power Sector SIPs affirmed the PSDP commitment to provide electricity to eighty percent of all homes by 2025 and envisaged that major steps towards rural electrification would commence in 2007-2008. The SIP notes that increasing access to electrification to eighty percent of the population by 2025 would involve a load growth of about eight percent a year and a total generation capacity of between 90 and 110 MW.9 Key parameters for electricity access, generation and demand are set out in Table 2-2. The SIP also contains a model for a ‘constrained’ growth scenario which would see only fifty percent of the country provided with electricity by 2025 and would require generation capacity of 75 MW.
Table 2-2 Expansion plans for electrification in East Timor to 2025 (Source: RDTL 2006) Indicator 2002 2007 2010 2020 2025 Annual Increase (% p.a.) Total households ('000) 183.3 213.3 235.2 315.1 361.8 3.0 Electrification ratio (%) 20 30 40 70 80 10 Households electrified (000s) 36.5 64.0 94.1 220.6 289.4 9.4 Total power supply (GWh) 62.9 110.4 162.8 383.8 505.0 9.5 Total demand (MW) 18.6 30.3 41.1 87.7 90.3 8.0
8 The sector investment programs prepared by the Government are part of a broad national planning activity covering sixteen other sectors, such as health, education, agriculture, water and sanitation, grouped into four categories – basic services, production-related, basic infrastructure and housing, and governance-related. 9 The SIP report is inconsistent on the generating capacity required to meet the 80% electrification target, nominating figures of 108 MW and 90 MW in different places in the report.
27 Chapter 2
An expansion of electricity services on the scale described in the SIP represents an ambitious target for East Timor. The 69 GWh generated in 2005 was produced by 20 MW of diesel generating capacity in Dili and 12 MW of diesel generation capacity dispersed throughout the rest of the country. Reaching the target of fifty percent of households with access to electricity would require doubling present generating capacity and an eighty percent target would require a tripling of generating capacity. It is anticipated that increasing the generating capacity with additional hydro and diesel generators (and building the associated transmission networks) to meet the targets for 2010 will cost in the order of $200 million. Almost half of this expenditure is expected to be for the Ira Laralo hydro power plant and transmission line. This is a very significant outlay for the Government of East Timor and represents 15.5% of planned government capital expenditure to 2010. This is the highest amount of capital expenditure for any sector, with education expected to absorb 15%, transport 13.6%, health 9%, agriculture, forestry and fisheries 5%, and water and sanitation 4.7% (RDTL 2005b).
The SIP notes that maintaining and operating the additional generating and transmission assets will place a substantial extra burden on government revenues. When the SIP and PSDP were prepared, the government utility, EDTL, was operating at a substantial loss due to high rates of non-payment by customers. Revenue was estimated to be approximately half of the operating costs. The SIP envisages improving the rate of tariff payment so that revenue from the additional generation assets exceeds the cost of operation. The aim is that by 2010 no further direct budget support from the government will be required by the electricity sector. As noted above, almost all electricity generated in East Timor is used in urban areas, principally in the capital city, Dili. Under present arrangements urban households are receiving a subsidy of approximately $600 per year for electricity whilst rural communities receive no government support.
Government plans for the sector, however, also foreshadow assistance to rural areas. The PSDP suggests a parallel program of extending grid and off-grid access to electricity. It notes that from an economic point of view, it would be preferable to focus on extending grid access to major population centres, suggesting this would bring the greatest economic benefit to the country. The PSDP also acknowledges, however, the social benefits of providing basic electricity services to rural and remote communities and for this reason recommends both grid and off-grid expansion of services. The SIP concurs with this approach and suggests that economic as well as social benefits will accrue as a result of improving access to off-grid electricity. The SIP reports on a Poverty Assessment Project carried out in East Timor in 2003 that found that providing universal access to electricity would result in a twenty-one percent increase in real per capita consumption and a twenty-six percent reduction of the number of people suffering income-poverty (RDTL 2006).
28 Chapter 2
Building on the plans laid out in the PSDP and SIP, a World Bank-funded project developed a rural electrification master plan (REMP) for East Timor (Norplan 2006). The plan sets out the priorities and timing for expanding access to electricity in three ways—expansion of the national grid, development of mini-grids and provision of stand-alone household systems. The plan had a strong economic theme and commercial orientation and analysed options on the basis of profitability or least cost. The situation for all rural sucos (i.e. village areas) in East Timor was reviewed and sucos rated according to a number of factors which would indicate their likely aggregate demand. These included the population, population density, presence of businesses and/or agricultural industries, and presence of government services (e.g. schools, health clinics, police stations). The REMP viewed these factors as indicating ‘readiness or appropriateness for electrification’. Based on scoring against these criteria, the plan divided East Timor’s sucos into five categories, each with a different timeframe for electrification (Table 2-3). Table 2-3 includes both urban and rural areas and it should be noted that most of the sucos shown in the table as currently having access to electricity are those located in Dili or in one of the twelve district capitals. If the plan was to be adopted, those rural areas with the best access to services would benefit from electrification first and those with the least services would gain access only after some considerable time. Indeed, such a plan would see fifty percent of those villages currently without access to electricity waiting for twenty or more years before being electrified.
Table 2-3 Timeframes for suco electrification based on likely demand source: Norplan (2006) Category Points Number Sucos Sucos Timeframe for of with without electrification sucos electricity electricity A >20 57 48 9 Within 5 years B 15-20 93 47 46 Within 10 years C 10-14 128 48 80 Within 15 years D 5-9 128 23 105 Within 20 years E <5 36 8 28 After 20 years Total 442 174 268
The REMP justifies this categorisation of village areas into low and high priority on the following basis:
Many of the sucos in Category A will be grid extensions in connection to rural towns where the population density is relatively high. This is in line with best practice, where you invest your limited funds where demand is present and the likelihood of sustainability is high, rather than focusing on areas with limited demand. Going further down the categories, the population
29 Chapter 2
density is lower along with a lower demand. In Category E investments in a grid system is unlike[ly] to be viable and sustainable at all due to the present low population density and accordingly a low demand. (Norplan 2006, p. 21)
Whilst one might agree with the economic integrity of this approach, the political drawbacks are obvious. At the time of its release, the government of the day expressed concern regarding the large numbers of communities who would face long delays before receiving the benefits of electricity. As a consequence the government declined to endorse the World Bank-funded plan (J. Teixeira [RDTL Vice Minister Natural Resource, Minerals and Energy Policy] 2006, pers. comm., 31 March).10 Even for those areas where electricity was to be provided under the REMP some households would remain beyond the reach of grid electricity. For these and other remote communities, where grid or mini-grid electricity was unlikely to be viable from an economic point of view, the REMP suggests the use of SHS noting that it is likely to be the least cost option for the ‘foreseeable future’ (Norplan 2006, p. 14). The REMP viewed a (commercially-oriented) solar PV program as being an important element in achieving the government’s target of eighty percent of households connected to electricity by 2025.
Almost two years after the REMP was developed (and by which time a new government had been elected in East Timor) a UNDP-sponsored team produced a Rural Energy Policy for East Timor which also covered rural electrification (UNDP 2008). This policy reflected a change in government thinking towards national coverage. Recognising that large areas of the country are unlikely to receive grid or mini-grid connection in the next fifteen to twenty years, the policy aims to ‘equip all households unattended by other forms of electricity supply with lighting systems based on solar electric power’ (UNDP 2008 p23). The policy suggests that about 60,000 PV electricity systems will be required by the households currently without electricity and that this figure may grow to 90,000 by 2020 in response to increases in East Timor’s rural population.
Each of the major policy papers prepared since independence recommend the use of SHS as part of efforts to improve access to electricity in East Timor. The SIP proposed funding for a pilot scheme to trial SHS as one of three elements in design of a rural electrification program (RDTL 2006). No direction is provided in the SIP, however, as to the optimal size of the SHS. Neither does the REMP make any recommendation regarding SHS sizing, although it does use a
50 Wp system when comparing costs of PV off-grid generation to those of other technologies. Whilst the PSDP does not make any firm recommendations regarding SHS sizing, it also uses a
10 An updated version of the Rural Electrification Master Plan was subsequently released in October 2007 and endorsed by the new Timorese government.
30 Chapter 2
50 Wp system as the benchmark when analysing the financial costs of implementing a SHS program. The PSDP acknowledges that smaller systems (20 to 30 Wp) may be suitable to provide lighting for a few hours per day—and so reduce costs to households—but it recommends 50 Wp systems as a ‘standard’ size. Details within the plan imply that even larger systems may be more appropriate for some households:
In poor areas, where people will be given only the “minimum” supply of power, the feasibility of
SHS is better than in less-poor areas where 50 Wp solar panel would be insufficient to cover the power requirements of one household (ADB 2003b, p. 123)
The PSDP also raises the idea that SHS be used as an interim measure to boost demand for electricity and so make grid-based electrification more cost effective when it becomes available. The plan cites the intention of the Indonesian government to use SHS as a ‘form of “pre-electrification” to raise demand for electricity in remote areas to a level that enables grid extension’ (ADB 2003b, p. 122).
The most recent of the sector planning documents, the Rural Energy Policy, which aims for universal household access to some form of electricity, does specify the size of SHS considered most appropriate to East Timor’s current circumstances. It promotes a 10 Wp system—much smaller than that proposed in the PSDP. It estimates that these systems will cost approximately $200 each and proposes that households pay at least twenty percent of the initial capital cost with the remainder subsidised by the government. Households would be expected to pay a monthly fee of approximately $3. Should households desire larger systems, these would only be provided at the householder’s expense with the government subsidy capped at the rate applicable to the 10 Wp system. The Rural Energy Policy proposes delivering these systems via a Solar Lighting Program to commence in 2009. The program would be implemented in clusters across the country to build a market for commercial servicing of systems and the government would manage the tendering process to ensure the purchase of high quality SHS components.
It is of interest to consider the size of the subsidy required to provide the number of SHS envisaged in the Solar Lighting Program. Based on a capital cost of $200 per system and a requirement for 60,000 systems, the capital cost of the program is approximately $12 million and the subsidy per person $30-40. Although the levels of service are different, a subsidy of this magnitude compares favourably with other rural electrification proposals set out in the REMP. A set of high priority electrification projects for the first five years of the master plan were expected to cost $16 million and to provide 11,000 connections—equivalent to $1440 per connection indicating a subsidy of approximately $240 per person.
31 Chapter 2
2.3.2 Solar PV and SHS in East Timor
As discussed above, the East Timorese Government’s plans for investment in rural electrification support the use of SHS in remote locations with low population densities, in line with advice provided to the government by international advisers (ADB 2003a; Norplan 2006; UNDP 2008). East Timor is situated at 9° below the equator and experiences an average solar insolation throughout the year of approximately 6 kWh/m2/day (NASA 2006) making it well- suited for the use of solar PV equipment.
Several remote areas in East Timor received SHS during the period of Indonesian administration and 50 Wp panels from the Indonesian era can still be seen in many rural parts of the country. Indonesian experience with SHS programs commenced in the 1970s and by 2003 it was reported that 48,300 systems had been deployed across Indonesia (Madon 2003). It is unclear how many of these systems were installed in East Timor since most government records relating to East Timor were destroyed during the transition to independence. The Power Sector Development Plan for East Timor (ADB 2003b) identified Indonesian-era SHS in twelve villages each with three to eight systems. These systems were thought to have been installed in the mid 1990s and many were found to be inoperative.
Since independence, three significant SHS projects have been implemented in East Timor and these are the subject of this research. The Edmund Rice Community (CER) project in the
Railaco sub-district has seen more than 900 small (10 Wp) systems installed in homes in five sucos. These systems have been mostly SHS but have also included several hundred solar lanterns. The United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) ‘Participatory Rural Energy
Development Programme’ has installed 40 Wp SHS in 68 households in six communities spread over three districts. Most recently, the Government of East Timor (RDTL) installed 80 Wp SHS in 240 homes in the Cairui area in Manatuto district. Each of these projects is described in detail in Chapter 5.
The Government of East Timor has also been responsible for two other significant PV activities, one for rural health clinics and the other for suco (village-level) meeting halls. Systems for lighting and vaccine storage in rural health clinics were provided by the Ministry of Health in conjunction with United Nations Population Fund. These systems comprised a 400 Wp array, 600 Ah battery storage, six 12 W fluorescent lamps and a 300 W AC inverter to operate the vaccine refrigerator. Seventy such systems were provided to remote health clinics at the sub- district level (A Almeida [UNDP Participatory Rural Energy Development Programme] 2007, pers. comm., 17 June).
32 Chapter 2
A larger PV program, covering all parts of urban and rural East Timor was implemented under the auspices of the Ministry for State Administration. It involved the installation of PV systems to provide lighting and electricity for local government meeting halls in every village in the country. A total of 440 systems were to be provided. The systems were supplied and installed by a Timorese business (Startec Enterprises) and consisted of a pole-mounted 260 Wp array, 300 Ah deep cycle lead acid battery, five 10 W fluorescent lamps, a 600 W AC inverter and a television, DVD player and satellite television decoder. The systems were intended to both provide lighting for community meetings and also to enable every village in the country to access content produced by the local television station, TVTL, via satellite (K Tchia [Startec Enterprises] 2007, pers. comm., 14 June). During the fieldwork conducted for this thesis, preparations were being made to install these systems in Railaco and a completed system was observed in operation in Cairui.
Other agencies, both small and large, have also been promoting solar PV in East Timor. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) implemented a broad- based development project in East Timor with a strong PV component. Their ‘Human Security in Rural East Timor’ project comprised water supply, solar PV electricity and fish farming activities, and operated in three districts. The main solar PV activities were directed to communities on the island of Atauro, situated approximately fifty kilometres off the north coast of East Timor and involved supply of PV lighting and power systems to schools and community centres and solar lanterns to households.
Under the UNDESA program, approximately 400 solar lanterns were provided to households on a rental basis. The lanterns were supplied with a 5 W CFL, 10 Wp panel and 9 Ah battery and were expected to operate for at least five hours per night (UNDESA 2007b). In contrast to other programs in East Timor, where equipment has generally been donated to users, UNDESA supplied its solar lanterns to households on a rental basis using community-based organisations to manage the fee collection and oversee basic maintenance. A monthly rental fee of $1.80 is charged to users and reduced tariffs are applied to low-income households (UNDESA 2007c). The UNDESA program also involved providing community-based PV assets. Ten schools, three community centres and one sub-district government office were supplied with PV power and lighting systems. These ranged in size from 240 Wp systems for the community centres to 450 Wp systems for the larger schools where nine 18 W fluorescent lamps were provided. Systems were also supplied with AC inverters to operate colour televisions and DVD players provided to the schools and community centres as part of the UNDESA program (UNDESA 2007a).
33 Chapter 2
A range of other small-scale solar PV initiatives have been carried out with funding from international NGOs and bilateral aid agencies since East Timor became independent. The Alternative Technology Association’s International Project Group (ATA-IPG) from Australia have completed almost sixty solar lighting and power system projects since 2003 with a total installed capacity in excess of 9 kWp (ATA-IPG 2007). The group’s activities have ranged from very small systems, such as 5 Wp household lighting systems, to larger, more complex installations such as a 500 Wp, 240 V power system for an orphanage and school in remote Soibada in the central mountains.
Other significant PV systems were installed under a rural water and sanitation project funded by the Australian government’s development agency, AusAID. This program installed two solar arrays of 2 kWp each to serve rural offices for the East Timorese Government’s water and sanitation service. The same project also funded installation of seven solar water pumps for rural areas with tracking arrays of 480 Wp (A Smith [East Timor Community Water Supply and Sanitation Program] 2006, pers. comm., 30 August).
Despite the range of projects described above, there remains limited local commercial capacity to supply and service solar PV equipment in East Timor. Equipment provided with development assistance funding has generally been sourced from foreign suppliers based outside the country. Three local commercial firms are agents for solar PV equipment and have some ability to design, supply and install simple lighting, power and water pumping systems. Startec, the firm that installed the 440 suco meeting hall systems for the Ministry of State Administration and also the UNDESA community facilities on Atauro, has the most experience of these firms.
Whilst there is significant experience with household and communal PV systems in East Timor, as demonstrated above, this experience has not been evaluated to determine the optimal SHS size for use in East Timor. The capital input required by the government to provide 10 Wp systems (as proposed in the Rural Energy Policy) would be much less than that required to provide 50 Wp systems (the minimum size suggested in Power Sector Development Plan). The varying recommendations of these organisations supports the need for an evaluation of development impact of SHS in relation to size to determine whether the extra investment associated with larger systems is warranted.
34 Chapter 2
2.4 Electrification and development outcomes
In the next chapter the thesis considers various approaches to evaluating the development impact of SHS. From these approaches a preferred method is selected for adaptation to the context in East Timor. Before considering evaluation approaches, however, it is important to define what might constitute ‘development impact’. This section looks at that question from three perspectives. It commences by providing a definition of this term as might be used broadly within the development sector. This is followed by a review of the literature concerning the development impacts of rural electrification generally and then finally of development impacts associated with SHS.
2.4.1 Development and development impact
As presented in Section 2.3, most people in rural areas of East Timor live without access to electricity. This fact could be viewed from many different perspectives—perhaps as an interesting sociological phenomenon that bears upon the way people live; or as a potential business opportunity represented by a large untapped market; or as a development need with respect to an important basic service. This research reflects the development need viewpoint and seeks to shed light on the most efficient manner in which to provide a basic service to an un-served segment of the community.
Working within this aim requires a clearly articulated understanding of ‘development’. If the purpose of providing access to SHS is to contribute to development, one needs to understand what that might encompass. Configuring a SHS program as a business opportunity would involve an aim of maximising profits through the life of the program. To make a development contribution via a SHS program would require quite a different aim.
Chambers (2004) describes the trajectory of development assistance and notes how engineering (the world of ‘things’) and economics (the world of quantification) has dominated much of development thinking. Over the last few decades, however, the international development assistance industry has moved away from delivering hardware towards providing ‘software’ such as institutional strengthening, good governance and capacity building. Australian aid spending typifies this shift. Between 1998 and 2005, spending in the governance sector—involving law and justice, economic and financial management, public sector effectiveness, and civil society and human rights—grew from five percent of the Australian aid budget to thirty-six percent. In contrast, spending on infrastructure during that period remained almost unchanged at about ten percent of the budget. By 2007/08 governance spending had slipped back to about a quarter of the aid budget but was still by far the biggest
35 Chapter 2
sectoral focus for the Australian Government’s program (Commonwealth of Australia 1998, 2005, 2007). Clearly development, as it is currently practised, is concerned with more than simply providing infrastructure and economic growth.
Chambers (2004) describes the evolving vocabulary associated with development theory and notes how by the late 1990s two terms, ‘social capital’ and ‘sustainable livelihoods’, had become dominant. The concept of social capital was used within the World Bank to move thinking beyond economic growth and following the World Development Report of 2000-2001 came to underpin the World Bank’s poverty reduction strategy papers (Chambers 2004). Kanbur and Squire (1999), writing for the World Bank, explain that once the World Bank began requiring participatory poverty assessments, discussions with poor communities highlighted the multi-dimensional nature of poverty and the inadequacy of a simple focus on economic growth. They note that not only does this apply at a national level, but even at a household level increasing income is often only weakly associated with improved non-income development indicators such as health and education. In response to this multidimensionality, the poverty reduction strategy papers sought to address poverty in three areas: empowerment of poor people to play a role in decision-making and to engage with government and institutions; security, with an emphasis on mitigating risks and promoting resilience; and opportunity, centred on economic growth (IDS 2003).
Documentation of the sustainable livelihoods framework by Scoones (1998) preceded its broad acceptance within the development industry which accelerated after it was taken up by the Department for International Development in the UK. The understanding of development in the sustainable livelihoods approach recognises a complexity of interactions, resources and strategies which is similar to the multi-faceted view of poverty adopted within the World Bank. Scoones (1998) explains that livelihood strategies combined with livelihood resources produce sustainable livelihoods for individuals, households, communities, regions or indeed entire nations. The further critical elements to the sustainable livelihoods framework are the institutional processes and organisational structures which regulate the interactions between the strategies and resources and those who implement and make use of them. Development in this context may be seen as an increase in sustainable livelihoods (either their number or their quality) and Scoones offers five potential indicators for this, three focussing on livelihoods— creation of working days; poverty reduction; and well-being and capabilities—and two contributing the sustainability element—livelihood adaptation, vulnerability and resilience; and sustainability of the natural resource base.
36 Chapter 2
What is important to recognise from both these development frameworks is that income and assets alone are insufficient measures of development progress. Development must also account for human capacities and opportunities incorporating aspects such as education, health, access to institutions and personal freedoms. The vision set out in the East Timor National Development Plan, as described in Section 2.1.1, demonstrates how the East Timorese people have responded to this concept. Their development plan incorporates outcomes as diverse as respect for culture and traditions; access to physical assets such as roads, electricity, and communication infrastructure; improvements to health and education; and freedom of expression and empowered participation.
Chambers (2004) provides a useful way of dealing with the complex interactions that constitute development. He argues that the underlying meaning in all the definitions of development is ‘good change’. The question that Chambers then poses for his readers is what might be meant by ‘good’ and what change is ‘significant’. This is to remain a question rather than the starting point for definitive responses since Chambers expects the notions attached to goodness and significance to change with time and location and he invites people to question these concepts continually. These are questions to be answered by the communities concerned, not answered on their behalf.
This research takes up the invitation Chambers offers. As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, the approach to developing the methodology starts by consulting with rural communities to elucidate their priorities and values. Hence, user communities have indicated what constitutes ‘good change’ for them with respect to the use of SHS and those values are the basis on which different sized SHS have been compared.
The use of the term ‘development impact’ also requires brief consideration. In the context of this research it implies a quantification of development—i.e. an assessment of how much good change has occurred. The word ‘impact’ is commonly linked to evaluation or assessment within the international development arena in terms such as ‘social impact assessment’ or ‘impact evaluation’ and also in the development literature (see for example Baker 2000; Lipton & Toye 1990; Neubert 2000; Roche 1999). In this context it connotes a final result that accounts for both positive and negative effects. Consequently, evaluating ‘impact’ is preferable to evaluating only ‘benefit’ since it requires that the costs of achieving the development outcomes are also considered.
Roche (1999), writing about the assessment of impact by development agencies, describes impact as ‘lasting and sustained changes’ (Roche 1999, p. 20) and so introduces the idea of
37 Chapter 2
durability of outcomes. The lasting and sustained nature of change associated with use of SHS is—unsurprisingly—highly dependent on their ongoing operation. For a development intervention such as the introduction of SHS, which relies heavily on technical knowledge and assets external to rural communities, sustained operation is a serious concern. For this research, however, the issues surrounding whether or not the use of SHS equipment is sustained over time are excluded from the research scope, as noted in Chapter 1 and explained in detail in Section 3.1.
Chambers (2004) questions whether an alternative term such as ‘contribution’ might be more appropriate than ‘impact’ since this would avoid the negative connotation inherent in the literal use of ‘impact’. This would also have the advantage of highlighting the complex interaction of factors required to produce change—a continual reminder that any single intervention contributes to this process rather than generates it autonomously. The term ‘development impact’, however, is used within this research in view of its wide acceptance within the development field.
2.4.2 Rural electrification and development
The current poverty reduction focus of international development assistance requires governments and development agencies to demonstrate that development assistance produces efficient outcomes and has an impact on poverty. Because the benefits of electrification projects may be captured by the better-off in a community, as is noted below, there has been ongoing debate about the place of electrification within development assistance portfolios. Critics and supporters have sought to determine whether electricity is a luxury ill-afforded by developing country governments and for which most of the benefits bypass the poor; or a driver for growth and a prerequisite for improving a range of other development indicators.
Barnes (1988) attempts to shed light on this question by probing the effect that providing electricity had on development in rural communities in India, Colombia and Indonesia. Barnes’ aim was to provide data to help clarify the conflicting viewpoints of those who believed that electricity and modern forms of energy were central to development and those who thought it too advanced a service for rural communities, the benefits of which accrued largely to the wealthy and one which could only be funded at the expense of meeting basic needs such as health, water and education.
38 Chapter 2
Barnes (1988) opens his chapter on electricity and rural change by sketching a picture of two rural households. One is a ‘beehive of activity’ taking place in the glow of electricity. In the other, however:
the kerosene lantern or candles in use in the household without electricity emit a dull light inadequate for reading or close work such as sewing. As a consequence, the family retires early after a fairly unproductive evening (Barnes 1988, p. 93)
Without studies to document the impact of rural electrification on development, the assumptions inherent in this illustration—that electricity improves people’s lives and that life without electricity is ‘unproductive’—are invoked without question. It is interesting that Barnes chooses to draw this illustration since the chapter it commences goes on to report that there was no significant difference in waking hours or sleeping patterns for electrified and non- electrified households in India and that the difference in Colombia was only twenty minutes. Furthermore, in Colombian houses with electricity, adult reading was half that in non- electrified homes, social visits fell by half, and domestic work in the evenings was a third less. Barnes suggests that this was probably associated with the high incidence of television viewing. These data leave open the possibility that the ‘beehive of activity’ occurs in the unelectrified household and the ‘fairly unproductive evening’ coincides with electrification and a household absorbed by the entertainment provided by their television.
Barnes did find, however, that children read more in homes with electricity in both India (up by 30%) and Colombia (up by 70%). Literacy was strongly correlated with electrification in the studies reported but Barnes commented that whilst electricity appears to facilitate improved education the studies did not indicate causality in the literacy and electrification correlation. Electrification was not strongly associated with migration (either into or out of rural communities) and results of the Indian study did not support a correlation between rural electrification and rural poverty, despite household connections being largely concentrated within wealthy or middle income families.
The rural poverty-electrification nexus was an interesting element to Barnes’ study in that he was testing for a disbenefit rather than a benefit from electrification in relation to poverty reduction (i.e. testing to see whether the cost of paying for electricity services resulted in increased income poverty). Given that development assistance is now required to be a catalyst for poverty reduction, those promoting electrification within the aid sector must show that it is more than simply benign with respect to poverty.
39 Chapter 2
Barnes returned to this topic a decade later as part of a team from the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP)11 studying rural electrification in the Philippines. The ESMAP (2002) study aimed to determine the social and economic development benefits of providing electricity to un-served rural communities in the Philippines and found ‘much evidence [that] supports the notion that rural electrification is an important component of the social infrastructure that leads to development’ (ESMAP 2002, p. 60).
With respect to education, their survey of electrified and non-electrified rural households found that access to electricity resulted in children and adults spending more time reading and in their gaining approximately two years more formal education. This extra education was also accompanied by an increase in income. The authors note that educational outcomes, however, are related to a wide range of factors, not the least of which is access to school facilities, and that their methodology did not control for all variables. Other benefits included better access to information and entertainment; greater likelihood of running small businesses from home; and decreased time spent collecting water and firewood. A ‘consumer surplus’ approach (explained in detail in Section 3.2.1) was taken to valuing the increased access to information and entertainment and also to increased levels of lighting. The shape of the demand curves assumed in the analysis resulted in small changes in expenditure on electricity for television, radio and lighting—averaging about $3 per household—to a combined consumer surplus of about $50 for these commodities.12
Electricity was also found to double the likelihood of a household running a business and to save about one hour per day on completing household chores. No impacts, however, were detected on the health of households who had access to electricity. Summing the monetary value of these impacts, the ESMAP team estimated the benefits of electrification to rural households in the Philippines to be $81 per month or $324 million per month for the four million rural households without access to electricity at that time.
Whereas the studies by Barnes (1988) and ESMAP (2002) sought to quantify the contributions electrification made to development to justify the costs of electrification, Zomers (2001) suggests that the difficulties associated with attributing and quantifying the benefits of electrification may not justify the effort involved. Zomers argues instead that a least-cost approach is preferable to a cost-benefit analysis, with electrification treated as ‘an
11 ESMAP is jointly sponsored by the World Bank and UNDP and aims to provide policy and technical advice on sustainable energy development to governments in the developing world. 12 This figure, produced by application of the consumer surplus approach, is very high in comparison to the average monthly income of $96 for non-electrified households (ESMAP 2002, p. 37).
40 Chapter 2
infrastructural prerequisite’ (Zomers 2001, p. 53, citing Vogel 1993). Zomers draws on a range of studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s which demonstrate the complex interactions of many factors which determine whether or not, and how, rural electrification impacts on economic, social, political or environmental outcomes. He cites the findings of Fluitman (1983) that economic and environmental benefits of electrification tend to be overestimated and costs under reported. Zomers argues in his conclusion that where affordable tariffs are introduced the costs of rural electrification generally outweigh the benefits but that this outcome is justified as part of an integrated approach to rural development.
Hargreaves and Merkley (2003) take a different approach again, looking to justify investment in electrification on the basis of national-level socio-economic data linking electricity use with improved development outcomes. The authors used data from the 2003 World Bank Development Report and 2002 World Bank Development Indicators to compare electricity use against a range of development indicators for twenty developing countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. The indicators assessed were gross national income, life expectancy, adult literacy, population growth, population living on more than $2 per day, and population with adequate nourishment. Some level of correlation with the level of electricity usage was observed for each of these indicators, but only weakly for populations living on $2 per day and populations with adequate nourishment. Within East Timor, a World Bank-funded study that simulated the poverty impact of a range of alternative investments found that expanding electrification to all households would reduce the incidence of poverty by a quarter. This was the fourth highest impact on poverty of the seventeen different interventions that were modelled (RDTL 2003b).
Rather than the macro level approach taken by Hargreaves and Merkley (2003), the World Bank’s Asia Sustainable and Alternative Energy Program (ASTAE) funded a study to investigate the influence of energy at the community level, considering the impacts on poor households and women (Ramani & Heijndermans 2003). Having commenced with the aim of increasing World Bank lending for renewable energy and energy efficiency activities in Asia, the ASTAE project developed into a study of the impact of rural electrification on poverty and gender equity in Asia. The rationale for focusing on rural electrification rather than energy more generally was that most poor people in Asia live in rural areas and that electrification constituted most of ASTAE’s energy sector portfolio. The resulting study was known as the
41 Chapter 2
Energy, Poverty and Gender project (EnPoGen) and was based on case studies of rural electrification in China, Sri Lanka and Indonesia.13
The EnPoGen synthesis report (Ramani & Heijndermans 2003) draws together the main findings from the separate evaluations carried out in each country. The studies found that illumination through electric lighting is the foremost benefit of electrification and that it had a profound impact on domestic life. Poor people were found to perceive electricity as a highly desired commodity and were prepared to allocate a considerable portion of their resources to secure it. The studies concluded, however, that it was difficult to isolate the impact of electrification on health and education from a range of other factors on which improvements in these areas depend. Impacts on health were found to be ‘uncertain and conditional upon the availability of health facilities’ and impacts on education ‘conditional on the availability of schools and educational facilities’(Ramani & Heijndermans 2003, p. 4). Very low levels of illumination were observed in many electrified houses in the case studies and hence electrification was not found to have had a significant impact on time spent studying at home. The levels of intra and inter household social interaction were found to increase with electrification and improved opportunities to use radio and television were seen as strongly beneficial.
With regard to the demand for electrification, the EnPoGen synthesis report (Ramani & Heijndermans 2003) notes that respondents ranked electricity as a basic need—alongside food, clothing and shelter—and that in the Indonesian study, non-electrified households prioritised electricity above health and education. The report resolutely affirms the willingness of rural communities to pay for electricity based on its ability to make domestic life more convenient and housework easier. The issue of convenience is important in relation to poverty alleviation. The EnPoGen study makes a clear distinction between electricity for poverty alleviation and electrification for poverty reduction. The role of rural electricity in poverty alleviation is strongly affirmed whilst its contribution to poverty reduction is seen as contingent on a range of other factors (such as the presence of other infrastructure and capacities, and market and production opportunities). This has a direct bearing on SHS which, given their limited power output, are clearly directed at poverty alleviation rather than income generation for poverty reduction, as highlighted in Section 3.1.
13 EnPoGen consists of a number of reports released electronically and available at http://www.worldbank.org/astae/enpogen/index.htm
42 Chapter 2
Since ASTAE has a particular focus on renewable energy, Ramani and Heijndermans (2003) review the role of renewable energy technologies in meeting the needs of rural electrification. They see SHS as the least pro-poor technology (i.e. least favourable to income-poor households) because of its high cost and limited power output, noting that SHS are only useful for meeting what they describe as basic needs. They contrast this with microhydro and hybrid technologies which allow for productive uses of electricity and are also typically provided at a lower cost per kilowatt hour than SHS.
The preceding text provides an overview of the literature which reports on linkages between rural electrification in developing countries and development outcomes. SHS technology presents one option for providing electricity to rural households in developing countries. Many thousands of systems have been installed in developing countries. The literature on these SHS programs provides an opportunity to assess the contribution that SHS might make to rural electrification. A critique of this literature is presented below.
2.4.3 SHS and development—visions and realities
The development of PV technology into a standard package for household installations is described in Section 2.2. Cabraal, Cosgrove-Davies and Schaeffer (1996) report that following their introduction in the 1970s some 400,000 systems had been installed in developing countries by 1996. Nieuwenhout et al. (2001) estimated that by 2000 this had grown to 1.3 million systems. This rapid growth in the number of systems installed in developing countries attests to an optimism concerning the role that SHS technology could play in meeting the demands of rural electrification.
Writing on best practice for PV household electrification programs for the World Bank, Cabraal, Cosgrove-Davies and Schaeffer (1996) provide a good example of the sanguine outlook on SHS found in much of the literature. They report that for sparsely settled and remote areas solar PV can be the cheapest, most effective source of electricity. And whilst acknowledging that SHS for rural electrification best suit a niche where demand densities are low and small amounts of electricity are valued, they are ebullient about the prospects for PV technology in developing countries.
Cabraal, Cosgrove-Davies and Schaeffer (1996) make a financial comparison of SHS use against kerosene, batteries or grid extension in Indonesia and find that SHS are the least cost option in many situations. Their analysis supports the use of SHS against kerosene/batteries in nearly all circumstances and even in preference to grid extension or the use of mini grids in some situations, particularly where the number of households to be served is low. The study looks in
43 Chapter 2
detail at an Indonesian SHS program and compares favourably the monthly fee for a 50 Wp SHS with that of a 450 W household connection from the Indonesian national utility. The authors also make reference to a study in the Dominican Republic which showed that 30% of SHS were used for business activities, suggesting that this indicates the potential for use of SHS to generate income.
Martinot, Ramankutty and Rittner (2000) also report on the expanding role of SHS in rural electrification in developing countries. They note that between 1991 and 2000 the Global Environment Facility (GEF) supported twenty-three off-grid PV projects worth a total of $1.4 billion involving 500,000 SHS. They note a range of social benefits and financial benefits associated with avoided costs of kerosene/candles/batteries and with income generating activities carried out in the evening. The review did not look at rural income generation or income distribution and reported that the income generation benefits associated with the SHS remained uncertain. The authors note that some past studies have shown that ‘substantial income generation’ benefits are possible with SHS, but that further survey work will be required to assess the economic benefits achieved in GEF projects. The authors appear eager to canvass all potential advantages of PV technology. Regarding the ‘welfare-enhancing’ benefits of the GEF SHS programs they remark that ‘In addition to direct benefits to households….local economic benefits from employment by PV dealers and service firms are significant’ (Martinot, Ramankutty & Rittner 2000, p. 17). No indication is given as to how ‘significant’ these economic benefits are in relation to the $1.4 billion expenditure involved in the GEF supported activities.
In the face of literature so strongly supportive of SHS technology, Karekezi and Kithyoma (2002) strike a very contrasting note. They argue that an inappropriately high level of attention has been paid to solar PV at the expense of more effective responses to meeting the energy needs in rural sub-Saharan Africa. They report that the cost of a 50-60 Wp PV system to an African rural household is in the range $600-1200 and argue that such an outlay is equivalent to a household in a developed country spending $5,000 to $20,000. This amount, they suggest, is far too much money to pay for something that provides light and powers a radio or perhaps a television. Their opinion is that if they were given a choice, an African householder would be far more likely to use such a sum to start a small business than buy a SHS. Other forms of energy investment are compared to the costs of PV systems such as an improved firewood stove (estimated to cost $2); a kerosene stove ($5); and a solar dryer ($10).
Karekezi and Kithyoma (2002) go on to review a range of agricultural activities and micro- enterprises and the types and quantities of energy involved (including human and animal
44 Chapter 2
power for agriculture). As expected, solar PV, particularly in the form of SHS, is shown to have limited capacity to meet energy needs for agriculture or micro-enterprises, especially agro- processing. The expense of solar PV is compared with diesel generators and Karekezi and
Kithyoma report that for the cost of a 1.3 kWp PV system at least two and as many as five 5 kW diesel generators could be purchased. They argue that the diesel generators would provide opportunities for income generation sufficient to meet the higher running costs of the generators compared to the PV systems. The authors are also concerned about the lack of local (in this case African) industry involved in producing SHS components. They report that fifty percent of the cost of the technology is attached to items that are usually imported severely reducing the potential for creation of local jobs. The conclusion reached is that:
future renewable energy strategies in sub-Saharan Africa should de-emphasise PV and give greater prominence to a wider range of renewables that offer more attractive opportunities for income generation and job creation. (Karekezi & Kithyoma 2002, p. 1082)
In place of SHS, Karekezi and Kithyoma suggest: promoting efficient biomass technologies and appliances; enhancing the environment for investment in renewable energy by liberalising licensing, tariff, distribution arrangements; target small and micro enterprises and agriculture; and target income-making opportunities for women.
Wamukonya (2007) is equally critical about the application of SHS in Africa offering much the same reasoning as Karekezi and Kithyoma (2002). She notes that electricity from SHS is very expensive relative to grid-based electricity or the use of small diesel generators and does not provide sufficient power to facilitate business activities. Wamukonya characterises the contribution of SHS to poverty alleviation in Africa as ‘illusory or, at least, extremely limited’ (Wamukonya 2007, p. 9) particularly compared to other technologies that have potential to strengthen rural livelihoods. Such concerns are highly relevant to the situation in East Timor where rural incomes are very low, communities are highly risk-adverse, and scarce development funds must be put towards the most productive uses possible.
Despite the arguments in favour of SHS such as those put forward by Cabraal, Cosgrove-Davies and Schaeffer (1996) and Martinot, Ramankutty and Rittner (2000), Wamukonya’s view that SHS offer an expensive, low-service-level form of electricity is compelling. The question that must be asked with respect to development impact, however, is not whether grid-based electricity is preferable to SHS but rather whether SHS are of value in those places that the grid does not reach. Wamukonya goes some way to answering this question by noting that in
45 Chapter 2
Kenya users are paying full commercial rates for SHS.14 Clearly those Kenyan households feel that the low-service levels and expensive electricity produced by their systems are justified by the benefits offered to their households. A large number of evaluations have sought to determine the benefits of SHS when used in developing countries. Some of these evaluations and the benefits they have identified are presented below.15
Financial benefits Perhaps the most easily evaluated impact of SHS is the change in household energy expenditure. Reporting on the findings from Sri Lanka, the EnPoGen study (Ramani & Heijndermans 2003) notes that even small savings on energy expenditure, such as achieved by replacing kerosene and candles with electric lighting, can be sufficient to lift poor households out of poverty. They report, however, that whilst all other forms of electricity services were found to be at least two to four times less expensive than non-electric forms of energy, this was not the case for SHS. Users of SHS were ‘unable to save on their expenditure because monthly installments on the systems far exceed their pre-electrification expenditure’(Ramani & Heijndermans 2003, p. 90).
Cabraal, Cosgrove-Davies and Schaeffer (1996) reported that their study of SHS installations in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Dominican Republic and the Philippines showed a financial benefit for those households using kerosene for lighting and batteries for television. This is unusual in the literature. With the trend away from subsidies for rural electrification and towards cost- recovery tariffs and pricing, the literature generally shows an increase in household expenditure on electricity with the introduction of a SHS, as suggested by Ramani and Heijndermans (2003). For their study of SHS use in Zambia, Gustavsson and Ellegard (2004) found total expenditure on light and electricity to be approximately fifty percent higher for SHS users than for their non-electrified neighbours. They did not determine what contribution SHS use made to this difference and how much of it existed before the SHS were installed. They noted, however, that most of the households with SHS could be considered ‘upper-middle’ class with ninety percent having one or more family members in formal employment. Ellegard et al. (2004), in their report on the same project in Zambia, confirmed these findings reporting that SHS customers spend more to operate their SHS than they did previously on candles and kerosene but are happy doing so.
14 Nieuwenhout et al. (2001) report that by the year 2000, 150,000 SHS had been purchased in Kenya, nearly all on a subsidy-free, cash sales basis. 15 The methods that these evaluations used to assess the impact of SHS are detailed in Section 3.2.1.
46 Chapter 2
A study of a SHS program in Karnataka, India (Mehta 2004) produced similar findings to those for Zambia. SHS were installed in both grid-connected and non-electrified households. In both cases, once the cost of financing the SHS was taken into account, households were found to spend more on electricity and lighting following the installation of the SHS than beforehand. This contrasted with the householder perceptions with SHS users generally reporting that they believed expenditure on lighting decreased as a result of purchasing a SHS. Chaurey (2000) also reports that during a pre-implementation survey for a SHS program in West Bengal, India, fifteen percent of potential recipients anticipated that a SHS would provide financial benefits. A post-implementation study found a reduction in kerosene use for beneficiary households, as might be expected. Whilst not stated explicitly, however, the figures provided by Chaurey indicate that the savings on kerosene were less than the monthly household fee for the SHS. As a consequence there did not appear to be a direct financial benefit for those households in the Karnataka area where a SHS was installed.
Evaluations of the large Sri Lanka Energy Services Delivery Program (IRG 2003), through which 18,600 SHS were installed between 1997 and 2002, also found that SHS users incurred an increase in expenditure when batteries and kerosene were replaced with SHS. Systems were supplied to households through loans from a microfinance organisation. Households had the expectation that once these loans were paid off their expenditure on energy would be lower than it had been without the SHS.16
The findings from an evaluation of 2000 systems installed in Lampung Province, Indonesia (Yayasan Dian Desa 2003) were similar. On average, SHS users were found to have reduced their monthly expenditure on kerosene, dry cell batteries and recharging automotive batteries by about $3.50 but were incurring loan repayment costs of between $10 and $32 per month.17 It is possible that for those households where business activities are facilitated by the use of a SHS, the additional cost of operating the SHS is offset by increases in business income. Several of the projects discussed above note the potential for improved business income (Ellegard et al. 2004; IRG 2003; Yayasan Dian Desa 2003).
Most households, however, do not operate businesses and hence the literature indicates that in general households switching to SHS from alternative energy sources incur an increase in expenditure on energy to do so. What is clearly demonstrated from those studies that show
16 The evaluation report, however, did not provide any indication as to whether SHS users were aware of the ongoing operating costs associated with sustained use of their SHS and whether understanding of these costs had been factored in to their expectation that overall expenditure on energy would be lower once loans for their systems had been paid off. 17 Repayments varied depending on the size of the system and the amount of the initial payment.
47 Chapter 2
increased expenditure on SHS compared to traditional forms of lighting is the willingness of these rural households to pay for the improved services. This willingness stems from a broad range of social benefits provided by SHS such as improvements to living conditions, education, health, household amenity, communications and security.
Social benefits The reports produced by Cabraal, Cosgrove-Davies and Schaeffer (1996) and Martinot, Ramankutty and Rittner (2000), cited above, both outline a range of social benefits produced by SHS. Cabraal, Cosgrove-Davies and Schaeffer (1996) note that SHS provide easier studying and reading; improved safety; cleaner air in the home; greater reliability of the energy source; increased convenience; and an elevated social status. Similarly, advantages listed by Martinot, Ramankutty and Rittner (2000) are increased convenience and safety; improved indoor air quality, better quality of light; and improved educational outcomes through better opportunity to read at home.
Through the surveys employed by Gustavsson and Ellegard (2004) in Zambia, householders with SHS reported strong overall satisfaction with the systems installed but their survey did not capture any significant impacts on user lifestyles other than increasing the amount of television watched. Minor changes related to household routines and activities included undertaking domestic work at night; study/reading at night; and different entertainment activities (television and radio). The study revealed that there was very little difference in the hours of light at night in SHS homes and compared to neighbouring households (3.3 and 3.1 hours per night respectively). The quality of light, however, was much better where SHS were used.
Mehta’s (2004) study of SHS in India reported ‘significant’ improvements in quality of life—in this case, lighting, health, education, entertainment and security—where SHS were installed. Improved lighting was the most pronounced of these benefits. Legros et al. (2003) produced similar findings with their study of the impact of electrification in Morocco. They concluded that there were appreciable social benefits associated with both SHS, although not as great as were found for grid-connected homes. Stone et al. (2000) and Chaurey (2000) both report on the household impact of three hundred 53 Wp SHS installed in West Bengal, India, noting improved opportunities for children to study, better lighting in the house, improved security and increased opportunity to watch television.
For the IRG study in Sri Lanka, ninety-seven percent of SHS users reported that their ‘overall lifestyle *had been+ improved because of the SHS’ (IRG 2003, p. 34). The social impacts most
48 Chapter 2
commonly cited by users were similar to those found in other projects: being able to conduct other activities at night (including cooking and cleaning); enabling household members to be better informed; longer entertainment hours; and providing more time for schoolwork. Each of these benefits were reported by at least sixty percent of respondents. The most commonly cited benefit, however, was increased safety at night. This advantage was seen as far more important in the IRG Sri Lanka study than in other studies reported in the literature.
Being able to operate a television was seen as a particularly important benefit by many users in the IRG study. The Yayasan Dian Desa (2003) evaluation in Indonesia also found access to television to be a significant social benefit of SHS use. SHS were found to increase the time spent watching television by two and a half hours per day. This was also associated with an increase in expenditure on the purchase and maintenance of televisions, radios and other electrical goods. Whilst the time spent watching television increased with installation of the SHS, access to television by households involved in the study was quite high even before systems were installed—ninety-two percent of respondents reported watching television frequently either at home or at a neighbour’s home prior to their SHS being installed.
The most important benefit reported by SHS users in the Yayasan Dian Desa study, however, was not access to television but improved conditions for children to study. This was cited as the main benefit of SHS use in almost fifty percent of SHS households. Whilst studying was easier for children in homes with a SHS, these students were not found to study for any longer than those in non-SHS households. The pre-SHS incidence of adult reading was low and was not affected by SHS installation. Houses with SHS were used more frequently for social gatherings and religious ceremonies and were reported to be more convenient locations for such events than non-SHS houses.
One finding that surprised the Yayasan Dian Desa researchers was that with the introduction of SHS people reported cleaning their houses more often than they had done previously. This extra work was undertaken largely by women who, rather than seeing the extra housework as a negative outcome, found that the SHS made housework more convenient. Overall, SHS users reported spending an extra 1.2 hours per day on leisure activities following the introduction of their SHS. This, however, was not the result of increased waking hours which remained unchanged following the introduction of the SHS. Most householders reported an improved sense of security but this benefit did not rate highly in comparison to the other benefits offered by the systems. Health benefits were not identified as being important.
49 Chapter 2
Whilst all the evaluations discussed above found SHS to provide significant benefits to system users, several studies (Gustavsson & Ellegard 2004; IRG 2003; Yayasan Dian Desa 2003) note that systems—and hence the benefits—were skewed towards the wealthier segments of the rural communities being served. If the benefits are more likely to be captured by wealthy households than by income-poor ones18, this raises a question regarding the equity of subsidising and promoting SHS for rural electrification. Mehta (2004) suggests that the SHS program studied in India increased social inequality and further marginalised the poor. Karekezi and Kithyoma (2002) also highlight this concern, arguing that most rural households in sub-Saharan Africa—perhaps up to eighty percent—are unable to afford even the smallest PV systems offered in donor-funded projects and that as a consequence wealthier households attract most of the benefits from these initiatives. As noted above, Karekezi and Kithyoma suggest that scarce development funds could be put to better use on other technology. For those SHS programs seeking to promote broad rural access to electrification the issue of affordability for low-income households must be taken into account. Affordability is certainly an issue in East Timor which, as pointed out in Section 2.1.1, has the lowest GDP per capita of any country in Asia.
2.5 Conclusions
The information presented in this chapter highlights the need for interventions that increase access to electricity in East Timor. Electrification coverage rates are very low. This is not unexpected given the range of development challenges faced by East Timor which has the lowest Human Development Ranking of any country in Asia. Rural households have very limited access to cash income and to employment opportunities beyond subsistence agriculture. Many of these households live in remote areas where the population is highly dispersed. Both these factors are significant for the design of programs to improve access to electricity in rural areas.
A number of expert reports have recommended the use of SHS for rural communities in East Timor most distant from existing population centres and hence least likely to be connected to grid-based electricity in the coming decades. Several agencies have also commenced programs to introduce solar PV technology to East Timor, including SHS. The optimal size of SHS, however, remains a question for policy makers. Elsewhere in the developing world the capacity of SHS vary from about 10 Wp to 100 Wp. In East Timor, SHS in a wide range of sizes are being
18 Wealthier households are more likely to be able to pay both up-front capital costs and ongoing fees/tariffs associated with electrification. Wealthier households are also more able to pay for devices which make use of electricity such as fans, televisions and domestic appliances.
50 Chapter 2
trialled or recommended and different rural energy strategies recommend different sized systems. Whilst there is extensive literature on the benefits of rural electrification in developing countries and of the contribution that SHS may make to rural electrification (as reviewed in this chapter), there is little information to guide policy makers in selecting the optimal size. Good technical design of systems, as described in Section 2.2, requires that each of the components is appropriately sized to suit the intended electrical demand. This, however, does not determine what level of benefit households might derive from different sized systems.
Experience of rural electrification elsewhere has demonstrated a wide range of benefits accruing to households once they have access to electricity. These benefits are both financial and social. Many of these benefits are also claimed for SHS programs. If the development impact—i.e. amount of good change—delivered by these programs is to be assessed, then methods are required that encompass both the financial and social benefits that SHS claim to offer. Potential methods to achieve that outcome are the principal subject of the next chapter.
51
Chapter 3
Research design
52 Chapter 3
3 Research design
The previous chapter introduced East Timor, SHS and the development impacts of rural electrification, both in general and with respect to use of SHS. The material presented provided both a context for the study and also indicated what types of outcomes an evaluation of SHS development impact might be required to examine. This chapter looks at the approach to the evaluation of development impact in detail. It commences by setting out the research question, including a formal statement of the research hypothesis, and the boundaries of the investigation.
Having established the research aim and scope, the chapter goes on to consider what type of data is required to achieve the research aims and what methods might be used to capture the necessary data. Section 3.2 assesses the literature on SHS evaluation and compares the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches that have been used by other researchers. From these approaches, the Demand Oriented Approach—an evaluation method that combines qualitative, participatory techniques with a quantitative household survey—is identified as the preferred option for evaluation of SHS in East Timor. This evaluation method is reviewed in detail in Section 3.2.2 and its suitability for use in this research considered. The manner in which the method was adapted for use in East Timor is the subject of Chapter 4.
3.1 Research hypothesis
Solar PV is set to play a significant role in rural electrification in rural East Timor as discussed in Section 2.3. The rugged terrain, dispersed population and lack of existing grid and mini-grid infrastructure all point towards the use of SHS for remote communities. Rural communities in East Timor are likely to become aware of major investments that the government makes in infrastructure serving urban centres in the next decade. These communities will also expect government support to improve their access to services such as electricity. Within this context, and as set out in the Sector Investment Plan for the Power Sector in East Timor (RDTL 2006), the RDTL Government is likely to invest heavily in SHS over the next ten to fifteen years.
Dissenting views notwithstanding, the literature reviewed in Section 2.4 paints a positive picture of the use of SHS in developing countries. Whilst the links between SHS (and electrification generally) and improved development outcomes—e.g. levels of education, household income and health—have proved difficult to quantify, user experience has been favourable and the growth in the SHS market demonstrates a strong demand for such systems.
53 Chapter 3
The literature, however, provides little in the way of guidance with respect to system sizing. As discussed in Section 2.2.2, SHS size is often determined by the available budget, whether that of an external funding agency or of individual households when purchasing systems without assistance. The question confronting the East Timorese Government—and similarly ministries and donor agencies in many other countries—is, ‘how best should the budget for SHS be allocated?’ Should the government seek to assist many households to access small systems or fewer households to access larger systems? To answer that question and develop an appropriate policy response, one needs to know how development impact differs with system size. If small systems deliver the same, or very nearly the same, development impact as larger systems, then the government would clearly act most wisely by providing many small systems. If, however, it could be shown that large systems deliver much greater benefits than small systems, then the available budget might best be directed to providing larger systems to a smaller number of beneficiary households. Alternatively, such a finding in favour of larger systems may induce the government to allocate a greater budget to SHS rural electrification so that all target households receive large systems.
As discussed in Section 2.3.2, even in a country as small as East Timor there are already a wide range of SHS sizes being used by rural households. Some systems are as small as 5 Wp and might be made available for as little as $100 whilst others are as large as 80 Wp and were provided at a cost of approximately $1200 (R Ximenes [Chefe Suco, Cairui] 2007, pers. comm. 18 October). Assuming a target of 60,000 households requiring PV lighting (UNDP 2008), the capital investment required for purchasing the 5 Wp systems would be approximately $6 million and for the 80 Wp packages would be $72 million. Whilst these figures are small by international standards, given a capital expenditure of $40 million per annum for the power sector in East Timor (RDTL 2006), selecting the optimal size SHS will be an important decision.
No doubt political considerations, in addition to optimal development outcomes, will have some influence on the development of Government SHS policy. The Government may choose to support small systems on political grounds so as to maximise the number of beneficiaries. Even on this basis, information regarding the development impact of different sized systems will be of benefit. If development impacts of small systems are strong—and by inference, so is the potential for user satisfaction—then providing small systems would be an appropriate political as well as development choice.
The current literature does not directly address the question of how development impact might be expected to vary with SHS size. Governments, donors or beneficiaries require such information when designing policy, projects or purchasing systems. This research addresses
54 Chapter 3
that question. As such, its result will be directly applicable to the East Timorese Government as it develops its policy for the introduction of SHS. It will also be of broader interest to other developing country governments and donor agencies as they continue to support SHS dissemination.
Size and cost are not the only issues, however, which a government or implementing agency would wish to consider when developing a solar PV program. Other considerations might include the efficacy of providing individual rather than community assets; approaches to management and maintenance of systems that promote sustainability of systems; optimal levels of beneficiary contribution towards system cost; and introducing SHS that provide lighting only compared to those providing lighting and power.
These issues are as relevant in East Timor as they are elsewhere and are each worthy of further investigation. With the exception of choosing between systems for lighting versus those for lighting and power, however, all are independent of SHS size. The research will provide useful information from a policy-making perspective irrespective of the management models, the fee structures, or the mix of community-based and household-based assets that are adopted.
The question of development impact of SHS that provide light only versus those that provide light and power is indeed an interesting one. It may be that crossing the threshold from lighting-only to providing electricity to power other devices produces a quantum change in development impact. In the case of East Timor, however, all of the current trials of SHS have been lighting-only systems. Hence, the results of the study will be directly relevant to the context under consideration by the East Timorese Government. Further, conducting this research in East Timor provides an excellent opportunity to consider the size-versus- development-impact question independently of the lighting-versus-lighting-and-power issue.19
Stated formally, the research tests the following hypothesis:
development impact of SHS in East Timor does not vary with the size of SHS.
‘Development’ in this context is defined as ‘good change’, as discussed in Section 2.4, and beneficiary perceptions about what constitutes good change—not those of the researchers— are used when testing the hypothesis. ‘Impact’ for this research is defined as the quantity or amount of that good change.
In the absence of testing such as carried out by this research, a casual observer might suspect that providing a household with a ‘large’ SHS—with capacity to run more lights for longer
19 This issue is also discussed in Section 4.2.4
55 Chapter 3
periods—would provide commensurately greater improvements to user livelihoods than providing a ‘small’ system. An analogy might be made regarding access to clean water. Having clean water for drinking is an advantage to rural communities but having more clean water so that there is enough for cooking, bathing and washing provides distinctly greater benefits (DFID 2003).
It is also possible that small SHS provide so little electricity as to be of no benefit compared to large systems. An analogy here might be made with nutrition. Providing malnourished communities with so small a dietary supplement that recipients continue to starve is of no benefit. Similarly with vaccination, inoculating communities with partial doses of a vaccine will provide no benefit if the dose fails to provide immunity.
A third possibility also exists, however, that the benefits accruing from use of small and large SHS are similar in magnitude. That is the proposition described in the research hypothesis. Transport provides a suitable analogy for this possibility. Providing a well-maintained, unsealed road between a rural community and its nearest urban centre may be equally beneficial as constructing a sealed dual carriageway along the same route. Or, to use another transport example from an Australian context, owning a Toyota Corolla may be every bit as useful as a having a Rolls Royce.
One might even suggest that owning a Rolls Royce presents some disadvantages compared to the Toyota Corolla from an affordability perspective, since insurance and other operating costs for the Rolls Royce would be many times higher than for the Toyota Corolla. Similarly, larger SHS require greater recurrent expenditure on the part of users which in turn may have an influence on the long-term development benefits delivered. Whether broader issues such as these are considered depends upon the boundaries within which the research is conducted, highlighting the importance of such boundaries. The limits on the research are defined below and state the conditions under which development impact is evaluated.
There are three important issues which establish the research boundaries, two of which have been introduced above. The first is whether or not the systems being evaluated provide electricity to power devices other than lights. The research is limited to consideration of SHS that provide lighting only, not lighting and power. As mentioned above, providing sufficient electricity to power devices may produce a quantum change in development impact. The SHS
56 Chapter 3
being trialled in East Timor, however, are lighting-only systems and the hypothesis is tested for lighting-only systems.
The second research boundary relates to the sustainability20 of SHS operation. As noted in Section 2.4.3, sustainability is a strong theme in the literature on SHS. Access to spare parts and technical advice for maintenance are central to the sustainability of systems, as is the ability of households to provide for recurrent operating costs—particularly battery replacement. Quality of original system components and adequacy of system design also strongly influence SHS performance and operating life. Management approaches and fee collection regimes further influence sustainability of outcomes. Varying responses to these issues are evident in each of the SHS projects being trialled in East Timor and outlined in Section 2.3.2. The development impact for these systems in large part will be limited to the period during which they remain operational.
It could be argued that small systems are more affordable to most households, have lower recurrent costs, and hence might generally be better maintained. It may equally be argued that larger systems produce greater impact and hence are more highly valued by users and so better maintained. Testing these assumptions would require controlling for a wide range of variables which are difficult to quantify. These would include the success of the management approach; availability of spare parts and technical advice within the private sector and through the SHS project; quality of components and design; and affluence within the user population and their level of technical knowledge and education.
From a practical viewpoint, however, mechanisms for promoting sustainability are commonly agreed, as noted by Nieuwenhout et al. (2001). Hence, when developing policy for introducing SHS into any particular community one would expect that systems are designed so that recurrent costs are made affordable for the users (or funding agency); that access to spare parts and technical advice are provided; and that a management system is instituted that effectively links users to spare parts and technical advice, and collects user fees as appropriate. Having taken those measures into account, however, policy makers still require some advice on optimal system size. Consequently, this research assesses development impact in relation to system size independently of system sustainability and the factors contributing to sustainability.
20 ‘Sustainability’ in this context refers to sustained use over an extended period, not to environmental impact or sustainable use of natural resources.
57 Chapter 3
The other limit to the research is geographical location—the hypothesis is tested in East Timor only. Whilst the context is broadly similar to many developing countries, application of the results to other locations would require due consideration of factors that may be specific to East Timor. As noted in Section 2.1, rural households in East Timor are income-poor, even by developing country standards, and have relatively low levels of literacy and formal education. The relevance of Timorese cultural practices and demographics to the results of the research, and suggestions as to how they might be interpreted for other developing countries, is explored in Section 8.4.
Having defined the hypothesis and the limits within which it is to be tested, it is possible to consider briefly what type of information is required for the research (a subject covered in detail in Section 4.2). Firstly, a method for assessing the development impact of SHS is required. Selection of this method is described in Section 3.2 and the elements of the evaluation tools, as adapted for use in East Timor, are described in Section 4.3. Once the method has been established, suitable sites in East Timor for its application are required. These sites must provide access to a range of SHS of substantially different sizes, ideally spanning the typical range of SHS used in developing countries. This range is 10 to 110 Wp (Section 2.2.1). As noted above, the research tests the hypothesis excluding influences of system sustainability. To achieve this, the lag between system installation and date of evaluation must be minimised and the systems included in the evaluation should be in good working order wherever possible. Evaluation of systems that provide lighting only—rather than lighting and power—is a self-selecting feature of the research since only such systems are currently being trialled in any substantial way in East Timor. A description of the research sites that were selected and how they meet these requirements is provided in Chapter 5.
Results of the research used to test the hypothesis described in this section will enable policy makers in East Timor to make effective choices about SHS sizing. Donors and policy makers will also be able to use the information to guide system sizing in other countries. The following section considers selection of the method by which the development impact of SHS in East Timor may best be evaluated.
58 Chapter 3
3.2 Selection of method
The benefits that resulted from introducing SHS in a range of countries were outlined in Section 2.4.3. In each case, determining the benefits of the SHS required that an evaluation be undertaken. Consequently, the literature provides examples of a range of different approaches for evaluating the benefits of SHS. These methods are reviewed in this section and their suitability discussed with respect to testing the research hypothesis described above.
Survey methods predominate and have been applied either in narrow financial terms or broadened in an attempt to better capture the social benefits that SHS offer. Survey methods have also been supplemented by participatory, qualitative approaches. These three models of evaluation—financial, survey, and survey plus participatory approaches—are discussed in Section 3.2.1. Section 3.2.2 reviews the Demand Oriented Approach to evaluation developed by ESMAP and which has been selected to meet the requirements of this research.
3.2.1 Evaluations of SHS – results and approaches
Studies of rural electrification conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s and reviewed in Section 2.4.2 predominantly considered the impact of grid-based electrification. Impact evaluation of these projects related largely to financial or economic outcomes such as increased agricultural production and trade associated with small or micro enterprise. For SHS, clearly there will be no direct impact on agricultural productivity. Whilst it is possible that extended hours of trading/production may have some impact on commercial activities, it is unlikely that SHS— particularly those being evaluated in East Timor—will generally offer significant benefits arising from increased commercial activity21. Consequently, the studies carried out on grid-based rural electrification provide limited guidance when looking for a method to measure the development impact of SHS.
Despite this concern, monetary benefits are amongst the most easily quantified and, within Western cultures, the most universally accepted measures of value. Financial evaluation represents the starting point from which broader evaluation approaches have evolved. The World Bank initially used relative expenditure as the means for quantifying benefits (ESMAP 2002). Calculations were made of how much it cost to provide similar levels of service using different technical approaches and the benefits were then equated to the expenditure involved for each approach. This method of evaluation was later modified to consider the
21 The SHS evaluated in East Timor provided some assistance with business activities in a few households, as explained in Section 6.3.3. SHS lighting, however, assists with these activities but is not a deciding factor in making them possible.
59 Chapter 3
savings or even costs which accrued to consumers when switching from traditional energy sources to electricity. Meier (2003) provides a detailed explanation of how this narrow approach can be applied to evaluating SHS impact.
Avoided cost and consumer surplus Meier (2003) conducted an ex ante economic evaluation on behalf of ASTAE of three sizes of
SHS for a proposed Philippines Rural Power Project. Ten thousand SHS of small (20 Wp), medium (40 Wp) and large (75 Wp) size were to be installed during the first phase of this program and Meier prepared an evaluation of the likely economic returns from these different sized systems within the rural Filipino context. Meier (2003, p. 9) suggests that the ‘simplest approach is to assess economic benefits as the avoided costs of the services in non-electrified households that would be replaced by the PV system’. For the rural households in the Philippines such services consisted principally of lighting from kerosene lamps, candles and battery-operated torches, and battery-powered television and radio use.
The method of determining the financial benefits to households via avoided cost is relatively straightforward and requires only an estimate of the pre-SHS expenditure on lighting and electricity services (e.g. dry cell batteries and automotive battery charging) and knowledge of the operating costs of the new SHS. Benefits are equated to the difference in the costs before and after the installation of the SHS. Moving beyond the householders’ point of view to estimate economic benefits for such a program requires evaluation of transfer payments and accounting for any subsidies and taxes associated with delivering electricity via SHS. Meier (2003) had access to a large amount of survey data on rural household energy behaviour from an ESMAP study of electrification in the Philippines (ESMAP 2002).
As Meier (2003, p. 9) points out, however, the avoided cost approach represents only the ‘lower bound’ of benefits because it fails to take into account improvements in level of service as a result of SHS use. Meier suggests that the lumen output of a 20 Wp SHS would be approximately ten times that of kerosene lamps typically used prior to SHS installation. Likewise with television, a household that receives a SHS may have the opportunity not just to reduce expenditure on rechargeable automotive batteries but to watch more television. Economic theory deals with this situation by assuming a demand curve for these household ‘goods’ and then determining the change in ‘consumer surplus’ (i.e. the benefits in excess of the costs associated with any particular level of consumption) when moving from one point on the assumed demand curve to another.
60 Chapter 3
The concept of a demand curve for lighting, from which consumer surplus may be determined, is illustrated in Figure 3-1. The consumer surplus when using kerosene lamps is represented by area A (equal to the area under the demand curve up to point α less the costs represented by areas B + D). When using PV lighting the consumer surplus is represented by area A + B + C (i.e. area under the curve at point β less areas D + E). Hence the change in consumer surplus is the area B + C. If points α and β can be determined (i.e. the average lumen-hour consumption levels when households use kerosene lighting and when using SHS lighting) and the demand curve estimated, then a monetary value of the change in consumer surplus can be calculated.
Figure 3-1 Determination of consumer surplus for lighting (Source: Meier 2003)
Meier’s ex ante evaluation carries out this exercise for lighting (quantified in Philippine peso per lumen-hours) and television use (quantified in Philippine peso per hour watched) for each of the three SHS sizes. He notes that the demand curve can be expected to vary with income and hence he assumes differing demand curves for the three target household categories (very poor, poor and non-poor). The effects of transfer payments, taxes and subsidies can be further accounted for such that both financial and economic ‘benefits’ can be estimated.
61 Chapter 3
Whilst the avoided cost method of evaluation very clearly offers the advantage of straight forward execution, the consumer surplus concept requires that a number of assumptions be made. It is particularly sensitive to the shape of the demand curve assumed. Meier (2003) points out that a linear demand curve is often assumed, perhaps because only two points on the curve can be estimated with any reliability (i.e. points α and β). A linear assumption, however, considerably overestimates consumer surplus as may be noted from observation of Figure 3-1 (area C is smaller than would be the case if the demand curve were a straight line between points α and β).
The avoided cost and consumer surplus approaches, however, exhibit more serious limitations aside from the requirement that an estimate be made of the demand curve. They work on an output basis and require that a monetary value be allocated for these outputs. Placing a standard monetary value on various SHS outputs is a crude simplification. Considering lighting, for example, such an approach does not differentiate between the quality or convenience of light provided by CFL compared to pressurized or unregulated wick kerosene lamp. Nor can it deal with user preferences for different configurations of lighting. For example, even though lumen output may be identical for one powerful lamp, three lamps with a range of capacities, or ten very small lamps, users may place very different values on each combination.
Of greater concern, however, is that the focus on system outputs risks misleading evaluations away from what households value. Householders’ interests are unlikely to rest upon lumen- hours produced but rather the benefits derived from access to electricity. Meier (2003) acknowledges this limitation and notes a number of ‘externalities’ which are not accounted for in the avoided cost and consumer surplus methods. These include health, household amenity, education, safety, and income generation. Such ‘externalities’ are likely to be the very benefits for which rural households prize their SHS and evaluation methods are required that incorporate such benefits.
Surveying incorporating financial, economic and social benefits The studies by Mehta (2004) and Chaurey (2000) reported in Section 2.4.3 both use survey approaches that attempt to quantify social benefits. They use different methods, however, to detect the changes associated with SHS provision—one studies households ‘with/without’ SHS and the other households ‘before/after’ receiving a SHS.
The approach typically taken for electrification is to survey samples of households with and without access to electricity (ESMAP 2003). Mehta’s (2004) study of a SHS program in Karnataka, India, is an example of this with/without approach. The study involved a
62 Chapter 3
questionnaire survey of fifty-six households using SHS and eighteen non-electrified households. Analysis of the survey compared the situation of households with SHS to that of their neighbours without SHS. The SHS-user households were identified by representatives of the commercial firm that had installed the systems and the non-electrified households by a process of random selection. Most of the systems included in the survey had been installed for more than two years. The questionnaire developed for the study was based upon prior, unpublished research on the impact of SHS and emphasised the use of ‘closed’ questions to minimise enumerator bias and facilitate analysis. Questions ranged from household demographic data to maintenance and financing experience and perceived health and educational benefits. The study sought to determine impact at the household level but responses regarding some benefits were specifically sought from both women and men.
The study by Chaurey (2000) in West Bengal, India, provides a contrast to the with/without approach adopted by Mehta. Chaurey’s research was structured around the situation before and after the introduction of SHS. The study considered the impact of the SHS on education, entertainment, ‘socio-cultural benefits’22, health, lives of women, and household financial benefits. One hundred and fifty-two SHS users were surveyed, representing approximately half of the systems that had been installed in the program. Twenty-nine of the user households were surveyed before and after installation of their systems. Chaurey notes that whilst the questionnaire was not directed specifically to either female or male beneficiaries, forty percent of respondents were women and this enabled a comparison to be made between the responses provided by women and men.
Gustavsson and Ellegard (2004) provide another example of the with/without survey approach for assessing SHS impact. In their case they sought to determine the impact on rural livelihoods in Zambia and their study sought to assess social advantages of SHS use as well as financial benefits. Ninety-two client surveys were conducted involving all one hundred SHS provided in a pilot program implemented by the Zambian Government and funded by the Swedish International Development Agency. According to Gustavsson and Ellegard (2004, p. 1063), the aim of their survey was:
‘to collect information on the impacts on the livelihood system as a result of access to electric services such as light’
22 Such benefits were not defined within the report. Of the impacts noted by respondents, an increased sense of ‘security against theft’ is the only impact listed which appears to fall under this heading.
63 Chapter 3
‘Impact’ is not explicitly defined by the authors who describe their paper as presenting ‘initial findings on the clients' experience’ (Gustavsson & Ellegard 2004, p. 1061). The information provided by the survey covers a wide range of social and financial changes associated with ownership of the SHS. These included expenditure on energy, hours of light at night, changes in domestic routine, benefits of solar electricity, ownership and usage of electrical appliances, changes in forms of entertainment, and ability to work or study at night. Information was also collected about system performance, user knowledge, user demographics (including income patterns and employment), and perceptions of the comparative importance of television, cooking stoves and water pumps.
The survey used in the study was developed through deep interviews with a sample of clients, followed by field testing and further refinement. In response to the relatively small number of systems installed a census sample was adopted for the study. Surveying was completed by local enumerators. Technicians from the program directed the enumerators to the client households but were not involved in the survey interviews. For each beneficiary household interviewed, the nearest non-beneficiary household was also interviewed, enabling comparison of households with and without access to a SHS.
The questionnaire format was not provided with the paper presented by Gustavsson and Ellegard. They report on at least two open-ended questions being included, one regarding the best things about solar electricity and the other about activities which can be undertaken with SHS which could not be done previously. Respondents were also requested to report on the perceptions of their experience with SHS in a range of areas, including performance of the leasing agency and system capacity during the wet season. Whilst such open questioning maximises the range of information provided by respondents it adds to the complexity of comparing responses. The inclusion of non-SHS users within the survey provided a simple mechanism to isolate the impact of SHS on the lives of system users. The authors do not report, however, any attempt to match the demographics of SHS users and non-users and they note that the SHS users in the study make up a ‘well-to-do’ group within rural Zambian society.
Another example of a survey approach to evaluating both financial and social benefits is the Sri Lanka Energy Services Delivery program evaluation. This program promoted renewable energy and energy efficiency in Sri Lanka from 1997 to 2002 and was evaluated in 2002 by a team of consultants working for International Resources Group (IRG 2003). In addition to promoting energy efficiency, micro-hydro and wind power, the program involved a large SHS component that resulted in 18,600 systems being installed over a period of two years. Immediately
64 Chapter 3
following completion, the program was evaluated to determine the social and economic impacts of the electrification projects—both SHS and micro-hydro off-grid systems.
The evaluation was carried out by surveying at the household level. A sample of one hundred households were selected from within the five districts in which the program operated. Households were randomly selected and represented each of the four vendors who had installed the systems. The questionnaire used was divided into four sections: background household information; purchasing decision and financing; economic impacts; and social impacts. The background information section provided basic demographic and housing details for each household and included a rating of the dwelling construction (from ‘very poor’ to ‘very good’ based on the construction type and materials used) which was used during analysis as a proxy for household wealth.
Purchasing decision and financing information questions covered the factors which had influenced households to purchase their system and their experiences and satisfaction with their SHS. These questions also identified system size, households having been able to buy systems ranging in size from 32 to 160 Wp. The financing section also investigated household expenditure on energy and whether this increased or decreased with SHS installation.
Household electricity expenditure was questioned in further detail in the economic impact section, which examined both general household finances (e.g. income profiles and borrowing patterns) and questions relating to financing of the SHS. This section also considered forms of energy used prior to installation of the SHS.
The final six survey questions related to the social impact of the systems. The first of these asked respondents about changes that had taken place in their life as a result of the SHS. Respondents were able to select any or all of the following changes:
increased income
longer entertainment hours
more time for schoolwork
other activities possible at night e.g. cooking, sewing
increased safety
better informed e.g. news, health, agriculture, etc.
quality of life generally better.
65 Chapter 3
This was followed by a question asking users whether their SHS had made their life better, worse or had made no difference. Three other questions related to levels of government support for the program and the final question allowed respondents to make other comments if they wished.
Overall, the survey had a strong focus on financial and technical aspects, with only two of thirty-nine questions considering social benefits explicitly. Even amongst the social benefits, there was a strong financial aspect with the evaluation report listing ‘income-generating activities’ and ‘increased discretionary income’ amongst the social impacts.
The final survey method reviewed here was developed to evaluate the impact of rural electrification in the Philippines. The resulting report, entitled Rural Electrification and Development in the Philippines: Measuring the Social and Economic Benefits (ESMAP 2002), provides an estimate of benefits on a national, rather than project, basis. Whilst the other methods reviewed in this section relate exclusively to SHS, the ESMAP Philippines study evaluated the impact of rural electrification generally. The study is included here, however, because the survey approach developed for the Philippines underpins the quantitative element of the Demand-Oriented Approach to evaluation described in the following section and which is the basis for the evaluation method used in this research.
The ESMAP study affirms the usefulness of converting benefits into financial terms. It acknowledges, however, that the results of a purely financial assessment are far too narrow to capture a broad range of social benefits. At the other end of the scale they suggest that attempts to encompass this broad range of social benefits risk becoming so general as to lose their usefulness from a policy-making perspective. In response, the ESMAP team set out to develop a general framework for evaluating the benefits of rural electrification based on quantifying a project’s ‘economic efficiency’ (i.e. economic return on investment). The framework focuses purely on quantifying in monetary terms the socio-economic benefits of rural electrification. It does not attempt to model the effects of other factors such as the type of supply or load management. The approach developed views electricity as an input which helps deliver services which are then used to meet household needs—i.e. a ‘derived benefit’ approach. The household needs (or ‘consumer benefits’ as the ESMAP study terms them) that are considered are education; health; entertainment and communication; comfort and protection; convenience; and productivity. Whilst different forms of electricity supply were not considered separately in the study, the ESMAP report commends the framework as a useful tool for both grid and off-grid renewable energy systems and for use in locations other than the Philippines.
66 Chapter 3
The study developed a method for determining a monetary value of the consumer benefits and used it to estimate the economic return on providing electricity to four million non- electrified households in the rural Philippines. A metric was determined for each of the benefits listed above and surveys undertaken to quantify the difference in electrified and non- electrified households. Statistical testing was then carried out to estimate the effect of electrification on the differences observed and these converted to a monetary value based on household willingness-to-pay for the additional benefits. Two thousand households were surveyed in four provinces to generate the data for analysis. A relatively large sample size is required for this approach to control for externalities such as level of income and education. The survey format is highly detailed consisting of almost three hundred closed questions (including thirty questions on the use of solar PV energy). Questions were directed to a single respondent at the household level. The sex of the respondent was not recorded and the format was not designed to provide sex disaggregated data.
In their conclusion, the authors of the ESMAP study note the need for additional and more detailed data to refine their results and quantify some of the benefits for which it was not possible to calculate a monetary value, such as convenience and security. They also note, however, that such additional detail would increase research costs substantially and they question whether the additional information would change—from a policy-making perspective—the value of the information generated.
There is an appealing rigour to the approach adopted for the ESMAP Philippines evaluation. For the research proposed here, however, its inability to value perceptions of convenience and security, for instance, illustrates the shortcomings of using a purely econometric model for evaluation. Rural Timorese society does not share Western economic values. For example, rural farmers who don’t sell as much as expected at market are as likely to raise their prices towards the end of the day—in the hope of compensating for lost sales—as they are to lower them (A Ribiero [East Timor Community Water Supply and Sanitation Program] 2006, pers. comm., 21 August). A research method which focuses exclusively on monetary values may prove entirely inappropriate to the Timorese context and risks misleading the evaluation from its outset. The value framework of the beneficiary communities and their assessment of impact is far more relevant than one imposed from outside such communities. Developing such a framework requires moving beyond a survey approach and engaging with SHS users in a participatory manner. Two attempts to do this for a SHS evaluation are discussed below.
67 Chapter 3
Surveys plus qualitative enquiry The study by Yayasan Dian Desa (2003) of SHS in Indonesia, findings of which were discussed above, was structured around a three-stage household survey, supplemented by focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. The study was broad ranging, seeking to examine not only impacts at the household level but also marketing and financing experiences. Compared to other studies, this work was distinctive in that it attempted to identify impacts upon individual household members, not just upon households as a whole.
Development impact was defined as changes in socio-economic status of user households and the study sought to identify changes that occurred during the twelve months immediately following SHS installation. The study was also intended to understand how SHS use impacted on internal household dynamics, and sought to examine who made use of the system and how. This led to a set of what the Yayasan Dian Desa (2003, p. 3) report terms ‘structural questions’ for the evaluation, which included:
Does the SHS bring about the improvement in social economic status of the users? Does it foster income generation activities?
Does the SHS lead to the reduction of the household’s expenditures on energy? If so, how do those variables change?
Does the use of SHS affect the division of labour in the households? How far is the division of labour in the households affected? Does the use of the SHS support to the [sic] gender equity?
Who gets the benefits from the system? What are their advantages?
Does the SHS influence education, spatial mobilization, and social participation? Does the use of the SHS shape life style of the users? How far is their life style influenced? (Yayasan Dian Desa 2003, p. 3)
Other elements of the study were designed to explore and better understand the marketing and financing approaches and the thinking behind user-decisions to purchase systems. System reliability and maintenance experience and user understanding of system operation were also examined.
The majority of information presented in the evaluation report was drawn from user surveys. Fifty SHS-using households and fifty of their non-SHS neighbours were surveyed three times— upon installation of the systems; six months after installation; and then again at twelve months
68 Chapter 3
after installation. As such, this study was a blend of the ‘with/without’ surveying approach and the ‘before/after’.
The study team worked with one of two commercial suppliers to identify each new SHS purchaser during a six-week inception period for the evaluation. All these households were incorporated into the study. No details are provided in the research findings regarding selection of non-SHS neighbouring households.
The survey questionnaire was not appended to the study report. Questions, however, can be seen to have investigated: a range of socio-economic indicators—land ownership, expenditure on productive activities, purchase of goods, income and employment status; and gender disaggregated household data—decision making responsibilities, representation at social engagements, leisure patterns, and responsibility for and time spent on domestic duties such as cooking, cleaning, laundering and child rearing.
As noted above, detecting changes in some of the social-benefit indicators within a twelve month period following installation presents challenges. Despite this short interval, the evaluation report makes clear that other factors apart from installation of the SHS played a strong part in driving change during the study period and made the survey results difficult to interpret. Particularly confounding were the changes due to the annual agricultural cycle which had a significant influence on household expenditure (such as purchasing crop inputs), income and domestic activity patterns. Drought and a general downturn in the economy also appeared to be important factors in changes detected in the survey results. This concern highlights a significant complication to the ‘before/after’ survey approach.
Household surveys were not relied upon alone for the evaluation. Survey results were supplemented with in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. In-depth interviews were held with key informants—those considered to have special knowledge regarding the use and dissemination of the SHS—drawn from project staff, government officials and the commercial firms supplying the systems. Focus group discussions were conducted with three groups of SHS users and their neighbours in two locations and used to further explore findings from the surveys.
As noted above, the study was distinctive in that it sought to determine impact not just at the household level but also for individuals within a household. Attempts were made to conduct
69 Chapter 3
surveys with four respondents in each household—the ‘wife’, ‘husband’, and the oldest female and male child. The researchers noted that:
The data are analysed quantitatively to determine how the SHS is used within a household, who uses it, how it affects the duties, activities, roles, status and income of the household members, and how it affects the relationship between the household members and the community. (Yayasan Dian Desa 2003, p. 2) and;
Thus the study examines the hypothesis that there are some relationships between the installation and use of an SHS and the social economic status and the life style of household members. (Yayasan Dian Desa 2003, p. 4)
Gustavsson (2007) also used a combined survey/participatory approach when studying the same PV project in Zambia assessed by Gustavsson and Ellegard (2004) and described earlier. The study by Gustavsson was conducted twelve months after the initial impact assessment to look specifically at educational benefits accruing to those households with access to SHS. The approach was intended primarily to explore the links between solar lighting and changes in study routines but changes in entertainment habits were also investigated. Data from the study by Gustavsson and Ellegard (2004) was combined with survey information collected a year later in two additional project areas. Gustavsson chose to make some minor alterations to the questionnaire used, including converting some open-ended questions into closed questions and incorporating a set of attitude questions (which were noted to have been ‘inspired’ by the ESMAP (2002) study of rural electrification in the Philippines which is discussed above). Also of note in Gustavsson’s approach is that a wealth index was developed which classified households into wealth groupings according to ownership of items such as books, furniture, cars and window glass.
Significantly, however, Gustavsson chose to supplement questionnaire surveying with semi- structured interviewing of a sample of beneficiaries and school teachers and headmasters. Whilst Gustavsson does not state the reasoning behind this addition to the method used in the preceding study of the Zambia project, it is tacit acknowledgement of the limitations of the survey approach.
Three additional points are highlighted by Gustavsson’s study. Whilst it aims to evaluate educational benefits, the duration between the introduction of systems and project evaluation
70 Chapter 3
is short (one year only) and this may not be sufficient time for access to SHS to influence education. The same difficulty is presented with a range of other development benefits such as employment status and household income. Studies taken over a short duration need to acknowledge this limitation and look for other ways in which to address long-term development indicators.
Secondly, there was no attempt made to match samples for comparison of users and non- users within the with/without SHS approach adopted for the research. If such an approach is to be used effectively some exploration of the potential similarities and differences between SHS users and their neighbours is required.
Finally, the study collects information on a range of system failures due to equipment faults and underperformance due to misuse. It is conceivable that such experiences may have some impact on perceptions of satisfaction and system benefits. This highlights the importance of being able to analyse user populations with and without experience of system faults so as to enable testing for correlation between poor system performance and low levels of user satisfaction.
The Yayasan Dian Desa (2003) study in Indonesia and Gustavsson’s (2007) evaluation in Zambia appear to have been strengthened by combining surveying with qualitative approaches. Despite this, the methods they describe appear to have assumed that their evaluation frameworks accurately reflect the user values with respect to development. Conduct of the participatory processes followed the surveying rather than having the survey formats designed in response to a broad understanding developed through participative enquiry with the SHS users. On this basis, it is not unreasonable to anticipate that the participatory processes led more to an improved understanding of how the SHS users interpreted the researchers’ questions and evaluation framework rather than an improved understanding of how users valued their systems.
A more effective approach starts with the users, works with them to develop the evaluation framework and then involves them in their own analysis. Tools for combining such an approach with survey methods are detailed in the following section which describes the ESMAP Demand-Oriented Approach to evaluation.
71 Chapter 3
3.2.2 The ESMAP ‘demand-oriented approach’
The Joint UNDP/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme (ESMAP) was commissioned by the Energy, Poverty and Gender Initiative (EnPoGen) to develop an approach for evaluating rural electrification programs. The subsequent report, entitled Monitoring and Evaluation in Rural Electrification Projects: A Demand-Oriented Approach was published in July 2003 (ESMAP). The goal of the report, set out in the Preface, is to:
develop a demand-oriented approach or methodology to monitor and evaluate rural electrification projects. The methodology is intended to assist rural electrification programs in measuring the socio-economic impacts of their projects, with a focus on poverty and gender implications. The result of the project is a research strategy and two different but complementary methodologies…
The monitoring and evaluation methodology builds upon two existing complementary methodologies. They include a qualitative research methodology for participatory assessments developed by the World Bank Water and Sanitation Program…; and a more quantitative method for evaluating the benefits of rural electrification developed under the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program of the World Bank.23
The advantage gained by combining the two methodologies is that the participatory approach makes clear the values held by beneficiaries and can illuminate complex factors affecting behaviour and perception whilst quantitative approaches provide information which can be generalised across populations.
Despite including ‘monitoring and evaluation’ in the title of the ESMAP approach, the Demand- Oriented Approach (DOA) does not restrict itself to a traditional view of monitoring and evaluation—i.e. activities that take place only during and/or after implementation. The DOA authors emphasise the importance of understanding the needs and interests of rural communities during the design phase to ensure that programs are better targeted to a broad range of prospective users. This is also believed to increase the likelihood that benefits will not be captured solely by rural elites. Application of the DOA provides insights that are as relevant to the planning stage and to program design as they are to evaluation. The authors envisage the DOA tools being used during preparation, design, implementation and impact assessment.
The ‘demand-oriented’ phrase in the title does not refer to a ‘demand’ for evaluation on the part of beneficiary communities. Rather, it emphasises a philosophical viewpoint that
23 The ‘more quantitative method’ referred to is the ESMAP study of rural electrification in the Philippines that was discussed above and in Section 2.5.1.
72 Chapter 3
electricity services must be adapted to community demand and that technologies need to be matched to differing community contexts. The approach starts with a focus on understanding communities and their needs, and then exploring what technologies might best fit rather than starting with the technology and seeing how it can be applied to a particular rural setting. This underlying philosophy agrees with the framework applied for the research described here.
As noted above, the DOA consists of two complementary methodologies—one of a qualitative nature involving participatory assessments and the other a quantitative socio-economic impact survey. The participatory assessment methodology is intended to understand needs and priorities, and the survey to measure and analyse the benefits and costs of rural electrification. The terms ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’, however, are used somewhat loosely, since neither methodology is exclusively qualitative or quantitative. Participatory approaches may also be appropriate for measuring benefits, particularly those benefits that are not well suited to survey methods. The DOA offers support for this stance. Discussing the use of scoring matrices with participatory exercises, the DOA report notes that scoring matrices can be used to ‘record perceptions of participatory indicators…They translate relatively qualitative data into a quantitative form’ (ESMAP 2003, p. 30).
The DOA report sets out a range of key indicators which it aims to cover. These are divided into seven different sections: sustainability; equitable access; change in cross-sectoral social development indicators; division of costs and benefits (within and between households); user participation in establishment and operation; institutional support (for gender and poverty- sensitive interventions); and policy support (for gender and poverty-sensitive interventions). Of these indicators, the ‘cross-sectoral social development indicators’ are those of relevance to this research. These consist of (ESMAP 2003, Table 3-1, p 19):
education; ability to attend school, time spent on education, quality of education and presence of teachers
health care and safety; access to and quality of health care, access to medicines, presence of doctor(s)/health worker(s), and safety in and outside the home
domestic productivity; ability to, and efficiency of, conducting household (non-income generating) responsibilities
income-generating activities; ability to conduct income-generating activities, productivity/efficiency and profitability
73 Chapter 3
“strategic” needs; ability to undertake new/desired activities, participation in household decision making and voice in community decisions
access to information and communications; access to news and information on income-generating activities, health and safety and family planning, and access to communication with distant family members
convenience/comfort; leisure time and time spent sleeping, socialising, watching television/listening to radio/reading for enjoyment.
Participatory evaluation approach The DOA recommends that evaluating the key indicators commences with use of participatory tools. A range of widely-used participatory tools are suggested and include:
wealth classification where participants classify community members into categories of economic wealth (the DOA suggests use of three categories—rich, intermediate and poor). These classifications are subsequently used within community mapping exercises or focus group discussions.
community mapping where participants produce a map of their community, generally using locally available materials, and note the locations of key landmarks (e.g. schools, health clinic, water bodies), households, and community resources (e.g. water supplies, agricultural resources, electricity). Access to assets and household location may be configured according to wealth.
focus group discussion which may cover a wide range of questions designed to identify and understand preferences and opinions of participants.
transect walk where participants and evaluators walk through a community, from one boundary to another, and observe the quality of, and access to, services. Understanding gained through this process informs the application of other tools and may be used to generate discussion with participants.
pocket voting where each participant indicates their preference in response to a research question. Voting, which may be done in secret, provides information on user preferences, behaviours and decision making. Group exercises are used to analyse and interpret the results of voting exercises.
ladders where participants indicate the extent to which demands are being met by scoring their response on a scale. This is useful in assessing the benefits of
74 Chapter 3
electrification and for comparing the benefits to householders against the costs of securing electricity services.
Additional participatory tools are recommended by the DOA for use in project planning and direction including cross-sectional stakeholder meetings and policy-level assessment. These tools, however, are not relevant to the scope of this research.
The DOA report notes four main strengths for participatory, qualitative techniques: incorporating user priorities and capacities; dealing with ‘softer’24 kinds of information such as end-user perceptions, preferences and opinions; helping communities to organise themselves to express views about how to implement a project; and building cooperation and trust and promoting ownership. Weaknesses noted are the cost and time involved; the requirement for well-trained and experienced staff; the possibility that information collected is specific to communities and not easily generalised across broader populations; and the risk of techniques being ‘manipulated and used in a purely extractive manner’ which diminishes trust and cooperation. The authors also note a weakness particular to the use of the participatory approach for research—the risk of raising community expectations that action will follow as a result of providing information. Where communities identify actions and areas for change there is a danger that they will expect assistance to realise those actions. This risk is relevant to the use of a participatory approach for this research.
The DOA report notes a number of practical issues and lessons from previous experience that the authors suggest aid in implementation of the participatory exercises. The use of visual materials is important where literacy levels are low. They are particularly good for engaging those with low or no literacy, such as the elderly, income-poor and women, who are often the most marginalised in communities. Combining individual scoring (such as might be produced from a ‘ladder’ tool or ‘pocket voting’) with confirmation through group discussion and analysis provides an opportunity to establish group responses rather than individual responses.
As noted above, the use of scoring matrices within participatory exercises allows the transformation of qualitative data into quantitative data. Such matrices or vectors generally involve a scale with a number of descriptive options against which participants assess an indicator. Simple scales are used, generally with three or four categories, for example scoring zero, low, medium or high results. Within the participatory process, such scales promote discussion within groups and help to highlight differences of opinion, experience, and perceptions between participants and between groups. The DOA report notes that conscious
24 this term is used without definition but is taken to imply information which is not easily quantified
75 Chapter 3
efforts are required to incorporate gender and poverty aspects into participatory processes and that successful application of the tools require staff with prior experience in participatory research.
Socio-economic Household Survey The quantitative method recommended for the DOA is that used in the ESMAP study of rural electrification in the Philippines (ESMAP 2002), discussed above in Sections 2.4.2 and 3.2.1. The DOA authors suggest that the strengths of quantitative approaches are that information from surveys is more easily generalised to a broad population; and better suited to assess characteristics such as patterns of energy demand, opportunities for fuel substitution and to ‘understand the impact of energy policies on the poor’.25 Weaknesses noted for the quantitative approach are not dissimilar to those for the qualitative one. Both approaches require trained, competent staff; require substantial resources to implement and hence are expensive; and require good planning and organisation for successful implementation. These requirements are to be expected.
The socio-economic household survey involves the use of questionnaires completed through formal interviewing of randomly selected respondents. A detailed description of the survey components and the manner in which they have been adapted for this research are covered in detail in Section 4.4.
In response to the explicit gender focus of the EnPoGen study for which the DOA was developed, the DOA recommends surveying of women and men separately. The DOA authors note that studies typically use the household as the unit of investigation but that sex- disaggregated data is required to determine differing impacts for women and men. For this reason some elements of the survey must addressed to individuals and deal separately with women and men. At the household level, however, not all questions need to be directed to both women and men. In light of the cost and time involved in surveying it is appropriate to purposefully select those areas of the survey where women’s and men’s responses may differ in response to their gender perspectives. Questions which are unlikely to be subject to gender influences (such as dwelling construction, number and age of family members, levels of education) may be directed to a single household representative rather than asked of both female and male representatives.
25 It might be expected that information about policy impacts would be provided most readily from participatory methodologies rather than the survey approach, the insensitivity of surveys to this type of information being one of the main reasons why participatory approaches have become so widely accepted.
76 Chapter 3
The DOA report notes the long-term nature of some changes which occur as the result of electrification. The authors suggest that a weakness of some evaluations is that the duration between households receiving access to electricity and being surveyed to determine the impact is too short for benefits to be observed. They illustrate this point with education, suggesting that a child’s education may take ten to twelve years to complete and that an evaluation conducted one to three years after a project had been completed would be unlikely to capture improvements in educational outcomes. The DOA report argues that social benefits of electrification often occur incrementally over many years. In response, it recommends that a surveying interval of about five years is adopted and notes that some projects may require a survey ten or more years after completion.
Trials underpinning development of the DOA The three evaluations from which the DOA was developed illustrate the manner in which it can be conducted and highlight its appropriateness for evaluating the impact of SHS projects. These three studies were conducted as part of the EnPoGen project and evaluated rural electrification in Indonesia (Madon 2003), Sri Lanka (Massé 2003), and China (IDS 2003). Each evaluation used the combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques subsequently endorsed in the DOA.
French consulting firm Marchéage et Gestion de l’Environnement (MARGE) undertook the studies in Indonesia and Sri Lanka. The Indonesian evaluation used a case study approach to investigate electrification in two Indonesian provinces—West Java and South Sulawesi— covering nineteen villages in four districts. In addition to households without access to electricity these communities provided examples of grid-based electrification, local grid electrification and SHS. SHS were the main source of electrification in four of the nineteen villages.
The initial, qualitative phase involved in-depth interviews and focus group discussions which the researchers characterise as ‘recording the voices of the people’ (Madon 2003, p. 2). Whilst the topics covered and the tools used are not detailed in the investigation report, the findings presented indicate that the following areas were investigated: importance of electricity in relation to other development needs; uses of electricity and important benefits; opportunities for income generation; and barriers to access both in relation to poverty and gender. The second phase of the investigation was quantitative and involved a survey of 1700 households. Madon (2003, p. 3) reports that the survey was used to ‘validate’ the main findings of the study.
77 Chapter 3
The study by Massé (2003) of electrification impacts in Sri Lanka incorporated a similar perception regarding validation of the participatory evaluation findings with the survey data Massé (2003, p. 27):
The purpose of the qualitative study was to generate insights into the different types of rural electrification schemes and their relationship to the livelihood of people in general and poverty alleviation and gender in particular. It was hoped that these insights and their applicability could be validated and quantified during the comprehensive household survey.
As with the Indonesian investigation, the Sri Lankan study also included a mix of households that either were non-electrified or had access to grid-based electricity, a local grid (micro hydro) or SHS. A further element of the study was investigation of a demand-side management project involving the distribution of CFLs. The qualitative study involved four one-day workshops where representatives from 122 households engaged in a range of participatory exercises adapted from participatory rural appraisal approaches including: wealth ranking, impact diagramming, paired ranking, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussion. Themes investigated included: the situation before electricity; indentifying pre-electrification expenditure and changes in expenditure post-electrification; changes in daily routines; identification of perceived benefits and impacts; ranking importance of electricity against other needs/priorities; ranking importance of grid connection against other forms of electrification; and a simple wealth-ranking exercise. One of the four workshops focused on the SHS households and involved thirty representatives from twenty-seven households.
The participatory process was followed with extensive socio-economic surveying at the household level. The total survey sample of 1573 households included representatives from 149 households using SHS. The questionnaire developed for the study covered: household demographics, fuel use, household needs, perceptions on community benefits from electricity; waking hours, and household assets and income. Separate sections were developed for households with and without access to electricity. For those households served by electricity additional topics included: change in waking hours; lighting/appliance use; electricity consumption and expenditure; and impact and sense of satisfaction. The questionnaire format was particularly detailed. Two examples highlight this level of detail—information was sought on the types of television programs watched by each of the different members of a households and about what activities and energy sources were involved in preparing different meals at breakfast, lunch and dinner.
The third of the EnPoGen evaluations upon which the DOA was built was carried out by The Institute for Development Studies (IDS 2003). Six communities in China were selected on a
78 Chapter 3
case-study basis to ‘explore the linkages between poverty, gender, and energy with a particular focus on electrification’ (IDS 2003, p. 74). The communities chosen for the study provided a mix of non-electrified communities, communities with access to grid-based electricity and those with access to micro-hydro services. The approach had been designed to accommodate investigation of SHS but no suitable sites were identified. A combined qualitative and quantitative approach was developed to investigate three lines of questioning: livelihoods—considering strategies, constraints, gender and poverty aspects; energy services— considering the types of, distribution of, and access to services; and impacts of new energy services—considering links to income generation, livelihood diversification, health, education, gender and poverty influences.
Village activities commenced with key informant interviews with a range of community members on issues relating to poverty, gender, energy and electrification. Survey interviews were carried out with a sample of thirty-six households from each village. The surveys were combined with information gained from a range of participatory exercises conducted with community representatives. These exercises included participatory mapping, time line diagrams, seasonal calendars, wealth rankings, community meetings, focus group discussions and matrix ranking exercises.
Use of the DOA for SHS in East Timor The DOA survey tools are designed to evaluate the impact of programs providing electricity for both lighting and power, and need to be adapted to a lighting-only context for the SHS in East Timor. The authors of the DOA report confirm that the participatory approach has been adapted to make it ‘applicable to stand-alone electric systems’ (ESMAP 2003, p. 5) such as the SHS being evaluated here. As noted above, it is suggested that surveying follow investigation through participatory exercises. The survey format can then developed in response to priorities identified by communities during participatory research.
The DOA report acknowledges problems associated with wealth classification, the authors noting that it is ‘difficult to get reliable information on income in questionnaires, as people are usually reluctant to discuss this subject’ (ESMAP 2003, p. 36). The EnPoGen study required robust mechanisms for wealth classification to enable poverty impacts to be analysed. Explicit wealth classification of users is not required to test the hypothesis for this research. Consequently, proxy indicators for wealth may be used, avoiding any contention associated with questioning respondents about their income.
The DOA report states that the typical approach to surveying selects samples ‘with’ and ‘without’ access to electricity. Analysis of the results then tests for differences in responses
79 Chapter 3
between these two groups. The research here is looking for differences between three groups of electricity users each with access to a SHS of different size. Consequently the samples are not with/without but with-small SHS, with-medium SHS, and with-large SHS. A with/without comparison may have provided further interest to the results of this research but would have added little, if any, value with respect to testing the hypothesis. Such an approach would most certainly have added to the cost and complexity of the work and was rejected on those grounds.
3.3 Conclusions
This chapter formally presents the research hypothesis and sets out the boundaries of the investigation. The study is limited to the evaluation of SHS in East Timor only, to systems that provide light but not power for other devices, and by the exclusion of factors that may influence sustained use of the SHS.
Having set this aim and these boundaries, it was possible to consider what evaluation methods might be suitable to the task at hand. Section 3.2.1 presents the literature on approaches that have been applied to the evaluation of SHS in developing countries. Appropriate methods must recognise the multi-dimensional nature of development, as discussed in Section 2.4.1, and move beyond a simple financial assessment. Although survey techniques can be broadened in an attempt to capture social benefits (such as health, education, leisure, and convenience), the best results have been achieved by combining surveys with qualitative enquiry. This combined approach facilitates better understanding of impact than either qualitative or quantitative assessments on their own.
The ESMAP DOA to evaluation recognises the complementary nature of qualitative and quantitative enquiry and provides a useful model for evaluation of rural electrification. The authors of the DOA invite others to customise the indicators that they have developed to suit specific situations. Whilst this affirms that the DOA method might be adapted for both the technology being evaluated here (stand-alone SHS) and the geographical setting (system in East Timor only), it raises a question as to the basis on which that might be done. This question is answered in the following chapter which commences by describing a set of preliminary consultations that were held with five communities in East Timor. These ‘Initial Community Consultations’ were central to the adaptation of the DOA method. The consultations and the resulting adaptation and development of the evaluation method for this research is described in detail in Chapter 4.
80
Chapter 4
Research method
81 Chapter 4
4 Research method
From the evaluation methods reported in the literature and reviewed in Chapter 3 it was possible to select the Demand Oriented Approach (DOA) as the preferred evaluation model for this research in East Timor. This chapter sets out how the DOA was adapted to make it appropriate for the evaluation of SHS installed in East Timor. The first step in adapting the DOA was learning from rural Timorese households about how they use electricity (or would use electricity if it was available) and, with respect to SHS, learning about what they value in their systems and why.
To learn from rural communities a set of Initial Community Consultations were developed using participatory rural appraisal techniques. Section 4.1 describes how and where these consultations were conducted and their outcomes. Armed with the knowledge of what SHS users valued about their systems it was possible to determine what type of data would be required to evaluate SHS of different sizes and this matter is analysed in Section 4.2.
The DOA method, as discussed in Chapter 3, uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative tools. These tools are described in the final two sections of this chapter. Section 4.3 details a set of community-based participatory exercises that have a strong qualitative theme and that for this research have been termed the ‘Participatory Evaluation’. In Section 4.4, the quantitative ‘Socio-economic Household Survey’ is described. The main elements of each tool are described along with the rationale for their inclusion, the data they were intended to generate, and a description of the manner in which they were implemented.
4.1 Initial community consultations
The first step in designing the process to evaluate the development impact of SHS in East Timor was gaining a broad understanding of how rural Timorese communities use and view these systems and electricity in general. To achieve this understanding five communities were engaged in dialogue and participatory exercises. These activities, described here as ‘Initial Community Consultations’, enabled testing of initial assumptions about potential benefits of electrification drawn from studies elsewhere and discussed in Section 2.4. The consultations identified the benefits associated with electricity that are highly valued by East Timorese communities. These values were then encompassed in the subsequent Participatory Evaluations and Socio-economic Household Survey.
Topics investigated in the Initial Community Consultations included:
sources of lighting and the extent of their use in communities
82 Chapter 4
advantages and disadvantages of different lighting sources, including SHS lighting
activities for which lighting at night is important and for which SHS lighting is used
priorities for development.
In addition to providing an understanding of rural householders’ perceptions of electricity and solar lighting, there were secondary benefits from the Initial Community Consultations. Discussions with communities were also used to clarify concepts associated with the Socio- economic Household Survey and to trial tools for use in the Participatory Evaluation. One particularly important finding for the Participatory Evaluation related to the time required to explain exercises to community groups and to carry them out in a genuinely participatory manner.
Results from the consultations revealed two aspects to SHS that the participants thought were important. One concerned activities for which SHS lighting was a benefit; and the other was attributes that users found helpful. The following section describes how the Initial Community Consultations were implemented including the selection of communities, a description of the exercises conducted, and selection and preparation of community facilitators. This is then followed by presentation of general findings regarding electrification in rural East Timor and the specific findings about activities for which SHS are useful and beneficial attributes. Further details of the exercises and results from the Initial Community Consultations are set out in Appendix B.
4.1.1 Community selection
Consultations were held in five rural communities in two of East Timor’s thirteen districts, Dili and Ermera. The two communities selected in the Dili district—Burlete and Kitutu—were beneficiary communities of the UNDP Participatory Rural Energy Development Programme (described in Section 5.2). Participants from these communities included a mix of those from households with and without SHS. The other three communities were from Ermera district. Two of these communities—Sobrekeke and Eraulo—had received SHS from an international NGO, CER (as described in Section 5.1). In these two communities, almost all households had received one or more SHS and all participants in the consultations had some experience with SHS. The final community involved in the Initial Community Consultations was Kaitaraihei. This aldeia is also located in Ermera district but is served neither by grid-based electricity nor SHS.26
26 Kaitaraihei is part of the Railaco sub-district where the CER project operates. It is, however, very close to the district capital, Gleno, where a local grid provides electricity for a few hours each night. CER staff expect that in the near future service will be extended from Gleno to nearby communities such as Kaitaraihei and for that reason have not provided SHS assistance.
83 Chapter 4
The selection of aldeia for inclusion in the Initial Community Consultations balanced a number of factors. Introducing the research to district, sub-district, village and aldeia leaders was a time consuming process (sometimes requiring several days of effort) and as a consequence there was an advantage in conducting the consultations in the same communities that would then be involved in the Participatory Evaluations and Socio-economic Household Survey. Being involved in the research, however, was time consuming for participants and hence from the participants’ perspective there was an advantage in using different communities from those that would be used in the subsequent evaluation. Engaging with communities without access to electricity was important to explore community expectations of electricity and necessitated involving communities that would not be involved in the subsequent evaluations. Drawing communities from different project areas was a consideration to counter potential biases associated with experience of a single type of SHS. From a logistical perspective, it was preferable that communities were accessible within a day’s drive of the capital, Dili and clustered together to reduce travel time. The five communities that were selected for participation in the Initial Community Consultations balanced each of these factors. The sample represented: two different SHS project types; aldeia with and without access to electricity; and communities where all, some and none of the households used electricity. Locations of these communities are shown in Figure 4-1.
111000 kkkmmm
Figure 4-1 Location of Initial Community Consultations sites (Source: Google Earth 2008)
84 Chapter 4
Staff working on UNDP’s Participatory Rural Energy Development Programme provided introductions to community leaders in Burlete and Kitutu and CER staff to the three communities in Railaco sub-district—Sobrekeke, Eraulo and Kaitaraihei. Prior to any work being conducted in the communities permission was sought for the research from district, sub- district and village level government officials (refer to details in Appendix A). Following introductions with the village leadership a transect walk was generally conducted to develop a general understanding of the physical nature of the aldeia and the types of lighting and power used by households. This involved walking with leaders and interested community members from one boundary of an aldeia to the other. Observations made during the transect walk were then used to trigger discussion during participatory exercises. Each time the research was introduced, whether at community, village, sub-district or district level, it was emphasised that the research activities involved gathering information only and that there would be no accompanying funding to provide new or additional equipment nor any ability to influence government to improve access to services.
4.1.2 Initial Community Consultations—processes
In each of the five communities a number of different participatory exercises were undertaken with groups of volunteers. Community leaders were asked to invite approximately twenty participants to the consultations, with participants to include approximately equal numbers of women and men. The largest number of participants were involved in Burlete and Eraulo (33) and the smallest number in Sobrekeke (19). A total of thirty-six women and ninety-four men participated in the consultations. Involvement of women was lower than hoped for, particularly in Sobrekeke and Kitutu where the number of women participating in the consultations was only three and four respectively.
Once the participants had assembled, the purpose of the evaluation was explained and consent for involvement in the research requested (the protocols for obtaining consent are set out in Appendix A). Eight different participatory exercises had been prepared for the Initial Community Consultations and a selection of these were then undertaken in each community (as summarised in Table 4-1). The number of activities conducted in each community was matched to the speed at which activities were completed and the enthusiasm with which participants engaged in the process. In Burlete, for instance, participants were very enthusiastic and six exercise were carried out over five hours. In Sobrekeke, where the participants gathered in the evening, the consultation was limited to only two hours. An overview of each of the eight exercises is provided below.
85 Chapter 4
Table 4-1 Initial Community Consultations exercises conducted in the five participating communities Exercise Burlete Kitutu Sobrekeke Eraulo Kaitaraihei A. Types of lighting used in the village X X X X i. Types of lighting used last night X B. Good and bad points of each type X X C. Good and bad points of SHS X X X X D. Sentiments about SHS X X E. Activities for which SHS are used X X X X X27 i. Activities for which lighting is used X F. Other forms of electricity in the village X G. Development priorities X X X H. SHS willingness-to-pay X (note: ‘X’ indicates those activities that were conducted in each community)
A. Types of lighting used in the village
Participants were asked to identify all the different types of lighting used in their community. Volunteers from amongst the group then drew simple sketches of each type of lighting and these were placed on large sheets of paper. Participants were divided into two or more groups and asked to consider the frequency with which people in their community used each type of light. Each group discussed the share of lighting provided by each lighting type and then created a physical representation of their understanding by apportioning fifty corn kernels or coffee beans alongside the different pictures.
In Burlete this exercise was conducted twice, first to identify all forms of light used through the last year and then a second time to consider only those types of light that were used in the aldeia last night.
B. Good and bad points of each type
For all the forms of lighting used in the village, participants were asked to nominate ‘good’ and ‘bad’ (i.e. positive and negative) attributes for each type of lighting. This enabled identification of perceived benefits and disbenefits associated with each type. A wide range of attributes were identified such as being affordable to use, easy to make, or providing adequate light. The types of disbenefits identified included attributes such as cost, potential for causing fire and generation of smoke.
C. Good and bad points of SHS
Where SHS were used in a community (i.e. for all communities except Kaitaraihei) participants were asked to nominate ‘good’ and ‘bad’ attributes of SHS lighting. This enabled identification
27 For Kaitaraihei, participants were asked to consider those activities for which SHS lighting would be used if they had access to SHS.
86 Chapter 4 of perceived benefits and disbenefits specifically associated with solar PV lighting. For Sobrekeke and Eraulo, where solar lanterns are used in addition to SHS, good and bad attributes included those of lanterns as well as SHS.
D. Sentiments about SHS
After having considered the advantages and disadvantages of SHS, which generally concerned quite tangible attributes of systems, participants were asked to consider how they felt about their systems. The intention for this exercise was to explore concepts such as convenience, security and sense of development. Participants worked in groups to discuss positive and negative sentiments regarding SHS and identified attributes such as ‘satisfaction’ or ‘contentment’ with systems. Negative sentiments most commonly concerned fears that spare parts would not be available when a system broke down. This exercise was conducted in the two UNDP-supported communities where only a percentage of households had received a SHS. The sentiments of those households who had not received a system tended to dominate these discussions and the dominant feelings expressed were generally disappointment and frustration at not having a system.
Working on these abstract concepts often proved quite difficult for the participants when compared to the ease of discussing tangible attributes such as operation cost and quality of light produced.
E. Activities for which SHS are used
Working in small groups, participants were asked to identify a list of activities for which they use lighting. Responses were then combined and the consolidated list used for two further sub-exercises. The first of these involved group discussion to determine the approximate nightly duration of each type of activity. This was followed by a discussion about which of the activities on the list benefited most from the use of SHS lighting. Participants then ‘voted’ individually by placing three markers against the activities they thought benefited most. Women and men voted separately and there was no restriction upon how the markers were required to be placed—participants could choose to place their markers against either one, two or three different activities. In Burlete an initial list was identified of all the activities for which any lighting source was required. A subset of this list was then selected of those activities for which SHS are used.
87 Chapter 4
F. Other forms of electricity in the village
Participants were asked about other forms of electricity used in the village aside from SHS. The aim of this exercise was to indicate the proportion of households that have access to items such as generators, automotive batteries or any other form of electricity.
G. Development priorities
This exercise was intended to indicate the importance of electricity in relation to other development priorities within rural communities. Participants were asked to identify how they would use $300 if they received such an amount unexpectedly. This scenario was discussed in groups and suggestions from all group consolidated into a single list. Participants then ‘voted’ on what their household would choose to do using corn kernels or coffee beans to indicate their preferences. Responses of women and men were recorded separately.
H. SHS willingness-to-pay
This exercise was conducted only in Kaitaraihei, where none of the households had access to a SHS. Participants were asked to imagine the purchase of a SHS home system for their household and to consider how much they would be willing to pay for such a system. The configuration and performance of SHS used in the CER program were well known to the community in Kaitaraihei, as was the CER requirement that households paid a $10 upfront contribution for their system. Participants discussed their willingness-to-pay in small groups and then indicated their individual willingness-to-pay by placing a corn kernel against one of five categories—$10, $20, $50, $100 or $200.
Figure 4-2 shows Initial Community Consultations exercises being conducted in Burlete and Kitutu. Participants can be seen ‘voting’ on different issues using corn kernels and coffee beans.
Two Timorese community facilitators, Costa Belo and Vincente Reis, were engaged to assist with the Initial Community Consultations. Costa Belo was selected for his extensive experience in facilitating community mobilisation and planning processes for rural water supply and sanitation programs in East Timor. Costa had worked as a Community Facilitator for an Australian government-funded rural development program from 2002 to 2007 and had received extensive training in participatory approaches and community engagement techniques. Costa had also served as the local government leader for his community (Chefe Suco) during the difficult transition to independence from 1999 to 2002. As a consequence he had an excellent understanding of how to engage with community leadership structures when
88 Chapter 4 obtaining consent to carry out research in communities. Vincente was a recent graduate from the University de Paz in Dili where he had studied International Relations.
Neither facilitator had any prior knowledge of, nor experience with, electrification. An initial planning workshop was held to orientate both facilitators to the research and to review the techniques to be used during the Initial Community Consultations. The workshop included an overview of rural electrification in East Timor and of SHS technology and was also used to develop the materials that were used during the consultations.
Figure 4-2 Initial Community Consultations exercises being conducted in Burlete and Kitutu
4.1.3 General results
The Initial Community Consultations provided useful information both about effective processes for engaging communities in the research and also about what aspects of
89 Chapter 4 electrification should be evaluated through the Participatory Evaluation and Socio-economic Household Survey. Regarding processes, the Initial Community Consultations indicated the great importance of optimising the time communities were prepared to make available for discussion. In the rural Timorese context, simply introducing the research to the community and following the consent protocol could require half an hour or more. A meeting of two to three hours duration proved acceptable to each of the communities involved in the initial consultations. One community, Burlete, was prepared to engage in a longer process but the Chefe Aldeia for Burlete displayed a particularly high level of enthusiasm for the research. Given the acceptable two to three hour duration for a community meeting, a tension existed between the need to fully explain the purpose, concepts and instructions for each exercise (time spent with the researcher/facilitators talking) and a desire to maximise discussion between the participants and between the participants and researchers (community members talking). Any of the eight exercises described above could have been held over a two hour period and resulted in an informative dialogue with community participants.
Two precepts were highlighted by these experiences. Firstly, fully explaining the concepts and exercises to all participants required much more time than fully explaining them to most participants. It was appropriate to aim for an environment where most, not all, participants would have a good understanding of what was required in an exercise. Working in groups, where participants were able to explain concepts to one another, helped mitigate the problems associated with imperfect understanding by individual participants. The second precept was that conscious decisions were required not to investigate each interesting response that arose during community discussions. If a consistent set of exercises was to be conducted across many communities during the evaluation—which is necessary if the responses in different communities are to be compared—then the time spent on investigating responses to any one exercise had to be limited.
Other process findings from the consultations concerned the involvement of women, working in small groups and responding to low levels of adult literacy. Men were much more likely than women to respond to an invitation to participate in a community consultation. Ensuring representation of women required a careful explanation of this requirement to community leaders and delaying or postponing a meeting if necessary until women were represented. Working in small groups of four to six people generated good levels of discussion and engendered much greater participation than working only in whole-group settings. Low levels of adult literacy required that materials used in the consultations, whether to introduce concepts or document participant analysis, needed to be in pictorial format wherever possible.
90 Chapter 4
Illiteracy in rural East Timor has a gender and age dimension (Direcção Nacional de Estatistica 2008) and using text-based materials inhibited the effective participation of older women in particular.
The final learning regarding process that was highlighted in the Initial Community Consultations was that discussions around tangible or practical ideas were much more effective than discussion of conceptual ones. This was related to two of the issues noted above: time constraints and literacy levels. Introducing conceptual ideas—such as ‘convenience’ or ‘security’—was very time consuming, particularly since these had to be interpreted within the Tetun vernacular and at times translated into a different local dialect. Dealing with these concepts pictorially also presented challenges.
The specific findings from the Initial Community Consultations that had direct bearing on the design of the Participatory Evaluation are presented below. Before considering these, however, there were several general aspects of rural electrification and rural lighting that were identified during the consultations and are worthy of comment. Firstly, aside from SHS, other forms of electricity were uncommon in the five communities where consultations were held. There were no reports of automotive battery use and generators were rare. Typically a village might have access to one or two generators and these are rented or borrowed for use in large community ceremonies such as weddings and funerals. The use of electrical appliances was correspondingly rare in the communities consulted. Consequently, the consultations focused on the use of electricity for lighting rather than electricity generally.
Kitchen fires, candles and home-made kerosene lamps were the most common types of non- electric lighting identified during the consultations. Fuel for kitchen fires (the light from which was described as a secondary benefit after heat for cooking) was collected locally and hence required an investment of time but not financial resources. Use of candles and kerosene lamps both required financial inputs by households. Participants reported that traditional lighting sources such as candlenut, bamboo or candles made from locally harvested beeswax are only used by households when cash income is scarce and prevents the use of commercial lighting sources. Whilst rural households know how to make use of these lighting sources they did not play a significant lighting role in any of communities where consultations were held. Responsibility for managing lighting sources was reported to be shared equally between women and men. No well defined division of roles along gender lines was evident. A definitive picture of any gender differences, however, would have required much more detailed work with individual groups of women and men than was possible during the initial consultations.
91 Chapter 4
The Initial Community Consultations were designed to investigate the nature of disbenefits as well as benefits of SHS. Disbenefits identified by participants related to technical features of their systems rather than features intrinsic to the use of electric lighting. Concerns included the inability to fix systems when they stopped working; the difficulty and expense of procuring replacement parts when required; fluctuation in system performance in the wet and dry seasons; high incidence of technical faults; and the potential for damage to fragile components. These features of SHS are generally independent of system size. For example, the same difficulty exists in finding technicians and spare parts for a small or large system and both are equally susceptible to damage if maltreated. It is possible to envisage disbenefits that are not technical in nature, such as concerns that electric lighting disturbs cultural practices or rituals, or that the qualities of non-electric light are preferred to those of electric lighting.28 There were, however, no disbenefits raised during the Initial Community Consultations that suggested a requirement for explicit evaluation during the research.
The most significant general findings that emerged during the Initial Community Consultations are considered above. It is now appropriate to examine the results that relate specifically to designing the method for evaluating the development impact of the SHS. Discussion during the consultations indicated that SHS offer two broad types of advantage: making it easier to carry out activities at home when using SHS lighting (lighting-derived benefits); and attributes of SHS that were advantageous during operation (intrinsic benefits). As noted above, participants found it much easier to consider the activities than attributes. Some of the Initial Community Consultations exercises that were intended to explore attributes diverted into discussion of activities. Findings regarding these two types of benefits are presented below.
4.1.4 Activities for which SHS lighting is important
Activities for which lighting is used, and/or for which SHS lighting is a priority, were examined in all five communities where the Initial Community Consultations were held. Communities identified a total of seventeen different activities for which they use lighting. These ranged from tasks common to most households such as ‘studying’ and ‘eating’ to very specific activities carried out in only a few households such as ‘preparing betel nut’ or ‘preparing vegetables for sale’. The full list of activities is set out in Table 4-2. The table shows the frequency with which each activity was identified, ranging from one (indicating an activity was
28 A parallel concept was noted by the author in evaluating rural water supplies in Laos where local communities were found not to drink water from boreholes provided by a development assistance project. Community members preferred drinking highly turbid water from traditional, unprotected shallow wells because they preferred the taste of this water.
92 Chapter 4 identified in a single community) to five (indicating that all communities noted this activity as being important).
As noted in Section 4.1.2, after participants had identified the activities for which lighting was used in their community they were asked to prioritise those activities that were most important. This was done either by individual participants ‘voting’ with corn kernels or coffee beans against the activity list or by participants working in groups to reach consensus about the most important priorities. The results of this prioritisation in each community are also shown in Table 4-2, with the percentages indicating the number of participants or groups who prioritised each activity.
Table 4-2 Activities for which SHS lighting is a priority Activities identified and Times Burlete Kitutu Sobre Eraulo Kaita- Average Average prioritised identified -keke raihei (all) (women only)29 studying 5 17% 25% 26% 35% ●30 26% 32% evening meal 4 26% 11% 34% 15% 22% 12% cooking* 5 20% 13% 11% 4% 12% 24% meetings 4 2% 2% 14% 12% 8% 0% talking 2 2% 26% 7% 0% sewing 4 8% 4% 3% 8% 6% 22% handicrafts (cane 4 15% 2% 3% 5% 9% work) carpentry 2 3% 15% 5% 0% vegetable preparation 1 12% 3% 0% preparing betel nut 1 8% 2% 0% music practice 1 7% 2% 0% coffee processing 1 6% 2% 0% looking after children 2 4% ●30 1% 0%
family ceremonies 2 4% 0% 1% 0% making sweets for sale 1 4% 1% 0% reading (for leisure) 1 3% 1% 0% traditional weaving 1 1% 0% 0%
Overall, studying was the most highly rated use of SHS lighting. It was prioritised particularly highly in Eraulo (35%) and received the lowest rating in Burlete (17%). Other activities that rated highly were eating the evening meal (highest priority in both Burlete and Sobrekeke) and talking (Kitutu). Both of these activities require area lighting rather than task lighting required for activities like reading or studying.
29 Women-only results were determined in two of the five Initial Community Consultations, at Burlete and Eraulo. 30 Participants in Kaitaraihei, who had no direct experience of using SHS, identified only two high-priority activities for which they thought SHS would be useful. These results were not included in calculating average weightings.
93 Chapter 4
There was strong representation of women in Burlete and Eraulo and in these communities it was possible to determine women’s priorities separately from those of the men. The average rating of activities by women in these two communities is shown in the final column of Table 4-2. In addition to studying (which was given 50% of the preference in Eraulo), cooking and sewing were both rated highly by women in these two communities, as was preparation of the evening meal and handicraft activities. These priorities are different from the combined men and women results and hint that gender may influence priorities. Some men did prioritise activities, such as cooking and sewing, that are women’s responsibilities in Timorese culture.
The SHS provided by the CER and UNDP programs—such as installed in Burlete, Kitutu, Eraulo and Sobrekeke—generally do not have lamps installed in kitchens (refer to Sections 5.1.2 and 5.2.2). Consequently, it was unexpected to find ‘cooking’ rated highly in the Initial Community Consultations (third amongst all activities for men and women and second for women), given that most of this work is conducted in the kitchen. ‘Cooking’, however, should be thought of more broadly as ‘evening meal preparation’ some of which takes place in the main house away from the kitchen fire. It is also worth noting that some households in Sobrekeke and Eraulo benefit from CER-provided solar lanterns that can be used in the kitchen.31
Participants at Kaitaraihei, a community which enjoys neither grid-based electricity nor SHS, selected only two activities from their combined list of activities and attributes that they thought would benefit most from SHS lighting—studying and looking after children. In part, the identification of only two activities reflects the limited time available for probing this issue with that community. It is also relevant to consider that the Kaitaraihei community had not yet had any experience of SHS lighting and hence were required to imagine what the advantages might be. For these reasons, the two scores from Kaitaraihei were not incorporated into the overall ratings presented in Table 4-2.
It is of interest to note that Kaitaraihei was the only location where participants rated ‘looking after children’ as a high priority activity for SHS lighting. Participants in Burlete and Kitutu might also have been expected to rate ‘looking after children’ highly given that their UNDP systems are supplied with a 0.9 W LED lamp specifically for overnight lighting. This, however, was not the case. Burlete allocated no priority to this activity and Kitutu did not rate it particularly highly. Also of note, was that ‘reading for leisure’ (as distinct from ‘studying’) did not rate highly in any community. It was identified only in Burlete and even in that community
31 A description of the use of solar lanterns within the CER program is set out in Section 5.1.2.
94 Chapter 4 a resident teacher remarked that only a few adults in the community were competent readers. This outcome fits with the low literacy levels in rural East Timor.
As noted above, participants responded much more readily to discussions about tangible activities than conceptual attributes when discussing the benefits of their SHS. This suggests that the research method should evaluate the benefits that are derived from good lighting when carrying out a range of household activities. Asking SHS users to consider a long, pre- defined list of activities during the Participatory Evaluation, however, would be time consuming and awkward, and would also risk excluding important activities which were not identified during the Initial Community Consultations. Clearly, using groups of activities— rather than individual activities—offers a more workable solution. A review of the seventeen activities identified during the consultations reveals four distinct activity types:
domestic tasks, such as preparing meals and looking after children;
productive tasks, such as handicrafts, carpentry, and sewing;
studying and reading; and
social interaction such as talking, eating, and meetings.
Combining preferences for the individual activities within each of these four categories shows that the four activity types were regarded as being of similar importance during the Initial Community Consultations (Table 4-3).
Table 4-3 Rating of activity categories during initial community consultations Activity categories Men Women Average Domestic tasks (e.g. cooking, child care) 18% 24% 21% Productive tasks (e.g. handicraft, carpentry) 18% 32% 25% Studying, reading 33% 32% 33% Social interaction (e.g. talking, eating, meetings) 31% 13% 22%
These four categories provide an appropriate framework for further evaluation of the impact of SHS lighting on the activities conducted within rural communities. They combine requirements for both task lighting—which is required for ‘productive tasks’ and ‘studying’— and area lighting—required for ‘domestic tasks’ and ‘social interaction’. As may be noted in Table 4-2, some activities are only important to one community. For example, coffee processing in Sobrekeke, betel nut preparation in Eraulo, music practice in Burlete and commercial vegetable cultivation in Kitutu. Use of the four activity categories accommodates different activities that are specific to various communities.
95 Chapter 4
4.1.5 Important attributes of SHS
Whilst participants seemed more comfortable discussing activities for which SHS lighting was an advantage, the Initial Community Consultations also highlighted several attributes for which SHS lighting was prized. Fourteen such advantages were noted in the consultations and are listed Table 4-4. The frequency with which these advantages were identified is also noted in the table. As anticipated, ‘strong light’ was the most commonly identified advantage of SHS and was raised during discussions with all five communities.
As with grouping of individual activities into activity categories, the advantageous attributes of SHS identified during the Initial Community Consultations can be divided into four different attribute categories—quality of lighting, convenience, financial benefits and health benefits. Table 4-4 shows the attributes identified during the consultations grouped within these four categories.
Table 4-4 Priority attributes of SHS lighting and their likely relationship to SHS size Advantage Occasions Influence of system identified size Quality of lighting 8 Strong light 5 strong Whole house lighting 1 strong Last for a long time 1 weak Good quality lamps 1 none Convenience 8 Easy to use 4 weak No problems with wind 2 weak Carry around (lantern) 1 none Always ready to use (use anytime) 1 weak Financial benefits 7 No daily running costs 4 strong Economical to operate 2 strong Doesn’t require kerosene 1 none Health benefits 3 Good for health 1 weak32 No smoke 2 weak
Not all these attributes, however, are influenced by the size of the system and hence not all are of equal interest to this study. It could be argued that convenience is related to the replacement of non-electric lighting sources with electric lights. To the extent that such replacement is size dependent, then system size may exert some influence on user perceptions of convenience. Other elements of convenience are clearly independent of size. The
32 Health benefits may accrue insofar as a larger system might be expected to provide more lights and hence equate to less smoke emitted inside the house.
96 Chapter 4 convenience associated with SHS lamps not being extinguished by the wind is relevant to all SHS, not just large or small ones. This applies to each of the ‘convenience’ attributes identified during the Initial Community Consultations. Further, some elements of convenience relate to the conduct of activities such as ease of preparing the evening meal, looking after children at night, holding meetings and carrying out craftwork. Hence, convenience in this sense may be addressed by comparing the benefits that SHS produce when used for these types of activities.
Despite these complexities, convenience was clearly identified as a significant advantage for SHS during the Initial Community Consultations and warrants examination in the evaluation. Of particular interest is the importance of convenience in relation to other attributes. If convenience rates highly compared to attributes which are more size dependent, then it could be argued that the overall importance of SHS size diminishes. Consequently, providing a mechanism in the evaluation for users to weight the importance of convenience in relation to the other attributes is appropriate.
With the exception of ‘good quality lamps’, the ‘quality of lighting’ attributes listed during the Initial Community Consultations are all likely to be influenced by system size. Larger systems with more lamps have the ability to produce more light and to better illuminate the whole house. Whole-house lighting, however, may also be provided by small systems in the Timorese context since houses generally have no ceilings. This allows a single lamp mounted under the roof to provide area lighting—albeit at a low level—to several rooms. Indeed, this attribute was identified in Eraulo where systems were provided with a single 5 W lamp. These findings indicate that perceptions regarding the quality of light and the optimal number of lamps should be examined during the evaluation.
As with ‘quality of light’, ‘financial benefits’ were also mentioned frequently during the Initial Community Consultations. All communities noted the (perceived) absence of running costs as an advantage. Variations on this concept included the benefit of not having to use kerosene and that users could operate their systems without any external inputs (i.e. they could ‘run it themselves’). Overall, this perceived advantage was noted on seven occasions. In Sobrekeke, these attributes received fifty percent of the preferences for the most important SHS attributes.
Enabling community evaluation of financial benefits, however, presents some difficulties. No system of fee collection is operating effectively for either the CER or UNDP project and users are not required to meet capital costs of equipment. A very modest fee is collected from most users for the Timorese Government project in Cairui. Consequently, SHS users have no
97 Chapter 4 experience—or only very limited experience—to draw upon regarding the real costs and savings associated with their different types of SHS. This point is particularly relevant to system sizing since operating costs are strongly related to system size. The Initial Community Consultations indicate that financial benefits are an important consideration for rural Timorese users of SHS and that they ought to be incorporated into the evaluation. Some allowance must be made, however, the real operating costs of the SHS, which at this point are not evident to the users.
Health benefits were cited three times as an advantage of SHS, once directly and twice in relation to the lack of smoke produced. The absence of smoke could also be placed within the convenience category. Smoke reduction is related to the replacement of alternative lighting sources with SHS lamps and hence may be related to the sizing of SHS. Home-made, simple wick lamps produce significant quantities of smoke and health will be improved to the extent that these, and also candles, are replaced by SHS lighting.
One approach to assessing health would be to put this issue directly to SHS users and ask them whether they believe SHS have made a significant contribution to improving their health. This relationship, however, is likely to involve too complex a set of factors to yield results that can be understood meaningfully in this study. Exposure to cooking fire smoke, for example, is likely to result in a far higher intake of particulates for women and children than kerosene lamps. Responses from such a question would require careful analysis in light of other smoke- producing energy uses in rural Timorese homes. This issue is discussed further in Section 4.2.3.
4.2 Requirements for evaluation data
As noted above, two strong themes emerged from the Initial Community Consultations regarding what users find to be significant impacts from their SHS. Firstly, there are a range of activities for which they find SHS to be useful. These fall into four different categories—study, productive tasks, domestic tasks, and social interaction—the first two of which require task lighting and the other two area lighting. The evaluation approach needs to determine how important these are in relation to one another and how much benefit the SHS of different sizes provide when carrying out these types of activity. The second theme relates to attributes that deliver intrinsic benefits when systems are operated—light, financial savings, convenience, and improved health. Again, the evaluation approach needs to determine the relative importance of these benefits and compare their magnitude for SHS of different sizes.
98 Chapter 4
Armed with the results of the Initial Community Consultations, it is possible to begin to address the research hypothesis. As set out in Chapter 1, the aim of this study is to determine whether the benefits of the larger SHS differ from those of the smaller systems and if so whether such differences are significant when compared to the additional cost. Stated more formally, the research seeks to assess the development impact for a variety of SHS currently installed in Timor and determine if development impact is related to the size of these systems.
The Initial Community Consultations provided an insight into how rural Timorese communities might define ‘development impact’ with respect to SHS. Such a definition would involve assistance with a range of activities that are undertaken in rural households and delivery of a number of intrinsic benefits. To test the development impact of different sized systems it is necessary to determine to what extent the SHS being evaluated have contributed to change in these two areas.
4.2.1 Lighting-derived benefits and benefit ranking
Considering activities first, the research method needs to determine the extent of any benefits derived from the SHS lighting. The concept of ‘benefit’ may be encapsulated in two quite simple statements: SHS lighting has made it easier to carrying out these activities; and SHS lighting has changed the duration over which these activities are carried out. These can easily be formulated as questions and put directly to the users:
has your SHS made any change to the ease of carrying out these types of activities; and
has your SHS changed the amount of time you spend carrying out these types of activities?
The responses to these questions will be qualitative rather than quantitative. There is no precise scale for ‘ease’ but system users will certainly have an impression of whether the SHS lighting has made completing various tasks easier or more difficult and if easier whether the change is small or large. Likewise with duration, householders are unlikely to be have precise information regarding the amount of time spent on the activity categories. They will, however, be in a position to say whether more or less time is being spent on them and to indicate whether the change is small or large.
To provide a useful analysis of the development impact, however, requires more than just developing an understanding of how the different-sized SHS assisted with the different activity and attribute types. Knowledge is also required of their importance in relation to one another. Households will value SHS which maximise impact in the areas that are the most important to
99 Chapter 4 them. Such preferences need to be made explicit so that they may be incorporated into the evaluation.
Two separate tools are required within the evaluation method to rank the two benefit types identified in the Initial Community Consultations: one to compare the importance of benefits associated with the four activity categories and the other to compare the relative importance of the intrinsic benefits. It is intuitively sound to ask SHS users to compare the importance of SHS lighting for one activity compared to other activities. It may be argued similarly that it is possible for users to compare the four intrinsic benefits against each other. To combine all eight benefits into a single ranking exercise, however, would place an unreasonable expectation on users and be unwieldy to manage from the researcher’s perspective.
4.2.2 Light, financial and convenience benefits
The evaluation of intrinsic benefits—i.e. light, finances, convenience and health—presents some issues that are not apparent for the evaluation of benefits associated with activities or for the ranking of activities and attributes. Firstly a decision is required as to how the light output from a SHS is to be considered. All the systems being evaluated are designed to provide lighting only, not power for other devices. In the Initial Community Consultations the quality of light provided by SHS was seen as a strong advantage over other forms of lighting. Each of the systems has been designed to provide illumination and does so to differing extents because of their differing size—the system size relates directly to the length and duration for which light is provided. Increasing illumination, however, cannot in itself be equated to increasing benefit. If lighting in a household was increased from a single 10 W lamp to two 10 W lamps it is conceivable that the development impact for that household may have doubled. If a two- roomed house with five lamps was subsequently fitted with ten lamps, it is highly unlikely that the impact would have doubled and certainly no such household would purchase a SHS with fifty lamps in the hope that the benefits from lighting would be ten fold over a system with five lamps. Clearly, benefits are not proportionate to lighting output.
Rather than valuing the light output directly, the research approach seeks to evaluate the benefits derived from the light and the intrinsic benefits associated with financial savings, improved convenience and improved health. In the case of East Timor, where the SHS being offered provide only lighting, these systems are only useful to the extent that the light provides benefits, be they tangible or psychological.
The varying light output for different sized systems has a cost dimension, however, that does need to be considered with respect to financial benefits. For rural Timorese households who
100 Chapter 4 have used SHS to date there is a very weak relationship between costs and benefits, if any relationship at all. Recipients of systems have either paid nothing for their SHS (users of most UNDP systems) or a very minimal amount (a small up-front payment for CER systems and small ongoing payment for RDTL systems). Despite SHS users in East Timor being charged little for their lighting systems and not having to weigh up costs against benefits, it is not unreasonable to expect that they could engage in consideration of two questions: is the SHS lighting they have sufficient for their household’s needs; and would they be willing to purchase more light output if they had the opportunity to do so?
Households are in a strong position to comment from their own experience as to whether or not they have sufficient lighting. In the ‘project’ culture of rural East Timor—where many local and international agencies provide assets on a donation basis—it is impossible to ask about lighting sufficiency without some consideration of cost. If extra lighting is free of cost then most households are likely to consider their current situation inadequate and express a desire for more lamps. The evaluation method needs to investigate whether users believe they could derive more benefits if they had access to additional lighting but do so in a manner that incorporates some cost/benefit analysis on the part of the user. This is a difficult task, however, given the scarce financial resources available to most rural households in East Timor. Some households may value additional lighting very highly but be in no position to pay for additional services. Ideally the evaluation method would allow for the possibility that the development impact of larger systems is significantly greater than that of smaller systems but that rural Timorese households cannot pay for these greater impacts.
Exploring this issue also requires some consideration of the relationship between system size (and hence lighting provided) and cost. Whilst derived benefits in some areas may accrue with increasing levels of illumination, these will invariably be associated with increasing costs which will offset, and may exceed, the additional derived benefits. Testing perceptions of financial savings on the part of SHS users requires such an assessment to be made. The Initial Community Consultations identified low cost of operation—i.e. financial savings—as an important benefit of SHS. Many users remarked that purchasing kerosene and candles for lighting was expensive and that operation of the SHS was free. As noted above, users pay minimal fees for the SHS being evaluated in this research (refer to Sections 5.1 to 5.3). It is possible, however, to prepare an estimate of the real cost of operation for sustained use of the SHS being evaluated and also to consider the economic cost of providing the systems. (Such
101 Chapter 4 estimates are set out in Section 7.2.3.) Consequently, if the evaluation method can determine the current expenditure on lighting sources for different systems sizes and/or the change in expenditure as a result of SHS being introduced, it is possible to evaluate the financial benefit to users of the various SHS.
Aside from light and finance, the other two attributes that were identified as being important in the Initial Community Consultations were health and convenience. As noted in Section 4.1.5, system size may influence convenience to the extent that electric lights replace non-electric sources of lighting such as candles, kerosene lamps and fire. Hence the evaluation method must investigate the forms of lighting used in households where SHS have been installed. This information can then be applied to an assessment of benefits associated with convenience.
4.2.3 Evaluating health impacts
Unlike convenience, evaluating health impacts of SHS presents a significant challenge. Developing an appropriate response requires an understanding of how traditional energy and lighting sources influence health outcomes for rural people living without electricity. The deleterious effects on health of indoor air pollution in developing countries has been widely reported (see for example Ezzati & Kammen 2001; Mestl, Aunan & Seip 2007; Zhang & Smith 2003). Indoor air pollution is thought to result in 1.6 million premature deaths each year and is linked to illnesses including acute respiratory infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and cardiovascular disease. In East Timor, acute respiratory infections and diarrheal diseases are the most common childhood illnesses (RDTL 2005h). The problems associated with solid fuel cooking stoves are highlighted by Zhang and Smith (2003) who note that children living in homes with solid fuel stoves have a two to three times greater risk of suffering acute respiratory infections and that women who cook over such fuels are two to four times more likely to suffer chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Women and children in East Timor are clearly exposed to this risk. It is estimated that ninety- five percent of households (rural and urban) use wood as the primary cooking fuel in simple, inefficient cooking stoves of the ‘three stone’ variety (UNDP 2008) such as that shown in Figure 4-3. To gain some sense of the impact a SHS may have on health, an assessment is required of how PV lighting might influence indoor air pollution. Schare and Smith (1995) assessed the emissions from a ‘can’ lamp, such as are typically used in rural Timorese homes (Figure 4-4). They determined that the average particulate emission was approximately 500 mg/h with an
102 Chapter 4 upper limit of 2000 mg/h when the lamp was producing a high flame. They report that these rates ‘are substantially below emission rates for open biomass cooking fires, which range from 2-20 g/h’ (Schare & Smith 1995, p. 34). Fan and Zhang (2001) also studied emissions from kerosene lamps, but of commercially produced varieties, and of candles. Candles were found to produce emissions of 13 mg/h and the commercial lamps to emit about ten times the level of particulate emissions as candles. These findings indicate that from a particulate emission perspective there are orders of magnitude difference in the outputs of simple cooking fires compared to simple kerosene lamps, and of lamps compared to candles. Clearly, reducing the use of kerosene lamps and candles will have a small influence on the air quality for those exposed to smoke from cooking fires, typically women and children.
Figure 4-3 Typical three-stone cooking stove used in rural Timorese homes
Whilst many males in rural Timorese home may avoid smoke from cooking fires, those that smoke tobacco introduce another risk factor. Ezzati and Kammen (2001), studying the impact of indoor air pollution in Kenya, equated the particulate intake from smoking to a background air quality level of 1000 μg/m3. They note that studies of outdoor air pollution in industrialised countries have shown exposure of particulate matter in excess of 200 μg/m3 to be a health concern.
103 Chapter 4
Figure 4-4 Typical home-made kerosene lamp used in rural Timorese homes
Whilst cooking fires (and tobacco smoke for smokers) are likely to be responsible for most of the particulate matter inhaled in rural Timorese homes, candles may present an additional health risk. Some candles are manufactured with metal-cored wicks to improve the efficiency with which they burn. Most metallic cores use zinc as the stiffening material but others contain copper, tin or lead (Wasson et al. 2002). Lead is particularly dangerous and children are particularly sensitive to its effects. Nriagu and Kim (2000) cite a number of studies that demonstrate the neuropsychological effects associated with long-term, low-level exposure to lead including learning disabilities, reduced psychometric intelligence and behavioural disorders.
Candle use presents two possible paths for lead ingestion—inhalation of fumes from the candle; and ingestion following contact with surfaces contaminated with fine, lead-bearing particles. Wasson et al. (2002) demonstrated that burning a number of candles with lead-cored wicks simultaneously may result in lead concentrations above levels permissible in the USA. They report that a ‘moderately active child’ located in a room with one candle emitting lead is likely to inhale the maximum safe level of lead in two to four hours. In East Timor two countervailing forces will be at work: children are likely to be using candles to study and so
104 Chapter 4 may inhale greater quantities of lead than modelled by Wasson et al. (2002); but rural Timorese homes generally have no ceilings or windows so the concentrations of airborne lead may not build up to the same extent predicted by their work. Further, not all candles are manufactured with lead wicks33 and so it is difficult to predict the health impact from candle use in East Timor.
A definitive conclusion on the health impacts of SHS use in East Timor is beyond the scope of this study. Based on the literature, however, it is reasonable to assume that shifting to electric lighting will result in only a small reduction in indoor air pollution where unimproved wood fires are used for cooking. Any reduction in candle use will reduce the risk that children are being exposed to unacceptable levels of lead.
4.2.4 Hypothesis testing and data requirements
The analysis presented above dictates the scope of the evaluation method and the range of data that must be collected. The research method requires three broad elements:
evaluating how SHS have altered the ease and duration of four activity types (lighting- derived benefits)
evaluating financial, convenience and health benefits (intrinsic benefits) by considering the use of non-electric lighting sources following the introduction of SHS and the overall cost of providing lighting
establishing the relative importance of lighting-derived benefits and intrinsic benefits.
These first two elements need to be evaluated in relation to SHS size since the purpose of the research is to test whether such benefits are size-dependent. Testing of the third element, however, is not related to size but provides a set of weightings to be applied to the lighting- derived and intrinsic benefits. Development impact can then be thought of as the sum of the amount of benefit by benefit importance. Whilst much of the data will be qualitative, it is helpful to describe the required analysis in numerical terms. Development impact ‘D’ might be seen as the sum of weighted scores for all benefit types (where ‘W’ is the benefit type weighting and ‘S’ the benefit type score):
퐷 = 푊푖 푆푖
33 For their study Wasson et al. (2002) purchased one hundred sets of candles from a small area in the United States of America and found that only 8% of these had wicks containing lead.
105 Chapter 4
Such an analysis can be carried out for both lighting-derived benefits and intrinsic benefits. Analysis of the data will be simplified if the relative importance of the benefit types is consistent across communities and, indeed, that is an important indicator of comparability between SHS user communities (as discussed in Section 5.5). If scores for the mean development impact, ‘μD‘, for each project are compared, the null hypothesis for the research states that the development impact for the different sized SHS are equal:
H0: 휇퐷(퐶퐸푅) = 휇퐷(푈푁퐷푃) = 휇퐷(푅퐷푇퐿)
Allocating numeric ‘scores’ for different benefit types, weighting these and then aggregating them would be a largely subjective exercise requiring a good many assumptions. It is unlikely that such an approach would improve understanding of the data. Rather, results for each of the benefit types are evaluated here separately and a narrative picture established of the overall development impact for each system size.
Before turning to consider the specific research tools, which are described in the following section, the limitations on the study should be made clear. The study is limited to SHS that provide lighting only; evaluation in the context of rural East Timor only; and it does not consider sustainability of development outcomes. Each of these limitations are discussed briefly below.
Whilst the SHS currently being installed in East Timor provide lighting only, larger sized SHS do have the potential to power other devices and this is clearly a benefit related to system size.
An argument could be made for including some assessment of the importance that households place on the ability to power devices. In East Timor, however, this presents a significant difficulty in that the use of appliances in rural homes, with the exception of radios, is very low.
During the Initial Community Consultations, whilst communities did note that generators are used for large community celebrations to provide lighting, music and PA services, no household use of electrical appliances was reported. Consequently, discussing the importance of powering electric devices would be an entirely hypothetical discussion for most SHS users.
Such a discussion would require a lengthy exploration about the likelihood and costs of appliance ownership and an explanation of the types of appliances that could be run by small systems and for what duration. Without achieving such understanding, there would be a significant risk that asking for an opinion on the importance of a SHS being capable of
106 Chapter 4 powering an appliance would result in participants judging the desirability of appliance use. A meaningful exploration of this issue during the Participatory Evaluation would most likely require at least a full hour’s discussion. Adding this topic to the Participatory Evaluation or
Socio-economic Household Survey cannot be justified, particularly given that the issue is hypothetical.
The study is further restricted to remote, off-grid locations in East Timor and to SHS which are domestic in scale. The research method is purposefully tailored to the Timorese context and to the way SHS are used and valued in East Timor (as identified during the Initial Community
Consultations and presented in Section 4.1).
Finally, the research makes no attempt to investigate any potential relationship between sustainability and system size. There are a number of factors that relate to sustainability of PV equipment in developing country settings including the equipment delivery model, equipment and design standards, and the capacity within the private and public sectors to provide management, regulation, technical support and maintenance (Bond, Fuller & Aye 2007). Each of the three major SHS projects in East Timor has experienced problems in one or more of these areas (as is highlighted in Chapter 5). Additionally, installation of systems for two of the SHS projects (UNDP and RDTL) had only recently been completed and hence the opportunity for assessing sustainability for those projects was limited. It was an advantage, however, for the evaluation to take place soon after systems have been installed. Technical problems and concerns about how to service SHS were often noted by participants during the Initial Community Consultations, particularly in the CER sites, Sobrekeke and Eraulo, where many systems had been installed for some years and a significant percentage were faulty or had required repair in the past. Where systems are still operating satisfactorily there is no risk that user perceptions will be influenced by system faults or quality problems and every chance that their opinions will be based on the as-designed performance of their system.
4.3 Participatory evaluation tools
Participatory processes are powerful ways in which to learn from communities. As the ESMAP Demand-Oriented Approach (ESMAP 2003, p. xix) points out:
Open discussion within and among community members and the various interest groups increases the chance of obtaining credible and relevant information, allowing biased or incomplete answers to be checked by group dynamics.
107 Chapter 4
Providing community members with the opportunity to consider research questions together strengthens their engagement in the research process and increases their confidence to share their opinions. Techniques used in the Initial Community Consultations proved successful in providing fora for community members to analyse their SHS experiences. The Participatory
Evaluation process built on the experiences of the Initial Community Consultations both regarding process and content.
As described in Section 4.2.4, testing the research hypothesis requires three types of data:
Evaluation of the extent to which their SHS assists with the four activity categories.
Evaluation of their SHS with respect to the four intrinsic benefits.
Ranking exercises where community members determine the relative importance of activities/attributes with respect to their SHS.
The Participatory Evaluation exercises used to collect data in these three areas are presented below.
4.3.1 Evaluation of SHS impact on ease and duration of activities
One finding from the Initial Community Consultations was that SHS users in East Timor were most comfortable discussing practical applications of their SHS. Since none of the systems being evaluated provide power for devices these applications related entirely to the use of SHS lighting. Two questions were put to participants about SHS lighting for each of the four activity categories. Firstly they were asked if the SHS had made carrying out the activity category easier and secondly whether they spent more or less time on that activity type as a consequence of access to their SHS.
The activity types were introduced one at a time using pictorial aids—a different picture for each activity type (Figure 4-5). Participants were asked to think about the various activities that each category represented. To aid in discussion, participants were also asked to agree on a translation from Tetun into the local dialect for each activity category name.
108 Chapter 4
Figure 4-5 Participatory Evaluation tools—pictures representing four activity categories34
Once participants had discussed the first activity category, each group was given a scoring template (Figure 4-6). This template was marked with five boxes that represented the ease of carrying out an activity type. The ease categories were ‘more difficult’, ‘the same’, ‘a little easier’, ‘easier’ and ‘much easier’. Each group then applied ten corn kernels to the scoring template to indicate what difference, if any, their SHS had made to carrying out that activity type. Using multiple corn kernels enabled the participants to produce a complex representation of the changes that had occurred since the introduction of the SHS. They were able to represent experiences for various activities within an activity category and also for different members within their group.
After all groups had completed their analysis of ease for the first activity category, they were provided with a second scoring template to be used to indicate change in duration (Figure 4-6). Again this template had five boxes, representing ‘less’, ‘same’, ‘a little more’, ‘more’ and ‘much more’ time. Considering the same activity type as for the ease exercise, groups would use ten corn kernels to make a representation of how the time they spent on that activity type had changed.
34 These graphics and their use in the Participatory Evaluation are described in more detail in Appendix C.
109 Chapter 4
These same two exercises were then repeated a further three times so that all four activity categories were analysed.
Figure 4-6 Participatory Evaluation activity category scoring templates; ease (above), duration (below)
4.3.2 Ranking of activity types and attributes
Two ranking exercises were used in the Participatory Evaluation, one for activities and the second for attributes. The ranking exercises, starting with ranking of activities, were designed to be conducted once the participants had completed scoring ease and duration for each activity type. Once the analysis of the four activity types had been completed, participants had a sound understanding of the tasks represented by each activity type and hence were well placed to consider their relative importance.
Each ranking exercise was also conducted in two parts. As a first step participants were asked to consider the four activity types and then select the picture representing the activity type for which they found their SHS most beneficial or important. Having selected the first activity category, each group was then asked to select the second-most important activity type and
110 Chapter 4 place that picture below the first picture. The third and fourth most important activities were identified in a similar manner so that each group laid out the pictures of the four activity types in order of importance with respect to SHS use.
The second step in the ranking exercise was designed to both promote discussion within the groups about the ranking they had developed and to assign weightings to the ranking. Each participant took three corn kernels and then ‘voted’ on what they thought were the most important activities. There was no restriction on how participants voted—they were able to place all their corn kernels against a single activity or divide them between two or three different activities. Once the ‘voting’ was completed, participants were encouraged to compare the weightings against the ranking order and to modify the order if the weightings indicated a different ranking to the one they had developed initially.
Once the ranking of activity categories had been completed, participants were introduced to another set of four pictures that represented the SHS attributes that were found to be highly prized during the Initial Community Consultations (Figure 4-7). Once the significance of each of the pictures was explained and understood by the participants the ranking exercise was repeated. First the attributes were ranked and then votes were cast to produce weightings.
Figure 4-7 Participatory Evaluation tools—pictures representing four attribute categories35
35 These graphics and their use in the Participatory Evaluation are described in more detail in Appendix C.
111 Chapter 4
4.3.3 Sufficiency of SHS lighting and SHS relative value
The Participatory Evaluation process was completed with two further exercises, one concerning the sufficiency of the SHS lighting (number of lamps and nightly duration of operation) and the other an assessment of the value of the SHS relative to other household possessions.
The exercise designed to compare the sufficiency of lighting used two templates—similar to those used for scoring ease and duration of activity types. Each template was a matrix of two rows and nine columns. The first template was used to indicate the number of additional lamps each participant would like (Figure 4-8, lower image). The top row corresponded to the number of additional lamps desired (from zero to eight) and the bottom row the monthly fee for each additional lamp (from $0 to $8). Participants were asked to consider whether they felt their SHS provided a sufficient number of lamps and then to indicate whether or not they would be prepared to pay an additional monthly fee for one or more additional lamps. Each participant indicated their preference by placing a corn kernel in the appropriate box.
Participants were then asked to consider the typical nightly operating duration for their SHS and indicate whether they would be willing to pay an additional monthly fee to have their system operate for more hours each night. The template for this exercise indicated a fee of $0.5 per hour for each additional hour of operation (Figure 4-8, upper image). As with number of lamps, participants indicated their preference by placing a corn kernel in the appropriate box.
The very final exercise was designed to compare SHS to other assets that might be viewed as having a development impact. Users were asked to consider the value of their SHS in comparison to other items of commercial value in East Timor. Each group was given a picture of a SHS. They were then given pictures of four other items, one at a time. The first item was a sewing machine, the second a cow, the third a small portable generator and the fourth a motorcycle (Figure 4-9). Participants were asked to imagine a scenario where a friend or neighbour visited them and offered to trade them the item in the photo for their SHS (on the basis that their SHS was in good condition). As each photo was handed out participants were asked to indicate whether or not they would agree to a trade by leaving face up the photo of the item they preferred. Where a portion of a group wanted to trade their SHS this was indicated by placing a matching number of corn kernels on the appropriate photo.
A detailed set of instructions for the Participatory Evaluation covering each of the exercises discussed above is attached as Appendix C.
112 Chapter 4
Figure 4-8 Participatory Evaluation tools—scoring templates for lighting sufficiency
Figure 4-9 Participatory Evaluation tools—SHS comparative value, pictures of alternative assets
113 Chapter 4
4.3.4 Participatory Evaluation processes
The eighteen sites at which the Participatory Evaluations were conducted and the method used to select them are described in Chapter 5. Once communities had been selected for involvement the process for introducing the research and inviting community members to participate was similar to that applied for the Initial Community Consultations. Permission was sought from government at district and sub-district level and then community leaders were consulted at the suco (village) and aldeia levels. Whilst the Initial Community Consultations benefited from a mix of SHS users and non-users, the Participatory Evaluation activities required that participants were largely (preferably exclusively) SHS users. For two of the SHS types evaluated—RDTL and CER systems—there were large numbers of user households in each community and participants were largely self-selecting. The lead community facilitator, Costa Belo, and community leaders would advise community members of the date and time of the evaluation and invite participation. Participants would then involve themselves voluntarily based on their interest and availability. Care was required, however, to ensure that there was strong participation by women. The start of an evaluation was often delayed whilst additional women were encouraged to attend. For the third SHS type evaluated—UNDP systems—only ten households per community were provided with systems36. In these communities each user household was encouraged to provide a female and male representative to take part in the evaluation.
Each of the Participatory Evaluations was led by the lead Community Facilitator, Costa Belo, in the presence of the author. The author provided a short introduction to the participants, observed each of the exercises and photographed each of the scoring templates used to record participant analysis. The lead Community Facilitator was supported by one, or on some occasions two, co-facilitators including Vincente Reis (Community Facilitator for the Initial Community Consultations), Pedro Sarmento (UNDP Project Officer) and Ludivico Alves (CER Project Officer). The entire Participatory Evaluation process (including the brief introduction by the author) was conducted in Tetun, the most widely spoken Timorese vernacular. A detailed introduction to the research and request for consent to be involved formed the start of each Participatory Evaluation (refer to Appendix A). Participants were then formed into four or five small groups of four to six people with women and men in separate groups. These small groups carried out each of the Participatory Evaluation exercises that are described above. Further details regarding the number of participants and groups for each evaluation and the
36 The exception was in Burlete, where 18 systems were provided by UNDP.
114 Chapter 4 duration of the evaluations, are provided in Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 and are summarised in Tables 5-2, 5-4, and 5-6.
Working in small groups proved an effective technique for generating high levels of engagement with participants and discussion between them. Participants often used their own local dialects for conversation within groups. Women, who were often reluctant to speak out in plenary discussion, generally participated strongly in the small groups. As each exercise progressed groups were encouraged to share their analysis, and to question and learn from one another. When big differences between groups were observed for the results of any exercise, those groups in particular were encouraged to explain their analysis to the other groups. Understanding of the research concepts improved through this process and groups were encouraged to modify their own analysis or results in response to better or different understanding.
Overall, the Participatory Evaluation process worked well. There were, however, a small number of situations where groups did not engage satisfactorily. Whether due to language difficulties, group dynamics or a failure to understand the concepts being presented by the facilitators, some groups were unable to analyse their own experiences confidently and to represent their ideas using the templates provided for the research. Such instances were marked by very limited group discussion and by replication of the analysis of adjacent groups. Such situations were noted by the author as they arose and the results from poorly engaging groups were excluded from the research data set. In addition, where results were unusual or ambiguous, the author sought clarification from participants.
In addition to the few poorly-engaged groups, a minor difficulty was presented by the occasional involvement of participants from households without a SHS. In the rural Timorese cultural context it was not appropriate to exclude community members who felt that they had been invited to participate in a public meeting. When non-user participants were involved they were asked to imagine that they did have a SHS in their house and make their responses on that basis. Observation of other households with SHS in their communities provided them with the knowledge to do so.
By far the most difficult aspect of the Participatory Evaluation was balancing sufficient explanation of the exercises against the overall time required to complete the evaluation. Precisely the same set of exercises was conducted in each evaluation to facilitate the comparison of results across projects. Participants were generally prepared to spend three
115 Chapter 4 hours completing the full set of exercises and hence the time available to explain the concepts involved was limited. At face value, the issues being addressed in each of the exercises presented above appear straightforward. Great care was required, however, to ensure that the questions being put to community members during the Participatory Evaluation remained clear.
With ranking of activities, for example, the question for participants was not which of the four activity categories is the most important but rather for which type of activity is the electric light from the SHS most important. Similarly for ranking of attributes: the question was not which is most important but for which of the attributes are SHS most valued. The facilitators kept their explanations as simple as possible, asking participants to think in the following terms: ‘I like my SHS most because it helps me to do…*what sorts of activities+?’ and ‘I like my SHS most because it helps with…*what type of attribute-light, finances, convenience, or health+’.
As with the Initial Community Consultations, there was a trade-off in the Participatory Evaluation between achieving perfect understanding of each exercise by all participants and allowing sufficient time for participants to discuss the concepts and complete their own analysis. Following the initial trial of the Participatory Evaluation method in Rembor37, both the facilitators and the participants generally seemed satisfied that an appropriate compromise was achieved in this respect.
4.4 Socio-economic household survey
The Socio-economic Household Survey was adapted from the ESMAP model and designed largely to capture the quantitative data required for the evaluation. In addition, some questions on user perceptions of their SHS were also included to provide a cross-check on the data from the Participatory Evaluation. The survey was particularly important for investigating the use of and expenditure on non-electric lighting sources such as candles and kerosene. The following information describes each section of the Socio-economic Household Survey questionnaire, noting how the ESMAP model was adapted and what elements were discarded. The process for conducting the survey is presented, as is an assessment of the consistency of
37 The initial trial at a UNDP site in Rembor was problematic in a number of aspects and the results of the Participatory Evaluation were excluded from the research data set. Further details of the evaluation in Rembor are provided in Section 4.4.3
116 Chapter 4 results amongst enumerators. A full survey questionnaire in Tetun and English is provided as Appendix D.
4.4.1 Survey questionnaire
The first section of the Socio-economic Household Survey questionnaire collects information on household demographics including the number of people who live permanently in the household and whether the household is female- or male-headed. For each person in the household five years and older, the survey asks a number of questions regarding education and waking hours. These data provide the basis for determining whether any relationship is indicated between system size and study patterns and waking hours.
The next section of the survey relates to housing. It records the number of rooms, materials from which the walls and roof are made, and details of any businesses run from the house. The number of rooms is an important parameter since the SHS being evaluated provide only a small number of lamps—between one and four—and the ratio of lamps to rooms may have a bearing on benefits to the user. Analysis of construction materials can provide a proxy indicator for monetary wealth whereby use of commercial materials indicates access to cash income. Recording the incidence of businesses being run from user households provides the opportunity to explore any potential relationship between larger SHS and domestic businesses. Business income may enable such households to offset the higher operating costs of larger systems.
Questions relating to sources of energy used by the household follow the section on housing. Respondents were asked whether they had used a range of different energy and lighting on the day before the questionnaire was completed or at any other time in the past twelve months. Energy and lighting sources listed in the questionnaire include both locally available, natural resources such as firewood, bamboo and candlenuts, and commercial resources such as kerosene, candles, batteries and SHS.
These general questions about energy and lighting sources are followed by sets of questions relating to four specific lighting/energy sources—candles, kerosene, dry cell batteries and automotive batteries. Respondents were asked to report on the frequency with which these resources are used and the expenditure associated with their use. For candle and kerosene expenditure—the main forms of lighting expenditure replaced by SHS—questions included both a direct estimate of monthly expenditure and assessment of purchasing patterns, allowing cross-checking of the expenditure estimate. Respondents were also asked to make an estimate of their pre-SHS expenditure on candles and kerosene.
117 Chapter 4
A subset of the kerosene questions investigates the use of different types of kerosene lamps (home-made, unregulated wick; commercial regulated wick; and pressurised lantern) and whether such lamps are used for task lighting (for reading and study) or simply for area lighting. The survey contains a similar question regarding candle use and responses to these questions are of particular significance to evaluating potential health benefits, as discussed in Section 4.2.3.
Purchasing patterns for dry cell batteries are investigated and a monthly expenditure estimate requested. Respondents were asked if their dry cell batteries power hand-held torches, portable lanterns, radio/cassette player or other devices. A similar set of questions relates to the use of automotive batteries at household level.
The penultimate section of the questionnaire investigates the use of SHS. One set of questions covers system parameters—type and number of systems38, date of installation and the presence of pre-existing SHS (i.e. systems not provided by the projects involved in the evaluation). A range of questions addresses the typical use of SHS lighting, investigating the number of lamps used each night, the duration of operation and whether or not the lighting provided by the system was felt to be sufficient. Several questions relate to equipment condition and experience with component failure. Users were also asked whether or not they switched off their SHS manually each night or allowed the charge controller to turn the system off when the battery reached the low voltage threshold.
The final section of the survey addresses user sentiments. Fourteen questions in this section probe user perceptions about SHS with respect to domestic activities (education, domestic tasks and social interaction), satisfaction with their system generally (usefulness, quality of lighting, contentment), sense of convenience, sense of personal security, willingness-to-pay for the system, and the potential for the SHS to assist the running of a small business. Respondents were also asked to indicate the scale of change they felt had occurred in their lives as a result of access to a SHS. With the exception of willingness-to-pay, all questions were closed questions and required responses on a four point scale, from strongly negative to strongly positive. Where possible, separate responses by female and male representatives from each household were sought.
In addition to the household-level survey questions described above there were two sections of complementary data that provided general information about each aldeia and about each
38 In CER households especially it was not uncommon for there to be two or three different PV systems, often a mix of single-lamp SHS and solar lanterns. Where the survey was applied in CER-supported areas, users were also asked whether they preferred the use of SHS or solar lanterns and the reason behind their preference.
118 Chapter 4 system type. For the aldeia this included the locations of basic services, namely the nearest primary school, secondary school, health clinic, sealed road and shop(s) for buying candles, kerosene and batteries. The prices charged by these shops for kerosene, batteries and candles (and size of candles) were also recorded. SHS information appended to the survey for each system included the PV module peak output, battery capacity, lamp data, design life and cost.
4.4.2 Survey data
Much of the data to be collected using the Socio-economic Household Survey provide opportunities to cross-check results from the Participatory Evaluation. Study patterns for students, for instance, can be compared to the Participatory Evaluation results for duration of study and many of the survey’s sentiment questions relate directly to areas explored in the Participatory Evaluation. The primary use for the survey data, however, is to test the comparability of the user communities and to determine usage and expenditure patterns for non-electric lighting sources.
A fair comparison of results across different communities requires that demographic and other data—such as family size, education levels, and housing size and construction—are similar. The survey data enables such an assessment.
Patterns of expenditure on non-electric lighting sources provide the information required to determine financial benefits associated with the different sized SHS. Quantitative data for household spending on candles and kerosene pre- and post-SHS installation is provided. Since most households engaged in the evaluation are not paying any operational fees, or only a very small fee, savings on non-electric lighting expenditure must be combined with estimates of the real cost of operation to provide an overall picture of financial benefits associated with the SHS.
The data on expenditure and usage patterns also provide a picture of ongoing candle and/or kerosene use. As noted in Section 4.2, these are related to convenience and health benefits. Whatever benefits arise in these areas do so by the replacement of non-electric lighting sources. Such benefits are reduced to the extent that SHS lighting fails to replace the use of candles and kerosene.
The ESMAP model, from which the survey was adapted, contained several areas of questioning that were not considered relevant to the East Timor context. In its final form (Appendix D) the survey format, including the consent protocol, required forty-five to ninety minutes to complete with each household. This highlights the importance of editing the ESMAP
119 Chapter 4 questionnaire not just to ensure its relevance for East Timor but also to ensure that it could be completed with householders in a reasonable time. A large section on income and expenditure on agricultural and non-agricultural activities was removed from the ESMAP model. Rather than asking detailed questions about income, which would have been awkward for the Timorese enumerators, questions on household construction provided a proxy indicator for access to cash income. The ESMAP survey also required respondents to estimate the distance to a range of social services and infrastructure including schools, health clinic, water supplies and paved roads. For this study, the location of each of those services and of each respondent’s dwelling was recorded using global positioning system equipment so that distances could be determined mathematically. The other significant areas of the ESMAP survey that were not used related to appliance ownership and use of time at home. Appliance use had been shown to be very rare in the Initial Community Consultations. Changes to the time spent on important activities at home was covered by the Participatory Evaluation exercises described in Section 4.3.1.
4.4.3 Survey process
The survey sample size for each project was determined by the characteristics of the UNDP project. The UNDP project operated in six different communities and installed ten systems per community (with the exception of Burlete where eighteen systems were installed). For the UNDP sites a census sample was selected with aim of surveying representatives from each user household in each of the six communities.
A similar approach was taken with the other two projects involved in the evaluation. Six communities were selected for each project with the intention of surveying ten user households from each community. For the UNDP project recipient households—and hence the respondent households for the Socio-economic Household Survey—were determined by UNDP. For the other two projects, where the number of user households exceeded several hundred in each case, an alternative sampling method was required.
Whilst a random sample was preferable from a statistical analysis perspective, random sampling was difficult to achieve in the rural Timorese setting. There was a requirement to consider several other factors, particularly for CER communities. As is described in Section 5.1.2, many households in Railaco received two or three SHS from CER. Additionally, most systems had been installed for several years over which time a significant portion had failed or developed faults. Sampling in this environment required a purposeful focus on households with a single system, preferably one that was working. Identifying such households was done
120 Chapter 4 in consultation with community leaders and CER technical staff. Participation in the survey was entirely voluntary and willingness and availability of users to be involved in the survey added a further complication. The distance between communities and households was large making travel time for enumerators a factor to be considered. Further, the sample available to enumerators in any area was confined to those households where senior adult members were available and willing to be interviewed.
In RDTL communities there were no similar problems with multiple or faulty systems. Each household only received one system and few faults had appeared in the six months that systems had been operating. The involvement of community leaders, however, remained central to selecting the survey sample. The boundaries separating the five different aldeia comprising the village of Cairui are invisible to an outsider. In many areas there is no geographical boundary and households from different aldeia are interspersed in a single area. Assistance from community leaders was required to identify a sample of households belonging to each aldeia who would be willing to be involved in the survey. Once permission to carry out the research had been sought from community leaders, these leaders had a legitimate stake in deciding where in each community the enumerators should work. The basis used by these leaders to select households for surveying was discussed with two of the Chefe Aldeia from Cairui on several occasions. The basis for their decisions remained unclear and may have related to a number of factors including householder status in the community, willingness and availability to participate, and the Chefes’ perceptions of users’ abilities to understand and engage with the research.
4.4.4 Enumerator training and survey testing
Three enumerators were involved in interviewing respondents for the Socio-economic Household Survey—Costa Belo, Vincente Reis and Ludivico Alves. Costa Belo and Vincente Reis commenced surveying in UNDP sites. These two enumerators, who also facilitated the Initial Community Consultations and Participatory Evaluations, were involved in translating the survey questions into Tetun and trialling the survey format in two communities in Railaco. Thirty households were surveyed in the trial following which several of the questions were revised to ensure that the Tetun translations better matched the intention of the English language questions.
After pre-testing of the survey, Costa and Vincente commenced formal surveying with UNDP project sites. Vincente, however, proved unreliable as an enumerator when working on his own and results from his surveying in several communities were discarded from the research
121 Chapter 4 data set. Only those results obtained when he worked under the author’s direct supervision have been retained for analysis. Costa completed surveying of CER and RDTL sites. A third enumerator, Ludivico Alves, was then engaged to carry out additional surveying of CER households in Railaco. Ludivico had assisted in the Participatory Evaluation processes in Railaco and was trained by Costa in survey techniques. After spending several days observing Costa interviewing households Ludivico carried out forty surveys in Railaco—five under Costa’s direct supervision and an additional thirty-five independently. The main reason for carrying out the additional surveys in Railaco was to test user preference for solar lanterns or SHS amongst CER project households. The same survey format was used, however, and these additional surveys provide extra data for the SHS development impact evaluation. A few of the surveys undertaken by Ludivico involved households who had only used solar lanterns and responses for these households were removed from the analysis.
Chambers (1997) highlights the ease with which bias can enter a survey at the hands of different enumerators. Consequently, before incorporating Ludivico’s surveys into the analysis, Ludivico’s and Costa’s survey results for a sample of variables were compared to determine whether their results present a homogeneous sample for CER households (refer to Appendix E, Section E-4.3.2). Significant differences were noted in the results of the two enumerators, in particular for expenditure on non-electric lighting sources, and hence only Costa’s survey data was incorporated into the statistical comparison of the three system sizes except where otherwise noted.
4.5 Conclusions
The previous two sections (4.3 and 4.4) set out the tools applied in East Timor to evaluate the development impact of three sizes of SHS. The Participatory Evaluation consists of eight exercises that assess lighting-derived benefits and that rank and weight lighting-derived and intrinsic benefits. Two additional exercises consider aspects of lighting and financial benefits. The Participatory Evaluation exercises enabled SHS users to work in small groups to analyse their own experiences. The Participatory Evaluation approach was supplemented by the Socio- economic Household Survey, adapted from ESMAP DOA model, and which covers household demographics, usage of and expenditure on non-electric energy sources, and experience with SHS. The survey also includes a section exploring user perceptions of the performance and value of their system.
Central to adapting these two tools for use in East Timor were the Initial Community Consultations carried out in five rural communities and described in Section 4.1. The findings
122 Chapter 4 from those consultations allowed the evaluation tools to be shaped in accordance with the values of the East Timorese SHS users rather than assuming such values on their behalf. Without these consultations, the definition of what constituted ‘good change’ (as development has been defined in Section 2.4.1) would have relied upon the author’s best judgement or extrapolation from the literature—both markedly inferior to asking beneficiaries for their own opinions.
The Initial Community Consultations identified two types of benefits that were most important to users, namely lighting-derived benefits and intrinsic benefits (as described in Section 4.2). Findings from the Participatory Evaluation and Socio-economic Household Survey are combined in Chapters 6 and 7 to assess the development impact of the SHS for these two benefit types. Before that can be attempted, however, the Participatory Evaluation and Socio- economic Household Survey results must be used for an additional purpose. A comparison of the evaluation results across the three project samples requires that the sample communities are sufficiently similar to allow a meaningful comparison to be made. The Participatory Evaluation and Socio-economic Household Survey provide much of the data to carry out such an assessment, the results of which are presented in Sections 5.4 and 5.5 in the following chapter. Before any of these results are reported, however, Chapter 5 introduces the three different-sized SHS that are the subject of the evaluation.
123
Chapter 5
Research sites
124 Chapter 5
5 Research sites
This research requires evaluation of the development impact for a number of different sized SHS. As outlined in Section 2.3.2, a range of solar PV projects have been implemented in East Timor recently. Three agencies—CER, UNDP and RDTL—have installed more than 1300 SHS in the country. The areas in which each project operates are shown in Figure 5-1. The SHS projects implemented by these three agencies were designed with three different sizes of SHS, making the projects well-suited to this study. PV modules for the three projects are sized at 10,
40 and 80 Wp and the peak power demand for their lighting systems are 5, 16 and 40 W respectively. As such, the SHS used in the projects of these three agencies constitute ‘small’, ‘medium’ and ‘large’ system sizes.
Two other PV projects were considered for inclusion in the study. The UNDESA solar lantern program provided several hundred solar lanterns to communities on the island of Atauro.
These were similar in capacity to the 10 Wp CER systems. Consequently their inclusion would not have provided an extra point along the sizing continuum. Evaluation of this project would also have introduced the complexity of comparing fixed PV installations with portable ones.
The other type of SHS evident throughout East Timor are 50 Wp systems installed during the Indonesian era. With respect to evaluation, these systems offer the advantage of providing a 12 V DC output that can be used to power devices. Two reasons, however, prevented their inclusion in the study. Most of the systems are no longer operating or are operating poorly (ADB 2003b) and they are spread out in small numbers throughout the country preventing the opportunity to hold community-based Participatory Evaluations.
This chapter commences with three sections describing each of the three SHS projects in detail. An overview of the aims for each project and a description of the communities involved is provided, as are technical details of the systems and their design. Each section concludes with a description of how the Participatory Evaluation and Socio-economic Household Survey were conducted at sites for that project.
Results of the development impact evaluation for the three different sizes of SHS are compared in the next chapter. Before making these comparisons, however, it is necessary to determine whether significant differences exist between the project sites that may influence the results. Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of this chapter deal with comparability of the communities involved in the evaluation. Section 5.4 considers this issue from the perspective of geography, ethnicity, agricultural practices and household demographics. This section relies largely upon information from the survey supplemented with the researcher’s field observations. Section
125 Chapter 5
5.5 examines the community values most pertinent to this research, namely priorities placed upon the four activity types associated with lighting-derived benefits and upon the four intrinsic benefits. The rankings and weightings accorded to these benefits are, in effect, a subset of the comparability question.
Figure 5-1 Location of CER, UNDP and RDTL project sites (Google Earth 2008)
5.1 CER sites
The Edmund Rice Community, or Communidade Edmund Rice (CER) as it is know in East Timor, is an arm of the Christian Brothers order of the Catholic Church. Under the leadership of Christian Brother Bill Tynan CER operates a broad range of community development activities in the Railaco sub-district of Ermera. Railaco is several hours drive west of the capital, Dili, in one of the mountainous coffee growing areas of East Timor. The program commenced after East Timor’s independence with a single volunteer operating a mobile health clinic in the area. The program has gradually expanded so that in addition to operating the mobile clinic CER now provides support to the primary school system in the area, adult literacy and English classes, sewing classes, PV electricity for community buildings, and development of community water supply systems. In 2004 CER commenced a household-level SHS lighting program (B Tynan [Edmund Rice Community East Timor] 2006, pers. comm., 26 August).
126 Chapter 5
5.1.1 Project setting
Railaco is divided into nine village administrative units (sucos) and CER operates in five of these—Railaco Craic, Railaco Leten, Samalete, Deleçu and Tarazu. The population of the entire Railaco sub-district is 9,300 about half of whom live in the five sucos where CER works. The largest of these sucos is Samalete, where 1190 people live in 210 households and the smallest is Deleçu with only 57 households and a population of 290. The 2004 census in East Timor records the total number of households in the five sucos as 793 (RDTL 2008a).
Ermera is one of only two of East Timor’s thirteen districts that does not reach down to the coast. It is almost entirely mountainous and well suited to coffee production. Ninety-five percent of households in Ermera grow coffee, along with universal staple crops for the area— maize and cassava (RDTL 2008a). The five sucos where CER operates sit at altitudes of between 700 and 1200 metres above sea level, surrounded by open woodland on the lower slopes and coffee plantations on the hills above. Although the five sucos are within a two kilometre radius of one another they are connected by a circuitous, poorly maintained dirt road making access between them difficult. Travelling the fourteen kilometres from Tarazu at one end of the road to Railaco Craic at the other requires an hour of driving. Roads are impassable or dangerous during much of the wet season and there is no public transport between any of the five sucos or to Railaco Villa, the nearest town.
Government services in the area are very limited. The most easily accessible services are primary schools, four of which are operated by the government. These are within walking distance (albeit considerable) of most aldeia except for Deleçu where CER has constructed and operates a school. Secondary school in East Timor is split into junior and senior levels. Most students in the CER area have to walk considerable distances to reach the junior secondary school at Railaco Leten, or walk even further afield to Railaco Villa or Seloi. Those wanting to attend senior secondary school must walk several hours each way to Railaco Villa or Gleno, or board there during the week. The nearest permanent health clinic is also several hours walk away in Railaco Villa. Because of the poor access to health services CER operates a mobile clinic that travels to each of the five sucos one day each week to treat minor ailments. There is no access to electricity in the area. The nearest local grid is several hours walk away in Ermera District’s largest towns, Gleno and Ermera, and operates only in the evenings. Water supplies also present a difficulty in the areas where CER works. Community members travel long distances to reach spring-fed water sources, often having to carry water back uphill to their
127 Chapter 5
houses. CER have installed several small piped water supply systems to bring water closer to communities, some using solar PV pumps.
Housing in the CER communities are typical of those in the Ermera District. Most houses in the district have dirt floors (85%), bamboo walls (71%) and a corrugated iron roof (64%) (RDTL 2008a). Figure 5-2 shows a group of houses in Kolhuinamu aldeia in Railaco Leten. A corrugated iron roof can be seen in the foreground with a CER panel fastened to the north- facing pitch.39 Several other buildings have traditional grass-thatched roofs. Figure 5-3 shows the typical arrangement of building kitchens and houses separately. The main house, which has walls of split bamboo and may be partitioned into three or four rooms internally, has a corrugated iron roof and the adjacent kitchen a thatched roof. Figure 5-4 shows the inside of a house in Kolhuinamu. Internal walls are constructed of bamboo and there is no ceiling—typical of the construction of rural houses in East Timor. A single 5 W lamp is mounted in the roof space (highlighted in the figure) and illuminates three rooms.
Figure 5-2 Typical housing construction in Railaco sub-district
39 The PV panel is highlighted in the figure by the yellow ellipse.
128 Chapter 5
Figure 5-3 Typical house in Kolhuinamu with kitchen (left) built separately to the main house
Figure 5-4 Typical house in Kolhuinamu with internal partitions and without ceiling40
40 CFL is mounted on the rafters (highlighted by the yellow ellipse)
129 Chapter 5
5.1.2 Project overview
CER’s solar PV lighting program commenced in 2004 and has now installed 1000 systems across each of the aldeia of the five villages in which the program operates (B Tynan [Edmund Rice Community East Timor] 2006, pers. comm., 26 August). CER operates on a principal of universal access and the initial intention of the program was to provide one system to each household. As noted above, there are 793 households in the five sucos where CER operates so the average number of systems per household has now reached 1.3. It is not uncommon in East Timor, however, for several ‘households’ to live in a single ‘house’. Consequently the ratio of systems to houses is likely to be closer to two to one and it is not uncommon to see houses with two or three CER-supplied PV panels mounted on the roof.
Installation of systems was undertaken in batches of several hundred systems. Households who wished to be involved in the program were required to make an upfront contribution of $10 to have their system installed. CER report that households were very willing to pay that amount for a system (B Tynan [Edmund Rice Community East Timor] 2006, pers. comm., 26 August). CER managed the selection of households in conjunction with community leaders and installation was carried out by CER staff, often with the support of Australian volunteers from Rotary International (a voluntary service organisation).
No ongoing operation or maintenance fee is charged for use of the systems. CER uses the $10 upfront contribution made by households to offset maintenance costs. When faults arise, SHS users report the fault to CER staff who then arrange for maintenance or replacement of the system. Up to the time of the evaluation, CER had replaced components free of charge to the users. Consideration has been given to applying a $10 per year operation fee that CER would put towards battery replacement. An annual fee, rather than a monthly fee, is considered appropriate in Ermera because households derive their cash income from an annual coffee harvest. Whilst no steps have yet been taken in that direction, households in one community, Tarazu, were recently offered an upgrade where faulty systems could be exchanged for a two- light SHS for a fee of $149 (B Tynan [Edmund Rice Community East Timor] 2008, pers. comm., 18 October).
CER intended to serve as many households as possible with the limited budget at its disposal. Consequently, the solar lighting systems they have provided are a low-cost design which uses a small PV module to operate a single light. The first 600 systems were SHS consisting of a 10 Wp panel, a 5 W compact fluorescent lamp (CFL), and a 12 V 9 Ah battery on which a charge
130 Chapter 5
controller was directly mounted. The 5 W CFL was mounted in a luminaire fitted with a reflector to improve lighting efficiency. The systems were designed and supplied by an Australian company Solco Ltd.
Whilst the systems were designed to provide a three-year service life before requiring a battery replacement, a significant number failed during their first two years of operation. The most problematic component was the charge controller. In excess of 150 controllers were returned to the manufacturer for replacement. Subsequently, a decision was taken in 2006 to provide solar lanterns (Glowstar) to homes instead of SHS. The lanterns also use a 10 Wp panel and 5 W CFL but use a slightly smaller, 7.2 Ah battery. Two hundred lanterns were supplied but reliability of these systems also proved problematic and in 2007 CER reverted to providing SHS. Components for these systems are sourced locally in East Timor and assembled on site in Railaco.
Considering the system configuration against the design criteria set out in Section 2.2.2 it is not difficult to understand why a significant number of batteries required early replacement in CER systems. Minimum solar insolation in the mountains around Railaco is approximately 4.6 kWh/m2/day (NASA 2006). The demand placed on the systems is dependent on the duration over which the 5 W CFL is used each night. Based on the minimum insolation figure, five hours of lighting use per night,41 and the battery and panel sizes noted above, it is possible to determine the average daily output for the module and the design autonomy (Table 5-1).
Based on five hours of operation, the average battery depth of discharge (DOD) is 23%, just above the 10-20% range recommended by the SEI design guide (SEI 2007). The battery will only provide 1.7 days of autonomy if SEI’s recommended 50% maximum DOD is not to be exceeded. NASA (2006) insolation data for the area provides details of ‘equivalent no-sun days’ for each month of the year (in intervals of one, three, seven, fourteen, twenty-one and thirty days). This data may be used to determine how a SHS will perform in periods of low insolation. Based on the NASA data, the CER systems are likely to experience some instances of low- voltage shut down during three months of the year—February, April and December. Heavy cloud cover over a two or three week period during these months would reduce the PV module output significantly and prevent the battery from fully recharging each night.
41 The figure of five hours per night matches the average daily demand identified during the Socio-economic Household Survey and reported in Section 7.1, Table 7-1.
131 Chapter 5
Table 5-1 CER SHS theoretical system performance characteristics System performance Value Unit Design parameters
Nominal system voltage 12 V
Module power 10 Wp Charging losses42 20 % Battery cap 9 Ah Peak demand 5 W Daily demand 25 Wh Insolation, min 4.6 kWh/m2/day System efficiency 80 % Battery design DOD 50 % LVDC battery DOD 80 %
Performance parameters
System output 29 Wh/day Battery daily DOD 23 % Days autonomy 1.7 days
As noted in Section 2.2.2, deep discharging of a battery results in significantly reduced battery life. Those households that use their light for longer than five hours each night will experience more frequent low-voltage shut down and further reduced battery life. Conversely, some households with lower than average daily lighting use or those who reduce their system use during extended periods of heavy cloud cover may avoid this problem.
5.1.3 Evaluation activities
Two of the Initial Community Consultations were carried out in Railaco—in Sobrekeke and Eraulo (as described in Section 4.1.1). Sobrekeke was also amongst the list of aldeia selected for involvement in the Participatory Evaluation. In the areas where CER worked many households had more than one SHS. The exception to this was in Tarazu suco where CER had only completed one round of installation and hence relatively few households had multiple systems. Two aldeia from Tarazu—Lakeku and Datuleo—were selected for inclusion in the Participatory Evaluation. CER staff also advised that fewer households had multiple systems in Deleçu than in some of the other sucos, so two aldeia from Deleçu—Ledubu and Bohemata— were chosen as sites for the Participatory Evaluation. The sixth aldeia selected for the Participatory Evaluations was Kolhuinamu in Railaco Leten suco. The duration of the
42 The 20% estimate for charging losses covers both battery losses and a de-rating of module output for the elevated ambient temperatures in East Timor.
132 Chapter 5
Participatory Evaluation in each aldeia, the total number of participants and the number of participants without SHS (‘non-SHS users’) are summarised in Table 5-2.
Ideal participants for the evaluation were those from households with a single SHS in working order. It was not possible, however, to arrange a sample entirely composed of ‘ideal’ participants. CER systems were a mix of SHS and solar lanterns, single and multiple systems, and functioning and faulty systems. Failed systems were particularly evident in Tarazu where CER were aware of a long list of faults that required attention. Because of a dispute with the community leadership, however, no maintenance had been carried out during the twelve months preceding the evaluation. Each of the Participatory Evaluations exhibited a mix of these factors.
Table 5-2 CER Participatory Evaluations, summary of locations and participants Aldeia Suco Duration Women Men Total Non- partici- SHS pants users
Sobrekeke Railaco Craic 4 hours 10 12 22 1 Lakeku Tarazu 3.5 hours 10 10 20 0 Datuleo Tarazu 2.5 hours 10 8 18 2 Lebudu Deleçu 4 hours 11 10 21 1 Bohemata Deleçu 3.5 hours 10 13 23 3 Kolhuinamu Railaco Leten 2.5 hours 14 10 24 0
The average number of systems per participant varied from one each in Datuleo to 1.6 in Sobrekeke. Accounting for the large number of failed systems, however, the average number of working—SHS per participant was much lower. It varied from 0.25 in Lakeku to 1.1 in Sobrekeke and Kolhuinamu. At each location participants were asked to conduct the evaluation on the basis of having access to a properly functioning system.
The large number of faulty systems in Datuleo was raised as a serious concern by participants and was discussed at length prior to commencing the evaluation. Whilst this concern was observed to subdue the quality of participation in Datuleo, the level of engagement was still suitable for the results to be incorporated in the research data set. Low levels of discussions indicated very limited analysis for one group of men in Bohemata and the results from that group were excluded from the data set.
Elsewhere a high level of engagement was observed during the Participatory Evaluations. Participants in Kolhuinamu were particularly enthusiastic and the evaluation there was preceded by a lengthy plenary discussion about community perceptions and use of SHS. The
133 Chapter 5
evaluation was followed by an additional exercise to explore user perceptions regarding the health impacts of different types of smoke in the household, the results for which are presented in Section 7.4.
The Socio-economic Household Survey was conducted in each of the six communities listed in Table 5-2. The surveys taken in Sobrekeke, however, were part of the survey pre-test and results were excluded from the final data set. A total of forty-two surveys were carried out across the other five communities and these were conducted concurrently with completion of the Participatory Evaluations. These surveys were all carried out by the lead community facilitator/enumerator, Costa Belo. As described in Section 4.4.4, additional surveying was carried out in Railaco by Ludivico Alves. Ludivico carried out an additional forty surveys in a further four aldeia—Darema, Tunleru, Tuileso and Manefonhei.
The locations of each of the aldeias where the surveys were conducted are shown in Figure 5-5. Sites where the Participatory Evaluation and surveying was undertaken are shown with yellow markers and sites where surveying only was carried out are indicated with red markers. Dili and Railaco Villa, the sub-district capital are also shown.
Figure 5-5 Location of CER Participatory Evaluation and survey sites (Source: Google Earth 2008)
134 Chapter 5
5.2 UNDP sites
The CER SHS described above represent the ‘small’ end of SHS sizing. The ‘medium’ sized SHS evaluated for this research were installed as part of the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) ‘Participatory Rural Energy Development Programme’. As the title implies, this project considered energy broadly, rather than just electricity, and trialled three technologies in a number of communities. The project aimed to provide biogas to 120 households in three villages, micro-hydro powered mini electricity grids in three communities with a total of 230 households, and SHS for 68 households in six communities. Improved cooking stoves were also being provided to several hundred households—but not to any of the households that received SHS (da Silva V. 2006a).
5.2.1 Project setting
The SHS element of the UNDP program was implemented in three districts—Dili, Liquica and Manatuto—all on the north side of East Timor and within fifty kilometres either side of the capital, Dili. Initially five aldeias were selected for the SHS trial: Kitutu in Dili district; Pandevou, Ermeta, and Lebusalara in Liquica district; and Rembor in Manatuto district. A sixth aldeia, Burlete, was added to the SHS program after a feasibility study for a micro-hydro scheme there showed the site to be unsuitable. Locations of the UNDP SHS sites are shown in Figure 5-6.
333000 kkkmmm
Figure 5-6 Location of UNDP Participatory Evaluation and survey sites (Source: Google Earth 2008)
135 Chapter 5
Kitutu and Burlete are both part of the Dili district but are quite different with respect to their geography and access to services. Kitutu is part of Becora, a largely urban suco of Dili which has a population of almost 20,000 people living in 3,000 households (RDTL 2008b). Kitutu is a rural aldeia and sits in the hills to the south of Dili at an elevation of approximately 500 metres above sea level. Access to Dili requires a half-hour walk down hill (and almost twice that long to make the return journey uphill). The Chefe Aldeia reported that there are 130 households in Kitutu with their income mainly derived from market gardening activities. Their produce is sold in Dili and this requires people to rise early to cut and process the vegetables for early morning delivery to markets in Dili. The proximity to Dili means all householders would be quite familiar with the use of grid-based electricity in urban settings. There is a primary school in Kitutu and good access to secondary schools and health clinics in nearby Dili.
In contrast to Kitutu, Burlete is quite a remote rural location. It is part of the only rural suco of the Vera Cruz sub-district and is a ninety minute drive from Dili. There are only thirty-three households in the aldeia making it a very small community. The Chefe Aldeia reported that during the era of Indonesian administration families from Burlete had been forced off their land and made to live closer to the nearest town, Laulara. They have only moved back to their traditional lands in the last two years. Families in this area have some access to coffee plantations (Burlete sits at an altitude of 760 metres above sea level) and also to employment and agricultural markets in Dili. The Chefe Aldeia advised, however, that most households rely on subsistence farming. The nearest primary school, junior secondary school and health clinic are an hour’s walk away in Laulara. Attending senior secondary school requires travel to Dili or boarding there.
The three communities selected by UNDP for SHS in Liquica district are similar to Burlete—they are relatively small and quite remote from government infrastructure and services. Ermeta and Lebusalara are both in mountainous, coffee growing areas of Liquica. Ermeta is comprised of three aldeia in the suco of Fahilebu which has a population of 1000 people living in 195 households (RDTL 2008c). Whilst Ermeta is part of the district of Liquica, the nearest road access from Dili is via Ermera district. Ermeta is only about fifteen kilometres from Railaco Villa (the nearest sub-district capital for the CER communities in Railaco) and the people of Ermeta and Railaco are both from the Mambai ethnic group. The six kilometres of dirt road leading into the village is often impassable during the wet season. Ermera has a primary school for grades 1 to 3 and a health clinic with a resident nurse. All other levels of schooling require
136 Chapter 5
students to walk one to two hours into Railaco Villa. Ermeta lies at 650 metres elevation in a valley at the foot of the coffee growing area. It is surrounded by open grassland.
Lebusalara sits higher up in the mountains than Ermeta, at 980 metres above sea level, and is surrounded by coffee plantations. It is part of a relatively populous suco, Hatuquessi ,which has nearly 600 households and a population of just over 3000 (RDTL 2008c). Lebusalara accounts for 100 of these households. There are neither schools nor a health clinic in the aldeia. The nearest primary school is approximately two kilometres away and secondary schools or health clinics require travel to the district capital, Liquica, several hours walk north on the coast. Road access to Lebusalara is good compared to other remote communities. There is a sealed road through the aldeia which was constructed in Indonesian times to facilitate transport of the coffee harvest to Dili. People from the Lebusalara area are from the Tokodere ethnic group.
Those living in Pandevou, twenty kilometres west of Lebusalara, are also from the Tokodere ethnic group. Pandevou, however, lies on the coastal plain and is only 200 metres above sea level. There are fifty-four households in Pandevou, making it a relatively small aldeia within the suco of Guiço which has a population of 1400 people and 325 households (RDTL 2008c). There are few services in Pandevou. A dirt track provides road access alongside which runs a rudimentary, community-managed piped water supply system. Primary and junior secondary schools and a health clinic operate at Erlelo, three kilometres away and a further three kilometres on is a sealed road at Lois on the main north coast road to Dili. Attending secondary school requires travel to the district capital, Liquica.
As with households in Ermera, most people in Liquica district (80%) are subsistence farmers, cultivating maize, cassava and fruits such as coconuts, bananas and plantains (RDTL 2008c). Very few people cultivate rice (3%) but coffee is grown by 75% of households, such as is the case in Ermeta and Lebusalara. Housing construction in Liquica district is similar to that in Ermera—most households have dirt floors (80%), walls made from local materials (60%) and corrugate iron roofs (80%) (RDTL 2008c). Use of local construction materials in Ermeta and Lebusalara centre on bamboo, typical of mountainous areas in East Timor. In Pandevou the use of palms replaces bamboo, the leaves being used for thatch and the branches (called bebak in Tetun) for the walls and internal partitions (Figure 5-7).
The sixth aldeia selected by UNDP for installation of SHS was east of Dili in Manatuto district. The aldeia of Rembor is part of the suco of Aiteas most of which lies in Manatuto town and hence is classified by the government as an ‘urban’ suco in the East Timor census (RDTL 2008d). Rembor, however, is most definitely rural. The nearest paved road is four kilometres
137 Chapter 5
away and driving to Manatuto takes at least half an hour in the dry season and much longer when it is wet. Rembor has a local primary school and a health post that is attended by a nurse twice a week. Accessing a health clinic or secondary schools requires travel to Manatuto. There are eighty households in Rembor all of which have been recently constructed. The Chefe Aldeia reported that every house in the aldeia was burnt to the ground in the aftermath of the independence ballot in 1999. Almost all of the houses were observed to be constructed of concrete blocks with corrugated iron roofs. Unlike Ermera and Liquica, where coffee is the main cash crop, rice is the most important commercial produce in Manatuto (RDTL 2008d). Rembor is situated on a river plain where extensive rice cultivation is undertaken. People living in Rembor are from the Galolen ethnic group.
Figure 5-7 Typical housing construction in Pandevou, Liquica district
138 Chapter 5
5.2.2 Project overview
In each of the six project aldeia, UNDP staff selected ten households by lottery to receive a SHS (with the exception of Burlete where eighteen households were selected43). UNDP staff then installed a 40 Wp system in each of these households with three lamps—12 W CFL, 3 W CFL and 1 W LED lamp. Systems were installed over a three month period between January and March 2007. Whilst these systems had no DC power socket or AC inverter, UNDP purposefully selected a system with more than one light in the anticipation that this would enable income generating activities to be carried out in the evening by householders (V da Silva [UNDP Participatory Rural Energy Development Programme] 2006, pers. comm., 29 August). During installation, UNDP technical staff and community leaders identified two local persons to be trained as community technicians. These people participated in the installation, received training for basic troubleshooting and were provided with a tool kit.
The intention of the UNDP project was that each household receiving a SHS would make an upfront contribution of $15 and then pay an operating fee of $2 per month. These funds were to be managed by a local committee and made available to users as required for maintenance. UNDP staff remarked, however, that they had had very limited time and resources to put towards mobilising community management (V da Silva [UNDP Participatory Rural Energy Development Programme] 2007, pers. comm., 24 August). During the Participatory Evaluations none of the recipients reported having paid the upfront fee and there were very few reports of monthly fees having been paid.
Systems were purchased from an Australian supplier (Rainbow Power Company Ltd). Sizing of the components for the UNDP SHS and the theoretical design performance are set out in Table 5-3. The daily demand shown is based on a factor of three for the peak demand on the assumption that not all of the three lights will be used for the full duration each evening. This assumption matches the actual daily demand determined through the Socio-economic Household Survey (refer Section 7.1, Table 7-1).
43 UNDP staff initially advised households in Burlete that every house would be connected to a micro-hydro mini- grid. When the micro-hydro system was deemed infeasible UDNP staff decided to provide SHS for Burlete instead. Eighteen systems were installed—approximately one for every second household.
139 Chapter 5
Table 5-3 UNDP SHS, theoretical system performance characteristics System performance Value Unit Design parameters Nominal system voltage 12 V
Module power 40 Wp Charging losses44 20 % Battery cap 117 Ah Peak demand 16 W Daily demand 48 Wh Insolation, min 4.6 kWh/m2/day System efficiency 80 % Battery design DOD 50 % LVDC battery DOD 80 %
Performance parameters System output 118 Wh/day Battery daily DOD 3% % Days autonomy 12 days
The stand-out feature for the UNDP design is the capacity of the battery in relation to the load and PV module size. The average battery DOD is only 3% and the battery will provide twelve days of autonomy. Based on the NASA (2006) ‘equivalent no-sun days’ data there are no months in which the UNDP systems could be expected to experience low-voltage shut down even in the cloudiest of conditions. The system was designed with a 1 W LED lamp that users could leave on overnight if required (A Almeida [UNDP Participatory Rural Energy Development Programme] 2007, pers. comm., 17 June). Even continual overnight operation of the LED and the 3 W CFL would not result in a battery DOD in excess of 10%. The DOD versus cycle life of the battery used in the UNDP systems is presented in Figure 2-3 (Section 2.2). Based on that data the UNDP batteries could expect to achieve a seven-year design life. Further, since manufacturers define battery end-of-life as the point at which storage capacity has been reduced to 80% of design capacity (SEI 2007), the UNDP-supplied batteries may operate for as long as ten years or more.
5.2.3 Evaluation activities
Participatory Evaluations were carried out at all six locations where UNDP installed SHS. As noted in Section 4.1.1, two of the UNDP communities, Burlete and Kitutu, were also involved in
44 The 20% estimate for charging losses covers both battery losses and a de-rating of module output for the elevated ambient temperatures in East Timor.
140 Chapter 5
the Initial Community Consultations. The duration of the Participatory Evaluation in each of the six aldeia, the total number of participants and number of participants without SHS (‘non-SHS users’) are summarised in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4 UNDP Participatory Evaluations, summary of locations and participants Aldeia Suco Duration Women Men Total Non- partici- SHS pants users
Rembor Aiteas 2.5 hours 12 14 26 12 Ermeta Fahilebu 2.5hours 10 10 20 1 Pandevou Guiço 3 hours 8 8 16 0 Lebusalara Hatuquessi 3 hours 8 9 17 0 Burlete Dare 6 hours 12 18 30 4 Kitutu Becora 3 hours 7 10 17 0
The UNDP Participatory Evaluations were generally successful with the exception of the evaluation held in Rembor. That was the first Participatory Evaluation conducted and suffered from two problems. Firstly, the evaluation was held at night and the only venue available was a long narrow veranda in front of the Chefe Aldeia’s house. This forced the small groups of participants to sit together very closely and prevented them from working on the exercises independently of one another. The shortage of space was compounded by the second problem—large numbers of people from non-SHS households wishing to be involved. From these non-beneficiaries two groups were selected, one of women and one of men, to represent the non-SHS households. These two large groups dominated much of the discussion often reflecting their own situation (i.e. no access to electric light) in their analysis. As a result of these problems, the Rembor results were excluded from the research data set. Improved consultation with community leaders in advance of the Participatory Evaluations prevented these situations recurring at other locations.
Evaluations in Ermeta, Pandevou, Lebusalar and Kitutu were all satisfactory. At the request of the Chefe Aldeia, commencement of the evaluation at Lebusalara was delayed by several hours to wait for the arrival of the Chefe Suco. By the time the evaluation had finished quite a large crowd of onlookers had gathered. This appeared to inhibit somewhat the participation by the two groups of women. Kitutu was the only aldeia for any of the three projects which was in close proximity of grid-based electricity, being only half an hours walk from Dili. Consequently, the households from Kitutu may have been more likely to compare their SHS to grid-based electricity than in other communities.
141 Chapter 5
The Participatory Evaluation at Burlete was the highlight of the UNDP Participatory Evaluations. A very successful Initial Community Consultation had been held at Burlete and the Participatory Evaluation built on the relationship that had been established with that community. The number of participants required the formation of five small groups and there were very strong levels of engagement, discussion and analysis within these groups. Although the Participatory Evaluation used the same set of exercises as at all other locations the evaluation lasted for six hours. The extra time allowed greater exchange between groups when sharing the results of the exercises and more time to explore the reasoning behind each group’s analysis.
The Socio-economic Household Survey was undertaken at each of the six UNDP sites. A total of sixty-five surveys were completed. There were several areas of incomplete data for the surveys undertaken at Kitutu and these surveys were excluded from the research data set.45 Representatives of only seven households were surveyed in Ermeta because three were unavailable at the time surveying was carried out. All eighteen user-households in Burlete responded to the survey.
5.3 RDTL sites
The final SHS project evaluated is a government (RDTL) initiated activity in Cairui, in Manatuto district. The systems installed there, which have an 80 Wp PV module, represent the upper end of the SHS-size spectrum, particularly for lighting-only systems. The project was originated by the community whose demands for increased access to basic services resulted in the government providing 240 SHS through a contract with an Indonesian supplier (R Ximenes [Chefe Suco, Cairui] 2007, pers. comm., 18 October).
5.3.1 Project setting
Cairui is a suco in the sub-district of Laleia. Whilst rural and remote, the arrangement of aldeias in Cairui is distinct from the CER and UNDP locations. Of the seven aldeia that have traditionally viewed themselves as part of Cairui suco, five are co-located in a single ‘Cairui’ village. The Chefe Suco explained that in an attempt to better control the population Indonesian authorities moved all the villagers out of their homes in the mountains in 1979. People from Cairui were required to live in the town of Laleia, the sub-district capital, on the main north coast road to Dili. In 1984, when the Indonesian authorities felt more secure in East
45 As explained in Section 4.3.2, one of the enumerators, Vincente, proved unreliable when conducting surveys on his own. Only those surveys where he was being directly supervised during the interviewing have been included in the research data set.
142 Chapter 5
Timor, they moved five of the seven aldeia to a new ‘Cairui’ site on the edge of a major rice growing area. Two other aldeia, Hatukarau and Samalai, were moved to Samalai, close to Laleia and about eight kilometres from Cairui.
The houses of families from the various aldeia living in Cairui and Samalai are completely intermingled. Nevertheless, whilst these aldeias have been co-located for more than twenty years they each retain their individual identities and community leadership structures. Families are fully aware to which aldeia they belong. Since Timorese independence, some households have moved back to their old village locations in the surrounding mountains.
The people from Cairui speak Galolen and are from the same ethnic group as the community in Rembor, twenty kilometres further west. The village is located on a river plain and it is a major rice growing area. Households reported farming rice and also other staple crops on family parcels of land in the surrounding hills. Houses are largely constructed from bebak (palm branch) with corrugated iron or palm thatch roofs. Houses are located much closer together than in other rural areas (Figure 5-8).
Figure 5-8 Typical housing construction and proximity to neighbours in Cairui, Manatuto district
143 Chapter 5
Cairui has access to a primary school and junior secondary school. Attendance at senior secondary school requires travel to Manatuto. There is also a clinic in Cairui attended by two nurses and fitted with two solar PV lighting systems and HF radio communication. Concurrent with government supply of the SHS to households, Cairui received assistance for water supply and sanitation. An international NGO installed PV water pumps and elevated tanks to supply a series of tap stands in Cairui and Samalai and provided assistance for each household to construct their own bathroom and pour-flush latrine. The UNDP Participatory Rural Energy Development Programme also selected Cairui as a target area building a pilot, household-level biogas plant in one of the aldeia.
5.3.2 Project overview
The SHS program in Cairui is overseen by a local management committee. Tome Ximenes, a member of the Cairui SHS Management Committee, and also a member of the Cairui Suco Council, provided an overview of how the systems were installed and are now being managed. In response to the community’s requests for assistance the Timorese government let a contract for design and supply of systems to an Indonesian firm, CV Penuh Jaya. This firm supplied 240 systems that were divided amongst approximately 500 households. Each aldeia received a number of systems in proportion to their share of the overall number of households in Cairui. The Chefe Aldeia in each community then decided which households would receive a system. The Indonesian firm provided a one-day training course to nine local technicians who assisted with the installation of the systems over a period of several months (reported by recipient households to have been between September 2006 to February 2007).
The Government provided the systems to the community free of charge. Whilst households were not required to make an upfront payment for their system, the community leaders decided that each household should pay a monthly fee. Systems were provided with four lamps as standard or six lamps if extra lighting was requested. For those households opting for four lamps the fee was set at $1 per month and at $2 per month for six lamps. Approximately forty of the 240 systems were installed with six lamps. Tome Ximenes reported very high levels of fee collection by the committee, noting that ‘we are all poor in East Timor but we all have money to pay for our SHS’ (T Ximenes [Cairui SHS Management Committee] 2007, pers. comm., 18 October). The committee envisages using the monthly fees to contribute towards expanding services to those householders who did not receive a SHS.
144 Chapter 5
The RDTL systems consist of a pole-mounted 80 Wp PV module, four or six 10 W tubular fluorescent lamps, a sealed lead-acid battery of unknown capacity46 and a 10 A controller (Sundaya Apple). Ten months after installation, when the Participatory Evaluation and Socio- economic Household Survey were conducted, faults had been reported with batteries and/or controllers47 in about ten percent of systems. Where fluorescent lamps have failed these have been replaced by the Management Committee free of charge using spare lamps provided as part of the installation contract. According to Aires Almeida, a Timorese renewable energy adviser who was consulted by the Government regarding the system design, the RDTL systems were designed to provide three days autonomy and a two-year battery life (A Almeida [UNDP Participatory Rural Energy Development Programme] 2007, pers. comm. 18 October). Theoretical design performance parameters are set out in Table 5-5. The assumed daily demand is based on that identified during the Socio-economic Household Survey (refer Section 7.1, Table 7-1). Days of autonomy predicted for the system match the design intention, assuming that the battery capacity is approximately 100 Ah.
Table 5-5 RDTL SHS theoretical system performance characteristics System performance 4 lamps 6 lamps Unit Design parameters Nominal system voltage 12 12 V
Module power 80 80 Wp Charging losses48 20 20 % Battery cap 100 100 Ah Peak demand 40 60 W Daily demand 165 215 Wh Insolation, min 4.3 4.3 kWh/m2/day System efficiency 80 80 % Battery design DOD 50 50 % LVDC battery DOD 80 80 %
Performance parameters System output 220 220 Wh/day Battery daily DOD 14 18 % Days autonomy 2.9 2.2 days
46 The 12 V batteries were marked ‘KR9327 Super Maintenance Free’ and were manufactured by Global Battery Co Ltd in Korea. It was not possible to find any information regarding the capacity of these batteries. Their size indicates a capacity of approximately 100 Ah. 47 Neither SHS users in Cairui nor the local technicians trained during system installation could determine whether problems with poor performance related to faults with batteries or controllers. 48 The 20% estimate for charging losses covers both battery losses and a de-rating of module output for the elevated ambient temperatures in East Timor.
145 Chapter 5
Battery average DOD sits comfortably within the recommended 10-20% of battery capacity. Based on the NASA (2006) minimum insolation data for the Cairui region there are no months of the year when the system could be expected to shutdown automatically because of low voltage. As noted above, however, approximately forty of the RDTL systems were supplied with six 10 W lamps rather than four. An additional column has been included in Table 5-5 to indicate the system performance for six lamps assuming the two extra lamps result in a thirty percent increase in average daily demand. Battery DOD for this case is increased slightly and the days of autonomy reduced. Of greater significance, however, is that the system output during periods of minimum insolation is very close to the system daily demand. Consequently, households with six lamp SHS may experience several months each year when their systems shutdown automatically due to low battery voltage on a number of occasions. These systems—or four lamp systems where lights are left on for long periods—could expect to suffer early battery failure due to excessive heavy discharging.
5.3.3 Evaluation activities
A summary of the aldeias in which the Participatory Evaluation was carried out is provided in Table 5-6 and their locations in Figure 5-9.
Table 5-6 RDTL Participatory Evaluations, summary of locations and participants Aldeia Suco Duration Women Men Total Non- partici- SHS pants users
Biabae Cairui 3.5 hours 9 11 20 2 Raimean Cairui 3.5 hours 15 18 33 0 Raibu Cairui 3 hours 10 19 29 8 Corohoco Cairui 3.5 hours 11 12 23 0 Hatusili Cairui 2 hours 6 12 18 0 Hatukarau Cairui 2.5 hours 8 15 23 1
Participants generally engaged very enthusiastically with the Participatory Evaluations in Cairui. For two of the aldeia, Raimean and Raibu, the number of male participants was such that three groups of men were formed. The exception to this enthusiastic participation was in the aldeia of Hatusili where relatively few people took up the invitation to be involved. The exercises started poorly in Hatusili with one elderly participant objecting to the game used to form the small groups. There were only sufficient women to create one group. Two of the men’s groups showed very little engagement during the exercises and their results were excluded from the research data set.
146 Chapter 5
It was also difficult to achieve optimal participation of women in Hatukarau. Three weddings were being held in Hatukarau when the Participatory Evaluation was being carried out for RDTL communities. The weddings were very significant community events requiring several days of preparation and several days of community-wide celebrations. The Participatory Evaluation in Hatukarau was rescheduled several times to ensure high levels of participation.
There was one other feature of the Participatory Evaluations in Cairui that is worthy of note. In other locations, participants were unaware of the format for the evaluation and the nature of exercises involved prior to commencement of the evaluation. In Cairui, where five of the six aldeia involved in the evaluation live in very close proximity to one another, it was not uncommon for some people in each of the groups to have observed a Participatory Evaluation or heard about what it entailed. This applied to evaluations in Biabae, Raibu, Corohoco and Hatusili.
The Socio-economic Household Survey was completed in fifty-eight households across all of the six aldeia in which Participatory Evaluations were held. All of these surveys were conducted by the lead community facilitator/enumerator, Costa Belo. Ten of the households surveyed had six-lamp systems, a proportion which matches the occurrence of six-lamp systems amongst the total 240 RDTL-supplied SHS.
111000000 m mm
222000 kkkmmm
Figure 5-9 Location of RDTL Participatory Evaluation and survey sites (Source: Google Earth 2008)
147 Chapter 5
5.4 Comparability of project communities
From a global perspective, East Timor is a small country with a small population. As outlined in Section 2.1.2, fewer than one million people live on the eastern half of the island of Timor in an area of just 15,000 square kilometres (about half the land mass of Belgium or the Netherlands). This small area, however, contains a diverse and complex society comprising at least sixteen different ethnic groups using thirty different languages (Hull 1999). The communities that have benefited from the three SHS projects live in different parts of the country and represent different ethnic groups. Before commencing a comparison of the results for the different project samples it is appropriate to first consider what differences exist across the communities and what influence that may have had on the results of the evaluation.
5.4.1 Geography, ethnicity and agricultural practices
From a geographic, ethnic and agricultural point of view, the CER and RDTL sites offer internally homogenous samples. Beneficiary communities of these projects all live within the same sub-district, generally within a radius of five kilometres, share the same agricultural practices and speak the same language. The UNDP communities, however, provide a much more diverse sample. The geographical, ethnic and agricultural differences between the communities in which the three projects operate are summarised in Table 5-7.
Table 5-7 Difference in geography, ethnicity and agriculture in the project communities CER UNDP RDTL coastal plains (2), Geography mountainous coastal plains mountainous (4) Mambai, Tokodere, Ethnicity Mambai Galolen Galolen
Commercial coffee (3), market coffee rice agriculture gardening (1), rice (1)
Whilst belief systems and cultural practices are known to vary across ethnic groups in East Timor (Clamagirand 1980; Forman 1980; Traube 1986), it is difficult to envisage these having a significant bearing on the way in which SHS are used. Observation of rural life in communities for the three project samples did not indicate any obvious differences in day-to-day practices as a result of ethnic differences.
In contrast to ethnicity, geographical differences may have some bearing upon user experience of their SHS. Mountainous areas exposed to longer periods of dense cloud cover will receive less insolation than coastal regions, particularly the dry north coast of East Timor. Hence a UNDP system installed in the mountains might have a lower system output than the same
148 Chapter 5
system installed on the north coast (e.g. Rembor). As a consequence, some of the variation observed in UNDP responses to the evaluation may be influenced by the geography of the communities in which the systems were installed.
For the CER and RDTL systems, however, differences in geography are less relevant. From a system performance perspective, insolation differences between the CER and RDTL sites is a factor to be considered in the design. Systems designed according to the same criteria should take into account differences in insolation and the different levels of insolation should not influence the user experience. As noted in Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3, the CER and RDTL systems are designed with a much lower level of autonomy than UNDP systems (1.7 and 2.9 days respectively compared to 12 days for UNDP systems). The CER systems are the most likely of the three SHS to shut down automatically because of low battery voltage. This, combined with the mountainous location in which they were installed, may have a negative influence on user experience with the CER SHS.
Since none of the SHS being evaluated provide power for devices other than lighting it is unlikely that the different agricultural practices in the three project regions will influence user perceptions of their systems. In Cairui and Rembor rice milling is undertaken with diesel/petrol-powered mills on a community scale. SHS are not suitable for powering rice mills. Coffee processing at the household level is undertaken with small, hand-powered pulping machines. Again, the SHS in East Timor do not offer electric power for this process. Coffee pulping may benefit from electric lighting, however, if more households are able to do this task at night. Market gardening activities may also benefit from SHS providing light in the early morning to enable vegetable processing in preparation for transport to markets. Neither of these benefits, however, represent new opportunities for existing agricultural practices created by installation of the SHS. It would appear reasonable to deduce that the different agricultural practices in the beneficiary communities does not have a major influence on how the SHS are perceived in each of the three project samples.
Whilst there are some variations in the geographic, ethnic and agricultural practices in the communities in which the three projects operate, it seems appropriate to compare the results across projects without undertaking special measures to control for these differences. The household demographic information captured by the Socio-economic Household Survey, however, must also be considered to determine whether there are any other significant differences between the three sample populations. The following section considers family size, female-/male-headed households, dwelling size and construction, educational achievement, household wealth and pre-SHS expenditure on lighting.
149 Chapter 5
5.4.2 Household demographics
Age and number of members in households There was little difference in the make up of households for each project sample. As shown in Table 5-8, those above the age of five living at home in each family numbered between 1 and 9 people. On average, households consisted of five people, three above the age of 14 (i.e. ‘adults’) and two below (i.e. ‘children’) and the average age for households was approximately 26. For these statistics, the number of adult women and men per household was the only area in which there was a statistically significant variation between the project samples. There were slightly fewer women and men in UNDP households than in the CER and RDTL sample (0.4 fewer women on average and 0.2 fewer men, P values 0.002 and 0.014 respectively). Given that there was no significant difference in the overall average household size, this indicates slightly more children present in the UNDP households than in those of CER and RDTL populations.
Table 5-8 Household composition, data for entire survey sample Household composition Mean Minimum Maximum Number of people > 5 years old 4.9 1 9 Number adults (>14 years old) 3.1 1 7 Number children (<15 years old) 1.8 0 7 Number women (>14 yrs old) 1.4 0 6 Number men (>14 years old) 1.3 0 5 Average age of all household 26.4 14 57 members
Households for each project type were overwhelmingly male-headed, as is typical of Timorese society (Table 5-9). Only a handful of households for each project identified themselves as female-headed. Generally this implies a household run by a widow. Female-headed households are more common amongst the UNDP communities, possibly because UNDP purposively sought to ensure that marginalised members of each community were represented amongst beneficiaries.
Table 5-9 Female/male headed households Female Male CER 2 80 RDTL 3 55 UNDP 5 50 Total 10 185
150 Chapter 5
Dwelling size and construction As with family size, dwelling size showed no statistically significant variation across the three project samples. The number of rooms per house ranged from two to nine with most comprising four to five rooms (Figure 5-10). In the Timorese context, a ‘house’ is not a single building but is generally made up of at least two separate constructions and sometimes more. The number of rooms recorded during the survey are the total for each family, including the kitchen which is almost always constructed independently of the main building so as to minimise the risk of a kitchen fire destroying a whole home. Consequently, the average household size of four to five rooms would generally represent a main building partitioned into three to four spaces to make a living room(s) and bedrooms and a separate kitchen building. Histogram
80
60
40 Frequency
20
Mean =4.74 Std. Dev. =1.111 N =195 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of rooms
Figure 5-10 Number of rooms per dwelling, frequencies for entire sample
Houses in rural East Timor are constructed using a range of local and imported materials, a wide mixture of which may be used in a single dwelling. In the communities where the research was conducted the roofs were most often observed constructed from palm leaves, grass or corrugated iron. Walls were constructed from concrete block, bamboo (split or woven), palm branches, mud/earth, or timber. Floors were generally observed constructed from compacted earth or concrete and very occasionally with ceramic tiles. The survey
151 Chapter 5
captured information on roof and wall construction and the three project samples did show some difference in the types of construction materials used, as may be noted in Table 5-10. Houses in Cairui were less likely to use corrugated iron for the roof than houses in Railaco and the UNDP sites and houses at the UNDP sites were more likely to be constructed from concrete blocks than houses for the CER and RDTL sample.
Table 5-10 Dwelling construction materials, frequencies by project sample CER RDTL UNDP Roof Corrugated iron 78 33 53 Local materials 4 25 2 Walls Concrete block 5 8 12 Local materials 77 50 43
The UNDP sample, however, is skewed by results from households in Rembor where every house has been constructed with concrete blocks. As noted in Section 5.2.1, Rembor was completely destroyed during the militia violence of 1999 and was later rebuilt at its present site which goes some way to explaining the uniformity of dwelling construction. If Rembor is removed from the data set, the results of the survey reveal no significant difference in wall construction for the three project samples.
It may be noted from the above that households for each of the three project types are of similar size and live in dwellings of a similar size. There are some minor variations regarding building construction materials and in the mix of children/adults in the samples but none so great as might make comparison of the samples difficult. Data from the Socio-economic Household Survey also provided an opportunity to test the sample for each project for educational outcomes.
Education Four educational parameters were tested at the household level, namely: number of persons attending school; average years of schooling for adults; average years of schooling for children who attend school; and distance between home and primary school. For the first three of these parameters there was no statistically significant difference between the three project samples (Analysis of variance P values 0.74, 0.13 and 0.51 respectively). On average, there were two people in each household attending school; adults had received an average of five years education; and school-attending children had an average of four years education.49
49 These figures for students relate only to those family members currently living at home. Many survey respondents reported that one or more children live away from home to attend secondary school. Those family members would have much higher levels of education than the average of those students living at home.
152 Chapter 5
Means for the distance between home and primary school are shown in Table 5-11, differences for which are statistically significant (Analysis of variance P value 0.00). Households in the relatively dense Cairui community (RDTL project) live closest to primary schools, followed by households in the Railaco area (CER project). Households in the UNDP communities lived furthest from primary schools. This result for UNDP sites, however, was heavily influenced by those households in Pandevou who are all situated a long way from the local primary school. If the results for Pandevou are removed from the analysis, UNDP and CER households are found to have the same average distance away from primary schools (T-test P value 0.82). Given that the SHS in each community have been installed for only a few years at most, the education parameters reviewed here may be considered independent of the presence of SHS.
Table 5-11 Educational parameters by project sample Std. N Mean Min Max Deviation Number in household who CER 82 1.84 1.59 0 6 attend school RDTL 58 1.86 1.36 0 5
UNDP 55 2.04 1.59 0 5 Total 195 1.90 1.52 0 6 Average years schooling, CER 61 4.66 2.95 1.00 12.00 adults RDTL 54 5.58 3.35 .67 15.00
UNDP 32 4.35 2.46 .25 10.50 Total 147 4.93 3.03 .25 15.00 Average years schooling, CER 62 4.25 2.24 1.00 10.00 children attending school RDTL 48 3.99 1.89 1.00 9.00
UNDP 40 3.76 2.20 1.00 11.00 Total 150 4.04 2.12 1.00 11.00 Distance to primary school CER 39 0.52 0.43 .10 2.08 from house (kilometres) RDTL 58 0.22 0.13 .04 0.66
UNDP 30 1.20 1.74 .01 7.82 Total 127 0.55 0.95 .01 7.82
Household wealth As in Australia, material wealth is a sensitive subject to discuss in East Timor. The lead facilitator’s previous work in East Timor on rural water supply and sanitation systems initially involved communities carrying out wealth rankings to ensure that facilities served vulnerable and marginalised households. Facilitators responsible for working with communities, however, found the subject very difficult to address in communities and the wealth ranking was subsequently abandoned from the suite of participatory planning exercises (C Belo [East Timor
153 Chapter 5
Community Water Supply and Sanitation Program] 2007, pers. comm., 12 July). The national census carried out by the Timorese government in 2004 did not capture any direct information regarding income, although there were questions about livestock, dwelling construction and employment status (Direcção Nacional de Estatistica 2004). Within the limited scope of the Socio-economic Household Survey undertaken for this research, there was no opportunity to address directly the question of household material wealth and no data explicitly linked to that subject were collected. Responses to several questions, however, may act as proxy indicators for wealth and these are considered below.
Considering first dwelling size and construction, as was presented above, all project samples exhibited approximately the same distribution of house size but there were more houses built with concrete blocks in the UNDP sites and fewer houses using corrugated iron for roofing in the RDTL sites. The use of imported materials such as corrugated iron and concrete blocks clearly require access to cash income which may or may not be necessary when using local materials. Hence, use of imported materials does provide a proxy indicator for household wealth. The association between building materials and with wealth is weakened, however, by the differing access households have to local materials. These are abundant in some areas and sparse in others which clearly influences householder behaviour. Consequently, this proxy indicator must be used with caution. No clear picture emerges from the data. It is possible that Rembor, which grows rice as a cash crop and where all of the houses in the sample were of concrete block construction, enjoys slightly more access to cash income than most other communities.
Pre-SHS expenditure on candles and kerosene also provides some indication regarding access to cash income for the households surveyed. The reported kerosene expenditure was consistent across all three project groups (Table 5-12) but expenditure on candles by CER households was about $1 per month (approximately 50%) higher than for the other two groups. The CER figures, however, are skewed by a small number of households reporting very high levels of expenditure on candles. As described fully in Section 7.2, pre-SHS expenditure on candles and kerosene are likely to be similar across the three projects.
The survey also enquired about the use of 12 V car batteries and appliances. High incidence of either would indicate increased access to cash income. Such an outcome, however, was not observed. No households in the CER or UNDP samples used car batteries or appliances. Only five households in the RDTL sample used appliances of any sort and only one used a car
154 Chapter 5
battery. It should be noted that the small size of the CER systems render them impractical for use with appliances. The UNDP households were instructed not to use appliances with their systems. Consequently, whilst no great differences were observed, appliance use is a weak proxy indicator for material wealth in this context. Overall, none of the proxy indicators for wealth (i.e. dwelling size and construction, pre-SHS candle and kerosene expenditure, and use of 12 V batteries and appliances) suggest any significant discrepancy between the average wealth of SHS users for the three projects.
Table 5-12 Pre-SHS expenditure on candles and kerosene by project sample Std. Project N Mean Min Max Deviation Candle expenditure CER 82 $3.31 $3.99 $.00 $24.00 before receiving SHS RDTL 58 $2.24 $2.90 $.00 $20.00
UNDP 48 $1.87 $1.97 $.00 $7.00 Total 188 $2.61 $3.30 $.00 $24.00 Kerosene CER 82 $3.83 $3.03 $.00 $15.00 expenditure before RDTL 58 $3.61 $2.03 $1.00 $10.00 receiving SHS UNDP 50 $3.51 $2.28 $.00 $10.00 Total 190 $3.68 $2.56 $.00 $15.00
5.4.3 Experience with SHS delivery and reliability
The demographic elements considered above show that the three project samples exhibit quite similar characteristics. If this evaluation was to have been run as a ‘laboratory trial’, however, it would have been necessary to control for a number of extraneous factors that concern the manner in which the SHS were introduced into communities. Systems would have been installed at the same point in time; provided to equal proportions of households in each community; been repaired immediately if they broke down; required similar up-front and monthly contributions from users; and have been provided with the same level of technical support and user training. Each of these elements, however, varied across the three projects and their potential influence on the evaluation outcome needs to be considered, as is discussed below.
Duration between installation and evaluation There is a marked difference between the CER sample and the RDTL and UNDP samples with respect to the duration between installation and evaluation of the SHS. CER has been installing systems in Railaco since March 2004, providing some households with three years of SHS experience. All RDTL systems, however, were installed between September 2006 and February
155 Chapter 5
2007 and those provided by UNDP between January and March 2007. Consequently, the RDTL and UNDP samples are similar but the CER households have had much longer experience of running their SHS. Longer duration of operation means increased likelihood of system failure. Even though sampling in CER communities purposely sought out households with functioning systems, there were as many as a quarter of households in some CER aldeia samples where systems were not working. As noted in Section 5.1.2, many CER systems failed due to battery controller problems. After three years of operation, however, even systems with sound controllers were experiencing poor battery performance and CER was implementing a program of battery replacement. The sampling also sought out CER households with only a single system. This focussed attention on two aldeias where a dispute with community leaders meant that many systems had not been repaired. As a consequence of these factors, the CER user sample were much more likely to have experienced directly, or been closely aware of, SHS failures and the disappointment and dissatisfaction that accompany such failure. Some allowance needs to be made for this influence when assessing user satisfaction.
Proportion of beneficiary households in each community The proportion of beneficiary households in each community also represents a significant difference between the three project samples. CER provided at least one system, and in many cases more than one system, to every household in the communities in which it works. Almost 1000 systems were installed with the intention of providing complete coverage across a large geographical area. Consequently, for each user household, their immediate neighbours and those living in the surrounding area all had SHS. The UNDP communities were at the opposite end of the scale, with only ten households in each community receiving a system and with the beneficiary communities spread out over three districts hundreds of kilometres apart. Receiving a SHS was a very special privilege for UNDP households, arriving via good fortune in a ballot system. For most, few immediate neighbours enjoyed the same benefits and none of the households in the surrounding communities might be expected to have a SHS.
Experiences, however, were not uniform across all UNDP communities. Burlete, where eighteen50 of thirty-three households received a system, had a relatively high ratio of systems to households. Given that more than one family will often cohabit a single dwelling, coverage of houses in Burlete was likely to be more than seventy percent. Pandevou also had quite a high ratio with twenty percent of households receiving systems. In other communities,
50 The standard UNDP package was to provide ten households with a SHS in each community. Burlete, however, which UNDP had intended to support with a micro-hydro system, was provided with 17 SHS when the micro-hydro project proved infeasible.
156 Chapter 5
however, beneficiary households numbered fewer than ten percent. Ermeta, where only 5% of households received systems, had the lowest ratio. The RDTL communities were in the middle of the range presented by the other two projects. The 240 systems provided direct benefits to forty percent of households. Taking into account multiple families occupying single dwellings, well over half the households in Cairui are likely to have benefitted from a SHS installation, with observation suggesting that around 70 to 80% of dwellings had been fitted with a PV module.
Fees for SHS users Contributions to capital costs and ongoing user payments is another area in which the project approaches differed. CER required an upfront payment of $10 per system; UNDP encouraged, but did not enforce, a capital contribution of $15 to be paid in instalments three to six months after installation; and RDTL required no upfront payment at all. CER required no monthly operating fees; UNDP encouraged, but did not enforce, a monthly payment of $2; and RDTL required a monthly payment of $1 per four-lamp system and $2 for those households with six lamps.
Discussions with users indicated that these varying payment regimes had some influence on how they felt about their systems. CER households felt they had ‘paid for’ their SHS and that it belonged to them, even though they recognised that the payment was only a small fraction of the actual capital cost. The experience for UNDP households was entirely without cost because neither capital contributions nor monthly fees were collected in UNDP communities. Consequently, sentiments regarding the cost of operating a SHS were similar for CER and UNDP users. RDTL households were paying a small monthly fee which bore little relationship to the cost of supplying or operating their systems. Hence, whilst there were variations in the user costs associated with each system type, all systems could be considered as almost ‘free’ of any costs to users. Discussions with users did not indicate that the upfront fee paid by CER households or the monthly fee paid by RDTL households was a significant factor concerning their sentiments about using a SHS. Existing fee regimes did, however, strongly influence the responses of users with respect to their willingness-to-pay for SHS services, as is discussed further in Section 8.1.
Reliability and access to maintenance Concerns about how and where to fix their SHS when there were problems was a common concern when discussing experiences with users. The level of support provided with systems varied significantly. CER systems—having been installed earliest—had suffered the most
157 Chapter 5
problems but were also the best supported. CER local and expatriate staff lived in the Railaco community and were on hand when problems arose. Whilst this often did not result in a quick resolution to the problem, users at least had the sense that technical support was readily available.
The UNDP project had provided some basic training to two local ‘technicians’ in each community. Despite the brief training provided, these community members had very limited ability to diagnose faults and neither parts nor training to carry out repairs. The communities were all isolated from one another and communication with UNDP staff was difficult and infrequent. The situation for RDTL users in Cairui was similar, with almost no access to either spare parts51 or local technical support. Users in Cairui did at least have a ‘critical mass’ when advocating for government assistance and a sense of solidarity which contrasted with the relative isolation of the UNDP households.
The importance of access to technical support is highlighted by the incidence of system failure. As noted above, CER systems—many of which had been installed for several years at the point of evaluation—were far more likely to be non-functioning than UNDP or RDTL systems or to have been repaired in the last twelve months (Table 5-13). Consequently, whilst CER users had better access to technical support they were also more likely to have suffered system problems than RDTL or UNDP users. It is difficult to determine precisely how these different levels of system failure and technical support affected the perceptions of users regarding the benefits of their SHS. On balance, it appears that at the time of the evaluation lack of technical support had very little influence on the perceptions of UNDP and RDTL users and that high rates of system failure had some negative influence on perceptions of CER users.
Table 5-13 Incidence of broken systems and systems repaired in last twelve months CER RDTL UNDP SHS currently working Yes 35 56 54 No 7 2 1
Total 42 58 55 SHS repaired in the last twelve Yes 10 8 7 months No 32 50 42
Total 42 58 55
The material presented above points to some variation in community experiences that should be kept in mind when results from the three projects are compared. No serious barriers to making comparisons between the three project samples, however, have been identified. The
51 There was access to some spare fluorescent lamps which had been left with the Cairui SHS management committee by the Indonesian firm who had installed the systems.
158 Chapter 5
most important requirement for similarity has yet to be considered, namely what is important for these communities about their SHS; what attributes do they value and how strongly do they rate one attribute over another? This question about community priorities is vital for the research and is the subject of the following section.
5.5 Community priorities
The Participatory Evaluation exercises provided an opportunity for user communities to discuss and determine what attributes of their SHS were the most important to them. As described in Section 4.3, exercises were conducted in two parts, one to assess lighting-derived benefits and the other intrinsic benefits. The exercises involved both ranking benefit types and also weighting them.
These data are required for two purposes. Impact is associated most strongly with those benefits that are important to SHS users. Hence a knowledge of community priorities is required if impact is to be understood and compared across system sizes. Before commencing such an assessment, however, an understanding is required of whether the user communities for the three SHS sizes share the same priorities. If the Participatory Evaluation groups for each project ranked and weighted the benefits in the same manner, then comparing the ratings of their SHS is straightforward. If different attributes are important in different communities then comparing the development impact in one community with that in another becomes much more complex. The judgement required is akin to determining whether five apples are worth ten oranges—or, in the Timorese context, five mangos are worth ten guavas. Determining whether priorities for lighting-derived and intrinsic benefits are similar in the three project samples is discussed in this section.
5.5.1 Ranking of lighting-derived benefits
The Initial Community Consultations (presented in Section 4.1) determined four activity types for which the use of SHS was considered important—study, domestic tasks, productive tasks, and social interaction. During the Participatory Evaluation groups in each community were asked to rank these activity types in order of importance. Each group could have selected any of twenty-four possible ranking combinations of the four lighting-derived benefits. Only seven ranking orders emerged, however, from the sixty-seven groups involved in the Participatory Evaluation across all three projects (Table 5-14).
The ‘domestic-study-productive-social’ ranking order was very clearly the most common response. In contrast, several of the ranking orders were selected by a very small number of
159 Chapter 5
groups. These low-frequency responses were coded into a separate category (‘other’) and the ranking order distributions compared for the three project types (Table 5-15). There are too many low frequency responses to enable a meaningful Chi-square test on the results but the dominance of the ‘domestic-study-productive-social’ response across all three projects is clear.
Table 5-14 Ranking of lighting-derived benefits, frequencies and percentages for all groups Ranking—first to last Frequency Percent Study-domestic-productive-social 11 16 Study-domestic-social-productive 7 10 Study-productive-domestic-social 4 6 Study-productive-social-domestic 1 2 Domestic-study-productive-social 39 58 Domestic-study-social-productive 2 3 Productive-study-domestic-social 3 5 Total 67 100
Table 5-15 Lighting-derived benefits rankings, frequencies by project Ranking—first to last CER RDTL UNDP Study-domestic-productive-social 2 3 6 Study-domestic-social-productive 0 6 1 Study-productive-domestic-social 0 1 3 Domestic-study-productive-social 18 11 10 Other 3 2 1 Total 23 23 21
As an alternative to considering the ranking combinations allocated by each group, it is also possible to look separately at each level of ranking—i.e. the distributions of the first-ranked benefit, second-ranked benefit and so on. This information is best presented graphically (Figure 5-11). Whilst variations between results for each project are apparent, an overall pattern is clearly discernible with one activity type dominant at each level. For each project domestic tasks was most commonly ranked first, study second, productive tasks third and social interaction fourth.
As well as similarities between the three projects, Figure 5-11 also highlights some differences between the three groups. UNDP and RDTL groups were much more likely to rank study as first priority than CER groups. Domestic tasks and study appear to have similar priority for UNDP and RDTL groups. For CER groups the first-placed ranking of domestic tasks is clear. In contrast, some UNDP and RDTL groups ranked domestic tasks third. As with the first ranked benefit, only two activity types were selected for the fourth ranking—social interaction and productive tasks. Of these two, social interaction can be seen to be the most commonly selected activity type and for CER was universally ranked fourth.
160 Chapter 5
Crosstab Crosstab Crosstab
Statistics : Count Statistics : Count Statistics : Count project : project CER project : project RD TL project : project UN DP
CER RDTL UNDP
ranking, derived, first ranking, derived, first ranking, derived, first ranking, derived, first domestic ranking, derived, first domestic ranking, derived, first domestic
ranking, derived, first study ranking, derived, first study ranking, derived, first study
Crosstab Crosstab Crosstab Rankedfirst Statistics : Count Statistics : Count Statistics : Count project : project CER project : project RD TL project : project UN DP
ranking, derived, second ranking, derived, second ranking, derived, second ranking, derived, second domestic ranking, derived, second domestic ranking, derived, second domestic ranking, derived, second productive ranking, derived, second productive ranking, derived, second productive ranking, derived, second social ranking, derived, second social ranking, derived, second social ranking, derived, second study ranking, derived, second study ranking, derived, second study
Crosstab Crosstab Crosstab Statistics : Count Statistics : Count Statistics : Count
Rankedsecond project : project UNDP project : project CER project : project RD TL
ranking, derived, third ranking, derived, third ranking, derived, third domestic tasks ranking, derived, third domestic ranking, derived, third domestic ranking, derived, third productive ranking, derived, third productive productive tasks ranking, derived, third social ranking, derived, third social social interaction
ranking, derived, third study ranking, derived, third study study
Crosstab Crosstab Crosstab Rankedthird Statistics : Count Statistics : Count Statistics : Count project : project CER project : project RD TL project : project UN DP Crosstab ranking, derived, fourth ranking, derived, fourth ranking, derived, fourth ranking, derived, fourth productive ranking, derived, fourth productive ranking, derived, fourth productive Statistics : Count Crosstab ranking, derived, fourth social ranking, derived, fourth social ranking, derived, fourth social project : project UNDP Statistics : Count project : project UNDP
Rankedfourth ranking, derived, third domestic tasks productive tasks ranking, derived, third social interaction domestic tasks
study productive tasks Figure 5-11 Share of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th ranking for lighting-derived benefitssocial by projec interactiont study
161 Chapter 5
A third approach to considering the data involves combining the two highest ranked activities (irrespective of order) and comparing those results between the three project samples. There are six possible combinations for the first/second ranked activity types but only two were selected by groups during the Participatory Evaluation exercises—‘study-domestic tasks’ and ‘study-productive tasks’. When the frequency of these responses is compared across the three projects (Table 5-16) the similarity between the responses is clear—study and domestic tasks are the most important activity types across all three projects. A Chi-square test on the data supports uniformity across the projects (P value 0.83) although the low cell count for the
‘study-productive tasks ‘ category weakens the reliability of the test results.
Table 5-16 Lighting-derived benefits, two highest ranked benefits, frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP Study-domestic tasks 20 21 18 Study-productive tasks 3 2 3 Total 23 23 21
Before moving to consideration of the activity type weightings it is appropriate to consider whether there was any difference between the rankings applied to activities by women and men (who worked in separate groups during the Participatory Evaluation exercises). Comparing results across all projects, no significant difference between the ranking applied by women and men was identified (Table 5-17, Chi-square P value 0.35). Again, however, the low cell count in several categories weakens the test results.
Table 5-17 Ranking of lighting-derived benefits for all projects, frequencies for groups of women and men Women Men Study-domestic-productive-social 6 5 Study-domestic-social-productive 4 3 Study-productive-domestic-social 0 4 Domestic-study-productive-social 18 21 Other 2 4 Total 30 37
Comparing results between projects for first, second, third and fourth ranked activities showed no statistical difference between profiles for groups of women or men (although low frequencies for some results weakens the strength of the Chi-square test applied to the results). Comparing the combined first and second ranks for each project separately for men and women also supports the conclusion that there is no difference between projects for the way in which women and men ranked activity types (Table 5-18).
162 Chapter 5
Table 5-18 Lighting-derived benefits, two highest ranked benefits, frequencies for women and men by project CER RDTL UNDP Women Study-domestic tasks 10 9 10 Study-productive tasks 1 0 0 Total 11 9 10 Men Study-domestic tasks 10 12 8 Study-productive tasks 2 2 3 Total 12 14 11
In summary, the majority of groups for each project ranked the importance of lighting-derived benefits in order of domestic tasks, study, productive tasks and social interaction. When considering the combination of activities ranked first and second, there was no statistically significant difference between the three project samples. Whilst the ranking order was the same across all groups a sizeable minority of the RDTL and UNDP groups rated study as the highest priority rather than domestic tasks.
5.5.2 Weighting of lighting-derived benefits
In addition to ranking the lighting-derived benefits, one of the Participatory Evaluation exercises provided groups with an opportunity to weight the importance of each activity type (as described in Section 4.3.2). This provided an indication of how important one activity type is compared to each of the others. As expected, the average weightings for each project largely reflected the rankings described in the preceding section. It is interesting to note for the RDTL and UNDP samples, however, that whilst slightly more groups ranked domestic tasks first than study first, their weightings reversed this order with study weighted very slightly ahead of domestic tasks (Figure 5-12). This confirms the finding from the ranking of activity types that for UNDP and RDTL groups study and domestic tasks were of similar importance.
An analysis of variance test carried out to compare the distribution of activity weightings for each project showed no significant difference between any of the project weightings for domestic tasks, study, and social interaction (P values 0.10, 0.19 and 0.31 respectively). The difference between weightings for productive tasks, however, was statistically significant (P value 0.045) with RDTL allocating a slightly lower weighting to this activity type than CER and UNDP groups. There was no difference for any activity type when comparing the results of female to male groups.
163 Chapter 5
Statistics Statistics Statistics Statistics : Mean Statistics : MeanCER RDTL Statistics : MeanUNDP
0.30 0.30 0.30
0.20 0.20 0.20
Values
Values Values
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00 0.00 Domestic Productive Domestic Productive Domestic Productive Study Social Study Social Study Social Variables Variables Variables Figure 5-12 Lighting-derived benefits, weighting of activity types by project
5.5.3 Ranking of intrinsic benefits
The Initial Community Consultations identified four types of intrinsic benefits associated with SHS—light, finances, convenience and health. As with lighting-derived benefits, these intrinsic benefits were ranked in order of priority during the Participatory Evaluation exercises. Of the twenty-four different possible ranking orders, only seven were selected by the sixty-seven groups involved in the evaluation (Table 5-19). The low frequency rankings—those selected by four groups or fewer—were recoded into a separate variable (‘Other’) and the results compared for the three projects (Table 5-20).
Table 5-19 Intrinsic benefit rankings, frequencies and percentages for all groups Frequency Percent Light-finances-convenience-health 29 43.3 Light-finances-health-convenience 20 29.9 Light-convenience-finances-health 6 9.0 Light-convenience-health-finances 4 6.0 Light-health-convenience-finances 3 4.5 Finance-light-convenience-health 3 4.5 Finance-light-health-convenience 2 3.0 Total 67 100.0
Table 5-20 Intrinsic benefits rankings, frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP Light-finances-convenience-health 10 5 14 Light-finances-health-convenience 7 10 3 Light-convenience-finances-health 0 3 3 Other 6 5 1 Total 23 23 21
164 Chapter 5
The two combinations which rank light and finances first and second are the most frequent responses for all projects. Other patterns, however, are difficult to discern from the information presented in tabular form. As with lighting-derived benefits, proportions of
intrinsicCrosstab benefit types were set out graphicallyCrosstab for the first, second, thirdCrosstab and fourth ranked benefitsStatistics (Figure : 5Count-13). Statistics : Count Statistics : Count project : project CER project : project RD TL project : project UN DP
CER RDTL UNDP ranking, intrinsic, first ranking, intrinsic, first ranking, intrinsic, first ranking, intrinsic, first finance ranking, intrinsic, first finance ranking, intrinsic, first finance
ranking, intrinsic, first light ranking, intrinsic, first light ranking, intrinsic, first light
Crosstab Crosstab Crosstab Rankedfirst Statistics : Count Statistics : Count Statistics : Count project : project CER project : project RD TL project : project UN DP
ranking, intrinsic, second ranking, intrinsic, second ranking, intrinsic, second ranking, intrinsic, second convenience ranking, intrinsic, second convenience ranking, intrinsic, second convenience ranking, intrinsic, second finance ranking, intrinsic, second finance ranking, intrinsic, second finance ranking, intrinsic, second health ranking, intrinsic, second health ranking, intrinsic, second health ranking, intrinsic, second light ranking, intrinsic, second light ranking, intrinsic, second light
Crosstab Crosstab Crosstab
Statistics : Count Statistics : Count Statistics : Count Rankedsecond project : project CER project : project RD TL project : project UN DP
ranking, intrinsic, third ranking, intrinsic, third ranking, intrinsic, third ranking, intrinsic, third convenience ranking, intrinsic, third convenience ranking, intrinsic, third convenience ranking, intrinsic, third finance ranking, intrinsic, third finance ranking, intrinsic, third finance
ranking, intrinsic, third health ranking, intrinsic, third health ranking, intrinsic, third health
Crosstab Crosstab Crosstab
Rankedthird Statistics : Count Statistics : Count Statistics : Count Crosstab project : project CER project : project RD TL project : project UN DP
ranking, intrinsic, fourth ranking, intrinsic, fourth ranking, intrinsic, fourth Statistics : Count ranking, intrinsic, fourth convenience ranking, intrinsic, fourth convenience ranking, intrinsic, fourth convenience Crosstab ranking, intrinsic, fourth finance ranking, intrinsic, fourth finance ranking, intrinsic, fourth finance ranking, intrinsic, fourth health ranking, intrinsic, fourth health ranking, intrinsic, fourth health
project : project UNDP Statistics : Count project : project UNDP . Rankedfourth convenience finance . health convenience light finance
Figure 5-13 Share of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th ranking for intrinsic benefit types by projechealtht light 165 Chapter 5
Lighting, as expected, was most commonly ranked first by all groups and exclusively so by RDTL and UNDP groups. Finances was the intrinsic benefit most commonly ranked second but was also observed in each of the other ranking orders. A substantial number of CER groups ranked finances in first place and a few in third place. A small number of RDTL and UNDP groups ranked finances as fourth most important.
Most CER and UNDP groups ranked convenience third and health fourth. RDTL groups, in contrast, reversed this order ranking health above convenience. A substantial number of CER groups also ranked health above convenience suggesting that these two intrinsic benefit types are of similar importance for the RDTL and CER groups.
The ranking of health benefits associated with SHS generated some of the most intense discussion during the Participatory Evaluation exercises. Most participants felt very strongly about the importance of their own health and that of their families. Health was often ranked as the most important intrinsic benefit until further explanation clarified that the exercise was considering the benefits specifically provided by SHS, not the importance of health generally.
An analysis was also made of the combinations of the top two ranked intrinsic benefits (Table 5-21). The emphasis on light and finance across all groups is clear. The results for the RDTL and UNDP groups are quite similar and Chi-square analysis indicates no significant difference between the two responses (P value 0.14). The CER groups’ results, however, show a stronger emphasis on light and finance than the other two projects. Only one CER group ranked convenience first or second and none of the CER groups rated health at the highest two levels. All but one of the CER groups ranked light-finance first, showing a very strong preference for these two intrinsic benefits.
Table 5-21 Intrinsic benefits, two highest ranked benefits, frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP Light-finance 22 15 17 Light-convenience 1 6 3 Light-health 0 2 1 Total 23 23 21
Testing of the results for women and men showed no statistically significant difference between the sex disaggregated responses, either for overall ranking order (P value 0.55) or for ranking of the two highest rated benefits (P value 0.61).
166 Chapter 5
5.5.4 Weighting of intrinsic benefits
As with activities associated with lighting-derived benefits, groups involved in the Participatory Evaluation were asked to create a weighting for the importance of each intrinsic benefit type by ‘voting’ for the benefits they thought were most important. The weightings for each project are shown in Figure 5-14.
For each of the three projects, light and finances were given the highest and second-highest weighting for all three projects, matching the rankings awarded to these intrinsic benefits. The pattern of weighting for CER and RDTL groups was similar but UNDP groups reversed the order for the last two intrinsic benefit types, weighting convenience more highly than health. These weightings match the rankings applied by UNDP and RDTL groups. The weightings applied by CER groups for health and convenience, however, were reversed compared to their rankings, with health being given a higher weighting than convenience.
Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics Statistics : MeanCER Statistics : MeanRDTL Statistics : MeanUNDP
0.40 0.40 0.40
0.30 0.30 0.30
Values Values 0.20 Values 0.20 0.20
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00 0.00 Light Health Light Health Light Health Finances Convenience Finances Convenience Finances Convenience Variables Variables Variables Figure 5-14 Intrinsic benefits, weighting of benefit types by project
Considering the results for each intrinsic benefit type separately, an analysis of variance test indicates no significant difference between the three projects for the weightings of finances and also of convenience. There was a statistically significant difference across the three projects for weightings of health (P value 0.03). The mean UNDP weighting was lower than that of the CER result. There was also a statistically significant difference in the weighting for light, with the mean for CER groups significantly lower (P value 0.02 ) than those of the RDTL and UNDP groups. As may be observed in Figure 5-14, however, these difference were small in comparison to the average weighting for each benefit type. The RDTL convenience weighting was 75% of the mean for all groups and the CER light weighting was 85% of the mean for all groups.
167 Chapter 5
Mean weightings for the combined results from all three projects showed health to be slightly more heavily weighted than convenience. Comparing just the results for finances, health and convenience and setting the finance result equal to 100, the mean health weighting for all groups was 70 and for convenience was 60.
5.6 Conclusions
Section 5.5 considered the SHS lighting-derived benefits and intrinsic benefits that are important to users in East Timor and compared how their importance varies across the three project communities, which were described in Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. This comparison drew upon the results of the participatory evaluations—involving seventy-seven groups from eighteen different communities. There is a high degree of concordance between the three project samples. Most groups ranked activity types in order of domestic tasks, study, productive tasks and then social interaction. Weighting of these activity types across projects matched this general order but indicated that domestic tasks and study are of similar importance. There was greater variation between projects for intrinsic benefits. Light and finances were the two most important priorities—both by ranking and by weighting—but there was a mixture of responses for ranking and weighting of convenience and health.
Other aspects of the project communities were also considered in this chapter. Whilst the samples included a number of different ethnic groups, household composition, education levels, dwelling size and construction, and proxy indicators for household wealth were all shown to be similar across the three projects. Some difference were noted, however, in the way that SHS programs were introduced to communities, especially with respect to the proportion of households that received systems. The incidence of faults and household experiences with failed systems also differed between the project samples.
Whilst there is variation between (and within) projects, none of these differences are so great as to prevent the comparison of evaluation results between the three projects. Of particular importance is that the priorities for users are broadly similar, as demonstrated in Section 5.5. For SHS users from each project, study and domestic tasks are the two activity types that benefit most from SHS and lighting and finances are the two most important intrinsic benefits. Armed with this knowledge, it is now possible to begin considering how users rate the performance of their SHS in these priority areas.
168
Chapter 6
Comparison of lighting-derived benefits
169 Chapter 6
6 Comparison of lighting-derived benefits
Having set out the evaluation method in Chapter 4 and presented the characteristics of the three different sizes of SHS being evaluated in Chapter 5, the thesis now turns to consider the development impact of SHS in relation to their size. This chapter sets out the findings from the Participatory Evaluations and Socio-economic Household Survey for the four types of lighting- derived benefits, identified through the Initial Community Consultations. Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 of the preceding chapter detailed the ranking and weighting of these lighting-derived benefits. The data showed that for all projects, lighting to help with study and domestic tasks is more important than good lighting for productive tasks; and that use of SHS lighting for productive tasks is in turn more important than its use for social interaction.
These rankings and weightings of activity types, however, provide no information about users’ perceptions of system performance. The question addressed in this chapter is ‘how much advantage do the different sizes of SHS offer when carrying out these activity types?’ In addressing that question results from both the Participatory Evaluation and Socio-economic Survey are drawn upon. Each of the four activity types are considered for changes in ease and duration following the installation of SHS. As described in Chapter 3, the strength of the Demand Oriented Approach arises from purposeful combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches to evaluation. Hence in this chapter results of the Participatory Evaluation and Socio-economic Survey are presented side-by-side in separate sections for each activity type. A similar approach is taken to presentation of the results for intrinsic benefits in Chapter 7.
Statistical analysis of the research data presented in Chapters 6 and 7 was undertaken using SPSS software, version 15.0. Results of statistical testing is set out in detail in Appendix E.
6.1 Study and reading
6.1.1 Ease of study and reading
During the Participatory Evaluations user groups were asked to consider whether their SHS had made any difference to the ease of studying and/or reading in their house. Participants were able to indicate their response within a five-category scale ranging from ‘more difficult’ to ‘much easier’. None of the groups from any project judged their SHS to have made study/reading more difficult or to have made no difference. Most of the responses fell into the ‘easier’ or ‘much easier’ categories (Figure 6-1).
170 Chapter 6
study, ease
30
20 Frequency
10
0 little easier easier much easier Figure 6-1 Study, ease, response frequencies for all groups
Results for each of the three projects are set out in Table 6-1. A Chi-square test on these results indicates no statistically significant difference between the three response distributions (P value 0.31). One of the cells, however, has a value lower than the expected minimum value for the Chi-square test and three of the nine cells have counts fewer than five.
Table 6-1 Study, ease, frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP Little easier 5 1 3 Easier 10 13 7 Much easier 8 9 11 Total 23 23 21
To eliminate the low frequency responses and so strengthen the results of the Chi-square test, the ‘little easier’ and ‘easier’ responses were consolidated into a single category. The results for the three projects were then tested again to see if there was any difference between frequencies of the ‘little easier/easier’ and ‘much easier’ responses. A Chi-square test P value of 0.47 indicates no difference between the projects.
In summary, all the user groups indicated that their systems improved the ease of reading and study and 86% scored their systems in the top two categories—‘easier’ and ‘much easier’.
171 Chapter 6
6.1.2 Duration of study and reading
Change in the duration of study and reading was assessed during the Participatory Evaluation exercises in a similar manner, with user groups being asked to score their systems on a five point scale from ‘less’ to ‘much more’ time spent on these activities. As with ease, most user groups scored their systems in the top two categories—‘more’ and ‘much more’ (Figure 6-2). study, duration
40
30
20 Frequency
10
0 same little more more much more study, duration Figure 6-2 Study, duration, response frequencies for all groups
An analysis of responses by project is set out in Table 6-2. Direct Chi-square analysis of these results is inappropriate due to the large number of low frequency responses—half the responses have a frequency of five or fewer.
Table 6-2 Study, duration, frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP Same 1 0 0 Little more 6 2 1 More 12 13 8 Much more 4 8 12 Total 23 23 21
To minimise the low frequency responses and allow a Chi-square analysis of the results, the ‘little more’ and ‘more’ categories were consolidated into a single category and the ‘same’ response was excluded from the analysis (Table 6-3). The difference in the distribution of these results for the three projects is statistically significant (Chi-square P value 0.03). As indicated by direct observation of the data, however, the difference lies between the results for UNDP and
172 Chapter 6
the two other projects. A Chi-square test just on CER and RDTL results shows no statistically significant difference (P value 0.21). This is important because it makes it unlikely that system size has influenced the result, the size of UNDP SHS being between that of the CER and RDTL systems.
Table 6-3 Study, duration, little more/more or much more, frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP Much more 4 8 12 Little more/more 18 15 9 Total 22 23 21
The results above were drawn from the Participatory Evaluation exercises and show that users find it noticeably easier to read or study at home using their SHS and that in most households people read and study for longer as a result of their SHS having been installed. Between projects, there was no difference in the results for ease of study. Between CER and RDTL groups—those with the smallest and largest SHS—there was no difference in the reported increase in duration. Considerable data regarding reading and study were also collected within the Socio-economic Household Survey and this information provides a means to cross-check and further analyse the results of the Participatory Evaluation.
6.1.3 Survey results
The first thing to recognise about reading and study in the homes of SHS users in rural East Timor is that these are not common activities for adults. Of almost five hundred non-school- attending adults covered by the survey (‘adults’ being defined as those aged fifteen years or more), only sixteen percent were reported to read or study regularly and just six percent had read or studied on the night before the survey was taken. In contrast, of the children enrolled in school (371 children from 195 households), seventy percent were reported to have studied the night before the survey was conducted. Consequently, from an impact perspective, small changes in the pattern of children’s behaviour will have a greater influence on user communities than small changes in adult behaviour. The following material considers the proportions of children and adults in each household studying/reading; the use of candles and kerosene for reading; and the nightly duration of studying/reading.
Ease of studying and reading Table 6-4 shows the percentage of school children and adults who habitually read or study and who read or studied on the evening before the survey was taken. Analysis of variance testing
173 Chapter 6
of these data show that there was no discernable difference in the pattern of behaviour for adults, the small differences in the mean values having no statistical significance (% reading usually, P value 0.14; % reading yesterday, P value 0.89). The same can be said for students studying yesterday, data for which produced a P value of 0.08 for all three project samples and 0.41 when comparing the CER and RDTL project data.
Table 6-4 Proportion of children and adults studying/reading in each household by project Std. N Mean Min Max Deviation Children habitually CER 54 .90 .18 .33 1.00 studying; proportion in RDTL 48 .82 .22 .33 1.00 household UNDP 40 .95 .13 .50 1.00 Total 142 .88 .19 .33 1.00 Children studying CER 51 .83 .23 .33 1.00 yesterday; proportion in RDTL 43 .79 .24 .25 1.00 household UNDP 38 .90 .16 .50 1.00 Total 132 .83 .22 .25 1.00 Adults habitually CER 82 .14 .25 .00 1.00 reading; proportion in RDTL 58 .24 .34 .00 1.00 household UNDP 55 .17 .30 .00 1.00 Total 195 .17 .29 .00 1.00 Adults reading CER 82 .06 .18 .00 1.00 yesterday; proportion in RDTL 58 .08 .24 .00 1.00 household UNDP 55 .06 .18 .00 0.83 Total 195 .07 .20 .00 1.00
The only area in which some difference was detected between the three sizes of SHS was the percentage of students reported to study habitually. For that parameter, the RDTL mean was significantly lower than both the CER sample (P value 0.05) and the UNDP sample (P value 0.001). There was, however no statistical significance in the difference between the UNDP and CER samples (P value 0.11). If larger SHS with more lamps made reading and/or study much easier than the small, single lamp CER systems it may have been expected that more reading and study would be observed in RDTL and UNDP households. This was not the case, however, and these results support the findings from the Participatory Evaluation data that suggested there was no difference in the ease of study associated with SHS of different sizes.
Both during the Initial Community Consultations and again during the Participatory Evaluation, users of SHS clearly acknowledged the advantages of electric light for reading and study over traditional means of lighting. Consequently, it is plausible that reduced use of candles and kerosene lamps for study/reading would equate to greater ease for that activity type.
174 Chapter 6
The results of the survey do indeed show some difference between the three project groups on this issue. In an analysis of those households where the SHS were functioning, none of the households in Cairui using the RDTL systems reported continued use of candles or kerosene lamps for study or reading (Table 6-5). A small portion of CER52 and UNDP households were still using candles or kerosene lamps for study or reading. The difference between the three samples was statistically significant (P value 0.02) but not between the CER and UNDP samples (P value 0.86).
Table 6-5 Use of candles/kerosene for study/reading where SHS functions by project (frequency) CER RDTL UNDP No 30 56 47 Yes 5 0 7 Total 35 56 54
Clearly most CER households, where the SHS is working, no longer use candles or kerosene lamps for study/reading. There remain, however, a small number of households that are still using these lighting sources. The reasons behind this behaviour were not specifically investigated by either the Socio-economic Household Survey or Participatory Evaluation exercises. It is plausible that for some homes a single 5 W CFL lamp illuminating a whole house is not sufficient to meet the needs of all those wishing to read and study. In this case it might be expected that CER households would make greater use of candles for reading and study since each house has only one lamp for which a number of uses may be required. Additionally, because the lamp is weak, and if it is mounted too far from the work area, it may not produce sufficient illumination for reading or studying. In households experiencing these conditions, it is possible that candles or kerosene lamps are used to supplement the illumination provided by the SHS.
Such an argument holds less weight as an explanation for the differences observed between RDTL and UNDP households. UNDP systems were supplied with one 12 W CFL suitable for task lighting and two other lamps to provide area lighting. UNDP systems provide both more and stronger lights than CER systems and yet there was no difference observed in the proportion of UNDP and CER households using traditional lighting sources for reading. Three other factors were analysed to indicate whether or not they are related to this behaviour in UNDP
52 Only those CER surveys collected by Constantino Belo, the lead facilitator/enumerator were included in this analysis to ensure that the responses were the result of a consistent understanding and presentation of the questions put to respondents regarding continued use of kerosene lamps or candles for reading.
175 Chapter 6
households—total lamp hours per night (i.e. the length of time households are using their SHS lighting); number of rooms in the house (on the supposition that three lamps may be insufficient for larger houses); and number of people in the household (again, on the basis that three lamps may be too few for large families). The results of this analysis for the UNDP sample are set out in Table 6-6. Whilst the sample size for households using candles/kerosene for reading is small (N=7), Analysis of Variance testing does not support the notion that there is any difference for total lamp hours or number of rooms in the house (P values 0.48 and 0.72 respectively). There is a statistically significant difference in the number of people in households using candles and kerosene and those households just using SHS lighting. An average of two extra people live in the homes which supplement electric lighting with other sources suggesting that this may be a motivating factor. A similar analysis of the CER sample, however, showed no such correlation with household size.
Table 6-6 Use of candles/kerosene for study/reading in UNDP households (frequency) Std. Variable Response N Mean Sig Deviation Total lamp hours no 47 10.2 4.47
0.48 yes 7 11.4 2.70 Number of rooms no 47 4.9 0.96
0.72 yes 7 4.7 0.76
Number in household no 47 4.9 1.73 >5 years old 0.01 yes 7 6.9 1.46
Whilst the results of this analysis are not definitive, they indicate that households respond differently to the same level of illumination—some will cease using candles or kerosene and some continue to use them. For CER systems with their single 5 W CFL, and UNDP systems with three lamps of a combined 16 W power, the proportion of homes still using candles and kerosene lamps was 13 to 14%. For the RDTL systems with four lamps totalling 40 W, the proportion of households using traditional lighting sources had dropped to zero. This result indicates that reading and studying may be slightly easier for some people living in households using the RDTL systems. This difference in behaviour in RDTL households compared to that in UNDP and CER households is small, however, and the survey result is generally consistent with the results of the Participatory Evaluation analysis.
176 Chapter 6
Duration of study and reading Data from the Socio-economic Household Survey also provides an opportunity to cross-check the analysis of study and reading duration. The results of the Participatory Evaluation exercises indicated that UNDP user households increased their reading and study more than CER and RDTL households, between which no difference was observed. It is not possible to compare these results directly with findings from the Socio-economic Household Survey since the Participatory Evaluation exercises asked participants to report on change in duration of study/reading following installation of their SHS whilst the survey asked respondents to report on the habitual duration of study/reading and the duration yesterday of study/reading. Responses to the survey questions were then averaged for school children in each household.
Whilst no direct comparison can be made with the Participatory Evaluation results, it might be expected that those living in UNDP households would read/study more than those from CER and RDTL households since UNDP groups reported the largest increase in duration during the Participatory Evaluation exercises. This, however, was not the case. For habitual study duration, there was no statistically significant difference between the average study duration across the three projects for school children as a whole, nor when considering female or male students separately (Table 6-7). The mean for ‘study duration yesterday’ was much higher for CER than for UNDP or RDTL samples and approaches statistical significance (P value 0.06).
The survey offers one further insight into students’ study duration. Respondents were asked whether they agreed with the following statement: ‘children study more at night because of good light’. Responses from men and women are set out in Table 6-8. Comparing just the CER and RDTL responses (noting that these groups reported a similar pattern of increased study duration during the Participatory Evaluation exercises), there was no difference between the response for women (P value 0.21). Men from CER households were significantly more likely to strongly agree to this statement than men from RDTL households (P value 0.00). There is no suggestion from these data that the larger RDTL systems induce a more favourable response regarding study duration than the single lamp CER system.
177 Chapter 6
Table 6-7 Study duration for students, mean of household averages by project (minutes) Std. N Mean Min Max P value Deviation Students, habitual CER 54 42 29 5 165 study duration RDTL 48 36 23 2 105 .340
UNDP 40 36 19 2 60 Total 142 38 25 2 165 Students, girls, CER 41 49 35 5 180 habitual study duration RDTL 30 40 26 2 105 .152
UNDP 34 37 20 2 60 Total 105 43 29 2 180 Students, boys, CER 42 40 33 3 150 habitual study duration RDTL 34 36 20 1 60 .792 UNDP 28 38 17 2 60 Total 104 38 25 1 150 Students duration of CER 51 43 34 5 165 study last night RDTL 43 32 21 5 70 0.062 UNDP 38 31 21 2 60 Total 132 36 27 2 165
Table 6-8 Perceptions that children study more at night due to good light, survey responses (frequency) CER RDTL UNDP Women Strongly agree 3 1 13 Agree 32 43 17
Disagree 0 0 1 Total 35 44 31 Men Strongly agree 25 2 12 Agree 43 37 33 Total 68 39 45
6.2 Domestic tasks
6.2.1 Ease of domestic tasks
Providing assistance with domestic tasks was an important lighting-derived benefit for users. Of the sixty-seven groups involved in the Participatory Evaluation, all but one reported some assistance with domestic tasks through the installation of their SHS (Figure 6-3). More than three quarters of all groups reported that their SHS made carrying out domestic tasks easier or
178 Chapter 6
much easier. The single group that indicated that their SHS made no change to the ease of domestic tasks was a group of women using CER systems in Bohemata village.53 domestic tasks, ease
50
40
30 Percent 20
10
0 same little easier easier much easier domestic tasks, ease Figure 6-3 Domestic tasks, ease, response for all groups (percentage)
A breakdown of the responses by project is set out in Table 6-9. The modal category is different for each project—‘little easier’ for CER; ‘easier’ for RDTL and ‘much easier’ for UNDP. For CER, however, a concentration can be noted at each end of the ease scale with ten groups rating their SHS as making domestic tasks a ‘little easier’ and eight groups ‘much easier’.
Table 6-9 Domestic tasks, ease, frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP Same 1 0 0 Little easier 10 2 3 Easier 4 15 5 Much easier 8 6 13 Total 23 23 21
The CER result—with concentration of responses at different ends of the ease scale—is representative of the way in which many CER groups individually described the impact of their SHS on domestic tasks. The single CER lamp is very useful for some activities, such as caring for children at night, but of no use for others, such as cooking in the kitchen. Many of the CER
53 Regarding domestic tasks, this group rated the impact of their SHS as ‘same’ for ease and ‘little more’ for duration. For CER households, where no light is provided in the kitchen, it is possible that the ‘same’ rating reflected no change in the ease with which the major domestic task, food preparation, was accomplished.
179 Chapter 6
groups spread the corn kernels they used to score their systems between the positive and negative ends of the ease scale. As explained in Section 4.3.1, during the Participatory Evaluation groups were invited to apportion their score for the ease or duration of an activity category in multiple locations along the scoring scale. Where this occurred a mathematical average was calculated to determine the group’s overall ‘score’ for that exercise. Hence, whilst only one CER group allocated a score of ‘same’ for their systems, more than half the of CER groups (13 of 24) allocated some portion of their score in the ‘same’ category (as shown in Figure 6-4). Apportioning some part of their score to the ‘same’ category resulted in lowering the overall ease score for these groups and the high incidence of ‘little easier’ shown in Table 6-9.
Figure 6-4 Domestic tasks, ease—scoring template for Aidila group, Bohemata village, CER project
Domestic tasks was the only activity type for which any of the CER groups indicated that their systems had made no difference to the ease of carrying out some aspects of those activities. Scoring for the other three activity types all ranged from ‘little easier’ to ‘much easier’. To reiterate this point, whilst only one CER group reported that their system made no difference to the ease of domestic tasks overall, most CER groups indicated that their SHS made no difference to carrying out some domestic tasks.
180 Chapter 6
This result is consistent with household concerns about CER systems not providing light in the kitchen, where important domestic tasks are carried out. In contrast, RDTL users, who do enjoy lighting throughout their houses including in the kitchen, scored ease of domestic tasks much more favourably than CER groups. Only two RDTL groups allocated a score of ‘little easier’ and none in the ‘same’ or ‘more difficult’ categories.
The UNDP result, however, clearly rests on different thinking again with UNDP groups rating ease of domestic tasks the most favourably of all three projects. Whilst UNDP systems are provided with three lamps that illuminate much of the house they were rarely installed with a lamp in the kitchen and hence do not provide the same advantages as RDTL systems for cooking, food preparation and food preservation. This anomalous result is discussed in Section 8.1.
It might also be expected that the incidence of lighting in the kitchen would lead to some difference between the way women and men viewed their experiences for this activity type. Women do much of the domestic work, cooking in particular, which for CER and UNDP households takes place without the assistance of SHS lighting. The results indicate, however, that women and men share a common opinion on this issue. Within each project the responses for women’s and men’s groups showed no difference (Chi-square P values: CER 0.14, RDTL 0.42, UNDP 0.75). Since this analysis produced several low frequency responses for each project, the tests were re-run with only two categories ‘much easier’ and ‘easier/little easier’ (Table 6-10). The results reinforced the homogeneity of the responses for women and men in each project comparison, there being no statistically significant difference noted for any project (Chi-square P values: CER 0.23, RDTL 0.75, UNDP 0.86).
Table 6-10 Domestic tasks, easier or much easier, frequencies for women & men by project CER RDTL UNDP women men women men women men Little easier or easier 5 9 7 10 4 4
Much easier 5 3 2 4 6 7
Total 10 12 9 14 10 11
6.2.2 Duration of domestic tasks
Discussion concerning change in duration of domestic tasks indicated that this was perhaps the most poorly understood of any element of the Participatory Evaluation. Intuitively, it might have been expected that there would be a reduction in the time spent on domestic tasks as
181 Chapter 6
work could be done more quickly with better light. Alternatively, one might have expected there to be no change in the amount of time spent on domestic work since those tasks (cooking, caring for children, house cleaning) all need to be completed and require constant effort regardless of the light source involved. During the Participatory Evaluations user groups were regularly questioned about the rationale for their scoring of this activity duration. Their responses suggested that when asked to consider if there had been a change in the time spent on domestic tasks, user groups generally seemed to interpret this as ‘have there been good outcomes around the time spent on domestic tasks as a result of your SHS?’. Consequently, most groups indicated an increase in duration of domestic tasks (Figure 6-5).
Facilitators worked conscientiously not to lead the discussion when presenting this exercise to groups of users. Rather, they explained the question involved and then allowed groups to conduct their own analysis. Ability to explain the thinking behind reports of increased duration varied significantly between groups. When questioned about the results, some groups explained the increased duration as more time being available to do other things. Other groups reported that they could now spend more time completing domestic tasks at night, i.e. they did more domestic work at night freeing up time for other activities in the day. A few groups had great difficulty in explaining their analysis and appeared simply to be following the pattern of previous exercises where reporting an increase of some type was common. domestic tasks, duration
60
50
40
30 Percent
20
10
0 same little more more much more domestic tasks, duration Figure 6-5 Domestic tasks, duration, response for all groups (percentage)
There were two groups who reported an unchanged or ‘same’ duration, both from CER communities and both groups of women. These groups engaged strongly in discussion during
182 Chapter 6
the Participatory Evaluation analysis and there was no indication that their responses were the result of poor understanding.
Responses by project are set out in Table 6-11. There are too many low frequency responses to carry out an effective Chi-square test on these data. Sorting the change of duration into two categories—‘much more’ and ‘other’ (Table 6-12) allows a Chi-square analysis which indicates a statistically significant difference between the three distributions (P value 0.02). The CER groups were less likely than the RDTL and UNDP groups to report that the duration of domestic tasks has increased ‘much more’ since the installation of their SHS.
Table 6-11 Domestic tasks, duration, frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP Same 2 0 0 Little more 11 3 3 More 9 15 10 Much more 1 5 8 Total 23 23 21
Table 6-12 Domestic tasks, duration, much more or other, frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP Other (same, little more, more) 22 18 13 Much more 1 5 8 Total 23 23 21
As noted above, this exercise was the least well understood by participants and this reduces the significance that may be attached to the results.
6.2.3 Survey results
Two elements of the Socio-economic Household Survey provide a useful comparison with results of the Participatory Evaluation. In the perceptions section of the survey women and men were asked whether access to electricity helped with domestic work. Specifically they were asked to respond to the statement ‘our SHS is not very beneficial to housework/childcare/food preparation’. The results of the survey are very similar to those of the Participatory Evaluation (Table 6-13). The modal response for each group was the midpoint of the positive scale, with most respondents for each project reporting that electricity was ‘useful’. A significant number of CER respondents—both women and men—reported, however, that electricity was only ‘somewhat useful’ and a significant number of UNDP respondents reported that electricity was ‘very useful’. These results provide direct support for the Participatory Evaluation results.
183 Chapter 6
Table 6-13 Usefulness of electricity for domestic tasks, perceptions of users (frequency) CER RDTL UNDP Women Very useful 0 0 8 Useful 24 44 24
Somewhat useful 5 0 0 Total 29 44 32 Men Very useful 0 0 12 Useful 29 38 34
Somewhat useful 6 1 0 Total 35 40 46
The other element of the survey to be considered here is waking hours. This is not as directly related to domestic tasks as the perception question considered above. It is feasible, however, that increased waking hours make available greater time for domestic work and may indicate an increase in domestic work.
As the data in Table 6-14 shows, the larger size of the RDTL system did not result in greater waking hours for women, men or children—the mean waking hours for RDTL respondents is the lowest of the three projects for each category. Whilst there was no statistically significant difference in the mean results for children and men (P value 0.23 and 0.28 respectively), waking hours for women living in RDTL households—and consequently for adults overall— were significantly less than for CER and UNDP households (P values 0.01 for women, and 0.01 for adults). There was, however, no difference between waking hours for women or adults living in CER and UNDP households (P values 0.42 for women, and 0.69 for adults).
Table 6-14 Waking hours for adults, children, women and men (hours) Std. N Mean Min Max Deviation Average waking CER 82 16.0 1.35 13.00 20.00 hours, adult RDTL 58 15.5 1.35 12.33 18.00
UNDP 37 16.3 1.28 14.25 20.25 Total 177 15.9 1.36 12.33 20.25 Average waking CER 62 14.8 1.54 12.00 19.00 hours, child RDTL 43 14.4 1.17 11.00 17.00
UNDP 32 14.8 1.25 12.00 17.00 Total 137 14.7 1.37 11.00 19.00 Average waking CER 76 15.9 1.61 12.50 20.00 hours, women RDTL 56 15.2 1.41 11.50 18.00
UNDP 36 16.0 1.16 14.00 18.50 Total 168 15.7 1.49 11.50 20.00 Average waking CER 82 16.0 1.48 13.00 20.00 hours, men RDTL 56 15.7 1.63 12.00 19.00
UNDP 34 16.2 0.86 14.50 18.00 Total 172 16.0 1.44 12.00 20.00
184 Chapter 6
Consequently, these data do not indicate any increase in waking hours for larger systems. It could not be argued that larger systems are potentially associated with increased duration of domestic tasks on the basis of increased waking hours.
6.3 Productive tasks
6.3.1 Ease of productive tasks
In contrast to domestic tasks, where some groups noted no change in their situation following installation of their SHS, all groups reported some improvement in the ease of productive tasks (Figure 6-6). Most of the responses—eighty-five percent—reported that tasks were ‘easier’ or ‘much easier’ to complete with the aid of SHS lighting. productive tasks, ease
60
50
40
30 Percent
20
10
0 little easier easier much easier productive tasks, ease Figure 6-6 Productive tasks, ease, response for all groups (percentage)
The distributions of responses, however, were not uniform across projects. CER groups were almost evenly spread across the range from ‘little easier’ to ‘much easier’; RDTL responses were concentrated within the ‘easier’ category; and all but one UNDP group reported productive tasks to be either ‘easier’ or ‘much easier’ (Table 6-15).
Table 6-15 Productive tasks, ease, frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP Little easier 7 2 1 Easier 9 18 10 Much easier 7 3 10 Total 23 23 21
185 Chapter 6
Chi-square testing of results for pairs of projects indicates that the differences between RDTL and CER results, and RDTL and UNDP results are statistically significant (P values 0.03 and 0.04, respectively) although the low frequencies for some response categories weakens this analysis. A Chi-square test does not confirm a similar statistically significant difference between the UNDP and CER samples (P value 0.08).
The differences between the CER and RDTL project responses is confounding. CER respondents were more likely to report a small change than RDTL groups. At the other end of the scale, however, CER groups were more likely to indicate that their systems made productive tasks much easier than RDTL groups. This result is similar to that which was observed for domestic tasks where CER results had a spike at either end of the ‘little easier’ to ‘much easier’ spectrum and the modal RDTL frequency was in the middle of that range. Here, however, the CER distribution is much flatter. Ten of the twenty-three CER groups split their score for this exercise across two or more categories. When questioned about this, groups often indicated that this was because their single lamp, 5W CFL was more useful for some productive tasks than others (e.g. more useful for basket weaving and broom making than sewing or cloth weaving). In contrast, very few RDTL groups split their score across different categories—either for ease of productive tasks or for other activity types.
Aggregating responses into just two categories—‘much easier’ and ‘little easier/easier’— improves the strength of the Chi-square test and allows use of the data to compare whether there is any difference between the frequencies of responses at the top of the scale. Comparing CER with RDTL results in this way indicates that the difference in the ‘much easier’ frequency is not statistically significant (P value 0.15).
Whilst women and men are generally responsible for different types of productive activities, analysis of the group responses by sex showed no difference for groups of women and men (Table 6-16, Chi-square test, P value 0.23).
Table 6-16 Productive tasks, ease, frequencies for groups of women and men Women Men Little easier 2 8 Easier 18 19 Much easier 10 10 Total 30 37
186 Chapter 6
6.3.2 Duration of productive tasks
As with ease of productive tasks, all groups reported an increase in duration of productive tasks as a result of their SHS and the ‘more’ and ‘much more’ categories accounted for more than eighty percent of responsesproductive (Figure tasks, 6-7). duration
50
40
30 Percent 20
10
0 little more more much more productive tasks, duration Figure 6-7 Productive tasks, duration, response for all groups (percentage)
The distribution of responses by project, however, differs from that presented above for the ease of productive tasks. For ease, the distribution of CER group responses was relatively even across the range ‘little more’ to ‘much more’. For duration, the modal response is ‘more’ and accounts for almost fifty percent of responses. RDTL groups exhibit a similar distribution but UNDP responses were all ‘more’ or ‘much more’ and heavily concentrated on ‘much more’ (Table 6-17). Statistical analysis confirms that the significance of the difference between the three distributions (Chi-square test, P value 0.00). A comparison of only the CER and RDTL responses showed no statistically significant difference between these two groups (P value 0.78). A Chi-square test was carried out on the responses for women and men and indicated no difference between response distributions (P value 0.61).
Table 6-17 Productive tasks, duration, frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP Little more 7 5 0 More 12 14 6 Much more 4 4 15 Total 23 23 21
187 Chapter 6
6.3.3 Survey results
As the analysis of waking hours in the previous section demonstrated, larger SHS were not associated with more time spent awake in the evenings or mornings, there being no difference in waking hours for children and men and slightly longer waking hours for women in CER and UNDP households than RDTL households (refer Table 6-14). Consequently, there is no argument to be made for larger SHS increasing the time available to carry out productive tasks. Two other areas, however, related to productive tasks were explored through the surveys— operation of a business at home and perceptions of the usefulness of the SHS for running a business at home.
With respect to operating a business, a greater proportion of RDTL households ran businesses from home than did UNDP households, who in turn ran more businesses than CER households (Table 6-18). A Chi-square analysis of these data, however, does not indicate these differences to be statistically significant (P value 0.28). As noted above, the Participatory Evaluation indicated that there was no difference between small and large SHS on the ease of productive tasks. For those productive tasks relating to running a business from home, the findings from the survey support that position.
Table 6-18 Operation of household businesses, frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP No 36 43 46 Yes 6 15 9 Total 42 58 55
It is also of interest to consider the types of businesses operated in homes across the three projects (Table 6-19). Nearly all the businesses (90%) identified during the survey require area lighting rather than task lighting. For these businesses, the small CER systems provide similar opportunities to the larger systems, albeit with greater restrictions on the location where business activities can take place. Three businesses were identified that required task lighting—sewing undertaken in one RDTL household and cloth weaving in two UNDP households. Both these activities require high levels of illumination to be undertaken successfully at night lending themselves to the UNDP and RDTL systems.
188 Chapter 6
Table 6-19 Home business types, frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP Shop 5 10 1 Handicraft 0 1 3 Bakery 1 2 0 Agricultural processing 0 2 4 Type not stated 0 0 1 Total 6 15 9
A further business-related question was included in the perceptions section of the survey. Respondents were asked to consider how useful their SHS was, or could be, with running a business from home. Responses to this question are set out in Table 6-20 for both women and men. Whilst there are too many low frequency responses to perform a Chi-square test on this data, there is no difference in the mode for each project—‘useful’—which accounts for 80% or more of responses for each project. The data presented in Table 6-20 offer no indication that users of the different systems feel differently about the usefulness of their SHS for running a business from home.
Table 6-20 Perceptions of SHS usefulness for running a business at home, frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP Women Very useful 0 0 2 Useful 23 44 26
Somewhat useful 3 0 2 Not useful 3 0 2 Total 29 44 32 Men Very useful 0 1 3 Useful 27 38 35 Somewhat useful 5 0 4 Not useful 3 1 4 Total 35 40 46
6.4 Social interaction
6.4.1 Ease of social interaction
The last of the four activity types to be presented here is social interaction and as with productive tasks and study, all groups found some improvement in the ease of conducting social interaction activities. Indeed, whilst this activity type was generally regarded as the least important of the four being considered (as discussed in Section 5.5.1 and 5.5.2), it was the area in which respondents were the most strongly positive regarding the impact of their SHS. All but two groups reported that their SHS had made social interaction activities ‘easier’ or ‘much
189 Chapter 6
easier’. The overall modal response was ‘easier’ which represented fifty-five percent of responses (Figure 6-8). social interaction, ease
60
50
40
30 Percent
20
10
0 little easier easier much easier social interaction, ease Figure 6-8 Social interaction, ease, response for all groups (percentage)
Responses by project are set out in Table 6-21 and are significantly different across the three projects (Chi-square P value 0.001). As with the other activity types, RDTL responses are concentrated in the ‘easier’ category whereas CER and UNDP responses are spread more evenly between ‘easier’ and ‘much easier’. No statistically significant difference was detected between the CER and UNDP results, whether considered for all three categories between ‘little easier’ and ‘much easier’ (P value 0.25) or when ‘little easier’ and ‘easier’ are combined into a single category to eliminate low frequency responses (P value 0.21).
Table 6-21 Social interaction, ease, frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP Little easier 2 0 0 Easier 10 20 7 Much easier 11 3 14 Total 23 23 21
The results indicate that there is little or no advantage in having three lamps (UNDP systems) compared to a single lamp (CER systems) when it comes to social interaction. This result is not unexpected given that even with single lamp systems the lamp is always placed so as to illuminate one or more living areas of the house. Further, social interaction activities require
190 Chapter 6
area lighting rather than task lighting which is provided adequately by the low power CFLs of the CER systems.
The RDTL result, however, is unexpected. Far fewer RDTL groups rated their systems as having made social interaction activities ‘much easier’ than did CER or UNDP groups. It is difficult to relate this to the light provided. RDTL systems were supplied with four or six fluorescent lamps one or two of which were invariably fitted in communal areas where social interaction takes place such as living rooms or verandas. During discussion with users none of the groups reported that their systems provided too much light and it seems unlikely that this could explain the lower RDTL rating.
The difference between CER and RDTL responses may be due in part to the different density of housing in Railaco and Cairui. Cairui ( where five aldeia were resettled in a single location during the period of Indonesian rule) is far more densely populated than the sucos and aldeias in Railaco. The clusters of hamlets spread out over large areas in Railaco are more typical of rural settlement patterns in East Timor. CER household residents have to travel much greater distances to visit neighbours or community leaders than do those from RDTL households and access to electric lighting at either end of these journeys may have an impact on perceptions regarding the ease of social interaction.
Whilst a difference was observed in the responses for different projects, there was no difference in the responses by groups of women and groups of men (Chi-square, P value 0.96)
6.4.2 Duration of social interaction
The change in duration for social interaction reported across the three projects is very similar to the responses for ease of social interaction. All groups reported some increase in duration; ninety percent of groups reported the increase to be ‘more’ or ‘much more’; and ‘more’ was the modal response with fifty percent of responses (Figure 6-9).
191 Chapter 6 social interaction, duration
60
50
40
30 Percent
20
10
0 little more more much more social interaction, duration Figure 6-9 Social interaction, duration, response for all groups (percentage)
Response frequencies for the three projects are set out in Table 6-22. The pattern is similar to that for duration of productive tasks. ‘More’ is the modal response for CER and RDTL groups whilst ‘much more’ is the mode for UNDP (Table 6-22). There is a statistically significant difference between the three projects (Chi-square P value 0.003) but not between the CER and RDTL responses (Chi-square P value 0.22).
Table 6-22 Social interaction, duration, frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP Little more 4 1 1 More 12 17 5 Much more 7 5 15 Total 23 23 21
As for other activity types, ‘little more’ and ‘more’ responses were consolidated into a single category to eliminate low frequency responses and so strengthen the Chi-square test. Again, no significant difference was observed between the CER and RDTL response distributions (P value 0.50). Duration of social interaction activities showed no difference in the responses by groups of women and men (P value 0.59).
6.4.3 Survey results
Only one question in the survey related directly to social interaction. As part of the perception section, SHS users were asked to indicate the frequency with which neighbours visited them because of their SHS. The modal response—‘monthly’—was the same for each project for both men and women and was by far the most prominent response (Table 6-23). The low frequency
192 Chapter 6
for several response categories for each project prevents effective use of Chi-square testing on these data.
Table 6-23 Visits by neighbours, frequencies by project for women and men CER RDTL UNDP Women Nightly 0 2 3 Weekly 0 2 5
Monthly 32 37 24 Never 3 3 0 Total 35 44 32 Men Nightly 1 2 6 Weekly 7 1 4
Monthly 58 35 34 Never 3 2 2 Total 69 40 46
Aggregating the responses into two categories, ‘weekly or nightly’ and ‘monthly or not at all’, increases the frequencies sufficiently to apply a Chi-square test to the results. Within the responses for men, there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups (P value 0.13). Differences between the responses for women, however, are statistically significant (Table 6-24, P value 0.00).
Table 6-24 Visits by neighbours, responses by women frequencies by project CER RDTL UNDP Weekly or nightly 0 4 8 Monthly or not at all 35 40 24 Total 35 44 32
UNDP households experience the greatest frequency of visitors, with women in eight households reporting ‘weekly’ or ‘daily’ visits. We might expect this to be the case since recipients of SHS in UNDP communities are relatively few in number compared to the overall number of households in their aldeia. The significance of the difference between the CER and RDTL responses cannot be asserted with confidence (P value 0.07). It is plausible, however, that after-dark visits by women from CER households in sparsely populated Railaco would occur less frequently than in densely populated Cairui and the data fit such a pattern of behaviour.
6.5 Conclusions
The Initial Community Consultations, presented in Section 4.1, identified four activity types for which users in East Timor most valued their SHS. In response to these findings, specific elements of the Participatory Evaluation and Socio-economic Household Survey were
193 Chapter 6
developed to evaluate the lighting-derived benefits of SHS associated with carrying out these activity types. The four preceding sections of this chapter set out the results of the evaluation for these benefits, which were assessed with respect to the ease and the duration of carrying out the four activity types.
The evaluation findings showed no difference in system performance for social interaction and only small differences for productive tasks that require task lighting. As indicated in Section 5.5, however, the two most important activity types for households for all three projects were study/reading and domestic tasks. For study/reading the Participatory Evaluation exercise revealed that most users in all three projects found their systems to have made study/reading easier or much easier and to have resulted in more or much more study/reading being carried out. The Socio-economic Household Survey results showed that RDTL households had completely eliminated the use of candles or kerosene for study/reading but that a few CER and UNDP households continued to use these forms of lighting for that activity. For domestic tasks there was a greater variation in benefits reported and each project sample produced a different modal response—for CER, it was ‘little easier’, for RDTL is was ‘easier’ and for UNDP ‘much easier’. Detailed analysis of the CER results revealed that participants had broken down domestic tasks into two sub-categories. For activities that took place in the kitchen (in the absence of electric lighting) the SHS had made no difference. Those domestic activities that were carried out in the main house, however, were found to be much easier.
These findings for study/reading and domestic tasks highlight two issues that require further consideration. Firstly, households with UNDP systems have a greater number of lamps than those with CER systems and yet some households in both samples continue to use non-electric lighting sources, even for study/reading. Secondly, UNDP participants were the most positive in their responses for ease of domestic tasks even though their systems did not provide lighting in the kitchen. Explanations for these findings are discussed in Chapter 8. Before commencing a wider discussion of the results, however, the variation in intrinsic benefits associated with finances, convenience and health must be considered. These are presented for each of the different system sizes in the following chapter.
194
Chapter 7
Comparison of intrinsic benefits
195 Chapter 7
7 Comparison of intrinsic benefits
The preceding chapter considered lighting-derived benefits associated with SHS in the forms of increased ease and duration for four activity types. This chapter reports on the findings for the important types of intrinsic benefits. As presented in Chapter 4, the Initial Community Consultations identified a range of operational attributes for SHS which were valued by SHS users when compared to the use of non-electric lighting sources such as candles and kerosene lamps. Of these attributes, four were selected as being be most significant to users. These attributes gave rise to the four intrinsic benefits evaluated in the research, namely light, financial savings, convenience and health benefits.
Ranking and weighting for these benefit types were presented in Sections 5.5.3 and 5.5.4. Light and finances were found to be the most important priorities across all projects, both by ranking and by weighting. This chapter reports on the scoring of these intrinsic benefits by system. Evaluation data was drawn mainly from the Socio-economic Household Survey and is supplemented where appropriate by the Participatory Evaluation results.
7.1 Light
The manner in which the evaluation method deals with light output of the SHS was discussed in Section 4.2.2. It was noted that the three systems being installed in East Timor produce electricity only so as to deliver light, not to power other devices. Since light is the output of each system, in essence light is the principal variable being manipulated as the system size is changed. Hence, a finding that light output varies with system size is a trivial outcome from the evaluation—this is expected to be the case. This section presents the data collected in the Socio-economic Household Survey and Participatory Evaluation regarding light output and confirms the light output/system size relationship. Survey data is used to compare how many lights are being used and for how many hours each night. This is followed by presentation of the Participatory Evaluation results regarding how many of the users indicated a desire for more lights or to run lights for a longer duration.
The survey data enables the calculation of lamp-hours, Watt-hours and lumen-hours for each respondent household. As expected, there is a consistent ranking of the output for these three variables—RDTL systems had the greatest output, CER systems the lowest and UNDP outputs
196 Chapter 7
fell between the other two systems (Figure 7-1). RDTL values, however, are much higher than those for UNDP systems and these in turn are only slightly greater than CER values.
180 160 140 120
100 CER 80 RDTL 60 UNDP 40 20 0 Lamp-hours Watt-hours Lumen-hours (x50)
Figure 7-1 Light output, household averages by project (hours)54
The lamp-hour, Watt-hour and lumen-hour outputs could be expected to be proportional to the panel output power since this is a key determinant of system performance. A non-linear relationship between panel size and lamp-hours is anticipated since the lamps used in the different projects vary markedly—from 1 W to 12 W. A linear variation with panel output could be expected for Watt-hour and lumen-hour output and this indeed does appear to be the case for CER and RDTL projects (Table 7-1). The Watt-hour and lumen-hour outputs of UNDP systems, however, are about half of what might have been expected for a linear relationship. As discussed in Section 5.2.2, the UNDP systems were designed very conservatively (i.e. low system demand relative to the panel and battery sizes) and this is reflected in these results.
Table 7-1 System panel size compared to lamp-hour, Watt-hour and lumen-hour outputs by project Panel Lamp Watt Lumen
output (Wp) hours hours hours CER 10 5.0 25 1000 Output UNDP 40 10.4 48 1880 RDTL 80 16.5 165 8270 CER 1 1 1 1 Ratio UNDP 4 2.1 1.9 1.9 (CER=1) RDTL 8 3.3 6.6 8.3
54 Note that the lumen-hours are shown at one fiftieth of their value to suit the scale used in the chart.
197 Chapter 7
During the survey, users were asked whether or not they left a light turned on overnight and if so what type of light was left on. None of the CER households reported leaving a light turned on at night (Table 7-2). Only one fifth of UNDP households left a light turned on at night even though their system had been designed with a 1W LED lamp especially for that purpose. In contrast, more than 50% of RDTL households reported leaving a 10W lamp switched on overnight whilst they slept, some in their bedrooms. Three RDTL households even reported leaving two of their lights on overnight. Those households undertaking this practice are likely to place some value upon having a light left on at night. It is plausible to argue, however, that whilst the RDTL systems are providing much greater Watt-hour and lumen-hour outputs, not all this extra output is being used productively. Some of this output—that associated with leaving lights on while the household is asleep—may be of quite limited value and derived at considerable cost to battery life.
Table 7-2 Households leaving a lamp switched on overnight, frequency by project
CER RDTL UNDP
No lamp left on 62 26 43 One or more lamps left on 0 30 11 Total 62 56 54
Whilst the results presented above offer a picture of the differing electricity and lighting outputs enjoyed by households from different projects, they do not provide any indication as to how satisfied users are with these levels of service. To assess impact, knowledge is required not just of the level of service provided by each system but to what extent it meets user needs.
User satisfaction with the number of lamps provided by each system and the nightly duration of illumination were explored as part of the Participatory Evaluation (as described in Section 4.3.3). Each group member was asked to indicate whether they would be prepared to pay an additional monthly fee for extra lamps or for longer nightly duration. The results (by group) regarding extra lamps are set out in Figure 7-2 and for longer nightly operation in Figure 7-3. Most RDTL groups were satisfied with their four lamps (or in some few cases, six lamps) per household and those few who did want additional lamps generally only wanted one more. In contrast, many of the CER and UNDP groups wanted an additional two or three lamps.
198 Chapter 7
Project CER RDTL UNDP
20
15
10 Frequency
5
0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Extra lights-average Extra lights-average Extra lights-average no. requested no. requested no. requested
Figure 7-2 Demand for additional SHS lamps, frequency by project
Project CER RDTL UNDP
25
20
15 Frequency 10
5
0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 2 2 Lighting duration- Lighting duration- Lighting duration- average increase average increase average increase requested (hours) requested (hours) requested (hours)
Figure 7-3 Demand for increased lighting duration, frequency by project
199 Chapter 7
The responses concerning increased duration showed a different pattern. The modal response for each of the projects was zero, indicating no desire to extend the nightly operation of the SHS within most groups. Only four of the CER groups and just two of the twenty-three RDTL groups included any members who wanted an increased duration of SHS operation. For UNDP groups, almost half of the groups included some members who desired an increased nightly duration (Figure 7-3).
The percentage of members within each group who wanted to increase the number of lamps or duration of operation for their system were also calculated. The mean result for each project is set out in Table 7-3 as are the mean results for the number of additional lamps and hours of additional duration. Analysis of variance testing shows a statistically significant difference between the means in each case. This can be attributed to the lower scores within the RDTL sample, since comparison of the CER and UNDP means showed no statistically significant difference (P values 0.48, 0.12, 0.61 and 0.15).
Table 7-3 Demand for extra lights and duration, mean results for Participatory Evaluation exercises by project Std. ANOVA N Mean Deviation P value
Demand for extra CER 23 0.79 .31 lamps—proportion of RDTL 23 0.16 .26 0.00 each group UNDP 21 0.86 .32 Demand for increased CER 23 0.12 .31 duration—proportion RDTL 23 0.02 .10 0.01 of each group UNDP 21 0.29 .39 Demand for extra CER 23 1.52 1.0 lamps—number of RDTL 23 0.17 .28 0.00 lamps UNDP 21 1.38 .66 Demand for increased CER 23 0.17 .47 duration—duration in RDTL 23 0.02 .10 0.02 hours UNDP 21 0.40 .57
The similarity between the CER and UNDP results is unexpected. Despite UNDP systems being provided with three lamps and CER systems having only one, both groups indicated a strong demand for extra lamps. On average, CER groups wanted 1.5 extra lamps and UNDP groups 1.4 lamps. It is likely that this relates to illuminating the kitchen rather than indicating any critical threshold for the number of lamps in a house. Almost all homes for the RDTL project had their kitchens illuminated with the SHS whilst CER and UNDP households did not.
200 Chapter 7
The demand within some UNDP groups for extended duration of operation is anomalous. During the survey all the UNDP users reported turning off their systems manually each day.
None were shut down automatically by the charge controller. The 40 Wp panel/120 Ah battery combination employed by the UNDP systems could well have run the lamps for many hours each night. It is plausible that the preference for extended duration by some UNDP groups is characteristic of high levels of enthusiasm for SHS in general.
The information presented above confirms the relationship between size and system output. On average, RDTL systems provided the largest number of lamp-hours, Watt-hours and lumen- hours, followed by UNDP and then CER systems. There was a very low demand for additional lamps or longer duration of operation by RDTL groups in the Participatory Evaluation exercises. Demand for increased duration was also quite low for UNDP and CER groups but most users of these systems did express a strong preference for one to two extra lamps.
7.2 Finances
The findings detailed in Chapter 6 affirm that light provided by each of the three types of SHS is valued by the users. Further, as noted above, larger systems do indeed provide more light than smaller systems. Considering this from a financial perspective, however, requires an assessment of whether the extra light delivered by larger systems is worth the additional cost associated with larger systems. This second question is considered below in two parts. Firstly, information from the Socio-economic Household Survey is presented to investigate post-SHS expenditure on lighting and the reported reduction in expenditure as a result of SHS being introduced. These data are used to impute system financial returns and an estimate of likely economic returns. Secondly, an assessment is made of user willingness-to-pay for SHS and for improvements to their systems.
7.2.1 Post-SHS expenditure on candles and kerosene
As part of the survey, each user household was asked about the frequency with which they used kerosene or candles for lighting and to estimate the amount of money they spent on these items each month. Within each project, frequency of use for both candles and kerosene ranged from daily to not at all. Across the entire sample, there was a large variation in the amount being spent on both candles and kerosene (Table 7-4), from nothing to $7.50 per
201 Chapter 7
month on candles (equal to use of one packet per day of eight small candles) and $5.80 on kerosene (equating to a usage of approximately 1.0 to 1.5 litres per week).
Table 7-4 Monthly household expenditure on candles and kerosene, all projects Candle Kerosene
expenditure expenditure N 148 155 Mean $0.46 $0.78 Median $0.00 $0.00 Minimum $0.00 $0.00 Maximum $7.50 $5.80
Expenditure on a project-by-project basis also varied widely (Figure 7-4). Obtaining accurate expenditure data was a time-consuming element of the survey and relied in large part on the skill and patience of the enumerator. Considerable difference was observed in the CER results for the two different enumerators involved in surveying CER households (the mean for Ludivico’s sample for both candle and kerosene expenditure was twice that of Costa’s). For this reason Ludivico’s results were excluded from this analysis. Whatever bias may have been associated with Costa’s approach, it was consistent in his work for all three project samples and hence does not affect comparison across the projects. There was no statistically significant difference in the results for UNDP households between Costa’s and Vincente’s samples. Consequently, surveys produced by both these enumerators have been retained in the analysis (refer to Appendix E, Section E-7.2).
It may be noted in Figure 7-4 that the patterns of expenditure are very different between the three projects. RDTL households spent very little on either candles or kerosene relative to which CER households spent large amounts on both. UNDP expenditure was similar to RDTL households for candles (i.e. low) but even higher than CER for kerosene. Analysis of variance testing supports these observations, showing no significant difference between mean RDTL and UNDP expenditure on candles (P value 0.92) and none between CER and UNDP expenditure on total candle and kerosene expenditure (T-test P value 0.72). Means for the CER/UNDP kerosene expenditures are significantly different however (T-test P value 0.03).
202 Chapter 7
$1.40
$1.20
$1.00
$0.80 CER RDTL $0.60 UNDP $0.40
$0.20
$- Candle Kerosene Total
Figure 7-4 Monthly household expenditure on candles and kerosene, mean values by project
As suggested by the data in Table 7-4, where the median value for candle and kerosene expenditure is zero, expenditure within each project occurs in a relatively small number of households. Considering the frequency with which households reported using candles and kerosene (Table 7-5), it may be seen that only three55 of fifty-eight RDTL households continued to use candles or kerosene following the installation of their SHS. Almost half the CER households had ceased using these forms of lighting and more than half of the UNDP households no longer used candles. The exception to this pattern is kerosene use in UNDP households, which remained a daily occurrence for more than eighty percent of households.
Table 7-5 Household candles and kerosene use, frequency by project CER RDTL UNDP Never 36 57 32 Sometimes 20 0 18 Candle use Daily 6 1 3 Total 62 58 53 Never 31 56 9 Sometimes 21 0 0 Kerosene use Often 1 0 0 Daily 9 2 45 Total 62 58 54
The proportions described above are based on the reported frequency of candle and kerosene usage declared by respondents to the Socio-economic Household Survey. Another indicator as to how many households do and do not use these lighting sources was expenditure. Whilst
55 Inspection of the survey data showed that the household reporting daily candle use was separate from the two households continuing to use kerosene.
203 Chapter 7
there were quite large numbers of households reporting that they used candles and kerosene ‘daily’, ‘often’, or ‘sometimes’, the number of households who reported actually spending money on these items was somewhat lower. Data for those households who reported expenditure—and where the SHS was working—are shown in Table 7-6. The sample size for candle expenditure is small, particularly for UNDP with only four households, but statistical analysis indicates that the difference in mean values for the samples is significant (T-test P value 0.02). For those households using candles, UNDP households spent less than CER households. For kerosene usage, where the sample sizes are larger, there is no significant difference between the two mean expenditures (T-test P value 0.67), indicating that where kerosene was used the same expenditure was incurred in both CER and UNDP households.
Table 7-6 Post-SHS household candle and kerosene expenditure, CER and UNDP samples Std. N Mean Deviation Candle CER 8 $2.41 $1.51 expenditure UNDP 4 $0.79 $0.41 Kerosene CER 12 $1.95 $1.44 expenditure UNDP 27 $1.78 $0.93
These findings fit the pattern of use that might be expected if a UNDP or CER household chose to continue using candles or kerosene. In households with the CER systems (single lamp), more money was spent on candles than in households with UNDP systems (three lamps), presumably because extra lighting was required in the house more often. However, where kerosene was used—often as a source of light in the kitchen—CER and UNDP households show no difference in expenditure. Households only have a single kitchen and it is reasonable to expect that the use of kerosene to illuminate the kitchen area would be similar in UNDP and CER households.
7.2.2 Savings on candles and kerosene expenditure
As illustrated in Table 7-5, many households no longer use candles or kerosene following the installation of their SHS. Consequently, these households were found to avoid the expenditure that was formerly directed to these products. Even in those households where use of non- electric lighting was ongoing, expenditure on candles and kerosene was likely to have reduced as a result of SHS lighting. As part of the survey, respondents were asked to estimate their pre- SHS expenditure on candles and kerosene. These data provide the means of estimating the reduction in spending on non-electric lighting as a result of SHS installation.
204 Chapter 7
CER households had the highest mean value for pre-SHS candle and kerosene expenditure (Figure 7-5). Examination of the CER data reveals, however, that several households reported very high levels of pre-SHS expenditure—up to $28 per month—and that these figures had a large effect on the mean expenditure. Discarding extreme estimates of pre-SHS expenditure from the CER samples (i.e. expenditure on candles or kerosene greater than or equal to $10 per month) reduces the CER mean values considerably. These revised estimates are illustrated by the ‘CER (2)’ columns in Figure 7-5.
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00 CER $4.00 RDTL $3.00 UNDP CER (2) $2.00
$1.00
$- Candle Kerosene Total
Figure 7-5 Pre-SHS monthly household expenditure on candles and kerosene, mean values by project
There was a significant difference in the circumstances under which respondents for the three project samples made their estimates of pre-SHS expenditure. RDTL and UNDP households were surveyed relatively soon after their SHS had been installed—about six to nine months after installation. For many CER households, however, the survey occurred two or more years after their SHS had been installed. Consequently, it was likely to have been more difficult for CER households to estimate pre-SHS expenditure on candles and kerosene than for RDTL and UNDP households. Hence the CER estimates are likely to be less accurate than the responses for the other two samples.
As with the CER pre-SHS expenditure, RDTL and UNDP samples were modified to discard outliers to improve the reliability of the mean pre-SHS expenditure. These values were then used to calculate the reduction in expenditure on candles and kerosene following SHS installation for each project. The results are shown in Figure 7-6. As with post-SHS expenditure figures detailed above, these results were calculated only for houses where the SHS was in
205 Chapter 7
working order. Analysis of variance testing on these results does not support a significant difference between the projects for reduction in candle expenditure (P values 0.29). There is, however, a statistically significant difference for reduction in kerosene expenditure (P value 0.04). The mean RDTL reduction is greater than that for the CER and UNDP samples, between which no difference is indicated (T-test P value 0.94).
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
CER $3.00 RDTL $2.00 UNDP
$1.00
$- Candle Kerosene Total
Figure 7-6 Reported reduction in monthly household expenditure on candles and kerosene, mean values by project
The lack of difference in the overall expenditure reduction between CER and RDTL samples is unexpected. Given that RDTL households have almost entirely ceased using candles and kerosene and CER households on average are still spending $1.30 per month on these products (Figure 7-4), one might anticipate overall RDTL savings to be significantly greater than those for CER. As noted above, the long duration between SHS installation and conduct of the survey may have affected user ability to accurately estimate pre-SHS installation expenditure. The comparison of project communities presented in Section 5.4 does not indicate any reason to suggest that kerosene and candle usage prior to SHS installation would have differed across the three project samples. Each of the projects operated within similar contexts.
Whilst the long period between surveying and SHS installation may have had an impact on CER data, it might be expected that RDTL and UNDP pre-SHS expenditure would be similar. T- testing of the RDTL and UNDP results endorses this proposition, showing no difference between RDTL and UNDP pre-SHS expenditure on candles or kerosene (P values 0.46 and 0.80
206 Chapter 7
respectively). On that basis, it appears reasonable to use the combined RDTL and UNDP sample to provide an estimate of mean pre-SHS candle and kerosene expenditure for all sites.
Savings on candle and kerosene expenditure for each project were re-calculated using this mean UNDP/RDTL pre-expenditure figure. The results of this approach are set out in Figure 7-7 and provide the most likely pattern of savings for the three projects. RDTL households have the greatest monthly savings (approximately $4.80) and CER and UNDP households save about the same amount overall (approximately $3.60), although their savings on candles and kerosene differ.
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
CER $3.00 RDTL $2.00 UNDP
$1.00
$- Candle Kerosene Total
Figure 7-7 Probable reduction in monthly household expenditure on candles and kerosene by project
7.2.3 Financial and economic benefits
The savings on expenditure of non-electric lighting sources indicates that the RDTL systems provide the greatest benefits. These apparent savings, however, need to be analysed against the costs of using and providing SHS in order to estimate the financial benefits to users and economic benefits to Timorese communities more broadly. These costs are considered below at three levels, namely: existing user fees for each project; recurrent operating costs; and capital costs.
As presented in Chapter 5, user fees currently being applied in each of the three projects are either very low or non-existent. Whilst personnel involved in implementing the projects acknowledged that collecting user fees to meet maintenance costs was an important mechanism for ensuring sustainability, none of the projects implemented realistic user fees.
207 Chapter 7
Most RDTL users pay a fee of $1 per month (a few $2 per month). The intention for UNDP users was that they would pay $2 per month but this fee is not being collected. No operating charge is levied for CER systems.
If SHS are to provide sustained operation then funds must be available to carry out repairs when necessary. As Nieuwenhout et al. (2001, p. 465) note:
In most projects, the cost of battery replacement, and the associated need for finance is not considered. The consequences are [that]… the scope for battery replacement is poor and hence many systems perform badly or not at all.
Based on the design information for each system presented in Chapter 5 it is possible to calculate approximate battery and lamp replacement costs. These represent the minimum expenses that must be met if systems are to provide sustained service. Such costs may be paid by the users or form part of an ongoing subsidy provided by another entity such as the government or a non-government organisation. Battery and lamp replacement costs alone somewhat underestimate ongoing operation and maintenance costs since they do not include labour or transport costs associated with servicing systems. For the analysis here, which aims to provide a comparison of the financial benefits associated with the three systems, battery and lamp replacement costs provide a reasonable approximation of recurrent costs. Details of these costs are set out in Table 7-7. Design parameters are based on the information provided for each system in Chapter 5. Replacement component costs are based on prices from a single Australian supplier (Rainbow Power Company 2008) in accordance with the approach to comparing prices used in Section 2.2.2. The data for average lamp-hour use per system are drawn from the Socio-economic Household Survey (Section 7.1). Two columns are shown for the RDTL systems—one for four lamp systems and one for six lamp systems.
The very low battery depth of discharge for the UNDP system should provide for much longer battery life than could be expected from the CER or RDTL systems. Conversely, the six-lamp RDTL systems will draw heavily on the batteries and could be expected to result in a shorter battery operating life than the four-lamp RDTL systems. Replacing the small CER batteries every three years equates to a modest monthly cost of $0.78. The much larger batteries used in the UNDP and RDTL systems are considerably more expensive. Monthly battery replacement costs for the UNDP systems ($5.65), however, are much lower than for the RDTL systems ($11
208 Chapter 7
to $17) which will require replacement much more frequently. In comparison to battery costs, lamp replacement is relatively inexpensive, ranging from $0.11 to $0.46 per month.
Table 7-7 Estimates of system recurrent costs on a monthly basis, by project RDTL RDTL Item Unit CER UNDP (4 lamps) (6 lamps) Approx battery life years 3 3 2 7 Battery cost $ 28 405 405 475 System life years 20 20 20 20 Batteries changes required no. 6.67 6.67 10.00 2.86 Battery cost p.a. $ 9.3 135 203 67.9 Battery cost per month $ 0.78 11.25 16.88 5.65
Lamp life hours 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Daily use per lamp hours 5 4.1 3.6 3 Lamp life years 5.5 6.6 7.7 9.1 Lamp purchase cost $ 7 28 42 14 Lamp cost p.a. $ 1.28 4.22 5.48 1.53 Lamp cost per month $ 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.13
Battery & lamp cost/month $ 0.88 11.60 17.33 5.78
As noted above, the costs shown in Table 7-7 are approximate only. The different design criteria for each system (particularly the approach to specifying the UNDP battery) and the manner in which the SHS are used would have an influence on the operating costs experienced by any particular house. Nevertheless, considering these costs against the saving set out in Section 7.2.2, it is clear that sustained operation of the UNDP and RDTL systems will cost much more than the savings made from avoided expenditure on candles and kerosene.
If users were expected to fund the operating costs of their SHS, then on average CER households (with a single system) could be expected to enjoy a financial advantage of approximately $3 per month from use of their SHS. UNDP households would incur a monthly deficit of approximately $2 and users of RDTL systems would be required to spend $6 to $12 more to operate their systems than they would save on avoided candle and kerosene expenditure.
As noted in Section 3.2.1, assessing the economic benefits (or costs) of a SHS program requires taking into account the full cost of delivering the SHS service, including evaluation of subsidies, taxes and transfer payments (Meier 2003). An economic evaluation in such detail of the three systems being installed in East Timor is beyond the scope of this study. An indication of the
209 Chapter 7
economic costs of each system, however, is provided by their likely capital costs. 56 These are set out on a monthly basis in Table 7-8, having been calculated using a nominal finance rate of 10%—as used by Meier (2003)—and a system life of twenty years. As with the recurrent costs, capital costs of the larger systems are much greater than for small systems. If users were expected to meet the full real costs of accessing their SHS, it is clear that for the UNDP and RDTL systems these would be far in excess of any savings to be made from avoided costs. The economic cost of the CER systems is likely to be close to the avoided costs.
Table 7-8 Estimates of system capital costs on a monthly basis, by project CER RDTL RDTL UNDP (4 lamps) (6 lamps) System cost $273 $1450 $1470 $778 Financing rate [p.a.] 10% 10% 10% 10% Equivalent monthly capital cost $2.6 $14 $14 $7.5
A detailed economic analysis would also incorporate an assessment of economic benefits associated with SHS use, not just economic costs. For example, where the use of a SHS facilitates additional productivity or income generation, an assessment of the economic value of such activities would be required. As discussed in Section 6.3, however, neither the findings from the Participatory Evaluation nor from the Socio-economic Household Survey support the idea that larger systems were associated with significantly higher levels of household productivity or generation of business income. Consequently, it appears unlikely that the much higher economic costs of the large RDTL systems (or the UNDP systems) would be offset by commensurately greater economic benefits than might be produced by smaller systems.
7.2.4 Willingness-to-pay for SHS services
The material above considers the actual impacts of the SHS on household finances and the impacts that would be associated with providing the systems on a sustainable basis from a financial perspective. This understanding, however, does not indicate what households believe the overall benefits from their systems are worth in financial terms. They may consider the benefits to be worth more—or possibly less—than the avoided expenditure on alternative lighting sources. This issue was probed using concepts of willingness-to-pay in three elements
56 The capital costs presented here are based on the retail prices for components presented in Section 2.2.2. This provides a common basis on which to compare capital costs for the three systems. The actual costs of the systems to the three projects varied in accordance with the brands of equipment purchased and the abilities of the project organisations to negotiate discounts.
210 Chapter 7
of the research: payment to avoid system removal; payment for additional lamps; and payment to increase the nightly duration of operation.
The first of these three areas was examined in the Socio-economic Household Survey. Female and male respondents were asked to imagine a situation where the agency responsible for providing their system returned and advised them that the system would be removed unless the user was prepared to make a monthly operating contribution of $5. Those who indicated that they were not prepared to pay $5 were then asked whether they would pay $2 and, if not, what lesser amount they would contribute. As may be noted in the results set out in Table 7-9, on average RDTL respondents expressed a willingness-to-pay of approximately $2 per month to keep their systems. This was significantly higher than the mean value for the CER and UNDP samples, between which no statistically significant difference was observed (T-test P values: women—0.76, men—0.59). Users from these two projects were prepared to pay between $0.60 and $1 to retain their systems, with women from both samples being prepared to pay less than men.
Table 7-9 Willingness-to-pay for the existing SHS, monthly contribution mean value by project Std. N Mean P value Deviation CER 32 $0.67 $0.70 Women RDTL 44 $1.93 $1.21 0.00 UNDP 32 $0.61 $0.89 CER 35 $0.85 $0.70 Men RDTL 40 $2.08 $1.35 0.00 UNDP 46 $0.97 $1.24
RDTL households are already paying $1 per month (or $2 per month for those households with six lamps) so their willingness-to-pay value represents an increase of $1 per month. CER and UNDP households currently make no monthly payments so willingness-to-pay values for these groups represent an increase of approximately $0.6 to $1 per month.
In addition to considering the mean values above, it is of interest to look at the pattern of willingness-to-pay responses for each project (Figure 7-8). For women, the majority of CER and UNDP respondents were not prepared to pay anything for their systems and even for women with RDTL systems, one quarter indicated that they would not pay any additional fee for their system. Most male CER and RDTL respondents were prepared to make some payment for their system but this did not apply for male UNDP respondents. Male RDTL respondents were the
211 Chapter 7
most likely to express a willingness-to-pay more than $2 to retain their system. Within any project, however, fewer than 10% of respondents indicated this view.
90% Women 80% 70% 60%
50% CER 40% RDTL 30% UNDP 20%
Proportion of survey responses survey of Proportion 10% 0% nothing less than $2 $2 more than $2
70% Men 60%
50%
40% CER 30% RDTL UNDP 20%
Proportion of survey responses survey of Proportion 10%
0% nothing less than $2 $2 more than $2
Figure 7-8 Willingness-to-pay for existing SHS, monthly contributions, women and men by project
The Participatory Evaluation exercises concerning extra lamps and increased duration of operation, as described in Section 4.3.3, also dealt with willingness-to-pay. The questions put to participants were not simply ‘would you like more lights’ or ‘would you like your lights to run for longer each night?’ but rather ‘would you be prepared to pay a set monthly fee for more lights or for lights that run for longer?’. Lighting provided by each of the three systems compared in the study could be described as ‘inadequate’ in that some part of the household remains without illumination. For CER households much of the house is poorly illuminated. For RDTL households the external bathroom/toilet generally do not have a light. Hence, all groups
212 Chapter 7
involved in the Participatory Evaluation—perhaps with the exception of the six lamp RDTL households—could be expected to report that they wanted more lights. This, however, proved not to be the case.
Results for the Participatory Evaluation willingness-to-pay exercises were presented in Section 7.1. It was noted that on average CER and UNDP SHS users wanted 1.1 to 1.5 additional lamps and RDTL households only 0.16. During this exercise, the price for each extra lamp was set at $1 per month so the preferences for extra lamps equate to a willingness-to-pay for CER/UNDP households of $1.1-1.5 per month and $0.16 for RDTL households. For increased duration, the Participatory Evaluation exercise valued each extra hour of operation at $0.50. Consequently, the implied willingness-to-pay for increased duration was very low—approximately $0.15 for CER/UNDP groups (equivalent to an increase of 0.3 hours per night) and $0.015 for RDTL groups (equivalent to just 0.03 hours per night).
As may be noted from Table 7-3, most CER/UNDP households (70-80%) were prepared to pay something for additional lamps but only a small number (15-30%) were prepared to pay for extra duration. The great majority of RDTL households were willing to pay for neither additional lamps nor additional duration.
It should be noted that this exercise was confounded somewhat by the fact that RDTL households already pay a monthly fee for their system, and that CER and UNDP households do not. Hence, some element of the willingness-to-pay reported may relate to what users see as an acceptable overall expenditure on SHS lighting and some to the demand for increased services. Discussions with users indicated that willingness-to-pay was strongly influenced by existing contribution requirements, a factor discussed in Section 8.1.
7.3 Convenience
Convenience was identified during the Initial Community Consultations as one of the significant advantages offered by SHS for Timorese households. Whilst it was possible to define ‘convenience’ broadly and to share an understanding with user groups about what it involved, determining a metric for this concept with communities was not attempted. Developing a scale on which to map the difference in convenience between using a switch and lighting a match, or between having four lights rather than one light, would have been both time consuming and contentious. Instead, continued candle and kerosene use are used as a proxy for convenience—or rather, inconvenience. If there is added convenience to be found in changing
213 Chapter 7
from candle/kerosene lighting to electric lighting then ongoing use of candles/kerosene must indicate lower levels of convenience than reliance on electric lighting only.
It is important to remember that this benefit is not about the convenience associated with completing various activities at night. One might be tempted to argue, for example, that since RDTL households generally have electric lighting in the kitchen, and CER and UNDP households do not, that the added convenience of RDTL systems is much greater than that for the other two projects. Such an approach, however, would overlap with the analysis that has already been undertaken with respect to lighting-derived benefits associated with different activity types. The ease of domestic and other tasks has already been assessed. Convenience here is related only to the difference in operating SHS lighting when compared to using candles and kerosene.
As was noted in the preceding section, RDTL households have almost entirely ceased the use of candles and kerosene (Table 7-5). Half of the CER households reported having eliminated the use of candles and kerosene. For UNDP households, half had ceased using candles but eighty percent reported a continued use of kerosene. Data on expenditure on candles and kerosene presented in Section 7.2.1 suggest that these figures underestimate the reduction in usage. The expenditure data from Table 7-6 can be used to infer the percentage of CER and UNDP households no longer using candles or kerosene. Combined with the RDTL data from Table 7-5 it is possible to produce an overall picture of how many households have eliminated the use of candles and kerosene (Figure 7-9).
From these figures, it is clear that the RDTL systems should be seen to provide greater convenience than the CER and UNDP systems. Since UNDP systems have more lights than the CER units, however, it makes little sense to think of the UNDP systems as being less convenient than CER systems. As a minimum one might argue that the systems provide approximately equal convenience. An overall convenience ‘score’ has been shown in Figure 7-9. For RDTL systems it is the percentage of households in which candle and kerosene usage has been eliminated. For CER and UNDP systems, an identical value has been allocated based on the average number of households for both projects in which use of candles and kerosene has been eliminated. It is important to recognise that the value attached to this convenience ‘score’ is entirely arbitrary—it is provided only as a guide for comparing the three projects and is based purely on the rates at which households have eliminated the use of candles and kerosene.
214 Chapter 7
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% CER 50% RDTL 40% UNDP 30% 20% 10% 0% Candle Kerosene Convenience Score
Figure 7-9 Elimination of candle and kerosene use, percentage of households by project
If convenience is to be equated largely to the elimination of candle and kerosene use—on the basis that these forms of lighting are less convenient than electric lights—then it is of interest to consider what causes households to make the transition away from non-electric lighting sources. As noted above and reiterated in Figure 7-9, this is not purely a function of the number of lamps provided with the SHS. More UNDP households, with three lamps, continue to use kerosene than do CER households with one lamp systems.
The CER Socio-economic Household Survey data provide some insight into this process since in addition to single lamp households, the complete data set also included some households with two or more lamps. The full CER sample data were tested to determine whether the frequency of candle and kerosene usage was lower for households with access to more than one lamp. For candle use there was no difference in the patterns reported by single or multi-system households (Table 7-10, Chi-square P value 0.98). For kerosene usage, however, a statistically significant difference in behaviour was detected—single-lamp households were more likely to use kerosene than multi-lamp households (Chi-square P value 0.004).
Table 7-10 CER candle and kerosene use, frequency by number of lighting systems One system Two or more only systems Never 37 12 Candle use Sometimes or daily 25 8 Total 62 20 Never 18 13 Kerosene use Sometimes or daily 44 7 Total 62 20
215 Chapter 7
Analysis of candles and kerosene expenditure by these two groups confirms this results (Table 7-11). No statistical significance could be attributed to the difference in mean candle expenditure (T-test P value 0.29) but the difference in kerosene expenditure is significant (T- test P value 0.02). Further, comparison of kerosene expenditure for single and multi-system households that continue to use kerosene, showed no difference in expenditure (T-test P value 0.57) which indicates that the overall difference in kerosene expenditure between single and multi-system households relates to the number of households who have stopped using kerosene altogether—not simply cut down on its use. For those households in the full CER data set that continue to use kerosene, there is no difference in kerosene expenditure between single- or multiple-system households.
Table 7-11 CER candle and kerosene use, expenditure by number of lighting systems Std. Number of systems N Mean Deviation Average candle One system only 60 $1.29 $2.42 expenditure Two or more systems 18 $0.66 $1.08 Average kerosene One system only 62 $1.79 $1.70 expenditure Two or more systems 20 $0.76 $1.50
This result indicates that even one additional lamp can result in reduced kerosene use but that there is not a linear relationship between use and the number of lamps—doubling lamps from one to two does not halve kerosene use in a household. Understanding this behaviour is important in the interpretation of RDTL and UNDP results. As noted when reviewing financial benefits, the results for RDTL and UNDP households are often quite different even though the number of lamps provided is almost the same. The main difference between the two systems relates to the locations in which lamps were installed. Generally, the UNDP project did not install lamps in kitchens and the RDTL project did. No data were recorded concerning the location of second or third lamps in CER households. Where the second SHS was a solar lantern (which was the case in eleven households), this clearly enabled use in the kitchen. Observation of CER households during the fieldwork suggests that users would often install their second system in the kitchen.
7.4 Health
Improvements to health, much like convenience, may be related to the reduced use of candles and kerosene. The home-made, unregulated simple wick lamps used in rural Timorese homes (Figure 4-4) are particularly problematic from an air quality perspective, producing a continuous plume of black smoke when they operate. As noted in the preceding section,
216 Chapter 7
almost all RDTL households have eliminated the use of candles and kerosene, as have approximately eighty percent of CER households (Figure 7-9). Nine out of ten UNDP households have eliminated candle use but half are still regularly using kerosene.
The typical particulate emission rates for kerosene lamps and candles and the potential for deleterious health impacts were presented in Section 4.2.3. Given that particulate concentrations are higher closer to the source of emission, the use of candles or kerosene for activities requiring task lighting—such as reading and study—is likely to be more injurious to health than using these light sources for area lighting. As detailed in Section 6.1.3, the continued use of candles for reading and study occurs for a small number of CER and UNDP households—thirteen percent of the CER sample and fourteen percent of the UNDP sample. This household behaviour could be expected to reduce the health benefits provided by CER and UNDP systems. Using the data from Table 6-5 a comparison can be made of the percentage of households where use of candles and/or kerosene has been eliminated for reading and study, and hence of the number of households where health benefits have been maximised (Figure 7-10).
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% CER RDTL UNDP
Figure 7-10 Comparison of potential health benefits arising from candle/kerosene elimination for study/reading
During the Participatory Evaluation with the Kolhuinamu community in Railaco (users of CER systems), an additional exercise was conducted in relation to health benefits of SHS. Each of the four participant groups were asked to consider which of three types of smoke was most injurious to their health—cigarette smoke, kitchen fire smoke, or candle/kerosene smoke. Observation indicates a very high rate of smoking amongst men in rural East Timor. Women and girls spend many hours above unimproved cooking stoves subject to smoke from
217 Chapter 7
firewood. Adults spend very little time reading. In this context, for adults at least, the health problems associated with candle and kerosene use in East Timor are likely to be small in comparison to smoking and use of firewood.
Results of the Kolhuinamu analysis are set out in Table 7-12. Cigarette smoke was generally seen to have the greatest impact on health, except for one group who indicated candles and kerosene to be the most harmful. Inhaling smoke from kitchen fires was viewed as being only moderately harmful, if at all injurious, perhaps because this is such a normal experience for women and girls. UNDP staff commented with respect to improved cooking stoves that they often encountered resistance to their introduction because smoke from the kitchen fire was seen as beneficial when storing foods such as maize for extended periods in the in the kitchen roof space (V da Silva [UNDP Participatory Rural Energy Development Programme] 2007, pers. comm., 24 August).
Table 7-12 Kolhuinamu, perceptions of the health impacts of different smoke types Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Smoke type Bibi Karau Kuda Busa (men) (women) (men) (women) Cigarette 15 10 14 0 Kitchen fire 0 5 4 0 Candle/ kerosene 3 6 2 21 (each participant voted with three corn kernels; numbers indicate total votes for each smoke type)
Irrespective of SHS-user perceptions about the affects of kitchen smoke, it has been shown to be a major source of morbidity for women and girls in many developing countries (Zhang & Smith 2003). Where SHS provide lighting to the kitchen area, it is possible that women work further from the fire than is necessary when the fire provides the only source of light. This was not tested by either the Participatory Evaluation or the Socio-economic Household Survey and cannot be quantified here. It is plausible, however, that the RDTL systems provided a somewhat greater benefit to the health of women and girls than CER and UNDP systems. Such a claim, however, must be balanced against the ongoing exposure to wood-fire smoke that women and girls in rural East Timor suffer due to the use of unimproved cooking stoves.
7.5 Other user perceptions
The evaluation method purposely combined participatory and survey techniques to assess development impact and the combined results have been presented above. There were, however, several perception questions included in the Socio-economic Household Survey that were not matched by participatory exercises and are worthy of brief consideration here. These
218 Chapter 7
include perceptions of satisfaction, security, usefulness and the magnitude of change associated with owning a SHS.
7.5.1 Satisfaction, security and usefulness
Respondents, female and male, were asked twice about the sense of satisfaction they have with their SHS, once in the positive (‘how happy are you’) and once in the negative (‘how dissatisfied are you’). Respondents could select one of four levels of satisfaction—‘very content’, ‘content’, ‘somewhat content’ or ‘not content’ (refer to Appendix D, questions 13E and 13K).
For both questions there was a clear distinction between the results for the three projects. Those from the UNDP sample were predominantly ‘very content’ or ‘content’, those from the RDTL sample ‘content’ and those from the CER sample were mostly ‘somewhat content’. The differences in response for each of the groups were statistically significant (statistical results for all data presented in this section are provided in Appendix E). The pattern of responses was very similar for women and men and is illustrated by the results for women’s satisfaction with their SHS, shown in Figure 7-11.
80 70 60 50 40 CER 30 RDTL
% of respondents of % 20 UNDP 10 0 Very content Content Somewhat Discontent content
Figure 7-11 User perceptions of satisfaction with their SHS, female respondents
A very similar pattern of results was observed for questions regarding sense of security and usefulness. Each of the three groups displayed a different pattern of response with UNDP householders being the most positive, CER respondents the least positive and RDTL respondents fitting between these two. The pattern of responses is typified by perceptions of increased security arising from SHS use amongst male respondents shown in Figure 7-12.
219 Chapter 7
The lower scores for the CER systems on these perception questions may be related to the smaller size of the CER systems. Such a finding, however, would not be consistent with the results for the RDTL and UNDP systems where the smaller of the two systems produced the most positive responses. Two factors other than size need to be taken into account when considering these results—the incidence of broken systems and coverage of SHS within communities.
90 80 70 60 50 CER 40 RDTL 30
% of respondents of % UNDP 20 10 0 Very secure Secure Somewhat Not secure secure
Figure 7-12 User perceptions of security arising from their SHS, male respondents
As noted in Section 5.1, at the time of the evaluation many CER systems had been installed for a number of years and a significant number were inoperable. Nearly one fifth of CER systems included in the Socio-economic Household Survey were not functioning and one third had required some form of repair in twelve months prior to the survey being undertaken (Figure 5-13). This was not the case with RDTL or UNDP systems. Users in the CER sample were much more likely than those from the RDTL and UNDP samples to have had either direct experience with failed or poorly performing systems, or to have observed such problems with their neighbours’ systems.
The data supports the possibility of a relationship between poor system performance and perceptions of satisfaction. Women with non-functioning systems in the CER sample were four to five times more likely to be discontent with their systems than those from households with working systems. Men from CER households with functioning systems were twice as likely to be content or very content with their systems as men from households with non-functioning systems.
220 Chapter 7
The incidence of functioning/non-functioning systems does not, however, offer an explanation as to why the UNDP responses were more strongly positive than those of RDTL respondents. Both UNDP and RDTL systems had been installed for approximately the same amount of time and both had few system failures. UNDP households, however, had cause to feel ‘special’ in their communities with only five to twenty percent of households within any community having received a SHS57. Approximately fifty percent of RDTL householders had access to a SHS and observation suggested that about seventy percent of dwellings were fitted with SHS (a single dwelling in East Timor often providing housing for more than one family). CER supplied sufficient systems to provide at least one per household.
Discussions with users at the three sites indicated two opposing responses to the varying distribution of systems within communities. For UNDP households, there seemed to be added satisfaction with systems associated with a sense of privilege and good fortune at having received them. UNDP households experienced a nightly reminder of the advantages of their SHS as they observed the surrounding houses relying on traditional lighting sources.
In Cairui, however, the fact that most but not all houses had been fitted with SHS seemed to promote a sense of dissatisfaction with the RDTL project even amongst households that had received systems. It is possible to imagine a sense of diminished pleasure amongst users when many in the community are enjoying the benefits of electric lighting whilst some neighbours are forced to continue with reliance upon candles and kerosene. Certainly, sentiments of this nature induced some households in Cairui to share their SHS with neighbours. For CER communities, where all households had systems, neither of these influences operated.
7.5.2 Change brought about by SHS
The final set of data presented here are responses to questions concerning the magnitude of change brought about by the introduction of SHS and the value of SHS in comparison to other assets. The research is designed to test differences in the development impact delivered by the different sized systems by comparing the three sizes of system to each other. The research is not designed to indicate how significant these development impacts are in relation to other potential household or community interventions.
One question in the Socio-economic Household Survey, however, asked SHS users to indicate the magnitude of change that had resulted from the installation of a SHS in their house. Respondents selected from one of four categories—‘very big’, ‘big’, ‘small’ or ‘none’. As may
57 Aside from Burlete where systems were installed in seventy percent of households for reasons explained in Section 5.2.2.
221 Chapter 7
be noted in Figure 7-13, more than seventy percent of respondents for all three projects rated the change as ‘small’. For RDTL respondents, with the biggest systems, ninety percent of respondents rated the change as ‘small’. Conversely, the project with the smallest systems produced the greatest percentage of responses rating the change as ‘very big’. Despite these differences, the pattern of responses was very similar for each of the projects. Testing responses for CER and RDTL when grouped into two categories—‘big or very big’ and ‘small’— indicated no statistical difference between the two samples for either women or men (Chi- square P values, 0.22 and 0.08 respectively).
100 90 80 70 60 CER 50 RDTL 40 UNDP
% of respondents of % 30 20 10 0 Very big Big Small
Figure 7-13 User perceptions of the magnitude of change arising from a SHS, all respondents
These findings ought not to be interpreted as an indication that households place a low value on their SHS. The final Participatory Evaluation exercise provided a point of reference. As explained in Section 4.3.3, participants were asked whether they would be prepared to swap their SHS for a sewing machine, a cow, a small petrol generator or a motorcycle. None of the participants were prepared to trade their SHS for either the sewing machine or cow and only very few of the 253 participants from CER and UNDP communities were interested in swapping their system for a generator or motorcycle (Table 7-13).
Table 7-13 User willingness to trade SHS for alternative items , % of PE participants by project Trade item (approx value) CER UNDP RDTL Sewing machine ($100) 0 0 0 Cow ($500) 0 0 0 Generator ($900) 7 3 0 Motorcycle ($1200) 13 3 0
222 Chapter 7
7.6 Conclusions
As demonstrated from the findings in Section 7.5.2, whilst most survey respondents reported that their SHS had produced only a small change in their lives, users for each project placed a high overall value on their SHS. Even for CER systems, which are the most inexpensive of the three systems evaluated and cost CER less than $200 each58, very few users would trade their SHS for alternative assets of much greater financial value. Clearly users value their systems and each of the intrinsic benefits reported in this chapter were found to contribute to that overall value.
Sections 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 drew upon the results from the Socio-economic Household Survey to show that users across all projects experienced a reduction in expenditure on lighting sources, improved convenience and reduced exposure to smoke produced by non-electric lighting. To determine how significant these benefits are to SHS users—and hence their significance with respect to development impact—requires that the benefit types are considered in conjunction with the weightings users placed upon these three intrinsic benefits. Such an analysis is undertaken in the next chapter which sets these findings alongside those for lighting-derived benefits to provide an overall picture of development impact.
The analysis of financial benefits presented in Section 7.2 is of particular importance for consideration of size versus development impact. For all the other benefit types assessed in the evaluation, larger systems produce at least equally beneficial or more beneficial outcomes than small systems. If user fees are set at a level that meet recurrent system costs, however, then for the SHS evaluated in East Timor there is a negative correlation between system size and financial benefit. This issue and the implications it raises for the design of SHS programs are discussed in Chapter 8.
58 This is the cost to CER who supplied the systems, not to the users who paid on $10 upon installation for each system.
223
Chapter 8
Discussion
224 Chapter 8
8 Discussion
Chapters 6 and 7 set out the results of the evaluation with a minimum of explanatory discussion. Only such discussion as was required to provide clarity to particular results was included in those two chapters. From the data presented in Chapters 6 and 7, however, it is possible to determine whether or not SHS development impact is related to SHS size in the East Timorese context. That is the main topic for discussion in this chapter. The impact-size relationship is considered first with respect to lighting-derived benefits (Section 8.2.1) and then with respect to intrinsic benefits (Section 8.2.2). This discussion provides the basis upon which to draw formal conclusions from the research and these are presented in Chapter 9.
Before discussing the results from Chapters 6 and 7, however, there are a range of issues that must be analysed so that the evaluation results can be usefully interpreted. These issues— which are dealt with in Section 8.1—relate to the way in which user perceptions are valued, the precision associated with the various evaluation tools and the influence of project-specific factors.
Answering the research question by providing an understanding of the relationship between development impact and size for SHS presents a number of implications for the promotion of SHS for rural electrification in developing countries. The three most significant of these are discussed in Section 8.3. This section also includes some discussion of lessons learned about how the Demand Oriented Approach to evaluation may be successfully applied to the evaluation of SHS programs. The chapter concludes by summarising several areas in which further research could be undertaken to build upon the findings of this study.
8.1 Interpretation of results
8.1.1 Valuing user perceptions
In using a participatory methodology for this research an important question arises regarding users’ perceptions of their experiences. Namely, does user perception equate to impact? The research method asks SHS users to consider their own situation and to estimate for themselves what changes—or impact—have been generated by the use of their SHS. Those involved in the Participatory Evaluation reported their own perceptions of changes in ease and duration for important household activities. The Socio-economic Household Survey also included a range of perception questions that required similar analysis on the part of individual respondents. To make use of this data, however, first requires a response to the question of whether
225 Chapter 8
perception equates to impact and then consideration of how one person’s or group’s perception might be compared to another.
Turning firstly to the question of perception and impact, it was important during the evaluation that users were in a suitable position to provide an informed opinion. As a first step, this required participants to understand the concepts under consideration. This issue took on greater importance because the researchers, facilitators/enumerators and participants all used different first languages. Concepts such as ‘ease’ and ‘duration’ and the description of activity types and attributes all had to travel from English to Tetun and at times into a third language such as Galolen or Tocodere. The analysis that resulted from the process was represented visually (Participatory Evaluation) or within pre-determined response categories (Socio- economic Household Survey) which avoided this process being repeated in reverse to translate understanding back into English.59
When conducting both the Participatory Evaluations and the Socio-economic Household Survey considerable time was invested in ensuring that concepts associated with the evaluation had been clearly explained to SHS users. Two factors indicated the level of success with which this was achieved—active participation, indicating that users had sufficient understanding of the processes and concepts being explained so as to engage in the evaluation processes; and coherence of results, indicating a level of uniformity in the way in which concepts had been understood by participants. On both measures the research method succeeded. Nevertheless, there was undoubtedly a range within which participants understood the evaluation concepts being discussed. This range of understanding has a bearing on the precision with which the results may be interpreted. This matter is discussed further below.
A further prerequisite for the SHS users’ perceptions to be well-founded was that the concepts being explored fitted within the users’ realm of experience and understanding. Investigating the impact of SHS on health within the research is a useful case-in-point. All participants in the evaluation were in a sound position to discuss the importance of their own health and that of their family and could have been asked to comment on, for example, the importance of health relative to education or wealth. A more complex question was put to SHS users during the Participatory Evaluation. They were asked about the importance of health benefits arising from SHS use relative to impacts on finance and convenience. This also fitted within the users’ experience and understanding and was an entirely appropriate question from that perspective.
59 Discussion with user groups and explanation of participant analysis did involve translation back into English and relied upon the researcher’s knowledge of Tetun and the facilitators’ knowledge of English.
226 Chapter 8
It could be argued that to take a further step along this path and ask participants to quantify the health benefits of their SHS, however, would be inappropriate from an evaluation perspective (interesting though the responses may be). An informed response to this question would have required an understanding of the linkages between ill-health and use of non- electric lighting sources. As noted in Kolhuinamu when discussing what types of smoke are harmful to health, many participants believe smoke from kitchen fires has no ill effects on health. Consequently, direct user assessments of the impact of SHS use on health would hold little meaning.
From the discussion above, it follows that perceptions can only hold value from an evaluation perspective if the concepts are understood by participants and can be analysed within users’ own understanding and experience. Critics of the participatory approach used here may still question the merit of perception as a measure of impact. Health, again, provides a good example. A person may perceive herself to be healthy but in fact have an undiagnosed fatal disease from which she will die without treatment. Her perception of good health both fails to reflect her true condition and is an impediment to her wellbeing. Conversely, for someone with an incurable, fatal disease to hold a perception of good health might be a very helpful response. If the person’s perceived good health contributes to their happiness and sense of wellbeing, then clearly the perception in itself is of value—irrespective of whether or not it is linked in any way to the person’s actual physical condition.
Determining the lighting-derived benefits associated with SHS use in this research relied upon user perceptions. ‘Ease’ clearly falls into the category where the perception itself is of value. Users were asked whether they found a range of activities easier with their SHS than without. If these tasks were perceived to be easier, then users’ wellbeing had increased correspondingly. Perceptions were also relied upon to determine changes in duration of activity types. Whilst other approaches could have been adopted60, time spent on different household activities and changes in duration occurring as a result of SHS introduction are clearly concepts that fit within the knowledge and experience of the users themselves. On that basis, user perceptions of duration have been used. The issue to be addressed in response to this approach is one of precision and identifying what level of accuracy may be attributed to such results. This issue is discussed below.
Ranking the importance of benefits and weighting them in relation to one another is an obvious area where users are best placed to make their own assessments, as long as they hold
60 The Sri Lankan study by Massé (2003), for example, used a detailed set of survey questions about time spent on a wide range of household activities.
227 Chapter 8
an adequate understanding of the benefit concepts being assessed. To evaluate the intrinsic benefits it would also have been possible to devise participatory tools for user self-assessment. For financial benefits, for example, users could have been asked whether they thought that using a SHS had improved their financial situation or resulted in reduced expenditure on lighting. For this benefit type, however, assessing actual expenditure via the survey provides a more direct, and equally convenient, means of addressing this issue. Finance, health and convenience impacts could all have been further investigated using participatory tools. The limits upon the time and willingness of community members to engage in the Participatory Evaluation, however, required a judicious selection of which topics were best dealt with in a participatory setting and which could be evaluated using the Socio-economic Household Survey.
8.1.2 Precision
From a policy making perspective, there is appeal in having both costs and benefits presented in monetary terms. This greatly facilitates the ease with which comparison may be made between different courses of action. ESMAP’s (2002) study of rural electrification and development in the Philippines culminates in an estimate of the economic net present value of extending electricity to all rural households throughout the country. Meier (2003) makes an estimate of the likely economic returns to households from adopting three different-sized SHS in the Philippines and uses these monetary values to compare the outcomes for the three systems. The monetary values that result from such approaches are appealing but, as was noted in Section 3.2.1, reaching such values requires making estimates of many non-financial benefits (or overlooking them altogether).
The experience with this research demonstrates how difficult it is in rural East Timor to develop accurate monetary values for non-financial benefits. During the Socio-economic Household Survey, SHS users were led step-by-step through an analysis of how much their household currently spends on non-electric lighting sources and were able to compare this to their past expenditure. The savings that householders were making on kerosene and candle expenditure as a result of SHS use were crystallised through this process. Towards the end of the survey format, each householder was asked to indicate whether they would be prepared to pay a monthly fee to ensure continued access to their system. Given that respondents had been assisted to make their own assessment of the savings associated with SHS use, it might have been expected that willingness-to-pay to retain the systems would at least equal, if not exceed, that amount. The results, however, did not follow this pattern at all.
228 Chapter 8
The UNDP responses provide a good illustration of this point. UNDP users expressed strong satisfaction with systems both during the Participatory Evaluation and in response to the perception questions of the Socio-economic Household Survey (as presented in Section 7.5). Furthermore, UNDP households were found on average to avoid candle and kerosene expenditure of $3.60 per month as a result of SHS use. Nonetheless, the enthusiastic endorsement of the UNDP systems was in no way reflected in user willingness-to-pay for the benefits. More than half the male respondents and three quarters of the women reported that they were not prepared to pay anything to retain their systems. Across the survey sample for all three projects, fewer than ten percent of respondents stated that they would pay $2 or more to retain the use of their system.
It is difficult to imagine that if households were truly faced with removal of their systems that they would not pay a small amount to retain them. These results highlight, however, the inappropriateness of asking rural East Timorese people to equate benefits to costs in an abstract context and hence the difficulty of using willingness-to-pay to quantify non-financial benefits.
Whilst such experiences confirm that attempting to convert development impact into monetary terms in rural East Timor would be difficult, if not unworkable, a question remains as to the accuracy of the alternative method chosen for this research to compare benefits across systems. The first point to note in response to this question is that there was no need within the study for a point of absolute reference for any of the measures used since each of the system sizes were being compared to outcomes generated by the other two. Changes in ease and duration of activity types, for example, were compared to pre-SHS practice. It was not necessary to compare these changes to some external, independent reference as would have been the case if the research had sought, for example, to compare the development impact of SHS with that of improved cooking stoves or improved access to water.
The second point to note is that the research method was developed to look for large changes. To use a monetary example, there was no requirement for the evaluation method to detect the difference between an ‘impact’ of $1.35 and $1.41. Expressed in terms of SHS nominal capacity, the research does not seek to determine the difference in impact between a 45 Wp system or a 50 Wp one, nor even between a 40 Wp system and a 50 Wp systems. Just as the systems being evaluated were selected to provide a range of ‘small’, ‘medium’ and ‘large’ systems, so might one characterise the differences in impact which the method sought to detect.
229 Chapter 8
Considering first the accuracy of the responses to lighting-derived benefits, the statistical tools used in the analysis of the results were suitable to determine whether there was any difference in the patterns of responses. These tools did not, however, provide an indication as to whether there was a significant difference between one group’s rating of ‘easier’ and another group’s rating of ‘much easier’. Undoubtedly there was variation between the way different participants perceived the rating scale and consequently the way in which they rated their systems. Some of the factors which influenced this process are discussed below. The method, however, sought to differentiate between large and small impacts. The ability of the method to achieve this is best demonstrated by the results for domestic tasks where the scoring scale was used effectively within many groups to show that some domestic tasks were ‘no easier’ or just a ‘little easier’ whilst other tasks were made ‘much easier’ with the use of the SHS. Participants were clearly able to use the scoring template to differentiate between activities for which the SHS provided little assistance and those where the assistance was considerable.
‘Duration’ was dealt with in a similar manner to ‘ease’—i.e. without reference to an independent, external measure. Whilst there may have been benefit in requesting participants to estimate changes in duration on a scale of minutes or hours this was rejected as a result of experiences from the Initial Community Consultations where informants displayed a widely varying perception of units of time. Reporting changes in duration in minutes or hours would have risked implying a level of precision in the scoring process that would not have been consonant with these widely varying perceptions. Instead, a similar approach was taken to that adopted for ‘ease’ and the method sought only to identify large variations in duration.
Assessing duration, however, was one of the weaker elements of the method, as demonstrated by the problems associated with rating changes in duration of domestic tasks (refer to Section 6.2.2). Accordingly, if a similar participatory evaluation was to be conducted in future then the use of a time scale rather than a magnitude scale for duration would be recommended. The use of a time scale could be accompanied by a participatory exercise to establish a more uniform understanding of time units, such as making representations of the time spent sleeping and the time spent awake. The advantages of such an approach would need to be weighed against the risk that non-numerate participants would be inhibited from actively participating, a concern that was avoided by use of the magnitude scale.
230 Chapter 8
8.1.3 Influence of project-specific factors
If it had been possible to install several hundred SHS just for the purposes of this research, the configuration of the evaluation sites would be quite different from those described in Chapter 5. Rather than having different-sized SHS operating in different communities, a number of communities would each have been provided with the three sizes of SHS being considered. This would have excluded the possibility that differences between communities, rather than differences in SHS size, caused any differences observed in the results. Further, rather than having systems delivered by three different projects each with different approaches to community mobilisation, fee structures and support for maintenance and operation, all systems would have been provided by a single entity with a common approach. Whilst a ‘laboratory’ trial such as this would have had advantages, finding such conditions in a developing country is highly unlikely. Certainly, no such circumstance existed in East Timor.
Since it was not possible to install systems solely for the purposes of this research, it was necessary to locate communities with existing installations and to incorporate them into the evaluation. As set out in Chapter 5, the three projects in East Timor identified for inclusion had each installed significant numbers of SHS. Each project had selected a different-sized system which created the opportunity to test for variation in development impact with system size. The project locations and the conditions under which they were delivered, however, varied in several respects. These variations require some consideration when interpreting the results presented in Chapters 6 and 7.
As argued in Section 5.4.1, no special measures were required to adjust the results for differences in geography, ethnicity or agriculture between the various locations in which the three projects installed SHS. Nor were any significant differences observed between dwelling size and construction, levels of educational and school attendance, and proxy indicators for household wealth (Section 5.4.2). There were significant differences, however, in user experiences of: the duration between installation and evaluation; the proportion of beneficiary households in each community; the fees charged for installation and operation; and with reliability and access to maintenance, each of which were raised in Section 5.4.3.
The first and last of these four factors offset one another. At the time of evaluation, CER systems had been operating for periods of up to three years, far longer than the six to nine months during which UNDP and RDTL systems had been functioning. As a consequence, many CER users had experienced system failure of some sort or were experiencing poor battery performance. Discussions with SHS users whose systems had failed indicated that such experiences had diminished the regard with which they held their SHS. These negative
231 Chapter 8
perceptions, however, were counterbalanced by CER staff providing the best access to maintenance. CER staff lived in the communities where systems had been installed and were on-hand to repair systems as required and free of charge.
During the Participatory Evaluation those participants whose systems were not working or were only partially working were asked to engage in the exercises as if their systems were fully functional. Observation of the Participatory Evaluation exercises indicated that this approach was generally successful. There were instances of participants initially rating their systems as having made no change to (or even having reduced) ease or duration of the first activities type when assessing lighting-derived benefits. Upon questioning it was usually found that these responses reflected the situation of participants whose systems were not working. They were then able to adjust their responses to reflect their experiences when their SHS were functioning.
Similar experiences operated during the Socio-economic Household Survey. When asked about willingness-to-pay to retain their SHS, some CER households with broken or poorly functioning systems stated they would pay nothing to keep their system and that they would be very happy for it to be removed by CER. Overall, this combination of higher system failures offset by good access to technical support appears overall to have had some slight negative influence on the perceptions of the CER sample households.
The way in which participants reflected their satisfaction with their SHS also appears to have been influenced by the number of households within each community that received SHS. For CER communities, all households in each village had received at least one system. Hence there were no perceptions of either advantage or disadvantage associated with being a SHS user.
In contrast to CER households, who had had quite a long period to become accustomed to having a SHS, use of SHS was quite a new experience for UNDP and RDTL households. There were marked differences, however, in the attitudes that UNDP and RDTL users held in response to having been given a SHS. RDTL users were noticeably less enthusiastic than UNDP households. In Cairui, about three quarters of the dwellings had access to an RDTL SHS. Discussions with users indicated that having this proportion of households provided with a system resulted in some degree of resentment about the SHS program. Even though users knew that their systems were very expensive assets and were pleased to have one for their house, a sense of injustice pervaded the program seemingly associated with some people having missed out on receiving a system. Further, the SHS in Cairui were installed in four lamp or six lamp configurations. Each of the Chefe Aldeias and a few other families in each aldeia
232 Chapter 8
had six lamp systems. Consequently, the majority of RDTL SHS users may have seen themselves as having the ‘inferior’ four lamp systems rather than the ‘better’ six lamp systems.
Results for ease of social interaction provide a good example of how these sentiments are likely to have influenced the results of the evaluation. Whilst different patterns of settlement may have had some impact on how users perceived the advantages of SHS for social interaction61, it is difficult to conceive how the four lamp RDTL systems could have provided any less impact on ease than the smaller UNDP and CER systems. As a minimum, one would expect the impact of RDTL SHS to be equivalent to that of the other two systems. The RDTL modal response (‘easier’), however, was lower than that of the CER and UNDP responses (‘much easier’). This strongly suggests that the RDTL households were generally somewhat less enthusiastic about their SHS than the CER and UNDP samples or were more reserved in how they expressed their sentiments.
In contrast to RDTL households, the lottery process used to allocate systems in UNDP communities meant that recipient households felt a strong sense of good fortune, seemingly without any of the resentment on behalf of their neighbours that was noted in Cairui. UNDP aimed to provide only ten SHS per aldeia so the ratio of beneficiaries to non-beneficiaries was quite low in most communities—as low as one in twenty in Ermeta. Recipients’ sense of good fortune at having been allocated a system appeared to lend a very positive hue to their view of SHS generally. Further, all systems were provided in an identical three-lamp configuration precluding households feeling worse off than other SHS users with larger, ‘better’ systems.
The data presented in Section 7.5 supports this interpretation of UNDP and RDTL user perceptions. For example, as may be noted with respect to user satisfaction (Figure 7-11) sixty percent of female UNDP respondents reported being ‘very content’ with their SHS compared to only twenty percent of RDTL respondents. The result was similar for male respondents. Rather than opt for the most positive response (‘very content’), RDTL users were much more likely to rate their satisfaction as ‘content’, one place lower than most UNDP users. In summary, the ratio of user to non-user households for each project appeared to have had no effect on CER user sentiments, a slight negative effect on RDTL users and a strong positive effect on UNDP users.
The final factor to be noted here is user fees for installation and operation. As described in Section 5.4.3, each of the projects instituted a different fee regime. CER required households to pay a small upfront payment but no ongoing fees. RDTL systems were installed free of
61 As discussed in Section 6.4.1, communities in Railaco (CER systems) are far more sparsely settled than those in Cairui (RDTL systems). This may make social interaction more difficult in Railaco and hence make the impact of SHS lighting appear more significant in CER households.
233 Chapter 8
charge but households were then required to make a monthly payment of $1. UNDP households paid neither an upfront nor an operating fee despite the intention of UNDP staff that users make a monthly contribution towards ongoing operational costs. When it came to assessing willingness-to-pay for systems, these nominal fees or the absence of fees, appeared to have exerted several influences. CER households felt that in some sense they had paid for their systems when they made their upfront payment and hence that they owned them. Therefore it was difficult for them to imagine a scenario where they were required to pay a monthly fee to retain something they already owned. For both CER and UNDP households, having been accustomed to operating their systems without having to pay a monthly operating fee, it was difficult to conceive of having to pay for something that hitherto had been free. For RDTL households, the difficulty was in contemplating paying a higher charge than the $1 per month already being collected.
Discussion with the survey enumerators indicated that there was also another factor at play when discussing willingness-to-pay with users. Some householders feared that acknowledging a willingness-to-pay might in some way result in an obligation to pay. For these respondents, the most conservative approach—i.e. the path involving the least risk from their perspective— was to state that they could not afford to pay any monthly fee irrespective of whether they were willing to do so or not. This attitude, whilst entirely understandable from the respondents’ perspective, distorted the willingness-to-pay results.
These main influences on user perceptions and evaluation responses discussed above are set out in summary form in Table 8-1. As the evaluation results are further discussed in Section 8.2, this table provides a convenient reference for the factors which exerted an influence on the responses for users in each project.
Table 8-1 Influence of project-specific factors on evaluation results Project Factor Response Magnitude
CER System failures and poor Diminished satisfaction low—moderate battery performance
UNDP Privilege of ownership Increased satisfaction moderate—strong
RDTL Incomplete coverage of Diminished satisfaction low—moderate all households
All projects No or low upfront cost Diminished willingness- moderate—strong and operating fees to-pay for services
234 Chapter 8
8.2 SHS size and development impact
Having considered above how the evaluation data might best be interpreted, it is now possible to return to the analysis of Chapters 6 and 7 and review the lighting-derived and intrinsic benefits. The results from those two chapters are drawn together in the sections below to provide a comprehensive summary of the size-development impact relationship.
8.2.1 Size and lighting-derived benefits
Study There was no indication in the Participatory Evaluation data that SHS size influenced the ease of study or reading. Most user groups (86%) reported that their SHS had made this activity type ‘easier’ or ‘much easier’ and no statistically significant differences between the responses were identified. The Socio-economic Household Survey revealed continued use of kerosene lamps or candles for study/reading in a small number of UNDP and CER households—whilst RDTL households had eliminated use of these lighting sources—suggesting that the RDTL systems may have had slightly greater impact on ease of study/reading than the other two systems.
Likewise for duration, most groups indicated that ‘more’ or ‘much more’ study/reading was undertaken because of SHS. Statistical analysis of response patterns for the CER and RDTL systems showed no significant difference for duration, neither for the Participatory Evaluation results nor the Socio-economic Household Survey data. UNDP groups reported the greatest increases during the Participatory Evaluation exercise. Whilst this result may represent the general trend for UNDP user groups to rate their systems more positively than groups for the other projects (as discussed in Section 8.1) it may also reflect an enthusiasm for study created by the small number of SHS provided in each community. Discussions with households in Ermeta revealed that many of the houses with a UNDP SHS had become ‘hubs’ for children to study each evening. These users reported that not only did their children study more because of the SHS but that their neighbours’ children were studying more also.
If study/reading benefits were strongly related to system size one might have expected that the UNDP and RDTL results would be similar. Both systems provide multiple lights and the largest UNDP CFL (12 W) provides better task lighting than the 10 W RDTL lamps. Despite these similarities, UNDP systems (at the time of the evaluation) had not eliminated the use of candles and kerosene for reading. The explanation of this unexpected outcome may lie in the fact that most UNDP households still require the use of traditional lighting sources in the kitchen. It is possible that while there is ongoing use of candles and kerosene lamps for general lighting in the house people will continue to use them to supplement task lighting. In contrast
235 Chapter 8
to UNDP and CER households, RDTL homes have eliminated the need for non-electric lighting sources entirely and hence there is no opportunity to continue with old habits of using candles or kerosene for study/reading. Overall, both the Participatory Evaluation and Socio-economic Household Survey results suggest only a weak correlation between system size and impact on study/reading.
Domestic tasks Important domestic tasks identified during the Initial Community Consultations included looking after children, preparing food for eating and/or storage, cooking meals, washing clothes and dishes, and cleaning the house. Most of these activities can be conducted with low levels of illumination. Area lighting rather than task lighting is the main requirement for domestic tasks. For the Participatory Evaluation, most UNDP groups reported that carrying out domestic tasks was ‘much easier’ as a result of their SHS. For RDTL groups, the modal response was ‘easier’. The response for CER groups was more complex than for the other two project samples. The modal response was ‘little easier’ but almost as many groups rated domestic tasks as being ‘much easier’ as did those with a rating of ‘little easier’.
As explained in Section 6.2.1, the reason behind the bi-modal response for CER households was that more than half of the CER groups determined that their SHS had made no change to the ease of carrying out some domestic tasks. This low score was generally offset by a rating of ‘easier’ or ‘much easier’ for other types of domestic task. This was the only activity type for which any CER participants allocated a portion of their group response in the ‘no change’ category.
As has been noted earlier, the absence of lighting in the kitchen for most CER households means that the CER SHS do not provide any assistance with some important domestic tasks, principally cooking. It should be noted, however, that not all food preparation is undertaken in the kitchen. Women in households for all projects were often observed carrying out food preparation in the main house building as well as the dedicated kitchen. Nonetheless, not having an electric light in the kitchen where important domestic tasks are undertaken was seen to significantly diminish the advantages of SHS with respect to this activity type.
Whilst the UNDP systems were provided with three lights, their lamps—like those of the CER systems—were not installed in the kitchen. One householder in Rembor had added an extra lamp to his UNDP system to provide lighting in the kitchen. Another household in Pandevou had their kitchen built adjoining to the main building and had installed the 12 W lamp on a partition wall to illuminate both the kitchen and living areas. These arrangements, however, were exceptions to the typical UNDP installation where lighting to the kitchen building was not
236 Chapter 8
provided. In RDTL households, however, eighty percent of the survey sample had chosen to install a lamp in the kitchen.62
Given that most RDTL households had access to electric light in the kitchen and most UNDP households did not, it is reasonable to suggest that RDTL systems provided greater ease for completing domestic tasks in the kitchen—and hence somewhat greater ease with domestic tasks overall—than did UNDP systems. Equal proportions of UNDP and RDTL users, however, rated their systems as having made domestic tasks ‘much easier’. This result generated by the Participatory Evaluation appears to reflect UNDP users being generally more positive about their SHS than the households from the other two projects.
Comparing only the small and large systems, the Participatory Evaluation clearly indicates that larger RDTL systems make completion of domestic work easier than the single lamp CER systems. This outcome fits with intuitive expectations since small systems don’t provide a light in the kitchen. The Socio-economic Household Survey included a perception question about the usefulness of SHS for domestic tasks. As reported in Section 6.2.3, on a four-point scale from ‘not useful’ to ‘very useful’, respondents from all projects overwhelming opted for ‘useful’. This response accounted for 83% of CER responses and 97% of RDTL responses suggesting that the gap between the usefulness of small and large systems for domestic tasks is moderate rather than substantial.
The problems associated with assessing change in duration of domestic tasks were highlighted in Section 6.2.2. This was the most poorly understood element of the Participatory Evaluation and produced results from which it is difficult to draw strong conclusions. The survey results provide no additional information about the impact of SHS size on duration of domestic tasks. As made clear in Section 6.2.3, there was no association of larger systems with longer waking hours and hence it is not possible to argue that larger systems enable user households to spend more time on domestic tasks.
Productive tasks Whilst responses from UNDP groups were the most positive for increased ease of productive tasks, there was relatively little difference in the results of the Participatory Evaluation exercises for users of the other two systems. Most RDTL groups rated the change as ‘easier’. CER ratings were approximately evenly spread between ‘little easier’, ‘easier’ and ‘much easier’. When results for both projects were consolidated into two categories—‘little
62 The eighty percent figure is based on those households in the sample that received four or six lamp systems. There were six households in the RDTL sample with only two lamps—which arose when households shared a system with their neighbours—and of these only one chose to install a lamp in the kitchen.
237 Chapter 8
easier/easier’ and ‘much easier’—there was no statistically significant difference between the RDTL and CER results.
As explained in Section 6.3.1, the CER results displayed a perceptive analysis on the part of the participants. For productive tasks, approximately half of the groups used the range on the scoring template to distinguish between those tasks requiring task lighting and those suited to area lighting. Task lighting activities such as sewing or cloth weaving were rated to be a ‘little easier’ with use of the SHS and area lighting activities such as basket weaving and broom making were rated as being ‘much easier’. Clearly, the single 5 Watt CFL of the CER systems are very useful when area lighting is required but are less useful for productive activities requiring task lighting. The UNDP and RDTL systems, with their more powerful lamps, meet the needs for both these types of activities.
As with ‘ease’, CER and RDTL groups responded in a similar manner regarding the increase in duration of productive activities. Both projects rated the increase in duration as ‘more’. None of the Socio-economic Household Survey questions related directly to the duration of productive tasks. The survey did, however, investigate waking hours and analysis of the survey results showed no indication of longer waking hours—and hence the opportunity for more productive work at night—for households with larger systems.
The survey was also used to investigate home businesses. Respondents from all projects overwhelmingly perceived their SHS as being ‘useful’ for running an actual home business or potentially running a business in the future. There was also no distinction observed between projects with respect to businesses actually being operated. Only a few households in each project sample were engaged in running businesses. RDTL households operated the greatest proportion of businesses and CER households the least but the differences were not statistically significant. Ninety percent of all businesses were based on activities requiring area lighting (such as running a small shop, which was by far the most common type of business reported). CER systems provide adequate area lighting for such tasks, although a single lamp may constrain operation of a business concurrently with conducting other household activities. The very small number of households that required task lighting for their business were found in both UNDP and RDTL households.
There is no indication that installation of larger systems lead to more time being spent on productive activities. Users of small and large systems reported a similar improvement in the overall ease of carrying out productive tasks. There was no statistically significant difference in user perceptions about the value of SHS for running a potential home business, or in the proportion of households from each project running businesses. The larger UNDP and RDTL
238 Chapter 8
systems had an advantage in illuminating activities requiring task lighting. Many CER households found such activities only a ‘little easier’ to conduct and the only three businesses requiring task lighting were all run from UNDP and RDTL households.
Social interaction During the Participatory Evaluation exercises, groups from all three projects were strongly positive about the contribution their SHS had to improving the ease of social interaction. The modal response for CER and UNDP groups was ‘much easier’ and there was no statistically significant difference between the response patterns for these projects. RDTL groups were less emphatic in their response, being more likely to characterise the impact as having made social interaction ‘easier’ than ‘much easier’.
As discussed in Section 6.4, the different response for RDTL groups is unlikely to be associated with the number or quality of SHS lamps. All RDTL households had at least one lamp located in a space used for communal purposes (generally a living room or veranda) and during discussion none of the participants suggested that their systems provided too much light. On this basis, the difference is likely to be explained by the more restrained approach RDTL groups took to scoring improvements than their CER and UNDP counterparts, the reasons for which were explained in Section 8.1.
With respect to duration, the modal response for increased duration amongst CER and RDTL groups was ‘more’ and there was no statistically significant difference between the results for groups from these two projects. UNDP groups scored their systems as having provided the greatest increase in duration with most groups reporting an increase of ‘much more’. It is plausible that because relatively few households in UNDP communities had access to electric lighting, those households with SHS became a focus for social interaction in UNDP communities. Results from the survey support this position, with female UNDP respondents reporting greater frequency of visits than women from CER and RDTL households.
The strong rating for CER systems for this activity type is not unexpected. The single CER lamp was always placed in a location that would illuminate communal spaces. Given that area lighting is required for social interaction, even a single lamp system is likely to make a substantial difference to the convenience of conducting activities such as socialising with family, neighbours and friends, eating together or holding meetings with community leaders.
In summary, social interaction appeared to have benefitted strongly from the introduction of SHS in the East Timorese communities involved in the research. There is no indication, however, from either the Participatory Evaluation or the Socio-economic Household Survey that these benefits are in any way related to the size of the SHS.
239 Chapter 8
Relative importance of activity types The differences in lighting-derived benefits for the four activity types evaluated during the research are summarised above. As noted in Section 5.5, however, the activity types were not seen to be of equal importance by the SHS users. Across all three projects, the use of SHS to improve conditions for study/reading and domestic tasks were considered to be more important than assisting productive tasks and social interaction. On average RDTL and UNDP groups weighted study very slightly ahead of domestic tasks but ranked domestic tasks very slightly ahead of study. Hence it was clear that these activity types were seen to be of similar importance. The information summarising the impact of SHS use on various activity types, combined with the ranking/weighting results, is presented in Table 8-2.
The significant benefits offered by the single-lamp CER systems, as highlighted above, may appear puzzling and raise the question how one lamp can provide much the same benefits to a household as three or four lamps. The answer to this question lies in the design of typical rural East Timorese dwellings which is a very important element of the success of small systems. Because dwellings are typically built without ceilings (refer to Section 5.1.1 and Figure 5-4), it is generally possible to mount a single electric lamp underneath the roof. In doing so, a single lamp may illuminate several rooms (albeit with some shadowing from partitions between the rooms and areas that are poorly lit). Consequently, the single-lamp CER systems were able to meet a number of lighting needs concurrently. This is of central importance to the ability of small systems to generate a similar impact to larger, multi-lamp systems.
Table 8-2 Summary of impact versus size for lighting-derived benefits Activity type Importance Variation of benefits between SHS of different sizes to users Domestic tasks High Moderate. RDTL (large) systems provide greater ease for domestic tasks undertaken in the kitchen. No difference between CER households with small systems and UNDP households with medium-sized systems.
Study/reading High Slight. Non-electric lighting sources in RDTL households have been eliminated; a small number of CER and UNDP households still undertake study/reading using candles or kerosene.
Productive tasks Low63 Slight. CER (small) systems are of limited benefit to the conduct of some activities requiring task lighting.
Social interaction Low None.
63 Domestic tasks and study/reading were allocated weightings approximately twice that of domestic tasks and social interaction. Consequently, their importance is ‘low’ in relation to domestic tasks and study/reading.
240 Chapter 8
8.2.2 Size and intrinsic benefits
The light output from a SHS, as discussed in Section 7.1, is closely linked to the SHS size. Given that the three SHS included in the research have been designed only to provide light, this relationship is not unexpected and is a trivial finding. The lighting-derived benefits which households enjoy from the differing system outputs have been discussed above. The three other benefits intrinsic to the use of SHS—finance, convenience and health—are considered here.
Finance Financial benefits reported by households during the evaluation relied upon the savings made from avoided expenditure on traditional lighting sources, namely candles and kerosene used in home-made, simple wick lamps. All but three households in the RDTL sample were found to have eliminated the use of candles or kerosene. About half the CER households continued to use these traditional lighting sources. For UNDP households, approximately half had ceased to use candles but four out of five households continued to use kerosene for lighting on a daily basis.
When post-SHS expenditure on these lighting sources was compared to pre-SHS expenditure, the average savings for RDTL households was found to be $4.80 and for CER and UNDP households to be $3.60. CER households saved less on candle expenditure than households for the other two projects. RDTL households saved more on kerosene then the other two projects. Because user fees for each project are modest or non-existent, on average the avoided expenditure on candles and kerosene produces a net financial benefit for households in each project.
If systems were to be provided on a financially sustainable basis, however, and users were to meet the recurrent costs of operating their systems, fees for the RDTL and UNDP systems would be larger than the avoided expenditure on non-electric lighting sources. Under these conditions, both systems would provide a financial disbenefit to users i.e. have a negative impact. The average RDTL operating costs would be more than twice the typical savings on non-electric lighting sources. The single-lamp CER systems would continue to provide a small net financial benefit.
Combining estimated capital costs with recurrent costs to provide an indication of net economic benefits suggests that CER systems would have a neutral economic impact. Economic costs of the RDTL and UNDP systems would far outweigh the benefits represented by avoided costs. The possibility remains that RDTL and UNDP users would find the increased amenity of their systems (i.e. the benefits beyond the avoided costs) worth the additional
241 Chapter 8
expense associated with owning and/or operating them. The willingness-to-pay information provided by the Socio-economic Household Survey suggests, however, that this is highly unlikely. Despite the difference in SHS size, users for all projects expressed a similar willingness-to-pay to retain their systems.64 Across all three projects the mean value was approximately $1 per month more than the current user fees.
User willingness-to-pay to augment systems showed a similar reluctance by households to pay more than a few dollars each month to augment the capacity of their systems. Most CER and UNDP users were willing to pay only a small amount ($1 to $1.5) for one or two extra lamps. Most RDTL households would neither pay for extra lamps nor for longer system duration. Consequently the evaluation results indicate that whilst the real costs of system operation are likely to be far in excess of savings on non-electric lighting sources, user willingness-to-pay for systems is very low. Users for all projects are unwilling to spend more than $1 to $2 per month to either retain or enhance their systems.
As noted in Section 7.2.4 and explained in Section 8.1, the willingness-to-pay results require careful interpretation. Willingness-to-pay responses were influenced by the systems having been provided largely free of charge, both in terms of upfront charges and ongoing operating costs, and possibly from a concern that expressing a willingness-to-pay would result in a requirement to pay. Nonetheless, the results of the Participatory Evaluation exercises regarding lighting augmentation suggest that RDTL users feel their needs have been fully met. Whilst they were willing to make a small payment to retain their systems they were not prepared to pay to increase their system capacity. CER and UNDP system users were willing to pay to augment their systems, indicating a clear desire for additional services. Since these householders currently pay nothing for their systems, however, it is difficult to compare their results directly with those from the RDTL sample where most users pay a fee of $1 per month. If CER and UNDP SHS users were already paying monthly operating charges for their systems it is possible that they may have been less willing to pay for higher service levels.
Convenience and health Material presented in Section 7.3 equated convenience to the elimination of non-electric lighting sources. The argument behind this position was that if there is added convenience involved in moving from non-electric to electric lighting sources, then continued use of candles and kerosene represents less convenience than eliminating their use altogether. It was noted that convenience in this context was not related to the ease with which various household
64 Socio-economic Household Survey respondents were asked to imagine a scenario where project staff required them to pay an extra monthly fee or face having their system removed. This value reflected their willingness-to-pay to retain their system.
242 Chapter 8
tasks could be undertaken since this advantage had already been assessed through the lighting-derived benefit analysis.
Introduction of CER SHS had resulted in most households (approximately 80%) completely eliminating the use of candles or kerosene for lighting (Figure 7-9). Clearly there is no precise metric for rating ‘convenience’ and it is not possible to characterise the difference between the CER and RDTL results with precision. The evaluation results, however, indicate that there was a moderate or slight difference in convenience produced by the small systems compared to the large systems.
A significant number of UNDP households were found to have continued with the use of kerosene lamps. It would be difficult, however, to justify a position which suggested that the three-lamp UNDP systems had a lesser impact on convenience than CER systems. Rather, ongoing use of kerosene lamps in UNDP households—despite access to three lamps—points to the importance of lamp location. If there is no lamp in the kitchen then a significant number of households will continue to use non-electric lighting sources (as discussed in Section 8.3).
Assessment of the likely health impacts used similar logic to that applied for convenience. It was argued in Section 7.4, however, that deleterious health effects are more likely to be related to the use of traditional lighting sources for task lighting rather than area lighting since activities involving task lighting expose users to higher concentrations of harmful emissions. The data on use of candles and kerosene for reading and study provided an indication of the number of households in each sample where members remained exposed to fumes from candles and kerosene lamps. No RDTL households were found to use non-electric lighting for reading or study. For the CER and UNDP samples (in those houses where the SHS was working) approximately six out of seven households had eliminated these lighting sources for reading or study. If the RDTL result is seen as maximising the health benefits from the introduction of SHS then the CER and UNDP systems provided at least 85% of this outcome.
As argued in Section 4.2.3, since households are exposed to particulate loading from kitchen cooking fires—and from tobacco smoke for those who smoke cigarettes—simply eliminating the emissions from candles and kerosene lamps will not remove harmful particulate emissions from the home. Especially for women and girls, who spend long periods of time exposed to cooking fires, avoiding kerosene and candle emissions may have a relatively small impact on respiratory health. On this basis, the health benefits from using SHS are likely to be moderate at best and the benefits offered by the RDTL systems only slightly greater than that of the CER and UNDP systems.
243 Chapter 8
Relative importance of intrinsic benefits When the rankings and weightings of the intrinsic benefits were examined in Section 5.5.3 and 5.5.4, it was clear that the SHS users in East Timor value their systems for the light provided. As discussed above, the three systems were designed only to provide lighting and light output varies with system size, not unexpectedly.
Of the three other intrinsic benefits, finance was clearly the most important to users for all projects. Some CER groups even rated financial benefits of greater importance than the quality of lighting provided. The ranking and weighting of health and convenience varied between projects. Across the combined sample for all three projects, health and convenience were given similar weightings. Health was rated slightly higher than convenience and their ratings were about two thirds that applied to finance.
A summary of the importance of the intrinsic benefit types and the extent to which they varied between the three projects is set out in Table 8-3.
Table 8-3 Summary of impact versus size for intrinsic benefits Intrinsic benefit Importance Variation of benefits between SHS of different sizes type to users
Finance High High. Because users currently pay low or no operating fees, all systems evaluated provide a similar financial benefit. Larger systems, however, would produce a substantial disbenefit if households were required to pay an appropriate level of fees to meet recurrent costs and provide sustained operation of their systems. The financial disbenefit would be proportional to system size and for RDTL systems high in relation to avoided expenditure on non-electric lighting.
Convenience Moderate Slight. Larger RDTL systems have almost entirely eliminated use of non-electric lighting sources, maximising convenience benefits65. CER and UNDP systems produce similar levels of convenience, eliminating non-electric sources in up to 80% of households.
Health Moderate Slight. Larger RDTL systems have eliminated any harm associated with reading and studying in proximity to candles or kerosene lamps. CER and UNDP systems have eliminated this harm in 85% of households.
65 Note that ‘convenience’ in this context relates to the operation of the lighting system in comparison to use of non-electric lighting sources, not to the convenience of conducting activities when using SHS lighting.
244 Chapter 8
8.3 Implications for SHS program design and evaluation
The three systems of different size evaluated in East Timor provided an excellent opportunity to study how development impact varies with SHS size. The findings from the research present three significant implications for the design of programs seeking to disseminate SHS in developing countries. These implications relate to optimising the use of available development funds; locating lamps to provide maximum benefit from multi-lamp systems; and matching system recurrent costs with user ability to pay. The research also has implications for use of the Demand Oriented Approach for evaluation of SHS interventions and this topic is presented after discussion of implications for program design.
8.3.1 Optimising use of development funds by promoting small systems
The first of these implications arises most directly from the research hypothesis. The discussion in the preceding section makes it clear that smaller systems, such as the single lamp CER systems, deliver much of the impact afforded by large systems. Low power, single lamp systems were found to be highly valued when used for each of the four important household activity types. With the exception of assisting with domestic tasks that occur in the kitchen (where the single lamp CER systems provide no benefits), the small systems were found to deliver much of the same benefits as large systems. Differences in convenience and health benefits are likely to be slight and if users are responsible for recurrent operational costs then financial benefits to households will be much greater for small systems than for large ones.
It is important that this implication is read from the point of view of optimising use of scarce development funds and not interpreted as an ‘outsider’ decreeing what level of service is appropriate for rural households in developing countries. None of the evaluation data suggest that rural households in East Timor (or elsewhere) do not desire nor would appreciate the levels of service for electricity enjoyed in urban areas in developing or universally in industrialised countries. The research findings should in no way be interpreted as suggesting that rural households in developing countries can make do with small amounts of electricity and have neither need of nor the right to a much higher level of service.
Rather, this implication relates to the most efficient use of resources within the rural electrification sector. If the East Timorese government aims to provide a basic level of service to as many households in rural communities as possible then providing small systems to many households will provide much of the benefit that would accrue to those households by providing large systems but can be delivered at a much lower overall cost. As highlighted below, not only is this approach more effective from a capital subsidy perspective but it is
245 Chapter 8
likely to provide much greater scope for users or governments (or donor agencies) to afford the operational costs that must be met to ensure sustainability.
8.3.2 Provide lighting in kitchen areas
Inclusion of the UNDP systems in the research provided important insights into why development impact of SHS did not vary directly with system size. The small CER systems and the large RDTL systems provided a direct comparison of benefits delivered by small and large systems. If there was a strong relationship between size and development impact then it might have been expected that the benefits offered by the medium-sized UNDP systems would lie somewhere between the extremes presented by the CER and RDTL systems. This, however, was found not to be the case.
The UNDP systems were very popular with users and reported to be very effective for most household activities. In contrast to RDTL households, however, where use of non-electric lighting sources had been all but eliminated, UNDP households continued to use candles and kerosene lamps for lighting. The continued use of kerosene was quite marked and much more common in UNDP households than CER homes despite their much smaller systems. Half of UNDP households reported ongoing expenditure on kerosene and one in seven households the continued use of candles or kerosene lamps for study/reading.
For those households where the SHS was functioning and where post-SHS kerosene expenditure was reported the average monthly expenditure was found to be equal for the CER and the UNDP samples. Since UNDP systems were equipped with three lamps, all of which were installed in the main house building, it is likely that most of the kerosene use occurred outside the main house. This strongly suggests that kerosene use in UNDP households is largely related to ongoing use of simple wick lamps in kitchen areas, away from the main household. The similarity between average kerosene expenditure in CER and UNDP households fits with a scenario in which those CER households that continue to use kerosene are also providing lighting in the kitchen.
This finding highlights the critical importance of lamp location if the benefits of multi-lamp SHS are to be maximised. Simply providing larger systems will not necessarily result in significantly greater benefits. Even though UNDP systems were thoughtfully designed and provided with a good range of lamps (12 W CFL, 3 W CFL and 1 W LED) they did not eliminate the use of kerosene or candles, as the RDTL systems did. Neither did the UNDP systems provide any assistance with those domestic tasks undertaken in the kitchen. Domestic tasks, along with study/reading, were viewed by rural Timorese households as the most important activity type
246 Chapter 8
with which SHS could assist. If development benefits are to be maximised where multi-lamp SHS are provided, then at least one lamp should provide lighting in the kitchen. Given the low levels of lighting currently provided by kerosene lamps, this lamp could be a low wattage device. Whilst the additional demand on the SHS would be modest, the increase in benefits from this arrangement would be substantial. Where SHS programs are designed with a gender focus, such measures would be a very useful means by which benefits for women and girls could be maximised.
8.3.3 Match system recurrent costs to user ability to pay
The third implication for program design from this research concerns the operating costs of SHS and ensuring that they are affordable for the users. This research clearly demonstrates that whilst there is a very strong linkage between the size of a SHS and its likely operating cost, there is only a weak relationship between system size and financial savings from avoided expenditure on non-electric lighting. Average reduction in kerosene and candle expenditure for the small CER systems was two thirds that of the RDTL systems. Operating costs for the larger systems, however, were an order of magnitude greater than the small ones. While there was no difference between the average expenditure savings for the small (CER) and medium (UNDP) systems, sustaining the operation of the UNDP systems is likely to cost more than five times that of the CER systems.
This research indicates that rural households in East Timor found financial benefits to be a very important outcome for SHS use. Their experience of using SHS, and hence the perception that they brought to the evaluation, was that SHS use reduced household expenditure. If the systems users had been required to meet operational costs then, rather than offering financial benefits, users of UNDP and RDTL households would have increased their expenditure on household lighting. For UNDP households the average net increase in expenditure to switch to a SHS would be modest in relation to average pre-SHS expenditure on lighting. For RDTL households, however, the additional expenditure would be more than twice the pre-SHS expenditure. Based on the willingness-to-pay responses—difficult to interpret though they may be—it appears very unlikely that most households in Cairui would choose to operate an RDTL system if they were required to meet the full operating costs. If one is to assume that pre-SHS expenditure on lighting sources provides a guide to household ability to pay for operating costs, then even many UNDP households would find it difficult to sustain operation of the medium-sized UNDP systems. For sixty percent of UNDP survey respondents the pre- SHS expenditure on candles and kerosene was less than the estimated ongoing operating
247 Chapter 8
costs. Fifteen percent of UNDP households were accustomed to spending less than half the estimated operating cost on non-electric lighting.
These findings are particularly significant for programs that aim to operate with a pro-poor focus. In settings where rural incomes are large in comparison to SHS operating costs the much higher cost of sustaining larger SHS may be relatively unimportant to user households. In developing countries such as East Timor where rural incomes are very low this is a critical consideration for SHS program design. If the East Timorese government (or a donor program) were to undertake a program involving large SHS and subsidised capital cost but not operating costs, then all but the most affluent of households would find it a financial burden to maintain operation of their systems. This is, in effect, the situation created by the UNDP and RDTL programs that were evaluated for this research. Systems were provided by UNDP and the East Timorese government free of charge to households. No provisions, however, were put in place to subsidise operating costs and hence there is an implicit expectation that users will meet the ongoing operational costs themselves.
In summary, if systems are going to meet the financial benefit expectations of rural users then it is important that systems are sized so that households can meet the recurrent costs (or that recurrent costs are subsidised accordingly). If programs are intended to provide electricity services broadly within rural communities then operating costs must be kept low in relation to average rural incomes, pointing to an emphasis on small systems.
Morante and Zilles (2008) suggest that systems be sized to match household demands for electricity. They note the small number of households in their study where larger systems had been sourced to power devices and to increase options for entertainment. The research in East Timor points to the need to match system size to user ability to pay for services rather than to user demand for electricity. If a government (or donor) wishes to provide broad access to SHS in rural communities then small systems are likely to provide most of the benefits of larger systems at a cost that more households will be able to afford. Such an approach is entirely compatible with allowing the commercial sector to meet the demand of more affluent households for larger systems.
8.3.4 Use of the Demand Oriented Approach to evaluation of SHS programs
The results of the research demonstrate the usefulness of ESMAP’s Demand Oriented Approach for evaluation of SHS projects. A comprehensive range of benefits have been assessed by users and the data generated in a form that has allowed comparison of the three sizes of SHS. The approach was successful in its incorporation of user values into the evaluation
248 Chapter 8
framework. The Initial Community Consultations process enabled users to identify the aspects of SHS lighting that were most important to them in their particular context. The absence of improved sense of security from the types of benefit evaluated represents a good example of how this process functioned. This is commonly mentioned in the literature as an important benefit of rural electrification programs. Had the evaluation approach for this research drawn solely on the methods presented in the literature then this benefit type would have featured prominently in the evaluation. Instead, user communities identified the parameters that were important to them and these underpinned the approach adopted.
The participatory elements of the approach were effective in several areas, not least of which was the ability of the Participatory Evaluation exercises to produce quantitative data that facilitated the comparison of results across the three projects. In several places the ESMAP (2003) report characterises the participatory elements of the DOA as ‘qualitative’. Whilst it is true that the discursive nature of the participatory processes enables evaluation outcomes to be explored with users in some depth, the processes were also very effective in enabling users to produce quantitative analyses. Hence, rather than characterise the participatory element as ‘qualitative’ and the survey element as ‘quantitative’, it may be more useful to conceptualise them as ‘corporate’ and ‘individual’ techniques, or perhaps as ‘participatory’ and ‘extractive’.
Observation of the participatory elements left no doubt that the techniques employed generated high levels of engagement with the evaluation process. Working with peers, in their own community environments, and using their local vernacular ensured a high level of confidence amongst the participants for sharing their opinions and experiences. This was particularly useful for engaging women in the evaluation process. Women worked in their own groups and in contrast to most community-wide meetings in East Timor, where women rarely voice their opinions, the sentiments of women regarding SHS use were clearly articulated during the evaluation.
The participatory approach had another strong advantage over traditional surveying techniques in that it allowed the researcher to investigate the thinking behind user responses as the results were generated. Unusual or intriguing responses from groups or group members were used as triggers for immediate discussion and investigation. In contrast, the survey results were analysed remotely, long after the time at which the data was collected offering no opportunity to discuss the results with respondents. Whilst it would be possible to return to communities at a later date to explore the survey findings after they had been analysed, such an approach would add considerable expense to the research process where the research is carried out in locations remote to the researcher’s base (as in this case).
249 Chapter 8
Two comments are in order about the difficulties associated with using participatory techniques for evaluations such as those described here. The first relates to the skill of the facilitators. Successful participatory exercises require high levels of participant engagement. The quality of results depends in great part on ensuring that participants understand the processes and concepts involved but are not directed toward any particular result. This must be achieved in a short space of time and whilst maintaining the enthusiasm of the participants to remain engaged in the evaluation process. Delivering such engagement requires highly experienced facilitators whose skills will generally have been built up through extensive interaction with rural communities. Such facilitators are difficult to find—certainly this was the case in East Timor—and yet their skills are pivotal to the quality of results obtained. It may be possible to adequately train enumerators to collect surveys by following a consistent, tightly defined script, difficult though this also may be. The proposition that staff could be engaged and trained as facilitators to conduct a successful participatory evaluation without prior experience suggests great optimism.
The second comment relates to the risks associated with opening up evaluation processes to active participation. Genuine (rather than token) participation requires a high level of trust and mutual respect between researchers and informants. If this trust and respect are to be maintained, then the rights of informants to share in directing the evaluation processes must be upheld. This has implications for the process used, the duration and the selection of informants. For this research, the most significant implication of upholding such rights was having to accommodate small numbers of non-SHS users in some of the evaluation groups and also those whose SHS were not working or performing poorly. Ideally, informants falling into either of these categories would have been excluded from the participatory process. In some cases, however, their exclusion would have greatly diminished the sense of partnership that was created with user communities for the Participatory Evaluation processes and hence the evaluation process had to be adapted to their participation.
8.4 Areas for further research
The three main limitations within which the research was conducted are set out in Section 3.1. These are: a single geographic context; systems that provide lighting only; and consideration of development impact independently of system sustainability. Each of these three limitations presents an area for further research and is discussed below.
The research results provide a strong indication that in the East Timorese context increasing the size of SHS will not result in proportionate increases in development impact. Many of the
250 Chapter 8
factors present in the communities where systems were evaluated in East Timor are common to rural areas in other developing countries. Households rely upon subsistence agriculture and have access to small levels of cash income, highlighting the importance of striking an appropriate balance between the extent of operating costs and the ability of users to meet them. Observation of rural households in Laos, South Africa, and Central America66 suggest that constructing houses without a ceiling is also common to other developing countries. Hence the opportunity to provide multi-room lighting from a single lamp—which was an important element in the effective use of the small CER systems—may also operate in a number of other countries. No important country-specific factors became apparent during the evaluation. Nevertheless, a formal analysis of rural lighting approaches in other developing countries would be appropriate to determine how broadly the findings can be extrapolated to other contexts.
In addition to cultural factors which may have a bearing on application of the research findings to other countries, levels of wealth in other geographical contexts could also be considered. As noted in Section 2.1.1, rural households in East Timor have access to very low levels of cash income by international standards. Hence, testing the size-impact relationship in developing countries where rural communities have access to higher levels of cash income—and consequently may have higher expectations for service levels—would establish whether the results are sensitive to household wealth.
Each of the three SHS evaluated during the research were lighting-only systems. As suggested in Section 3.1, it is possible that SHS which provide power for devices deliver much greater development impact than lighting-only systems. Where SHS power devices, it is possible that a different relationship between size and development impact operates than that determined by this research on lighting-only systems.
Several of the studies reviewed in Section 2.4 emphasise the value that households place upon using their SHS to access television and alternative forms of entertainment. The SHS evaluated in East Timor had minimal impact on entertainment options. Neither did their installation create income generating opportunities by providing access to electric power. The small CER systems do not offer the potential for generating power. The larger SHS, particularly the 80 Wp RDTL systems, could be designed to operate a television or other appliances. The restriction on appliance use, particularly television, may decrease user satisfaction with small SHS significantly when compared to systems that generate electricity for non-lighting uses.
66 The researcher has worked in rural areas in a number of countries in South East Asia and Central America and also in South Africa.
251 Chapter 8
Simply providing the capability to generate power, however, may not in itself change the nature of the size-impact relationship. The extent to which households could finance the purchase and operation of appliances would play a pivotal role in determining what benefits accrued to users of the larger SHS. Nonetheless, further research is warranted for communities in developing countries where levels of cash income are greater and opportunities exist to operate appliances.
The third area where further research is suggested relates to sustainability. Long-term development impact can only occur where there is continued operation of systems. Overall development impact will not be great where system operation is not sustained, whatever the potential for impact may be initially. It is plausible that system size has some influence on sustainability. As suggested in Section 3.1, it is possible that operating smaller systems which have lower recurrent costs is more achievable for rural households and hence that smaller systems are likely to be better sustained than larger ones. Alternatively, the benefits that the larger systems offer may be such that sufficient demand is created to ensure their ongoing maintenance by users.
The results of this study indicate that users place similar value on small and large systems. This suggests that size would have little impact upon whether or not users are likely to sustain the operation of their SHS. In the East Timorese context, however, operating costs of the smaller systems have been shown to be clearly more affordable for smaller systems than for larger ones. This may well have an impact on the duration over which the SHS installed in East Timor continue to operate. Sustainability of outcomes is a pivotal issue for development practice. Further research into whether system size does indeed influence the sustainability of SHS installations would certainly be a useful contribution.
The three projects considered in this research, however, are not ideal for testing the size- sustainability relationship. Access to technical support and spare parts, quality of components, management and maintenance arrangements, and the approach to design are all critical to system sustainability. These factors vary significantly across the three projects evaluated. Consequently, whilst it would be entirely feasible to monitor operating costs for the three system sizes, controlling for these other variables when evaluating sustainability across the three projects would present a significant challenge.
This study has highlighted one additional area for further research that was not foreshadowed by the research limitations. As discussed above, providing lighting in kitchen areas plays a major role in eliminating the use of kerosene. This may both improve financial benefits to
252 Chapter 8
households and maximise benefits for women and girls, including improving their health outcomes. It may also support the introduction of fuel efficient stoves which would produce environmental and health benefits—introducing fuel efficient stoves requires an alternative form of kitchen lighting since three-stone cooking fires are used for both light and heat. Promoting the use of SHS lighting in kitchens would benefit from research investigating the optimal arrangements for achieving this outcome. Comparison could be made between the benefits of providing a small single lamp system for each kitchen or adopting multi-lamp systems with a lamp in the kitchen.
253
Chapter 9
Conclusions
254 Chapter 9
9 Conclusions
A policy maker seeking to determine the optimal size of SHS to promote for widespread use in rural communities faces a difficult decision. In cases of single system purchases such decisions may be safely left to the household concerned. If, however, a government or donor agency wishes to promote a large-scale program of SHS installation, the question of optimal size must be addressed. This is the very real issue faced by the East Timorese Government as it seeks to meet the goals of its National Development Plan and provide basic electricity services to the many rural communities located far from grid access.
If there is no or a weak correlation between SHS size and development impact, then small SHS may provide much of the benefit of larger systems. If that is the case, then there is a strong incentive to promote smaller systems rather than larger ones. Conversely, if size and impact do correlate then consideration needs to be given to larger systems and selection of the optimal system size must be undertaken on some alternative basis.
The research described in this thesis evaluated three sizes of SHS, namely 10 Wp (‘small’), 40
Wp (‘medium’) and 80 Wp (‘large’) systems. The findings from the research unequivocally point to a weak correlation between system size and development impact. Many of the benefits associated with large systems were also found to accrue from use of the small systems.
Development impact—or ‘good change’—was evaluated at the household level in two areas: benefits associated with the carrying out four categories of household activities; and benefits intrinsic to the operation of SHS in comparison to the use of non-electric lighting sources. For the activities constituting social interaction, the size of a system was found to make no difference to its impact. For study/reading and productive tasks, larger systems were associated with only slightly greater impact than the small systems. Only for the conduct of domestic tasks was a significantly greater impact noted for larger systems. Even for this activity type the difference in impact between large and small systems is best characterised as ‘moderate’.
For the three intrinsic benefit types assessed, larger systems were found to provide only slightly greater impact on health and convenience. For financial benefits—which of the three intrinsic benefits was considered by user households to be the most important—the research results point to an inverse relationship between size and impact. Small systems are much more likely to deliver a net financial benefit than larger systems. In the East Timor context, sustained operation of the medium and large systems would require a significant monthly cost beyond any savings on pre-SHS expenditure on non-electric lighting sources.
255 Chapter 9
In addition to demonstrating that there is only a weak correlation between system size and development impact, two further significant conclusions may be drawn from the research. The first relates to placement of lamps. Where SHS with more than one lamp are provided, then at least one lamp should be located in the kitchen building. Domestic tasks, along with study/reading, was the activity type for which assistance from SHS was perceived as being most important. SHS that do not provide a light in the kitchen provide no assistance for a range of important domestic tasks. For SHS programs seeking to maximise benefits for women, the design adopted should ensure that lighting is provided in the kitchen.
The research demonstrates that providing lighting in the kitchen is also central to eliminating the use of non-electric lighting sources such as candles and simple wick kerosene lamps. Whilst the medium-sized UNDP systems were equipped with three lamps—quite sufficient for small, two or three-roomed East Timorese houses—households using these systems continued to use significant quantities of kerosene because non-electric lighting was still required in kitchen areas.
The final conclusion to be drawn from the research relates to financial impacts on user households. Of the range of development impacts assessed, this was the only one for which an inverse relationship between size and development impact is indicated. For the systems studied in East Timor, the likely operating costs required to provide sustained operation of the larger SHS would exceed the avoided expenditure on non-electric lighting sources. Consequently, these systems would impose a financial burden on user households rather than providing a financial benefit. In the case of the largest systems, the anticipated operating costs would be several times greater than the avoided costs and would be far in excess of the willingness-to-pay that users expressed for their systems. If a large-scale SHS program is designed for East Timor with the intention of providing broad coverage for rural households then introducing small systems rather than large ones will provide financial benefits for far many more households and improve the chances that system operation will be sustained by users.
In closing, it must be reiterated that this thesis in no way argues nor offers support to the idea that people in developing countries, particularly those in the least affluent countries, deserve or only have need of small SHS. Such communities have every right to high levels of service and to aspire to high standards of living for their families and their neighbours. Rather, the thesis makes clear that where limited services are extended via a SHS program smaller systems have the potential to provide much of the development impact of larger systems and from a financial perspective may provide significantly greater benefits overall.
256
References
257 References
References
ADB 2003a, Power sector development plan for East Timor. Volume I: Overview of power sector, TA No. 3748-ETM, 300344.
---- 2003b, Power sector development plan for East Timor. Volume II: Power generation and transmission, TA No. 3748-ETM, 300344.
Aditjondro, GJ 1994, In the shadow of Mount Ramelau: the impact of the occupation of East Timor, Indoc, Leiden, The Netherlands.
ATA-IPG 2007, 2007 East Timor renewable energy projects, Alternative Technology Association (ATA), Melbourne.
Baker, J 2000, Evaluating the impact of development projects on poverty: a handbook for practioners, World Bank, Washington D. C.
Barnes, D 1988, Electric power for rural growth: how electricity affects rural life in developing countries, Rural Studies Series, sponsored by the Rural Sociological Society, Westview Press, Boulder.
Bond, M, Fuller, RJ & Aye, L 2007, 'A policy proposal for the introduction of solar home systems in East Timor', Energy Policy, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 6535-45.
BP Solar 2007, Data sheet for BP SX330 PV module, BP Solar, viewed 6 October 2008,
Cabraal, A, Cosgrove-Davies, M & Schaeffer, L 1996, Best practices for photovoltaic household electrification programs: Lessons from experiences in selected countries, World Bank Technical Paper 324. World Bank, Washington D.C.
Chambers, R 1997, Whose reality counts? Putting the first last, ITDG Publishing, London.
---- 2004, Ideas for development: reflecting forwards, IDS Working Paper 238, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.
Chaurey, A 2000, Ramakrishna Mission Initiative impact study: Final report, NREL/SR-520- 28601, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden.
Clamagirand, B 1980, 'The social organisation of the Ema of Timor', in J Fox (ed.), The flow of life: Essays on Eastern Indonesia, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
258 References
Commonwealth of Australia 1998, Australia’s Overseas Aid Program 1998–99, Canberra.
---- 2005, Australia’s Overseas Aid Program 2005–06, Canberra.
---- 2007, Australia’s Overseas Aid Program 2007–08, Canberra.
Deubener, J, Helsch, G, Moiseev, A & Bornhöftet, H 2009, ‘Glasses for solar energy conversion systems’, Journal of the European Ceramic Society vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1203-1210.
DFID 2003, Health, environment and the burden of disease; a guidance note, Department for International Development, London.
Direcção Nacional de Estatistica 2004, Census of population and housing Timor-Leste July 2004, household questionnaire, Dili, viewed 19 August 2008,
---- 2008, Total, urban and rural populations, Dili, viewed 19 August 2008,
Dunn, J 1983, Timor: a people betrayed, Jacaranda Press, Milton, Qld.
---- 2003, East Timor: a rough passage to independence, Longueville Books, Double Bay.
Ellegard, A, Arvidson, A, Nordstrom, M, Kalumiana, OS & Mwanza, C 2004, 'Rural people pay for solar: experiences from the Zambia PV-ESCO project', Renewable Energy, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1251-63.
ESMAP 2002, Rural electrification and development in the Philippines: Measuring the social and economic benefits, ESM255, Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme (ESMAP), Washington D.C.
---- 2003, Monitoring and evaluation in rural electrification projects: A demand-oriented approach, ESMAP Technical Paper 037, Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme (ESMAP), Washington D.C.
Ezzati, M & Kammen, DM 2001, 'Indoor air pollution from biomass combustion and acute respiratory infections in Kenya: an exposure-response study', The Lancet, vol. 358, no. 9282, pp. 619-24.
Fan, C-W & Zhang, JJ 2001, 'Characterization of emissions from portable household combustion devices: particle size distributions, emission rates and factors, and potential exposures', Atmospheric Environment, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 1281-90.
259 References
Forman, S 1980, 'Descent, alliance, and exchange Ideology among the Makassae of East Timor', in J Fox (ed.), The flow of life: Essays on Eastern Indonesia, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Google Earth 2008, Google Inc, Mountain View, CA.
Green, MA 2000, 'Photovoltaics: technology overview', Energy Policy, vol. 28, no. 14, pp. 989- 98.
Gustavsson, M 2007, 'Educational benefits from solar technology - Access to solar electric services and changes in children's study routines, experiences from eastern province Zambia', Energy Policy, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 1292-9.
Gustavsson, M & Ellegard, A 2004, 'The impact of solar home systems on rural livelihoods. Experiences from the Nyimba Energy Service Company in Zambia', Renewable Energy, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1059-72.
Hargreaves, GH & Merkley, GP 2003, 'Food, poverty, and power in Latin America and the Caribbean', Irrigation and Drainage, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 287-98.
Hohe, T 2002, 'The clash of paradigms: International administration and local political legitimacy in East Timor.' Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International & Strategic Affairs, vol. 24, no. 3, p. 569.
Hull, G 1999, Mai Kolia Tetun, third edn, Caritas Australia and Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, Sydney.
IDS 2003, Energy Poverty Gender: A review of the evidence and case studies in China, World Bank, Washington D.C.
IRG 2003, World Bank/Sri Lanka Energy Services Delivery Project - Impacts assessment and lessons learned, International Resources Group, Washington D.C.
Kanbur, R & Squire, L 1999, 'The evolution of thinking about poverty: exploring interactions', World Bank, Washington D.C.
Karekezi, S & Kithyoma, W 2002, 'Renewable energy strategies for rural Africa: is a PV-led renewable energy strategy the right approach for providing modern energy to the rural poor of sub-Saharan Africa?' Energy Policy, vol. 30, no. 11-12, pp. 1071-86.
Legros, GMB, Soler, R & Bakri, M 2003, 'Impact of electrification modes on the living conditions of rural households in Morocco', Proceedings of 3rd World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, 2003.
260 References
Lipton, M & Toye, J 1990, Does aid work in India? : a country study of the impact of official development assistance, Routledge, London.
Lorenzo, E 1997, 'Photovoltaic rural electrification', Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, vol. 5, pp. 3-27.
Madon, G 2003, Energy Poverty Gender: Impacts of rural electrification on poverty and gender in Indonesia. Volume 1: Facts, analysis, and recommendations, World Bank, Washington.
Martinot, E, Ramankutty, R & Rittner, F 2000, The GEF solar PV portfolio: Emerging experience and lessons, 2, Global Environment Facility.
Massé, R 2003, Energy Poverty Gender: Impacts of rural electrification on poverty and gender in Sri Lanka, World Bank, Washington.
Mehta, K 2004, 'The social, economic and environmental impacts of solar home systems in Karnataka, India', MSc in Environmental Change And Management thesis, University of Oxford.
Meier, P 2003, Economic analysis of solar home systems: a case study for the Philippines, Asia Alternative Energy Program (ASTAE), Washington.
Mestl, HES, Aunan, K & Seip, HM 2007, 'Health benefits from reducing indoor air pollution from household solid fuel use in China—Three abatement scenarios', Environment International, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 831-40.
Morante, F & Zilles, R 2008, 'Electric consumption in SHSs in rural communities of Brazil and Peru and recommendations for sizing', Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 171-9.
NASA 2006, Surface meteorology and solar energy (release 5.1), viewed September 2006
Neubert, S 2000, Social impact analysis of poverty alleviation programmes and projects : a contribution to the debate on the methodology of evaluation in development cooperation, Frank Cass, London.
Nicol, B 1978, Timor, the stillborn nation, Widescope International, Camberwell, Australia.
Nieuwenhout, FDJ, Dijk, Av, Lasschuit, PE, Roekel, Gv, Dijk, VAPv, Hirsch, D, Arriaza, H, Hankins, M, Sharma, BD & Wade, H 2001, 'Experience with solar home systems in developing
261 References
countries: a review', Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 455-74.
Norplan 2006, Rural Electrification Master Plan Timor Leste - draft report, World Bank, Dili.
Nriagu, JO & Kim, M-J 2000, 'Emissions of lead and zinc from candles with metal-core wicks', The Science of The Total Environment, vol. 250, no. 1-3, pp. 37-41.
Ospina, S & Hohe, T 2001, Traditional power structures and the Community Empowerment and Local Governance Project., Report prepared for World Bank and UNTAET, Dili.
Rainbow Power Company 2008, Retail Price List, Nimbin, NSW, October 2008, retail price list for renewable energy products, viewed 6 October 2008,
Ramani, KV & Heijndermans, E 2003, Energy Poverty Gender: A synthesis, World Bank, Washington.
RDTL—República Democrática de Timor-Leste
RDTL 2003a, National Development Plan, Planning Commission, Dili.
---- 2003b, Timor Leste: Poverty in a new nation; analysis for action., Dili.
---- 2005a, Timor-Leste: Power sector investment program, Ministry of Natural Resources, Minerals and Energy Policy, Dili.
---- 2005b, Overview of sector investment programs. Volume I: strategies and priorities for the medium-term, Ministry of Planning and Finance, Dili.
---- 2005c, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Priorities and proposed sector investment program, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Dili.
---- 2005d, Private Sector Development: Priorities and proposed sector investment program, Ministry of Development and Environment, Dili.
---- 2005f, Timor-Leste: local government and civil society sector investment program, Ministry of State Administration, Dili.
---- 2005g, Timor-Leste: housing and urban development sector investment program, Ministry of State Administration, Dili.
---- 2005h, Health care sector investment program, Ministry of Health, Dili.
---- 2006, Timor-Leste: Power sector investment program, Ministry of Natural Resources, Minerals and Energy Policy, Dili.
262 References
---- 2008a, Priority tables for Ermera District, Direcção Nacional de Estatistica, Dili.
---- 2008b, Priority tables for Dili District, Direcção Nacional de Estatistica, Dili.
---- 2008c, Priority tables for Liquica District, Direcção Nacional de Estatistica,, Dili.
---- 2008d, Priority tables for Manatuto District, Direcção Nacional de Estatistica, Dili.
Roche, CJR 1999, Impact assessment for development agencies : learning to value change, Oxfam, Oxford.
Schare, S & Smith, KR 1995, 'Particulate emission rates of simple kerosene lamps', Energy for Sustainable Development, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 32-5.
Schott Solar GmbH 2008, Technical data sheet for Schott EFG155/160/165 PV module, Schott Solar GmbH, Alzenau, Germany, product data sheet, viewed 7 October 2008,
Scoones, I 1998, Sustainable Rural Livelihoods; a framework for analysis, ISBN 1 85964 224 8, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.
SEI—see Solar Energy International.
Solar Energy International 2007, Photovoltaics: design and installation manual, Revised edition, May 2007 edn, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC.
Stone, JL, Ullal, HS, Chaurey, A & Bhatia, P 2000, 'Ramakrishna Mission initiative impact study-a rural electrification project in West Bengal, India', paper presented to Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 2000. Conference Record of the Twenty-Eighth IEEE.
Taylor, JG 1999, East Timor : the price of freedom, Zed Books, London.
Traube, E 1986, Cosmology and social life: ritual exchange among the Mambai of East Timor, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Trojan Battery Company 2008, Theoretical battery life for Trojan TMX270, 9 Oct 2008, email from Ronald Paredes of Trojan Battery Company.
UNDESA 2007a, CFSS Request for Tender, United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs, East Timor, unpublished, May 2007.
---- 2007b, Solar lantern testing evaluation report, United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs, East Timor, unpublished, 27 April 2007.
263 References
---- 2007c, Solar lantern rental mechanism (draft), United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs, East Timor, unpublished, 17 June 2007.
UNDP 2005, Human Development Report 2005, United Nations Development Programme, New York.
---- 2006, Timor Leste Human Development Report 2006. The path out of poverty, United Nations Development Programme, Dili.
---- 2008, Rural energy policy for Timor-Leste (draft), United Nations Development Programme, Dili, 17 May 2008.
Wamukonya, N 2007, 'Solar home system electrification as a viable technology option for Africa's development', Energy Policy, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 6-14.
Wasson, SJ, Guo, Z, McBrian, JA & Beach, LO 2002, 'Lead in candle emissions', The Science of The Total Environment, vol. 296, no. 1-3, pp. 159-74.
Wheeler, T 2004, East Timor, First edn, Lonely Planet Publications, Melbourne.
World Bank 2006, The little data book 2006, World Bank, Washington.
Yayasan Dian Desa 2003, The development impact of solar home systems in the Province of Lampung, Yayasan Dian Desa, Yogyakarta.
Zhang, J & Smith, KR 2003, 'Indoor air pollution: a global health concern', British Medical Bulletin, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 209-25.
Zomers, AN 2001, 'Rural electrification: utility chafe or challenge', PhD thesis, University of Twente.
264
Appendix A
Ethics protocol
265
Appendix A— Protocols for communication and obtaining consent
Appendix contents
Introduction ...... 267 District and sub-district level government ...... 268 Community leadership...... 270 Community members—Initial Community Consultation ...... 272 Community members—involvement in Participatory Evaluation ...... 274 Householders—Socioeconomic Household Survey ...... 276 Government officials and community leaders consulted...... 277
Appendix A—Protocols for communication and obtaining consent
Introduction
The following sections detail the protocols used by the research team to explain the research project to participants and invite their participation. Permission to undertake the research will be sought first from the district and sub-district level government and community leaders and will involve discussions accompanied by written requests. Once those permissions have been obtained, verbal invitations will be issued to community members relevant to each stage of the research.
Protocols are set out below for the following audiences:
district and sub-district level government community leadership community members—initial consultation community members—participatory evaluation focus groups householders—socioeconomic survey
A list of government and community leaders consulted during application of this protocol is also provided.
267 Appendix A—Protocols for communication and obtaining consent
District and sub-district level government
Purpose To inform district level government of research program; and to involve district-level government in selecting potential communities for research activities Provided by Principal Researcher Provided to District Administrator, Sub-district Administrator and/or District Development Officer in each district and sub-district where research is undertaken When Prior to the commencement of any research activities in the district concerned Format Letter (in Tetun and English); presented by Principal Researcher and accompanied by verbal explanation.
English Dear [insert name of District Administrator] translation of letter to be re: research on rural electrification in Timor Leste – the development impacts of solar provided to home systems.
District level government We are a team of researchers studying the development impact of Solar Home System electrification of homes in rural parts of Timor Leste. The research is being conducted under the auspices of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at The University of Melbourne in Australia. The Principal Researcher is Mr Matthew Bond who is conducting the study for his PhD research. Mr Bond is being supervised by Dr Lu Aye and Dr Robert Fuller from the University of Melbourne. The researchers will be supported by the following Timorese colleagues [insert names of community facilitators and enumerators]
The research will investigate the attitudes of rural communities in Timor Leste to the installation of solar home systems for rural electrification. Discussions will be held with groups of community members in a number of communities and followed by a questionnaire survey conducted on a household basis in the same communities. Involvement in the research by community members will be entirely voluntary and participants may withdraw from the research at any time. The information collected will be analysed by the research team and prepared into a report to be submitted to the University of Melbourne. This report and the key findings from the research will also be shared with the Ministry of Minerals, Natural Resources and Energy Policy to assist the Government of Timor Leste to plan electrification of remote areas of Timor Leste. The research team will also provide a summary report to your office of the key findings and briefing to your staff at the conclusion of the project.
Due to the presence of [insert name of relevant SHS project] project in your district, we have identified [insert name of sub-district] as one of the areas in which to conduct the research.
Please let me stress that we will be visiting the communities involved just to learn about what rural people think about solar home system electrification. This research is not a development assistance ‘project’ and we will not be providing any materials or assistance to the communities, either during or as a result of the research.
We would be very grateful if you would endorse this research and permit us to meet
268 Appendix A—Protocols for communication and obtaining consent with your staff, in particular the District Development Officer, to finalise the selection of communities to be approached for involvement in the study.
Should you have any concerns about the conduct of the research at any time, we encourage you to contact one of the following people:
Mr Matthew Bond, Principal Researcher, [insert phone number for Timor Leste] or +61408995556 Dr Lu Aye, Senior Lecturer, The University of Melbourne, +613 83447839 Dr Robert Fuller, Principal Fellow, The University of Melbourne, +613 83447839 The Executive Officer, Human Research Ethics, The University of Melbourne, +613 8344 2073
Yours sincerely,
Matthew Bond Principal Researcher, on behalf of the Research Team
269 Appendix A—Protocols for communication and obtaining consent
Community leadership
Purpose To request, in written format, the consent of the community leadership to conduct the research in their community Provided by Principal Researcher and Community Facilitators Provided to Chefe Suco (Village Chief) and Chefe Aldeia (Hamlet Chief) When Prior to the commencement of any research activities in the aldeia (village) concerned Format Discussion between the Chefe Suco and Chefe Aldeia and the Principal Researcher and Community Facilitators; accompanied by a written request and based on the content of the written request English Dear [insert name of Chefe Aldeia/Suco] translation of We are a team of researchers studying how life changes when rural homes in letter to be Timor Leste get electricity. The research is being conducted by The University of provided to Melbourne in Australia. The Principal Researcher is Mr Matthew Bond. He is District level being supported by the following Timorese colleagues [insert names of government community facilitators and enumerators] (N.B. this text Due to the presence of [insert name of relevant SHS project] project in your to provide district, we have identified your aldeia as one of the areas in which to conduct the basis for the research. the The research involves talking to people who have electricity in their homes and discussion also to people who do not have electricity. We want to learn from them what with the they think are the good and bad things about electricity and the important village chief) things that happen when electricity comes to their homes. We want to learn from all people in the community and will respect everyone’s opinions. We have met with the District Administrator who has given us permission to conduct this research in your district. The research will be in two parts. On our first visit we will talk to community members in small groups and ask them to discuss with us and with each other questions such as: what are the most important changes in your house since you got electricity? what are the most important benefits of having electric light in your house? who uses the electric light the most and what do they use it for? do you or your children study more or less at night with the electric lights? We think this will take about one to two hours. We will listen to what people say and write down the things they say are important to them. We will also record some parts of the discussions on video to help us remember what the community members tell us. On a second visit we will come back to ask each household in the community questions about how the people who live in each household use electricity. We will ask the same questions to all households. We will add this information to
270 Appendix A—Protocols for communication and obtaining consent what we learnt from talking to community members in small groups. The types of questions we will ask are: who lives in your house and how old are they? how many years of schooling has each person finished? how much does your household spend on electricity, kerosene, candles and other forms of energy? who uses light in your household to read or study at night and for how long? We will keep all the written records of your information at The University of Melbourne in Australia and only the research team will be allowed to look at this information. We would like all people interested about electricity to join in our research and welcome the participation of people from your community. If any person does not want to join in any of this research they do not have to. If they do join in, they may stop at any time. If you or any other member of the community is worried or concerned about the research, please talk to us about your concerns or talk to the District Administrator. We have come to visit your community just to learn about what you think about electricity. We are not from a ‘project’ and we have not come to give anything to the community. We will not return later to give anything to the community. After we have collected information from many communities in Timor we will put all the information together into a report. I will submit this report to the University of Melbourne. Once the research is complete, one member of the research team will return to your community to share with you what we have learnt. We will also give the information we collect to the Government of Timor Leste in Dili to help them makes plans for getting electricity to remote places in Timor Leste. We would be very grateful if you would permit us to carry out this research in your community and ask for your permission to do so. We hope that you will agree to participate in the research. If you chose to do so, we are confident that the knowledge you share with us will help the Timorese people and that your community will be making a contribution to a good future for Timor Leste. Yours sincerely,
Matthew Bond Principal Researcher, on behalf of the Research Team
271 Appendix A—Protocols for communication and obtaining consent
Community members—Initial Community Consultation
Purpose To advise community members about the research and invite participation Provided by Community Facilitator and Chefe de Aldeia (Village Chief) in the presence of Principal Researcher. Provided to Open community meeting When Prior to the commencement of any research activities in the aldeia (village) concerned Format Oral address, in Tetun and/or local dialect English Hello. We are a team of researchers studying how life changes when rural translation of homes in Timor Leste get electricity. Our names are [state names]. The research narrative to is being organised with the University of Melbourne in Australia by our be presented colleague Matthew Bond who is the Principal Researcher. We want to talk to people who have electricity in their homes and also to people who do not have electricity. We want to learn from you what you think are the good and bad things about electricity and the important things that happen when electricity comes to your homes. We want to learn from all people in the community and will respect everyone’s opinions. We have met with the community leaders and have received their permission to conduct this research in your community. The research will be in two parts. On our first visit we will talk to you in small groups and ask you to discuss with us and with each other questions like: what are the most important changes in your house since you got access to electricity? what are the most important benefits of having electric light in your house? who uses the electric light the most and what do they use it for? do you or your children study more or less at night with the electric lights? We think this will take about one to two hours. We will listen to what you say and write down the things that you think are important. We will also record some parts of the discussions on video to help us remember the things you tell us. On a second visit we will come back to ask each household in the community questions about the how the people who live in each household use electricity. We will ask the same questions to all households. We will add this information to what we learnt from talking to you in small groups. The types of questions we will ask you are: who lives in your house and how old are they? how many years of schooling has each person finished? how much does your household spend on electricity, kerosene, candles and other forms of energy? who uses light in your household to read or study at night and for how long?
272 Appendix A—Protocols for communication and obtaining consent
We will keep all the written records of your information at the university in Australia and only the research team will be allowed to look at this information. We would like all people interested in electricity to join in our research and welcome your participation. If you do not want to join in any of this research you do not have to. If you do join in, you may stop at any time. If you or any other member of the community is worried or concerned about the research, please talk to us about your concerns. If you are shy, please tell your concerns to one of the community leaders and ask them to talk to us. We have come to visit your community just to learn about what you think about electricity. We are not from a ‘project’ and we have not come to give anything to the community. We will not return later to give anything to the community. After we have collected information from many communities in Timor we will put all the information together into a report. Our colleague Matthew will submit this report to the University of Melbourne. One of the research team will return to your village to share with you what we have learnt. We will also give the information we collect to the Government of Timor Leste in Dili to help them makes plans for getting electricity to remote places in Timor Leste. Does anyone have any questions? Would anyone like more information? Thank you very much for your helping us with this research. We are confident that the knowledge you share with us will help the Timorese people and that you will be making a contribution to a good future for Timor Leste.
273 Appendix A—Protocols for communication and obtaining consent
Community members—involvement in Participatory Evaluation
Purpose To obtain consent from each individual to participate in focus group activities and for use of the results by the research team Provided by Community Facilitator (as trained by Principal Researcher) Provided to Participatory Evaluation participants When At the commencement of focus group activities Format Oral address, in Tetun and/or local dialect English Hello. We are a team of researchers studying how life changes when rural translation of homes in Timor Leste get electricity. Our names are [state names]. The research narrative to is being organised with the University of Melbourne in Australia by our be presented colleague Matthew Bond who is the Principal Researcher. We want to talk to people who have electricity in their homes and also to people who do not have electricity. We want to learn from you what you think are the good and bad things about electricity and the important things that happen when electricity comes to your homes. We want to learn from all people in the community and will respect everyone’s opinions. We will talk to you in small groups and ask you to discuss with us and each other questions like: what are the most important changes in your house since you got access to electricity what are the most important benefits of having electric light in your house who uses the electric light the most and what do they use it for do you or your children study more or less at night with the electric lights We think this will take about one to two hours for each group. We will listen to what you say and write down the things that you think are important. We will also record some parts of the discussions on video to help us remember the things you tell us. We will keep these videos at the university in Australia and only the research team will be allowed to look at them. You do not have to join in the discussions if you do not want to. If you do join in, you may stop at any time. If you are busy and have to leave the discussion you may return later. We have come to visit you just to learn about what you think about electricity. We are not from a ‘project’ and we have not come to give anything to the community. We will not return later to give anything to the community. After we have talked with you in groups, some of our team will return on another day and visit each family to ask questions about how they use electricity at their house. You do not have to answer these questions if you do not want to or if you are too busy. After we have collected information from many communities in Timor we will put all the information together into a report. Matthew will submit this report to the University of Melbourne. One of the research team will return to your
274 Appendix A—Protocols for communication and obtaining consent village to share with you what we have learnt. The information we collect will also be given to the Government of Timor Leste to help them makes plans for getting electricity to remote places in Timor Leste. If you or any other member of the community is worried or concerned about the research, please talk to us about your concerns. If you are shy, please tell your concerns to one of the community leaders and ask them to talk to us. Does anyone have any questions? Would anyone like more information? Thank you very much for your helping us with this research. We are confident that the knowledge you share with us will help the Timorese people and that you will be making a contribution to a good future for Timor Leste.
275 Appendix A—Protocols for communication and obtaining consent
Householders—Socioeconomic Household Survey
Purpose To obtain consent from each householder to respond to the survey questionnaire and for use of the survey results by the research team Provided by Enumerator (as trained by Principal Researcher) Provided to Householder When Prior to responding to the questionnaire Format Oral address, in Tetun and/or local dialect English Hello. We are a team of researchers studying how life changes when rural homes translation in Timor Leste get electricity. Our names are [state names]. The research is being of narrative organised with the University of Melbourne in Australia by our colleague to be Matthew Bond who is the Principal Researcher. You may remember that we presented visited your community in [date of last visit] to talk to you in small groups about electricity. We have come back to ask each household in the community questions about the how the people who live in the household use electricity. We will ask the same questions to all households. We will add this information to what we learnt from talking to you in small groups. The types of questions we will ask you are: who lives in your house and how old are they how many years of schooling has each person finished how much does your household spend on electricity, kerosene, candles and other forms of energy who uses light in your household to read or study at night and for how long I will ask you questions and my colleague will write down your answers. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to and may ask us to stop asking questions at any time. If a question is hard to understand or hard to answer, please ask us for more information or a better explanation. We think it will take about half an hour to answer all the questions. If you do not have time to talk to us now you may ask us to come back at another time. As we explained last time we came to your community, we have come just to learn about what you think about electricity. We are not from a ‘project’ and we have not come to give anything to you. After we have collected information from many communities in Timor we will put all the information together into a report. Our colleague Matthew will submit this report to the University of Melbourne. One of the research team will return to your village to share what we have learnt with you. The information we collect will also be given to the Government to help them makes plans for getting electricity to remote places in Timor Leste. If you or any other member of the community is worried or concerned about the research, please talk to us about your concerns. If you are shy, please tell your concerns to one of the community leaders and ask them to talk to us. Do you have any questions? Would anyone like more information? Are you ready for us to start asking the questions? Thank you very much for your helping us with this research.
276 Appendix A—Protocols for communication and obtaining consent
Government officials and community leaders consulted.
Meetings held with local government officials at the district, sub-district (posto), village (suco) and sub-village (aldeia) level to introduce the research and seek permission to hold consultations with communities. Where officials were unavailable, particularly at senior levels, letters in Tetun and English were left for these officials with other government staff.
Position Location Name Consultation/ Letter District Administrator Dili Ruben Carvahlo Braz consultation Chefe do Posto Vera Cruz Artur Rodrigues consultation Chefe do Suco Dare Jose dos Santos letter only Chefe de Aldeia Burlete Felixberto de Araujo Soares consultation Chefe do Posto Cristo Rei Luis Barreto letter only Chefe do Suco Becora Antonio Soares consultation Chefe de Aldeia Kitutu Amaro Pereira letter only
District Administrator Liquica Leonel de Jesus Carvalho letter only Chefe do Posto Maubara Felix da Costa letter only Chefe do Suco Guicu Liberato Araujo Nunes consultation Chefe de Aldeia Pandevou Antonio Soares letter only Chefe do Posto Liquica not recorded letter only Chefe do Suco Hatuquessi Alberto Rodrigues letter only Chefe de Aldeia Lebu Salara Rafael dos Santos letter only Chefe do Suco Fahilebu Miguel da Costa consultation Chefe de Aldeia Ermeta various consultation
District Administrator Ermera Saturino Babo letter only Chefe do Posto Railaco Fransico Xavier Viegas letter only District Dev Officer Railaco Alfredo de Jesus Lemos consultation Chefe do Suco Railaco Kraik João de Jesus Monteiro consultation Chefe de Aldeia Sobrekeke not recorded consultation Chefe do Suco Samelete Antonio Piedade consultation
277 Appendix A—Protocols for communication and obtaining consent
Position Location Name Consultation/ Letter Chefe de Aldeia Eraulo not recorded consultation Chefe de Aldeia Ai Urlalan Manuel Reis consultation Chefe do Suco Fatuquero Ricardo Soares Madeira letter only Chefe de Aldeia Kaitarahei not recorded consultation Chefe do Suco Tarazu Augusto dos Santos consultation Chefe de Aldeia Lakeku Mariano Lopes consultation Chefe de Aldeia Datuleo Armando da Silva consultation Chefe de Aldeia Lebudu Abilio Martins consultation Chefe do Suco Delicu Mario da Cruz consultation Chefe de Aldeia Bohemata Miguel Soares consultation Chefe de Suco Railaco Leten Cristalina Quintão consultation Chefe de Aldeia Kolhuinamu Carlos Soares consultation
District Administrator Manatuto not recorded letter only Chefe do Posto Laleia Gregorio Sebastião Gusmão letter only Chefe do Posto Manatuto not recorded letter only Chefe do Suco Aiteas not recorded consultation Chefe de Aldeia Rembor Alarico Soares consultation Chefe do Suco Cairui Roberto Ximenes consultation Chefe de Aldeia Raimean Constantino da Costa consultation Chefe de Aldeia Raibu Crisantos da Costa consultation Chefe de Aldeia Corohoco Ilario Antonio Ximenes consultation Chefe de Aldeia Hatusili Cosme Urbano Ximenes consultation Chefe de Aldeia Biabae Domingos Ximenes consultation Chefe de Aldeia Hatukarau Silvestre Ximenes consultation
278
Appendix B
Results of initial community consultations
279 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultation results
Appendix contents
Introduction ...... 281
Burlete ...... 281
Kitutu ...... 286
Sobrekeke ...... 291
Eraulo ...... 295
Kaitaraihei ...... 299
280 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
Introduction A set of participatory processes, termed here ‘Initial Community Consultations’, were held with five communities in East Timor as the first step in developing the evaluation method for the research. The results of these consultations are set out in Section 4.1 of the thesis body. Further details of the results in each community are provided in this appendix.
Burlete Visit date 16 July Project UNDP GPS reference S08 37.103 E125 33.948 Altitude 760m Participants 13 women, 20 men Duration 5 hours
Whole aldeia participated; 18 SHS in this aldeia ; approx 13 women and 20 men engaged in the consultation representing all 33 households in the aldeia; session lasted from 2 to 7 p.m. In the Indonesian era all people were forced to move away from this area and the aldeia has only recently returned to its original location. Have no water supply. Produce some coffee, subsistence farming of sweet potato, cassava and other root crops. No school. Small by standard of other aldeias – only 33 households. Whilst the community is within the Dili district and is within 10 km radius of Dili, it is geographically quite isolated. Reaching Burlete by road requires 30-45 minute drive into Aileu district followed by another 30-45 minutes on gravel roads back towards Dili. Access ends in a steep, grassy track which is difficult to access in the dry season and impassable for much of the wet season.
Types of lighting Participants were asked to ‘brainstorm’ a list of the different types of lighting used in their village. Volunteers then drew simple sketches of each type of lighting. These were placed down the length of a flipchart page. Participants were divided into two groups (A and B) and asked to consider how many of each type of light was used in the village. Each group discussed the share of lighting provided by each lighting type and then created a
281 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
representation of their understanding by placing 50 corn kernels alongside the different pictures. The two groups then discussed their thinking with each other.
% of aldeia % of aldeia Type Who buys/makes lighting (A) lighting (B) candle (lilin) 14% 14% woman/man candlenut (kamin) 14% 12% woman bamboo torch (fafulun) 0% 14% man simple wick lamp (lampu tursida) 16% 9% woman/man pressurised kerosene lamp (petromas) 0% 12% woman/man torch (lampa pilha) 0% 14% woman/man fire/fireplace (ahi matan) 14% 14% woman/man SHS 42% 12% woman/man
Candlenut lamps and bamboo torches are both hand-made and are not used when other forms of lighting are available. Bamboo torches can either be made in the ‘dry’ version, which is simply a burning piece of bamboo, or a ‘wet’ variety that uses a kerosene or diesel-soaked rag inserted in the end of a piece of bamboo. This exercise was followed by a discussion about who in a household is responsible for buying or making different types of lighting. Whilst it was agreed that women are responsible for making simple lamps from candlenuts and men for making bamboo torches, there was no clear agreement about who was responsible for managing the other lighting types or purchasing consumables such as kerosene or batteries. The community noted that these activities could be undertaken by men, women or children. One woman noted that ‘when my husband doesn’t go *to buy candles or kerosene+, I am ready to go’. Costa, reporting his experiences discussing domestic financial management for rural water supply and sanitation activities, noted that men control household spending in almost all communities. Whilst use of candlenut lamps was reported to be quite common, none of the participants whose houses were nearby was able to produce a sample lamp for review. This technology, for which there is no cost, is used when financial constraints prevent the use of other forms of lighting such as candles and simple kerosene lamps. Burlete had completed most of their coffee harvesting and were likely to be have greater access to cash than at other times of the year. Participants noted that no one in the community used a candlenut lamp yesterday. Petromax lanterns were reported as being used for parties and community celebrations/
282 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
ceremonies. Torch – good light but only use it in the evening when they are walking around outside the house. Fire place – provides light in the kitchen when they are cooking. Everyone uses fireplace in the morning and the evening.
Good and bad points of each lighting type. Participants were asked to ‘brainstorm’ good and bad attributes for each type of lighting. Type Good points Bad points candle (lilin) no smoke, good for health; need money to buy; can cause cheap/affordable; (25c/packet of fire candles, lasts 1 night); good light; instant on/off candlenut (kamin) no money required; make quickly can cause fire bamboo torch (fafulun) adequate light for working [in the can cause fire; smoky fields]; easy to find material simple wick lamp (lampu tursida) light OK (not as good as candle); smoky; bad for health; can cause cheaper than candle; can leave fire; need to buy kerosene in Dili on at night pressurised kerosene lamp (petromas) expense of kerosene (up to light up the whole house (don’t 1ltr/night, $1/ltr); need to need candles); good light for buy/maintain spares – mantle, studying; can care for children pump; dangerous torch (lampa pilha) easily portable need to buy batteries fire/fireplace (ahi matan) good when there is no money; poor light; use in the kitchen only very cheap SHS [not reviewed—intention to treat this separately but insufficient time available]
Types of lighting - number in use today Participants were asked to reconsider the list of lighting types that they had identified. SHS lighting was further broken down into the three types of lamps provided with the systems – 12W, 3W and 1W LED lamps. Participants discussed amongst themselves about the use of these sources last night. Representatives from each household were then asked to mark on a flip chart the number of lights of each type that they used last night during three different durations— morning, evening and overnight.
283 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
Type morning evening overnight candle (lilin) 53 (15hh) simple wick lamp (lampu tursida) 25 (16hh) 9 candlenut (kamin) bamboo torch (fafulun) 10 pressurised kerosene lamp (petromas) torch (lampa pilha) 18 fire/fireplace (ahi matan) 33 33 SHS – 12W 18 SHS – 3W 18 SHS – LED 15 11
There was a high usage of candles in use in the village amongst those households that used them. Only 15 households noted that they used candles—possibly those 15 homes that do not yet have SHS. No lighting is used in the mornings, the only light being that provided from the fireplace in the kitchen. The Chefe Aldeia did not have any kerosene in his house—he was unable to provide kerosene to put into a simple wick lamp for a photo. The Chefe’s wife reported that she would have to cook early that night because she would not have kerosene to run her simple wick lamp and there was no SHS lamp in the kitchen. Burlete would be a good village to compare alternative fuel use for those without SHS – roughly equal numbers in each group (18 with SHS, 15 without). Two local ‘technicians’ were trained by UNDP to maintain the SHS in Burlete—Cecilia Batista (daughter of the teacher) and Angelino Sousa Braz who was not present and was reported as being ‘not active’. Each household was required to pay $15 upon installation and afterwards $2 per month to the teacher. No structure has yet been put in place for management of these funds so only some people are paying their monthly fee. At present three systems (of the 18) have faults – 2 x 12W light broken; 1 x controller broken. These faults were reported UNDP staff but no parts have yet been made available Armando da Silva (teacher) has an old Indonesian panel and suggested to UNDP technician (Aires de Almeida) that this be added to his UNDP system so that he can run a TV; Aires informed him that a bigger controller would be required to operate the two panels.
284 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
Uses for lighting – activities Participants were divided into two groups and asked to ‘brainstorm’ a list of activities for which they use lighting. The two lists were combined and two activities were then undertaken using the full list. The first involved group discussion to determine the approximate duration of each type of activity. This was followed by a discussion about the priority uses for SHS lighting. Participants were then given three markers each (women—unprocessed coffee beans and men—corn kernels). All participants were then asked to place their markers beside the activities for which they thought SHS were most useful. There was no restriction upon how the markers were placed. Participants could choose to place their markers against either one, two or three different activities.
Approx duration Priority for SHS - Priority for SHS – Average – men Activity of these Women Men and Women activities [hrs] handicrafts (cane work) 5 18% 12% 15% sewing 2 10% 5% 8% studying 4 13% 22% 17% reading for leisure* 3 0% 5% 3% talking 3-4 3% 2% 2% evening meal 1 23% 28% 26% meetings 5-6 0% 3% 2% looking after children 0.5 0% 0% 0% music practice 4 0% 13% 7% evening cooking 2 31% 10% 20% traditional weaving 3% 0% 1% *Reading—the teacher commented that because of low literacy rates in the aldeia, only a few people can read for leisure; therefore reading for leisure is not a significant priority. It is interesting to note that looking after children at night was not a big issue—no one marked this as a priority for the SHS. People said that they used the simple wick lamps for this task when required.
Uses for lighting – feelings Having discussed the uses of SHS, participants were asked to identify their perceptions or feelings about the benefits associated with SHS. The intention for this exercise was to explore concepts such as convenience, security, development. This proved quite difficult for the
285 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
participants, however, and the facilitators refrained from prompting them as to the types of benefits they were expecting them to identify. The following four comments were noted, but there was insufficient clarity in the concepts to prioritise them as had been done for the activities using lighting. There was considerable discussion regarding the sentiments of those households who did not receive systems from UNDP. Consequently, the predominate feelings expressed were disappointment and frustration!
Sentiments about SHS lighting It is difficult to get the light but when we receive SHS from UNDP, can change our life in this village; with the SHS helps us to do our activities in the evening; makes us very happy. worried that we cannot find spare parts to maintain our systems Some people sad that they have not received SHS yet [only 18/33 homes received systems]. However, because our neighbours have SHS we have seen that it changes their life. I feel that the SHS has changed my life. I can do activities in the evening and good light for security
Kitutu Visit date 17 July Project UNDP GPS reference S08 35.413 E125 36.485 Altitude 560m Participants 4 women, 19 men Duration 2.5 hours
Participants represented 23 households from a total of 130 households in the aldeia. Nine participants lived in houses with SHS, 14 without SHS. A tenth system had been installed in the CdA’s house but the Chefe was in Dili and did not send anyone to attend the meeting in his place. In addition to the four women and nineteen men, approximately 15 children/youth also participated. Consultation session lasted approximately 2.5 hours.
286 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
Ten households have SHS in this village. Village is quite close to the periphery of Dili, within five km of the centre of Dili, approximately 30 minutes walk downhill to the eastern most suburb of Becora and one hour return. As with Burlete, to reach Kitutu by road requires driving to Aileu district first then turning back towards Dili on a gravel road. Households in Kitutu derive income from market gardening activities and selling produce in Dili. This requires people to rise early to cut and process the vegetables for early morning delivery to markets in Dili. The proximity to Dili means all householders would have been quite familiar with the use of grid-based electricity in urban settings. In this context, it is plausible that SHS service would have been compared to that provide by grid-based electricity. Initially at the meeting in Kitutu, only men were represented. Women were encouraged to attend and arrived after the process had started.
Types of lighting Participants were asked to ‘brainstorm’ a list of the different types of lighting used in their village. Volunteers then drew simple sketches of each type of lighting. These were placed down the length of a flipchart page. Participants were divided into two groups (A and B) and asked to consider how many of each type of light was used in the village last night. Each group discussed the share of lighting provided by each lighting type and then created a representation of their understanding by placing 40 corn kernels alongside the different pictures. The two groups then discussed their thinking with each other.
% of aldeia % of aldeia Lighting type lighting (A) lighting (B) candle (lilin) 10% 38% bamboo torch (fafulun) 10% 0% simple wick lamp (lampu tursida) 10% 35% pressurised kerosene lamp (petromax) 5% 5% torch (lampa pilha) 8% 5% fire/fireplace (ahi matan) 15% 15% SHS 43% 3%
The two groups were asked to present their ideas to each other and consider which representation was more accurate. Following discussion, it was agreed that Group B
287 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
proportions better represented the village lighting use (clearly, less than 10% of the households have a SHS). As with Burlete, candles were the predominant lighting type used.
Good and bad points about SHS Participants were asked to ‘brainstorm’ good and bad attributes for SHS lighting.
Good points Bad points don’t need to spend money (not yet paying if it rains or is cloudy, lights don’t last for long monthly fee) lamps can break easy to use system too small (want a bigger system) provides good light use for meals at night use for meeting studying care for children can use it at any time—always ready to use
Participants may have been influenced on sizing by the proximity of the grid in nearby Dili. Clearly, their SHS provide only a fraction of the electricity which most homes receive for free in Dili, the rate fee collection in Dili being very low.
Feelings about SHS Participants were then asked to add to their list of good/bad points about SHS by thinking further about how they felt about their systems.
Good points—sentiments Bad points—sentiments happy and satisfied with the systems fear that they won’t be able to find spare parts if some households not yet receive SHS but also the systems break down. want to receive them
Perceptions of convenience were raised in this discussion, participants noting the SHS was easy to use and were always ready for use (i.e. could be used as any time).
288 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
Uses for SHS lighting Participants were divided into two groups and asked to ‘brainstorm’ a list of activities for which they use lighting. The two lists were combined. Participants were then given three markers each (too few women to mark separately). All participants, remaining in their two groups, were then asked to place their markers beside the activities for which they thought SHS were most useful. There was no restriction upon how the markers were placed. Participants could choose to place their markers against either one, two or three different activities.
Priority for Priority for SHS Total Activity SHS - A – B A and B studying 25% 24% 25% looking after children 0% 10% 4% cooking 11% 5% 9% talking 25% 29% 26% evening meal 14% 5% 11% preparing evening meal 6% 0% 4% meetings 3% 0% 2% family ceremonies 6% 0% 4% handicrafts (cane work) 0% 5% 2% vegetable preparation (business) 8% 19% 12% sewing 3% 5% 4%
Participants did not list handicrafts or sewing without prompting. These were added in response to suggestion by Vincente. This was possibly due to the small number of women present and a lack of confidence to present their ideas to the large group. Vegetable preparation (for sale in Dili) was added during the voting stage. Reading for leisure was not listed at all. Since the list of activities was prepared in written form, limited literacy is likely to have influenced the results of this exercise. Participants who could not read either had to remember what they wanted to vote for and then ask for assistance to locate the applicable box, or had to ask for someone to read the list for them.
289 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
Other forms of electricity in the village Participants were asked about other forms of electricity used in the village and identified the following: petrol engine generator set – one in the village, private owner, rents it out for functions; used for music, lighting and TV/DVD SHS Indonesian – 3 reported; 2 working, 1 not working; provides radio as well as lighting
When asked who listens to radios, the group reported that all households use battery powered radios. Batteries were reported to cost 50¢ each. No one in the village used car or motorcycle batteries to provide electricity.
Priorities for use of $300 Participants were asked to identify how they would use $300 if they found that amount unexpectedly tomorrow (or if someone gave it to them unexpectedly). This concept was discussed in three groups—two groups of men and one of women. Suggestions from each group were combined into a single list. Participants then ‘voted’ on what they would choose to do, again using three corn kernels to indicate their preferences.
Average Activity Men - A Men - B Women men/women buy generator 0% 22% 33% 22% open carpentry workshop 0% 0% 0% 0% SHS 12% 0% 0% 3% pay for children’s schooling 24% 43% 40% 37% buy children’s school materials 24% 0% 0% 6% open kiosk/small business 24% 0% 0% 6% build/improve house 18% 35% 27% 26%
It is possible that ‘buy a generator’ is slightly over-represented because it is the first one on the list, particularly for women. Women didn’t suggest this item in their own group, focusing more on housing. If the two ‘school’ items are added they amount to almost half of the group’s vote.
290 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
Other comments noted during the session at Kitutu. I am happy with the SHS but we fear that one day we cannot find the spare parts because we don’t know where to find a shop to sell the spare parts bamboo torches – there are two types; one uses kerosene poured into an old cloth and inserted into the bamboo; other one is just straight bamboo
Sobrekeke Visit date 18 July Project CER GPS reference S08 40.456 E125 27.940 Altitude 940 m Participants 3 women, 16 men Duration 2 hours
Selection of participants from the aldeia; 19 people, 3 women, 16 men. Approximately 2 hours duration. Held in the evening by the light of a Solco 5 W lamp and a Glowstar lantern. All households in this aldeia have at least one SHS provided by CER. Some households have two or three systems, including combinations of SHS systems and lanterns. Group included CdA and were assembled by Gil (technician for CER). Bill Tynan (CER) purposefully absent so as not to influence opinions of the participants. This is a coffee growing region and coffee harvest was in progress at time of consultation (hence appropriateness of holding the consultation in the evening).
Types of lighting used tonight: Participants were asked to ‘brainstorm’ a list of the different types of lighting used in their village. Volunteers then drew simple sketches of each type of lighting. These were placed down the length of a flipchart page. Participants were asked to consider how many of each type of light was used in the village last night. The group discussed the share of lighting provided by each lighting type and then created a representation of their understanding by placing 40 corn kernels alongside the different pictures.
291 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
% of aldeia Type lighting simple wick lamp (lampu tursida) 15% candle (lilin) 10% pressurised kerosene lamp (petromax) 0% bamboo torch (fafulun) 0% kamin 0% SHS 30% torch (lampa pilha) 15% fire/fireplace (ahi matan) 31%
The community noted that bamboo torches (fufulan) are only used in the fields; and that candlenut lamps (kamin) were used in the past but are not used now [presumably because people have solar home systems].
Good and bad points of each lighting type. Participants were asked to ‘brainstorm’ good and bad attributes for each type of lighting. Type Good points Bad points Candle gives light burns/used quickly doesn’t use kerosene dangerous – can cause fire no smoke released hard to carry cheap spend lots of money on them easy to find, buy strong wind will blow them out does not flare up only light up one room Simple wick lamp last a long time (lakan kleur) very smoky gives strong light bad for health easy to move around can cause fire easy to make yourself must buy kerosene; expensive and doesn’t use too much kerosene not sold in the village (need to go to Dili or Railaco) Torch portable, can walk with uses batteries and these go flat easy to carry need to change batteries every week wind doesn’t blow out batteries are expensive (50c-$1 ea) provides security when away from can’t use for dinner – not useful for the house area lighting can take far away find batteries at kiosks
292 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
(continued) Type Good points Bad points Fireplace use for cooking anyway very smoky use to keep warm uses lots of wood easy to use bad for health does not cost any money can cause fire hard work, requires someone to look after it all the time SHS strong light (6) does not work without sun no running costs (3) goes flat if they forget to no problems with wind recharge (lanterns) no smoke (3) can’t use it for the full night good for study at night (3) because battery goes flat easy to use when cloudy doesn’t provide economical to operate, run it much light themselves (6) fails when damaged by doesn’t require kerosene (3) rodents (e.g. mice eat wires) hard to find spare parts
Advantages of SHS lighting. Participants were formed into four groups and asked to consider the most important advantages of SHS. Each group was then asked to select the two most important advantages – eight preferences noted.
Advantage Votes % strong light 2 25% no running costs 1 13% no problems with wind 0% no smoke 1 13% good for study at night 1 13% easy to use 0% economical to operate, run it themselves 2 25% doesn’t require kerosene 1 13%
293 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
Prepared list of activities for which SHS are used. Each person voted on the activity they thought was of most benefit as a result of the SHS (first preference – black ‘x’, second preference – red ‘x’) Note that financial benefits (no running costs, economical to operate and doesn’t require kerosene) rated 50% of the votes on the most important advantages.
Uses for SHS lighting Participants identified a list of activities for which they use lighting. They were then asked to note their first and second priorities for the most important uses of SHS. These were marked on a flipchart.
total % Activity 1st priority 2nd priority (1st + 2nd) cooking 1 3 11% evening meal 3 9 34% study 9 26% sewing 1 3% family ceremony 0% looking after children 0% meetings 3 2 14% handicraft (cane work) 1 3% carpentry 1 3% coffee processing 2 6% playing cards 0%
This session was held at night and it was agreed between the participants and the facilitators that whilst there were many more issues to discuss the session should draw to a close at 9.30 p.m.
Sobrekeke, night visit to SHS user household, 19 July. photos of various activities at night in beneficiary’s house. household had 2 x Solco systems; measured light at reading surface (child reading school note book) – 3 lux; light at food preparation surface – 6 lux; light at surface of carpentry work (adult planing wood on his veranda) – 6 lux;
294 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
children all study; only study at night because they have chores to do in day light hours; study for approximately 1 hour per day. Costa noted that when he was a high school student, he would study in the evening by the light cast from a burning strip of car tyre; while very smoky and foul smelling, this was the cheapest form of lighting available and all that he could afford.
Eraulo Visit date 19 July Project CER GPS reference S08 39.921 E125 30.723 Altitude 1320 m Participants 7 women, 26 men Duration 3 hours
Participants: 7 women, 26 men, (n.b. 2 women left early to attend sewing class); included representatives from the adjacent aldeia of Ai Urlalan, including the Chefe Aldeia. This is a coffee growing area. Many of the participants took a break from coffee harvesting to be involved in the discussion. Whole families participate in coffee harvesting, with children as young as 4-5 years old being given the task of waiting by the roadside with sacks of beans to be sold to trucking firms who collect the coffee and transport it to Dili. Eraulo is quite a small aldeia. The recently elected Chefe lives some distance from the aldeia. The village has a functioning, piped water supply system which was provided with international assistance by Red Cross in 1994. This is of note, since many systems from that era no longer function. Road access to Eraulo is very poor, becoming impassable for much of the wet season. There is no high school in the surrounding villages. Students must walk one to two hours each way to Seloi or Railaco Villa to attend junior secondary school. Students are required to board in either Gleno (principal town of Ermera district) or Dili to attend senior secondary school.
295 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
Good and bad points about SHS Participants were asked to ‘brainstorm’ the main advantages for use of SHS. They were then divided into four groups, one of which was comprised of women only, and asked to select the two most significant advantages of their SHS.
Good points A (women) B C D % of Tot * gives good light 3 3 25% good quality lamps 0% no need to pay daily running costs 2 2 17% easy to use 3 13% carry around (lantern) 0% no smoke 0% good for health 2 8% whole house lighting 2 2 17% in the dry season gives good light 2 8% no concerns about wind 3 13%
Percentages allocated to the combined scores are based on first preferences being allocated three points and second preferences being allocated two points. This arbitrary weighting provides an approximation of the group preferences. Two of the small groups did not function effectively and were unable to identify more than two preferences, nor engage in discussion. It is possible that these groups involved a mix of people from the two different aldeia which may have inhibited discussion.
SHS Bad points Working in four small groups, participants identified the major weaknesses for their SHS. The following aspects were noted: battery is always going flat we can’t fix systems ourselves, no skills (because we didn’t get any training on how to maintain the SHS) we can’t use different lamps in the SHS fittings – need special replacement parts can’t use systems for the whole night in the wet season the light is not good no technicians are available
296 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
Additional comments noted by participants during discussion included: SHS capacity is not big enough to allow us to use the systems for long periods, especially for children studying late at night if the capacity was bigger we could use the systems for power—e.g. to run a TV or fridge some households experienced problems with their SHS after just one year. They noted that quality should be good enough that they last at least 5-10 years before requiring repair, or even operate permanently without maintenance village youth need training because someday CER will finish working in the area and we will need our own technicians
Uses for SHS lighting Participants remained in their four groups and were asked to ‘brainstorm’ a list of activities for which they use lighting. The ideas from each group were combined into a single list. Each group was then asked to identify their priority uses for SHS. Groups nominated three preferences each. One the basis of allocating three points for highest priority, two points for second priority and one point for third priority, percentage scores for overall priority were determined.
Activities A (women) B C D % of Tot cook 1 4% study 3 3 3 35% evening meal 2 2 15% gives light 0% meeting* 3 12% sewing 2 1 8% ironing 0% walking at night (or ceremonies in the 0% aldeia at night like funerals - lanterns) cane basket work 0% preparing betel nut for sale 2 8% carpentry 1 15% making sweets for sale 1 4% *(e.g. talking about Timorese culture, planning ceremonies; resolving problems in the aldeia)
297 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
Asking participants to vote individually following group discussion appeared to provide a better response than asking groups to nominate preferences, as was trialled here in Eraulo. The group approach, however, required significantly less time to carry out.
Priorities for use of $300 Participants were asked to identify how they would use $300 if they found that amount unexpectedly tomorrow (or if someone gave it to them unexpectedly). This concept was discussed in four groups—three groups of men and one of women. Suggestions from each group were combined into a single list. Participants then ‘voted’ on what their household would choose to do, using corn kernels (men) or coffee beans (women) to indicate their preferences.
Average Activity Men Women men/women food 6% 0% 3% generator 8% 33% 21% schooling 17% 0% 8% roofing/housing 41% 0% 21% sewing machine 1% 33% 17% carpentry shop 1% 0% 1% things for the house 17% 0% 8% kiosk 9% 0% 4% computer 0% 0% 0% TV 0% 33% 17% piped water 0% 0% 0%
298 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
Kaitaraihei Visit date 20 July Project no SHS provided to this community GPS reference S08 41.988, E125 26.899 Altitude 940 m Participants 9 women, 13 men Duration 3 hours
The consultation was carried out at the house of the Chefe de Aldeia. Kaitaraihei is in the suco of Fatuquero and adjoins the suco of Railako Kraik where all houses in all aldeia have received SHS from CER. The community leaders from Kaitaraihei have approached CER for assistance with SHS. To date, CER has declined to assist aldeia such as Kaitaraihei which lie outside the five sucos where CER works. CER staff also note that Kaitaraihei is situated within five kilometres of Gleno, the principal town in the district of Emera which has electricity each evening distributed through a local grid. According to the criteria set out in the government’s Rural Electrification Master Plan, Kaitaraihei could expect to be among the first 10 to 20% of aldeias electrified as rural services are expanded. Participants included the Chefe de Aldeia. Participation was enthusiastic despite the absence of past support for provision of SHS by CER and the knowledge that the research would provide no direct benefits to the community. Kaitaraihei sits on the edge of the coffee growing region of Ermera. Paved road extends year round access to Dili and Gleno. The village has a primary school and good access to nearby secondary schools.
Types of lighting used in the village Participants were asked to ‘brainstorm’ a list of the different types of lighting used in their village last night. Volunteers then drew simple sketches of each type of lighting. These were placed down the length of a flipchart page. Participants were divided into two groups and asked to consider how many of each type of light was used in the village last night. Each group discussed the share of lighting provided by each lighting type and then created a representation of their understanding by placing 30 corn kernels alongside the different pictures. The two groups then discussed their thinking with each other and reached a consensus representation.
299 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
% of aldeia % of aldeia consensus Type lighting (A) lighting (B) kerosene lamp 20% 0% 50% bamboo torch 20% 37% 0% candle 0% 0% 50% fireplace 20% 27% 0% burning wood 0% 0% 0% candle nut 20% 0% 0% traditional candle 20% 37% 0% petromax 0% 0% 0% torch 0% 0% 0%
Identification of the traditional candle (made from locally harvested beeswax1), the Petromax lantern and the torch, all followed prompting from the facilitator. Following the discussion, it appeared that there was some confusion amongst the participants as to the distinction between the traditional candle and those purchased from shops. The lighting types that first occurred to the participants during the brainstorming exercise were those that are actually used. Whilst not noted by the participants in their discussions, light from the fireplace would also be relevant to all households.
SHS—potential benefits and uses Participants were asked to think about the benefits they thought SHS would have over the forms of lighting currently used in the aldeia. The discussion quickly moved to a listing of the types of activities that would benefit from use of SHS lighting and the list developed included both activities and attributes. Participants were divided into three groups and asked to select the most important potential benefits/activities associated with SHS lighting.
1 Honeycomb is collected in the wild by Kaitaraihei villagers during February and March. The honey is sold and the wax saved for times when households have insufficient money to buy commercial candles.
300 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
Activity/Attribute Men (A) Women Men (B) good light * * * study 1st 1st cooking basket weaving looking after children 2nd 2nd washing dishes carpentry adat ceremony working at night (e.g. build house) processing coffee children playing sewing easy to use economical to operate last for a long time no daily operating costs 1st 2nd
*Participants anticipated that ‘good light’ would be the prime benefit of SHS lighting. The other selections noted above were seen as secondary to that key benefit.
Potential disadvantages identified were: can’t fix them for ourselves spare parts hard to source because they aren’t sold locally in cloudy/wet weather, lighting doesn’t last long
It is likely that these perceptions, both good and bad, are substantially influenced by the experience of neighbouring households in Railaco Kraik which use the CER SHS. Discussion covered the importance of introducing SHS technology with adequate training and formation of a structure/group to manage maintenance of the systems.
The Chefe Aldeia expressed a preference for a system with three lamps (such as that provided by UNDP).
301 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
Priorities for use of $300 Participants were asked to identify how they would use $300 if they found that amount unexpectedly tomorrow (or if someone gave it to them unexpectedly). This concept was discussed in three groups—two groups of men and one of women. Suggestions from each group were combined into a single list. Participants then ‘voted’ on what they would choose to do, using three corn kernels to indicate their preferences.
Average Activity Men Women men/women schooling 23% 22% 23% kiosk 12% 17% 14% housing 30% 17% 23% things for house 9% 6% 7% buy food 12% 11% 11% generator 12% 6% 9% sewing machine 2% 22% 12% hand cart for water transport 0% 0% 0%
The absence of SHS from this list was discussed with the participants. They responded by reiterating their preference for schooling and housing, which they indicated were very important and hence high priority. One participant noted ‘we want to vote for schooling because we want our children to go to university. UNTL [the free, government university] is good but if our children need to go to a private university that is expensive’. Another participant noted that ‘we vote for schooling and housing because they are very important. However the others are also important. In our experience we need SHS but we didn’t include because we don’t have experience with it’. The general perception of the group was that SHS are important but they don’t have the money to buy them. If an NGO or government provided SHS to the community they would use them. If, however, they received a large sum of money unexpectedly, they would do something else with those funds—‘something necessary for our life’ as one participant put it. [The general perception of the two facilitators, Costa and Vincente, was that SHS are a relatively low priority for this community.]
302 Appendix B—Initial Community Consultations results
Willingness to pay for a SHS Participants were asked to imagine the purchase of a SHS home system for their household and to consider how much they would be willing to pay for such a system. Participants marked their willingness-to-pay in one of five boxes using corn kernels.
Amount No. % $ 10 3 15% $ 20 11 55% $ 50 1 5% $ 100 2 10% $ 200 3 15%
The four women present all selected the $10 and $20 categories. In discussion of the results, some participants noted that they if they received help from the government or a project that an investment of $100-$200 would be worthwhile for a SHS but that if they had to spend their own funds, then only $10-$20 would be appropriate. People who expressed high willingness to pay, said they did so because their preference would be to buy a system of the highest quality which would be reliable and have a long life. They did not want cheaper systems—even if they were provided at low cost by an NGO—if they were not good quality. Some participants commented on their understanding of the CER systems and noted that: they are not reliable; that households pay $10 for the fixed, Solco systems and $20 for the Glowstar lanterns but that the Glowstar lanterns are not good value for money.
Other comments: people in the village rise at about 5.00 a.m. to begin work for the day. This time varies according to the season, with people rising earlier when heat during the day makes work difficult. People have a variety of means for determining the time to start work. Some use a clock, others the stars, other roosters. Children go to bed usually between 7-9 p.m. They rise about 6.00-6.30 after the adults have already started the day’s activities.
303
Appendix C
Participatory evaluation processes
304 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Appendix contents
Introductions at each village ...... 306 Evaluation of activities using lighting ...... 307 Domestic tasks (housekeeping) ...... 307 Productive tasks (making things) ...... 309 Social interaction (meeting together) ...... 310 Studying ...... 312 Ranking Activities ...... 313 Evaluation of attributes of lighting ...... 314 Ranking ...... 314 Lighting—what would you change ...... 318 SHS comparative value ...... 319
305 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Participatory Evaluation processes
The following material sets out the process by which the Participatory Evaluation was conducted, including pictures and scoring charts used.
Introductions at each village
Matt Hello. My name is Matthew Bond. Thank you very much for your time today. I am happy to be visiting (or have returned to) your village. I am a student from the University of Melbourne in Australia and I am doing a study of solar home systems in Timor-Leste. I am sorry that my Tetun is not very good and that I cannot explain the study very well in Tetun. I have two Timorese colleagues assisting me—maun Costa and Vincente—and they will explain the research to you. I would like to say one more thing. Because I am a student, I have come to your village to learn. You have a great deal of experience and knowledge about using your SHS and I would like to learn from you. Thank you.
Costa Thanks. Introduce Costa and Vincente Introduce Matt Ethics protocol—talk through protocol for participatory evaluation focus groups. Evaluation process summary Want to learn about what changes your SHS has made to what you do at home in the evenings; what activities you do differently and what you think are the important good things or bad things about your SHS. Going to work through eight exercises in small groups; it will take about two to three hours. The first five exercises are about uses for SHS lighting and the last three are about the advantages of your SHS. We developed exercises after talking to five communities last month. There are no right or wrong answers to any of the exercises. Each group will think differently. We want to learn about your experiences, to learn all the different ideas and to discuss your experiences with you.
306 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Sometimes women and men have different ideas and think that different things are important. It is very important for us that both women and men are fully involved in the exercises. We will have separate groups of men and women.
Divide into groups. Separate groups of women and men; each group 4 to 5 participants. Aim to have four groups of five persons each. Costa to run a game ‘hadomi ida’ as both an icebreaker and to divide participants into small groups. Each group picks an animal (or a fruit) for their group’s name and practices making their animal’s noise.
Evaluation of activities using lighting
Domestic tasks (housekeeping)
Explain When we met with communities last month, they thought of a big list of all the different types of activities they do at night time using SHS lighting—e.g. studying, cooking, cane work, meetings. We put these activities into four groups: housekeeping, making things, meeting together, studying. We are going to look at each of these types of activities, starting with housekeeping. Housekeeping includes activities like—cooking, preparing the evening meal, looking after children, cleaning up, washing children or dishes. Action Hand out the housekeeping photos; one to each group (Figure 1). Get groups to think of a word/phrase in their local dialect to translate ‘housekeeping’. Ask groups to think of any additional ‘housekeeping’ activities they do using their SHS lighting. Explain What we want to do now is think about life before and after you received your SHS. Have there been any changes in the way you do housekeeping? Has having SHS lighting made it easier or harder to do your housekeeping? We are going to ask each group to discuss this and then use corn kernels as markers to indicate how things have changed in their homes. You will place your markers on two pictures—one to show how much easier it is doing housekeeping now than before you had your SHS; and one to show how much time you spend on housekeeping now compared to before you had your SHS.
307 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Action Hand out ‘ease’ scoring template (Figure 14) Each group places their photo and ‘ease’ scale on a piece of flip chart Each group is given a corn cob and breaks off two groups of 20 corn kernels Explain Now we would like each group to talk about how housekeeping has changed. Start with the ease of housekeeping—is housekeeping at night time harder, easier or the same now? Place 10 corn markers on the first scale picture to represent what your group thinks. If people have different experiences, then spread the markers out along the scale to show this. The scale goes from harder, same, a little easier, easier, much easier If there is no change, place markers near the zero point. If it is harder, place it before the zero point. Action All groups place their ten markers on the first scale Groups ask questions if they are confused Review each group and discuss what they are indicating Allow groups change their markers if they have misunderstood the process Hand out the duration scale to all groups (Figure 15) Explain Now we are to going to use the second scale to indicate how much more housekeeping you do with your SHS. Has the time you spend on housekeeping at night changed? Do you spend more, less or the same time. Just like we did with ‘ease’ we’re going to mark your experience about duration of housekeeping on the second scale. The scale goes from less, no change, a little more, more, much more If there is no change, place markers near the zero point. If you do less housekeeping at night, place markers before the zero point Don’t move the corn kernels on the ease scale—we need to take photos of the results for each group after you’ve finished working on both scales. Action Groups place markers on the second scale Discussion Compare the results. Discuss any significant differences. Ask for an explanation from any group that has noted a big change in the amount of housekeeping. Ask for an explanation from any group that says housekeeping is harder. [jot down explanations] [take photos of flip chart for each group]
308 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Figure 1 Domestic tasks—graphic used to introduce ‘housekeeping’
Productive tasks (making things)
Explain We are now going to look at ‘making things’. Making things includes activities like— handicraft, weaving, carpentry, betel nut, sewing, coffee processing, preparing things for sale Action Hand out the ‘making things’ photos (Figure 2); one to each group Place on top of the first photo, clear away the corn markers Get groups to think of a word/phrase in their local dialect to translate ‘making things’ Ask groups to think of any additional ‘making things’ activities they do using their SHS lighting. Explain Think again about life before and after you received your SHS. Have there been any changes in the types of activities you do or the time you spend making things; has having SHS lighting made it easier or harder to do these activities? We are going to repeat the first exercise by placing your markers on the two scales: first to show how much easier SHS lighting has made these activities second to show any change in the amount of time you spend making things
309 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Action All groups place ten markers on each of the two scales Working first on ‘ease’ and then moving to ‘duration’ once they are satisfied Discussion Compare the results. Discuss any significant differences. Ask for an explanation from any group that has noted a reduction in time spent making things. Ask for an explanation from any group that says making things is harder. [jot down these explanations; take photos to record results for all groups]
Social interaction (meeting together)
Explain We are now going to look at ‘meeting together’. Meeting together includes activities like—eating the evening meal, meetings, talking with family or friends, music practice, playing cards Action Hand out the ‘meeting together’ photos (Figure 3); one to each group Place on top of the second photo, clear away the corn markers Get groups to think of a word/phrase in their local dialect to translate ‘meeting together’ Ask groups to think of any additional ‘meeting together’ activities they do using their SHS lighting. Explain We would like to know if there have been any changes in the way you do these activities; has having SHS lighting made it easier or harder to do these activities? We are going to repeat the first two exercises by placing your markers on the two scales: first to show how much easier SHS lighting has made these activities second to show any change in the amount of time you spend meeting together Action All groups place ten markers on each of the two scales Discussion Compare the results. Discuss any significant differences. Ask for an explanation from any group that has noted a reduction in time spent meeting together. Ask for an explanation from any group that says meeting together is harder. [jot down these explanations; take photos to record results for all groups]
310 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Figure 2 Productive tasks—graphic used to introduce ‘making things’
Figure 3 Social interaction—graphic used to introduce ‘meeting together’
311 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Studying Explain We are now going to look at ‘studying’. Studying includes activities like—reading or writing for school, reading books, magazines or comics Action Hand out the ‘studying’ photo (Figure 4); one to each group Place on top of the third photo, clear away the corn markers Get groups to think of a word/phrase in their local dialect to translate ‘studying’ Ask groups to think of any additional ‘studying’ activities they do using their SHS lighting. Explain We would like to know if there have been any changes in the way people in your house study; has having SHS lighting made it easier or harder to study and read? We are going to ask you to placing your markers on the two scales: first to show how much easier SHS lighting has made studying second to show any change in the amount of time people in your house spend studying Action All groups place ten markers on each of the two scales Discussion Compare the results. Discuss any significant differences. Ask for an explanation from any group that has noted a reduction in time spent studying. Ask for an explanation from any group that says studying is harder. Ask groups that show big changes in time to quantify this change; e.g. ‘from 15 minutes per day to 1 hour per day’. [jot down these explanations; take photos to record results for all groups]
Figure 4 Reading/study—graphic used to introduce ‘reading or study’
312 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Ranking Activities
Explain We know that all these four types of activities are important from talking to communities last month. But we need to know how important they are compared to each other. We would like you to think about these four types of activities and decide which ones are the most important when you are using your SHS. Think of the question – “The most important reason I like my SHS is because it helps with...... ” or “my SHS is important in my house because it helps with...... ” What is the most important type of activity—housekeeping, making things, meeting together, or studying when you are using your SHS? Action All groups start by placing the four activity pictures in a circle on the flip chart. After discussion, each group takes the picture representing the most important activity the four activities and places it near the top of their flip chart. Explain Now each group has decided on the most important activity, we need to think about the second-most important activity? What is the next most important? After that we can think about the third and fourth activities Action Ask each group to pick out their second-most important activities and place the picture below the first choice. Repeat for third and fourth so that photos are placed with the most important at the top, least important at the bottom. Clarify any confusion in the groups Check that each group is happy with their ranking order Explain Now we know the order of importance We also need to compare how important they are compared to each other. To do this, we would like you to vote using three corn kernels each. You can vote for whatever activities you think are most important. You can put all your votes against one activities or on just two activities or spread them out across three activities. Each group member has three votes and each person can choose what they think Action Each group member distributes their 3 corn kernels against the pictures to indicate importance of each task Discussion Compare the distributions for each group Ask for comments about anything that is unusual or different Each group to consider whether the ranking matches the weighting and, if not, whether they want to change either ranking or weighting [jot down comments on A4 paper] [take photos of each flip chart]
313 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Evaluation of attributes of lighting Ranking
Explain When we talked to communities last month, we also asked them what the good things and bad things were about SHS. They came up with a list of different advantages like; good light, easy to use and no daily operating costs. Now we want to think about the good things about SHS and compare them with each other. Discussion Ask participants brainstorm what they think are the most important advantages of SHS Explain Just like we had four types of activities; we have four types of good things about SHS— good light, low operating costs, better health, and convenience. Lets talk about each of these. Action Hand out light picture (Figure 5) Explain Quality of light—last month people talked about SHS giving strong lighting, that made it easy to see, that could light up the whole house, and that lasted for a long time. Here we are thinking about all the things relating to the light from the SHS. This picture represents light from your SHS, even if your lamps look a bit different to the one in the picture Action Hand out money picture (Figure 6) Explain Financial benefits—people said that they were happy with SHS because they did not have to spend money on kerosene or candles to get light; and that their SHS were cheap to operate. This picture represents the financial benefits of SHS Action Hand out health picture (Figure 7) Explain Health benefits—people said that SHS were good because they did not produce smoke or cause fire; and that people using them were healthier because they did not breathe in smoke like they do with other types of lights The last type of advantage is ‘convenience’—people said that SHS were good because they were easy to use, they were always ready to turn on, they didn’t blow out in strong wind.
314 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Action Discuss concept of ‘convenience’; Identify words in the local dialect for ‘convenience’ Hand out picture used to represent convenience (Figure 8) Explain Now we want to put these advantages in order, just like we did for the four activity types. Think of the questions—“The most important reason I like my SHS is because ...... ” or “my SHS is important in my house because...... ” What is the most important benefit—good light, financial, health, or convenience? What is the next most important Action Each group lines up the four benefits down the length of their flip chart, one attribute at a time. Place the most important at the top, least important at the bottom. Clarify any confusion in the groups Check that each group is happy with their ranking order Explain Now we know the order of importance We also need to compare how important they are compared to each other. To do this, we would like you to vote using three corn kernels each. You can vote for whatever activities you think are most important. You can put all your votes against one activities or on just two activities or spread them out across three activities. Each group member has three votes and each person can choose what they think Action Each group member distributes their 3 corn kernels against the pictures to indicate importance of each task Discussion Compare the distributions for each group Ask for comments about anything that is unusual or different Each group to consider whether the ranking matches the weighting and, if not, whether they want to change either ranking or weighting [jot down comments on A4 paper] [take photos of each flip chart]
315 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Figure 5 Lighting—graphic used to introduce light quality attribute
Figure 6 Lighting—graphic used to introduce light quality attribute
316 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Figure 7 Health—graphic used to introduce health attribute
Figure 8 Convenience—graphic used to introduce convenience attribute
317 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Lighting—what would you change
Explain We are now going to look at lighting in detail. We want to know what you think about the number of lights you have; and about how long they last each night. SHS can come in many different sizes; with big and small panels and batteries that can run one or many lights. Bigger systems, with more lights and that last for a long time each night, cost more money than smaller systems. Also, when big systems break down, they cost more to repair than small systems. At the moment no one here has to pay for their system each month *in Cairui, ‘People here pay $1 per month if they have 4 lights or $2 per month if they have six lamps]. If the government expands the SHS program into other districts, people will probably have to pay a monthly fee for their system. A system like yours would probably cost $...per month [CER $1, UNDP $4, RDTL $8] Let’s think first about the number of lamps your system has. Imagine that the project (UNDP/CER/RDTL) came back next week and offered you extra lamps for your system. Each extra lamp would cost $1 per month You can have up to 8 lamps. How many extra lamps would you ask for? Talk about this in your group and then use the corn kernels to represent what the people in the group think. Action Hand out first scales picture (Figure 16) Each group places light picture on flip chart page with scale Each group marks how many more lamps they would you like your system to have using 1 corn kernel per group member Explain Now think about how long your system lasts for each night. Imagine that the project came back and could change your system to last for longer. Each extra hour per night would cost you $0.50 How much would you pay to have your system give light for a longer time each night Action Hand out lighting duration scale template (Figure 17) Each group places the second scale on their flip chart Each group marks how much longer they would like their system to run using 1 corn kernel per group member Discussion Compare the results. Discuss any significant differences. Ask participants where they would locate extra lamps Ask for explanation from groups asking for a large number of extra lamps or time. [jot down these explanations on the flip chart; photograph each group’s result+
318 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
SHS comparative value
Explain For our last exercise we want to understand how much you value your SHS compared to other items that you might use here in your community. Normally, the cost of an item indicates its value to a household. All the SHS provided in Timor-Leste up to now have been paid for by projects of the government so we can’t use the price to measure value to the users. We’re going to hand out a photo of a SHS. Don’t worry if this doesn’t look exactly like your SHS. The picture is just to represent your SHS in our exercise. After that we’re going to hand out four photos, one at a time. We want you to imagine that a friend from another village comes to visit you. They don’t have a SHS and they want to do a trade with you. They want you to swap your SHS for the item in the photo. Each person needs to decide whether or not they would keep their SHS or they would trade it for the item in the photo. Don’t worry about the cost of each item – just think about how important or valuable it would be to your family. Action Hand out photos of SHS (Figure 9) to each group. Each group places face up on the flip chart. Hand out photos of sewing machines (Figure 10) taking care to conceal the image from each group until the moment they receive the photo. Each group discusses the potential trade and leaves face up the item they want to keep. If group is divided, use corn kernels on each image to indicate the number of people in the group with a preference for which item. Hand out photos of cow (Figure 11). Repeat process for indicating preference. Hand out photos of generator (Figure 12). Repeat process for indicating preference. Hand out photos of motorcycle (Figure 13). Repeat process for indicating preference. Discussion Compare the results. Discuss any significant differences. Ask for an explanation from each group for their decision for those wishing to trade away their SHS. [jot down these explanations on the flip chart; photograph results]
319 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Figure 9 Comparative value—SHS
Figure 10 Comparative value—graphic used to represent SHS
320 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Figure 11 Comparative value—cow
Figure 12 Comparative value—generator
321 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation processes
Figure 13 Comparative value—motorcycle
322 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation materials
– 0 + +++ +++++
Figure 14 Activities—scoring template for ‘ease’
– 0 + +++ +++++
Figure 15 Activities—scoring template for ‘duration’
323 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation materials
0
$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8
Figure 16 Attributes—lighting sufficiency, number of lamps
324 Appendix C—Participatory evaluation materials
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
$0 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00
Figure 17 Attributes—lighting sufficiency, duration of nightly operation
325
Appendix D
Socio-economic household survey questionnaire
326 Socioeconomic Household Survey Questionnaire: English
0 General information Aldeia 0A0 Interview number 0A1 0A Interviewer 0A2 Date 0A3
1 Aldeia demographic information (complete for each community, each not household) P No. Questions Response type Response R No. Postu 1A1 Name of sub-district, suco (village) 1A Suco 1A2 and aldeia (hamlet) Aldeia 1A3 1B Aldeia (hamlet) leader Naran 1B1 GPS reference 1C Nearest school – primary South 1C1 East 1C2 GPS reference Nearest school – junior secondary South 1D1 East 1D2 1D GPS reference Nearest school – senior secondary South 1D3 East 1D4 GPS reference 1E Nearest health clinic South 1E1 East 1E2 GPS reference 1F Nearest paved road South 1F1 East 1F2 number of women 1G1 1G Population; women, men, households number of men 1G2 no. of households 1G3 type 1H1 GPS reference 1H2 1H Water supply; type and location South 1H2 East 1H3 GPS reference 1I Nearest shop; candles and batteries South 1I1 East 1I2 GPS reference 1J Nearest shop; kerosene South 1J1 East 1J2 Price of small candles (each) $ 1K1 Candle size (volume) mm3 1K2 1K Price of small candles (each) $ 1K3 Candle size (volume) mm3 1K4
327 Appendix D—Survey questionnaire
1L Kerosene price (nearest shop) $/litre 1L1 1M Price AA battery (nearest shop) $ 1M1 1Q Month of survey 1Q1
2 Project SHS parameters P No. Questions Response type Response R No. 2A Project name name 2A1
2B Panel output Wp 2B1 W 2C1.1-3 2C System details lumen 2C2.1-3 number 2C3.1-3 V 2D1 2D Battery voltage and capacity Ah 2D2 2E Date installation commenced month/year 2E1 2F Date installation completed month/year 2F1 2G Design capacity Wh/day Wh/day 2G1 2H Battery design life year 2H1 2I Cost to project $ 2I1
3 Household information P No. Questions Response Typu Response R No. GPS reference 3A Location South 3A1 East 3A2 Permanent inhabitants living in the 3B Numiru 3B1 household (including children) 3C Female, male head of household Female/Male 3C1
328 4 Household demographics and information related to education and waking hours (family members >5 yrs) P No. Questions Response
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4A First name
4B Age
4C Sex
4D Years of education
4E Enrolled in school
Time normally spent reading or 4F studying each day
4G Type of material for reading/study
4H Time spent studying yesterday
Time spent studying last night 4I (evening) Hour at which went to bed last 4J night Hour at which rose from bed this 4K morning
329 Appendix D—Survey questionnaire
5 Housing information P No. Questions Response type Response R No. Number of rooms (including 5A number 5A1 kitchen) concrete block, palm 5B Construction - walls (bebak), bamboo, 5B1 other grass thatch, 5C Construction - roof corrugated iron, palm 5C1 thatch, other
Family members using lighting at 5D home to run a business or yes, no 5D1 commercial activity
5E if yes, type of business type 5E1 who runs this business (from 5F number from Q4 5F2 Q4)
6 Fuels and energy resources P No. Questions Response Response R No. Has your household used any of Yesterday In last 12 the following energy sources? months 6A Candle 6A1-2 6B Kerosene lamp 6B1-2 Petromax (pressurised kerosene) 6C 6C1-2 6D Bamboo torch 6D1-2 6E Candle nut 6E1-2 6F Firewood 6F1-2 6G Battery, dry cell 6G1-2 6H Battery torch 6H1-2 6I Vehicle battery 6I1-2 6J SHS 6J1-2 6K Generator 6K1-2
330 Appendix D—Survey questionnaire
7 Candles P No. Questions Response type Response R No. During past twelve months how 7A1 don't use, sometimes, 7A often did your household use frequently, daily candles How many candles does your 7B1 7B number household buy per purchase On average, how much does each 7C1 7C $ purchase of candles cost How many days does each 7D1 7D days purchase last On average, how much does your 7E1 7E household spend on candles each $ month 7F Candle size (small or large) size 7F1 Do you use candles in your home for: 7G reading, writing, studying yes, no 7G1 area lighting yes, no 7G2 Generally how many hours per 7I1 7I evening does your household use hrs/day candles How many candles do you have in 7J1 7J number your house now 7K1 When do you intend to buy more 7K number of days candles (how many days) Before you received your SHS, how 7L1 7L much did you spend on candles $ each month
331 Appendix D—Survey questionnaire
8 Kerosene P No. Questions Response type Response R No. During past twelve months how don't use, sometimes, 8A often did your household use 8A1 frequently, daily kerosene On average, how many litres of 8B kerosene does your household buy litres 8B1 per purchase On average, how much does each 8C $ 8C1 purchase of kerosene cost How many days does each 8D days 8D1 purchase last
How much (%) of your kerosene lighting only, other 8E 8E1 purchase is used for lighting uses
If other uses, how much of your 0-25%, 25-50%, 50- 8F 8F1 kerosene is used for lighting 75%, 75-99%, 100%
Now with your SHS, on average 8G how much does your household $ 8G1 spend on kerosene each month
Before you received your SHS, on 8H average how much did you spend $ 8H1 on kerosene each month
332 Appendix D—Survey questionnaire
9 Use of kerosene lamps P No. Questions Response type Response R No. Do you use any simple wick lamps in your home for: 9A reading, writing, studying yes, no 9A1 area lighting yes, no 9A2 How many simple wick lamps does 9B number 9B1 your household have Generally how many hours per evening does your household use 9C hours/night 9C1 simple wick lamps
Do you use any regulated wick (commercial) lamps in your home 9D for: reading, writing, studying yes, no 9D1 area lighting yes, no 9D2 How many regulated wick 9E (commercial) lamps does your number 9E1 household have Generally how many hours per evening does your household use 9F hours/night 9F1 regulated wick (commercial) lamps
Do you use any pressurized kerosene lamps in your home for: 9G reading, writing, studying yes, no 9G1 area lighting yes, no 9G2 How many pressurized kerosene 9H lamps does your household have number 9H1
Generally how many hours per evening does your household use 9I hours/night 9I1 pressurized kerosene lamps
333 Appendix D—Survey questionnaire
10 Batteries, dry cell P No. Perguntas Responde Typu Responde R No. During past twelve months did your household use dry cell don't use, 10A batteries for any purpose sometimes, 10A frequently, daily
On average, how many dry cell batteries does your household 10B number 10B buy per purchase
On average, how much does 10C each battery purchase cost $ 10C
On average, how many days 10D does each purchase last days 10D
Do you use your batteries just lighting only, other 10E for lighting or for other uses 10E uses
Do you use batteries for: y/n hrs # size yes, no; hrs/day; no 10F Torch of batteries; size 10F1-4
yes, no; hrs/day; no 10G Battery-powered lantern of batteries; size 10G1-4
yes, no; hrs/day; no 10H Radio or cassette player of batteries; size 10H1-4
yes, no; hrs/day; no 10I Other device of batteries; size 10I1-4
On average, how much does your household spend on 10J $ 10J1 dry cell batteries each month
334 Appendix D—Survey questionnaire
11 Battery, car or motorcycle P No. Questions Response type Response R No. During past twelve months did your household use don't use, sometimes, 11A 11A1 car/motorcycle batteries to supply frequently, daily electricity at home number 11B1 How many batteries do you have 11B at home and of what capacity? capacity 11B2
On average how often do you have 11C to recharge your battery/batteries days 11C1
On average, how much does it cost 11D each time you recharge your $ 11D1 battery/batteries Do you use your vehicle battery for: yes, no 11E1 11E B&W TV hours/day 11E2 yes, no 11F1 11F colour TV hours/day 11F2 yes, no 11G1 11G radio or cassette player hours/day 11G2 yes, no 11H1 11H VCR/DVD player hours/day 11H2 yes, no 11I1 11I lights hours/day 11I2 yes, no 11J1 11J other appliances hours/day 11J2
335 Appendix D—Survey questionnaire
12 Solar home systems P No. Questions Response type Response R No. How many SHS did you receive 12A from the project (CER/UNDP/ number 12A1 RDTL) When did you receive your SHS System 1 month/year, type 12B1.1-2 12B System 2 month/year, type 12B2.1-2 System 3 month/year, type 12B3.1-2 System 4 month/year, type 12B4.1-2 Do you have any other types of number 12C1 12C SHS at home (e.g. Indonesian) type 12C2 Is the lighting supplied by the SHS not enough, enough, 12D sufficient for your household 12D more than enough needs For each lamp, how many hours W, hours 12E4.1-3 12E per day For each lamp how many W, hours 12E5.1-3 hours each night do you use it? W, hours 12E6.1-3 Do you turn your system off each 12F night or does it switch off by itself manual, automatic 12F
Do you leave lights on at night 12G when people go to sleep yes, no 12G If yes, number of lights of what number 12H1 12H type type (e.g. LED, 3W) 12H2 12I Is your SHS system working yes, no 12I If not, how many months has 12J months 12J your system been broken Has your system been repaired in the last twelve months yes, no 12K1 12K If yes, what component has lamp, battery, PV 12K2 been repaired. module, controller Do people in your house prefer lantern/fixed 12M1 12M lantern or fixed SHS? Why? reason 12M2 Other comments of interest 12N 12N1
336 Appendix D—Survey questionnaire
13 Sentiments and perceptions P No. Question Response Male Female R No. not important, Having electricity is not very somewhat important, 13A important for my children’s 13A1-2 important, very education important strongly disagree, Because of good light, children 13B disagree, agree, 13B1-2 study more at night strongly agree In my house it is easy to read in very difficult, difficult, 13C 13C1-2 the evening easy, very easy We get news or information from none, a little, some, a 13D 13D1-2 the radio great deal not happy, somewhat My family is very happy with our 13E happy, happy, very 13E1-2 SHS happy
Imagine a situation where staff from the project returned and $5 per month 13F asked you to give back your $2 per month 13F1-2 system. Would you pay $5/mth to other amount keep it? If not, $2/mth?
Our SHS is not very beneficial to not beneficial, slightly 13G housework/childcare/food beneficial, beneficial, 13G1-2 preparation very beneficial We often socialise with friends nightly, weekly, 13H and neighbours in the evening 13H1-2 monthly, not at all because of good light I feel safe at home in the evening not safe, a little, safe, 13I 13I1-2 because of my SHS very safe Our SHS has made a big none, a little, some, a 13J 13J1-2 improvement to my family’s life great deal
not content, We are not very content with our 13K somewhat content, 13K1-2 SHS content, very content We find our SHS to be very useful none, a few, many, 13L 13L1-2 for many things very many We are not content with the not content, 13M number of lights or strength of somewhat content, 13M1-2 lights of our SHS content, very content
does not help, helps a Having a SHS is not helpful for 13N little, helps, helps a 13N1-2 running a home business great deal
337 Appendix D—Survey questionnaire
Socioeconomic Household Survey Questionnaire: Tetun
0 General info Aldeia 0A0 Interview numeru 0A1 0A Naran Interviewer 0A2 Loron 0A3
1 Demografica informasaun ba Aldeis (kada comunidade) P No. Perguntas Responde Responde R No. Postu 1A1 1A Naran aldeia,suco, postu Suco 1A2 Aldeia 1A3 1B Chefe aldeia Naran 1B1 GPS reference 1C Fatin besik liu escola – primaria South 1C1 East 1C2 GPS reference Fatin besik liu escola – sekundaria South 1D1 (Junior) East 1D2 1D GPS reference Fatin besik liu escola – sekundaria South 1D3 (Senior) East 1D4 GPS reference 1E Fatin besik liu klinika saude South 1E1 East 1E2 GPS reference Fatin nebe besik liu estrada 1F South 1F1 (sealed/tarmac/bitumen) East 1F2 Numiru feto 1G1 1G Numiru feto; mane; uma kain Numeru mane 1G2 Numero uma kain 1G3 Modelu 1H1 GPS reference 1H2 1H Rekursu be; modelu no fatin South 1H2 East 1H3 GPS reference 1I Loja nebe besik liu iha lilin, pilha South 1I1 East 1I2 GPS reference 1J Loja nebe besik liu iha minarai South 1J1 East 1J2 Folin lilin ki'ik (each) $ 1K1 Ukuran linin ki'ik (each) mm3 1K2 1K Folin lilin bo'ot (each) $ 1K3 Ukuran linin bo'ot (each) mm3 1K4
338 Appendix D—Survey questionnaire
1L Minarai (iha loja nebe besik liu) $/litro 1L1 Folin pilha 3V AA battery (iha loja 1M $ 1M1 nebe besik liu) 1Q Fulan survey nian 1Q1
2 Sistema parameters husi standar SHS P No. Perguntas Responde Responde R No. Individu ka organizasaun nebe 2A Naran 2A1 fo/hatama sistema ne’e
2B Medida panel Wp 2B1 W 2C1.1-3 Sistem 1 2C lumen, 2C2.1-3 Lampu; forsa, output no numiru numiru 2C3.1-3 V 2D1 2D Batteria; voltagem no kapasidade Ah 2D2 Data instalasaun husi atu komesa 2E Fulan/tinan 2E1 sistema 2F Data instalasaun atu kompleta Fulan/tinan 2F1 2G Konstrusaun kapasidade Wh/loron 2G1 2H Planu operasaun tinan 2H1 2I Presu – sosa $ 2I1
3 Informasaun uma kain P No. Perguntas Responde Typu Responde R No. GPS reference 3A Fatin South 3A1 East 3A2 Numiru husi populasaun nebe hela 3B permanente iha uma laran (inklui Numiru 3B1 labarik ki’ik) 3C Feto/mane chefe de familia Feto ka mane 3C1
339 4 Demografia no informasaun nebe iha relasaun ho edukasaun kada membru husi familia ida > tinan 5 (husu kona ba ema ida ida iha uma kain ida) P No. Perguntas Responde
4A Naran uluk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4B Idade
4C Sexu
4D Numiru tinan edukasaun
4E Sei escola ka lae
Normalmente tempo hira hodi uja 4F le ou estuda loron-loron
4G Modelu husi material hodi le
Tempu nebe hodi le ou estuda hori 4H kalan Tempu nebe hodi le ou estuda 4I horiseik loron
4J Hori kalan toba tuku hira
4K Ohin dadersan hader tuku hira
340 Appendix D—Survey questionnaire
9 Uja lampu torcida/lampiaun/petromax P No. Perguntas Responde Typu Responde R No. Karik ita bo’ot uja lampu tursida ruma karik iha ita bo’ot nia uma 9A hodi: le, hakerek, estuda lae, sim 9A1 uja hanesan naroman de’it lae, sim 9A2 Lampu tursida hira mak iha ita 9B numiru 9B1 bo’ot nia uma laran ? Bainbain, iha kalan ida ita bo’ot uja lampu tursida oras hira (oras total 9C oras/kalan 9C1 = lampu x horas ida ida)?
Karik ita bo’ot uja lampiaun iha ita bo’ot nia uma laran hodi: 9D Le, hakerek, estuda lae, sim 9D1 uja hanesan naroman de’it lae, sim 9D2 Lampiaun hira mak ita bo’ot nia 9E numiru 9E1 uma laran iha ? Bainbain, ita bo’ot uja lampiaun 9F oras/kalan 9F1 oras hira kalan ida? Karik ita bo’ot uja petromax ruma iha ita bo’ot nia uma laran hodi: 9G Le, hakerek, estuda lae, sim 9G1 uja hanesan naroman de’it lae, sim 9G2 Petromas hira mak ita bo’ot nia 9H umalarn iha? numiru 9H1 Bainbain, ita bo’ot uja petromas 9I oras/kalan 9I1 oras hira kalan ida?
341 Appendix D—Survey questionnaire
10 pilha P No. Perguntas Responde Typu Responde R No. Durante tinan ida liu ba karik ita bo’ot nia uma laran uja la uja, dalaruma, 10A pilha ba buat ruma (ejemplo 10A iha radio, lampara) kuarze, loron-loron
Bainhira ita bo’ot ba sosa, pilha hira mak ita bo’ot sosa 10B numiru 10B dala ida
Bainbain, ita bo’ot ba sosa 10C pilha, folin hira? $ 10C
ita bo’ot uja pilha ne’e, ba 10D loron/seman/fulan hira loron 10D
Karik ita bo’ot uja pilha ba naroman de'it, buat 10E naroman deit ka uja ba buat 10E seluk seluk
Ita bo’ot uja pilha hodi: Lampara Lae;Sim,ors/loron;# 10F batteria;ukuran 10F1-4 Bateria karega lampu Lae;Sim,ors/loron;# 10G batteria;ukuran 10G1-4 Radio ou gravador Lae;Sim,ors/loron;# 10H batteria;ukuran 10H1-4 Sasan sira seluk Lae;Sim,ors/loron;# 10I batteria;ukuran 10I1-4 Bainbain, fulan ida ita bo’ot gasta osan hira hodi sosa 10J $ 10J1 pilha?
342 Appendix D—Survey questionnaire
11 Bateria kareta/motor P No. Perguntas Responde Typu Responde R No. Durante tinan ida liu ba karik ita bo’ot nia uma laran uja bateria la uja, dalaruma, 11A 11A1 kareta/motor hodi uja ba kuarze, loron-loron eletrisidade iha uma ? numiru 11B1 Bateria hira mak ita bo’ot nia uma 11B laran iha? (kapasidade ‘Ah’ – tenke kapasidade 11B2 buka hatene nia Ah e.g. 90Ah)
Bainbain, liu loron hira mak ita 11C loron 11C1 bo’ot rekarga nia bateria ? Bainhira ita bo’ot rekarga bacteria 11D $ 11D1 folin hira ? Karik ita bo’ot uja bateria kareta/motor ita bo’ot nian hodi: lae, sim 11E1 11E B&W TV oras/loron 11E2 lae, sim 11F1 11F TV koloridu oras/loron 11F2 lae, sim 11G1 11G Radio ou gravador oras/loron 11G2 lae, sim 11H1 11H VCR/VD player oras/loron 11H2 lae, sim 11I1 11I hanesan naroman de’it oras/loron 11I2 lae, sim 11J1 11J Sasan seluk oras/loron 11J2
343 Appendix D—Survey questionnaire
12 Sistema eletrikfikasaun ho loronmatan (SHS) P No. Perguntas Responde Typu Responde R No. sistema elektrifikasaun ho loron matan hira mak ita bo’ot hetan 12A husi projectu (CER/UNDP/ numiru 12A1 Governu)
Ita bo’ot hetan/simu nia sistema SHS ne’e bainhira sistema 1 fulan-tinan, typu 12B1.1-2 12B sistema 2 fulan-tinan, typu 12B2.1-2 sistema 3 fulan-tinan, typu 12B3.1-2 sistema 4 fulan-tinan, typu 12B4.1-2 Modelu SHS seluk nebe mak ita numiru 12C1 12C bo’ot iha? (ejemplo sistema tuan typu 12C2 Karik naroman suplai husi SHS; la to’o,naton, ou liu ba nesisidade ita 12D la to’o, naton, ou liu 12D bo’ot nia uma laran ?
Kalan ida, ita bo’ot uja lampu ba tama, oras 12E4.1-2 12E oras hira? (tama oras kalan-kalan tama, oras 12E5.1-2 x numeru lampu) tama, oras 12E6.1-2 Karik ita bo’ot taka sistema kada 12F kalan ou taka husi sistema ? taka; automatika 12F
Karik ita bo’ot husik hela ahi iha 12G kalan bo’ot wainhira ema ba toba. lae, sim 12G
Karik sim; lampu hira mak husik numeru 12H1 12H hela? typu (e.g. LED, 3W) 12H2 Ita bo’ot nia sistema serbisu hela 12I lae, sim 12I Karik lae, fulan hira mak la 12J fulan 12J functiona karik tinan ida liu ba, ita bo’ot hadia ona ita bo’ot nia sistema? lae, sim 12K1 12K karik sim, aat saida? lampu, batteria, panel, controllador 12K2 Do people in your house prefer seluk-seluk lantern/fixed 12M1 12M lantern or fixed SHS? Tansa maka? tansa maka 12M2 Commentario interesante
12N 12N1
344 Appendix D—Survey questionnaire
13 Sinti, presepsaun no hahalok P No. Perguntas Responde Typu Mane Feto R No. Karik elektrisidade ladun laos importante, ladun 13A importante ba ita bo’ot nia oan nia importante, 13A1-2 edukasaun importante, Tamba naroman diak, labarik sira los liu,importante los, la los, liu la los 13B 13B1-2 estuda barak iha kalan liu Karik le fasil liu ho elektrisidade facil liu, facil, dificil, 13C duque ho lilin/lampu tursida 13C1-2 dificil liu Karik ita bo’ot hetan informasaun lae, oituan, barak, 13D 13D1-2 husi radio barak liu Karik ita bo’ot nia familia kontente la kontente, oituan, 13E tebes ho ita bo’ot nia SHS 13E1-2 kontente, kontente liu Ne’e imajinsaun, mehi de’it. Karik aban ema projectu nain mai foti $5 fulan-fulan 13F fali ita bo’ot nia sistema, it bo’ot $2 fulan-fulan 13F1-2 tenke fo osan fulan-fulan; ita bo’ot seluk fo osan $5 fulan-fulan?
Ita bo’ot SHS ladun diak ba serbisu laos importante, ladun uma laran/hein labarik/prepara importante, 13G 13G1-2 iahan importante, importante liu Karik ema ruma mai visita ita bo’ot kalan kalan, semana nia uma…. iha kalan tanba iha 13H semana, fulan fulan, la 13H1-2 naroman… (ema seluk) mai Ita bo’ot sinti hakmatak ho ita lae, oituan, diak, diak 13I bo’ot nia sistema iha kalan (la 13I1-2 liu nauk, la sunu) Karik Ita bo’ot nia SHS halo lae, oituan, bo’ot, 13J mudansa boot ba Ita bo’ot nia 13J1-2 bo’ot liu familia moris Karik Ita bo’ot la kontente uja la kontente, oituan, 13K Sistema eletrifikasaun ho loron 13K1-2 kontente, kontente liu matan (SHS) ? Buat diak saida mak ita bo’ot hetan la iha, oituan, barak, 13L 13L1-2 husi SHS? barak liu Karik ita Bo’ot la kontente ho la kontente, oituan, 13M numiru ka forsa naroman ita Bo’ot 13M1-2 kontente, kontente liu nia SHS? Karik SHS la ajuda ita bo’ot hala’o la ajuda, ajuda 13N bisnis ka negocio iha ita bo’ot nia 13N1-2 oituan,ajuda,ajuda liu uma laran
345
Appendix E
Statistical analysis of participatory evaluation and socio-economic household survey data
346 Appendix E—Results of statistical analyses
E-4.3.2 Comparison of enumerator results ...... 351 E-5.4 Comparability of project communities ...... 355 Table 5-8, Household composition ...... 355 Table 5-9, Female/male headed households ...... 357 Figure 5-10, Table 5-10, Dwelling size and construction ...... 357 Table 5-11, Educational parameters ...... 361 Section 5.4.3 ...... 369 Table 5-13 (part 1) Incidence of broken systems ...... 369 Table 5-13 (part 2) Systems repaired in last 12 months ...... 369 E-5.5 Community priorities ...... 370 Figure 5-14, ranking of lighting-derived benefits ...... 370 Figure 5-11 ...... 373 Table 5-14 ...... 380 Table 5-15 ...... 380 Table 5-16 ...... 381 Table 5-17 ...... 381 Table 5-18, women ...... 383 Table 5-18, men ...... 384 Figure 5-12 ...... 384 Figure 5-13 ...... 389 Table 5-19 ...... 396 Table 5-20 ...... 396 Table 5-21 ...... 397 E-6.1 Study, reading ...... 399 Section 6.1.1 Study, reading ...... 399 Figure 6-1, Study, ease ...... 399 Table 6-1, Study, ease ...... 399 Section 6.1.2 Duration of study, reading ...... 400 Figure 6-2, Study duration ...... 400 Table 6-2 Study duration ...... 401 Table 6-3, Study duration ...... 401 E-6.2 Domestic tasks ...... 403
347 Appendix E—Statistical Analysis Data
Section 6.2.1 Domestic tasks, ease ...... 403 Figure 6-3, Domestic tasks, ease ...... 403 Table 6-9, Domestic tasks, ease ...... 403 Table 6-10, CER ...... 405 Table 6-10, RDTL ...... 406 Table 6-10, UNDP ...... 407 Section 6.2.2 Domestic tasks, duration ...... 407 Figure 6-4, Domestic tasks, duration ...... 407 Table 6-11 Domestic tasks, duration...... 408 Table 6-12 Domestic tasks, duration, high frequency responses ...... 408 Section 6.2.3 Domestic tasks, survey results ...... 409 Table 6-13, Usefulness of electricity for domestic tasks ...... 409 Table 6-14, Waking hours ...... 410 E-6.3 Productive tasks ...... 412 Section 6.3.1 Productive tasks, ease...... 412 Figure 6-5, Productive tasks, ease...... 412 Table 6-15 Productive tasks, ease ...... 412 Table 6-16 Productive tasks, ease, women/men ...... 415 Section 6.3.2 Productive tasks, duration ...... 416 Figure 6-6 Productive tasks, duration ...... 416 Table 6-17 Productive tasks, duration ...... 416 Section 6.3.3 Productive tasks, survey results ...... 418 Table 6-18, Operation of businesses from home ...... 418 Table 6-19, Home business by business type ...... 418 Table 6-20, Perception of usefulness of SHS for business, women/men ...... 418 E-6.4 Social interaction ...... 420 Section 6.4.1 Social interaction, ease ...... 420 Figure 6-7 Social interaction, ease ...... 420 Table 6-21 Social interaction, ease ...... 420 Section 6.4.2 Social interaction, duration ...... 422 Figure 6-8 Social interaction, duration ...... 422 Table 6-22 Social interaction, duration ...... 422 Section 6.4.3 Social interaction, survey results ...... 424 Table 6-23, Visits by neighbours ...... 424
348 Appendix E—Statistical Analysis Data
Table 6-24, Visits by neighbours, women ...... 425 E-7.1 Light ...... 427 Figure 7.1, Table 7.1 Light output ...... 427 Table 7.2 Lamps switched on overnight...... 427 Table 7-3 Demand for additional lamps and longer duration ...... 428 Comparison of CER and UNDP results...... 429 Fig 7-2 and 7-3 Demand for additional lamps and longer duration ...... 429 E-7.2 Finances ...... 431 Section 7.2.1 Post-SHS expenditure on candles and kerosene ...... 431 Table 7-5 Frequency of candle and kerosene use ...... 431 Table 7-4 Monthly expenditure on candles and kerosene ...... 431 CER expenditure, comparison of enumerator results ...... 432 Figure 7-4 Monthly expenditure by project ...... 433 RDTL, UNDP mean expenditure comparison ...... 433 UNDP, CER mean expenditure ...... 434 CER, UNDP elimination of candle expenditure ...... 434 CER, UNDP elimination of kerosene expenditure ...... 435 Table 7-6 ...... 435 Post-SHS candle expenditure, CER and UNDP...... 435 Post-SHS kerosene expenditure, CER and UNDP ...... 435 Section 7.2.2 Savings on candles and kerosene expenditure ...... 436 Figure 7-5 Pre-SHS monthly expenditure ...... 436 Figure 7-6 Reported reduction in expenditure ...... 437 Comparison of CER, UNDP expenditure reduction ...... 437 Comparison of UNDP, RDTL pre-SHS expenditure ...... 438 Mean UNDP, RDTL pre-SHS expenditure ...... 438 Section 7.2.4 Willingness-to-pay for SHS services ...... 439 Table 7-8 Willingness-to-pay for existing SHS ...... 439 Comparison of CER and UNDP willingness-to-pay ...... 439 Figure 7-8 ...... 440 willingness-to-pay, women * project name ...... 440 willingness-to-pay, men * project name ...... 440 E-7.3 Convenience ...... 441 Section 7.3 Convenience ...... 441
349 Appendix E—Statistical Analysis Data
Table 7-9 CER candle and kerosene use by number of systems ...... 441 candle no use or not * no. of systems, one or more ...... 441 kerosene no use or not * no. of systems, one or more...... 442 candle use, daily or not * no. of systems, one or more ...... 442 kerosene use, daily or not * no. of systems, one or more ...... 443 Table 7-10 CER candle and kerosene expenditure by number of systems ...... 443 CER users continuing to use kerosene; ...... 444 comparison of usage between single and multi-system households ...... 444 E-7.4 Health ...... 445 E-7.5 Perceptions ...... 445 Figure 7-11 User satisfaction ...... 445 women - family content with SHS * project name ...... 445 men - family content with SHS * project name...... 445 women - discontent with SHS * project name ...... 446 men - discontent with SHS * project name ...... 447 Figure 7-12 Perceptions of security ...... 447 women - sense of security * project name ...... 447 men - sense of security * project name ...... 448 Perceptions of usefulness ...... 448 women - SHS usefulness * project name ...... 448 men - SHS uesfulness * project name ...... 449 Section 7.5.2 Change brought about by SHS ...... 450 Figure 7-13 Magnitude of change arising from a SHS ...... 450 women - SHS delivered big change * project name ...... 450 men - SHS delivered big change * project name ...... 450 Comparison of RDTL and CER results ...... 451 women, SHS delivered big change, high-low * project name ...... 451 men, SHS delivered big change, high-low * project name ...... 451
350 E-4.3.2 Comparison of enumerator results
Three enumerators were involved in interviewing respondents to complete the household surveys. Initially, two enumerators were engaged for surveying work—Costa Belo and Vincente Reis. After training and testing of the survey in CER communities in Railaco, Costa and Vincente commenced formal surveying with UNDP project sites. When working on his own, however, Vincente proved unreliable as an enumerator and results from his surveying in several communities were discarded. Only those results obtained when he worked under supervision of the principal researcher have been retained for analysis.
A summary of the number of surveys conducted by each enumerator is set out in the following table:
Enumerator Total Costa Vincente Ludivico CER 42 0 40 82 RDTL 58 0 0 58 UNDP 35 20 0 55 Total 135 20 40 195
Results for UNDP sites comprise surveys conducted by Costa and Vincente. Surveying of CER and UNDP sites concurrently with participatory evaluations was then completed by Costa. Following completion of that work a third enumerator, Ludivico Alves, was engaged. Ludivico had assisted in the participatory evaluation processes in Railaco and was trained by Costa, initially observing Costa interviewing households. Ludivico then carried out forty surveys in Railaco—five under Costa’s direct supervision and an additional thirty-five independently. The main reason for engaging Ludivico to carry out the additional surveys was to test user preference for solar lanterns or SHS amongst CER project households. A few of the surveys undertaken by Ludivico involve households who have only used solar lanterns and responses for these households have been removed from the analysis as appropriate.
Chambers (1997) highlights the ease with which bias can enter a survey at the hands of different enumerators. Consequently, before incorporating Ludivico’s surveys into the analysis, it is appropriate to compare Ludivico’s and Costa’s survey results for a sample of variables to determine whether their results present a homogeneous sample for CER households. There is no question as to the diligence of either enumerator. Consequently, simple concepts associated with questions such as family size, respondent age, dwelling structure are not expected to have been influenced by the enumerator. More complex issues, however, where the explanation provided by the enumerator is likely to have been important to the way in which the question was
351 understood by the respondent, may have suffered enumerator bias. These areas are worthy of investigation. Several tests were carried out and are reported below. It should also be noted that these two enumerators operated in different communities, albeit within the one sub-district, Railaco. Consequently, some difference may be explained by difference between communities.
Schooling, waking hours, lamp hours, candle expenditure and kerosene expenditure Descriptives Std. 95% Confidence N Mean Deviation Std. Error Interval for Mean Min Max schooling_ Costa 36 3.8817 2.49823 .41637 3.0364 4.7270 .00 10.50 years Ludivico 40 3.3539 2.10809 .33332 2.6797 4.0281 .00 9.00
Total 76 3.6039 2.30083 .26392 3.0781 4.1297 .00 10.50 wakinghours_ Costa 36 16.174 1.6554 .2759 15.614 16.734 13.0 20.0 adult Ludivico 40 15.980 .9818 .1552 15.666 16.294 13.0 18.0
Total 76 16.072 1.3378 .1535 15.767 16.378 13.0 20.0 lamp_hours Costa 36 5.347 3.3845 .5641 4.202 6.492 2.0 21.0
Ludivico 40 4.550 1.8529 .2930 3.957 5.143 2.0 12.0
Total 76 4.928 2.7003 .3097 4.311 5.545 2.0 21.0 candle_ Costa 36 $.5366 $1.22114 $.20352 $.1235 $.9498 $.00 $5.00 expenditure Ludivico 38 $1.8395 $2.76456 $.44847 $.9309 $2.7482 $.00 $12.00
Total 74 $1.2057 $2.24022 $.26042 $.6867 $1.7247 $.00 $12.00 kero- Costa 36 $.9189 $1.55710 $.25952 $.3920 $1.4457 $.00 $6.21 expenditure Ludivico 40 $1.9723 $1.58302 $.25030 $1.4660 $2.4786 $.00 $4.50
Total 76 $1.4733 $1.64770 $.18900 $1.0968 $1.8498 $.00 $6.21
ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. schooling_years Between Groups 5.279 1 5.279 .997 .321 Within Groups 391.758 74 5.294 Total 397.037 75 wakinghours_adult Between Groups .712 1 .712 .395 .532 Within Groups 133.508 74 1.804 Total 134.221 75 lamp_hours Between Groups 12.042 1 12.042 1.666 .201 Within Groups 534.810 74 7.227 Total 546.852 75 candle_expenditure Between Groups 31.382 1 31.382 6.745 .011 Within Groups 334.974 72 4.652 Total 366.357 73 kero-expenditure Between Groups 21.026 1 21.026 8.521 .005 Within Groups 182.592 74 2.467 Total 203.618 75
352 The results for the two enumerators exhibit some difference for candle and kerosene expenditure. The mean expenditures for Ludivico’s sample are significantly higher than that for Costa’s. This may be the result of a difference in the number of working systems in each sample, since expenditure is reduced when the SHS is functioning. Data set out in the following table shows this to be the case, with Ludivico’s sample including many more households with non- functioning SHS.
SHS_working *enumerator Crosstabulation Count Enumerator Total Costa Ludivico SHS_working No 4 13 17 Yes 32 27 59 Total 36 40 76
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.992(b) 1 .025 Continuity 3.836 1 .050 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio 5.230 1 .022 Fisher's Exact Test .030 .024 Linear-by-Linear Association 4.926 1 .026 N of Valid Cases 76 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.05.
The analysis was repeated using only data from those households where the SHS was functioning. Data is set out in the tables below. Mean expenditure data from Ludivico’s sample is still significantly higher than Costa’s. This suggests that the two enumerators are likely to have presented the questioning of current household expenditure differently to each other. Consequently, Ludivico’s data should be excluded from any analysis of household expenditure figures.
353 Schooling, waking hours, lamp hours, candle expenditure and kerosene expenditure Working SHS only - Descriptives Std. 95% Confidence N Mean Deviation Std. Error Interval for Mean Min Max schooling_ Costa 32 3.9451 2.63106 .46511 2.9965 4.8937 .00 10.50 years Ludivico 27 3.0605 2.00555 .38597 2.2672 3.8539 .00 8.67
Total 59 3.5403 2.38759 .31084 2.9181 4.1625 .00 10.50 wakinghours_ Costa 32 16.126 1.6482 .2914 15.531 16.720 13.0 20.0 adult Ludivico 27 15.985 1.0698 .2059 15.562 16.408 13.0 17.5
Total 59 16.061 1.4035 .1827 15.696 16.427 13.0 20.0 lamp_hours Costa 32 5.328 3.5460 .6269 4.050 6.607 2.0 21.0
Ludivico 27 4.741 1.9921 .3834 3.953 5.529 3.0 12.0
Total 59 5.059 2.9303 .3815 4.296 5.823 2.0 21.0 candle_ Costa 32 $.6037 $1.28133 $.22651 $.1417 $1.0657 $.00 $5.00 expenditure Ludivico 25 $1.5816 $2.00588 $.40118 $.7536 $2.4096 $.00 $7.50
Total 57 $1.0326 $1.69496 $.22450 $.5829 $1.4823 $.00 $7.50 kero- Costa 32 $.6333 $1.21802 $.21532 $.1942 $1.0725 $.00 $5.81 expenditure Ludivico 27 $1.7427 $1.69912 $.32700 $1.0705 $2.4148 $.00 $4.50
Total 59 $1.1410 $1.54849 $.20160 $.7374 $1.5445 $.00 $5.81
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. schooling_years Between Groups 11.458 1 11.458 2.046 .158 Within Groups 319.175 57 5.600 Total 330.633 58 wakinghours_adult Between Groups .289 1 .289 .144 .705 Within Groups 113.966 57 1.999 Total 114.254 58 lamp_hours Between Groups 5.053 1 5.053 .584 .448 Within Groups 492.990 57 8.649 Total 498.042 58 candle_expenditure Between Groups 13.422 1 13.422 5.006 .029 Within Groups 147.461 55 2.681 Total 160.882 56 kero-expenditure Between Groups 18.021 1 18.021 8.485 .005 Within Groups 121.053 57 2.124 Total 139.074 58
354 E-5.4 Comparability of project communities
Table 5-8, Household composition
Oneway Std. N Mean Deviation Std. Error Min Max hhd number >5 CER 82 5.11 2.114 .233 1 9 yr old RDTL 58 4.41 1.522 .200 2 9
UNDP 55 5.13 1.836 .248 1 9 Total 195 4.91 1.895 .136 1 9 hhd number CER 82 3.21 1.505 .166 1 7 adults, >14 yr RDTL 58 2.79 .987 .130 1 6 old UNDP 55 3.22 1.436 .194 1 7 Total 195 3.09 1.358 .097 1 7
hhd number CER 82 1.90 1.599 .177 0 7 children, <=14 yr RDTL 58 1.62 1.254 .165 0 4 old UNDP 55 1.91 1.281 .173 0 5 Total 195 1.82 1.416 .101 0 7
hhd number CER 82 1.62 1.172 .129 0 6 women, >14 yrs RDTL 58 1.43 .861 .113 0 4 old UNDP 55 .98 .892 .120 0 3 Total 195 1.38 1.041 .075 0 6 hhd number CER 82 1.54 .819 .090 1 4 men, >14 yrs old RDTL 58 1.31 .706 .093 0 4
UNDP 55 1.07 1.168 .158 0 5 Total 195 1.34 .918 .066 0 5 hhd_ave_age CER 82 25.8455 8.67301 .95777 14.00 51.00
RDTL 58 27.2138 9.24364 1.21375 15.60 57.00
UNDP 55 26.3074 8.19682 1.10526 15.33 51.50 Total 195 26.3828 8.69158 .62242 14.00 57.00
355
ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. hhd number >5 yr old Between Groups 20.148 2 10.074 2.860 .060 Within Groups 676.190 192 3.522 Total 696.338 194 hhd number adults, Between Groups 7.143 2 3.572 1.957 .144 >14 yr old Within Groups 350.375 192 1.825 Total 357.518 194 hhd number children, Between Groups 3.298 2 1.649 .821 .441 <=14 yr old Within Groups 385.420 192 2.007 Total 388.718 194
hhd number women, Between Groups 13.667 2 6.834 6.678 .002 >14 yrs old Within Groups 196.486 192 1.023 Total 210.154 194 hhd number men, >14 Between Groups 7.148 2 3.574 4.385 .014 yrs old Within Groups 156.513 192 .815 Total 163.662 194 hhd_ave_age Between Groups 64.034 2 32.017 .421 .657 Within Groups 14591.418 192 75.997 Total 14655.452 194
Oneway Descriptives
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Minimum Maximum hhd number women, CER 82 1.62 1.172 .129 0 6 >14 yrs old RDTL 58 1.43 .861 .113 0 4 Total 140 1.54 1.055 .089 0 6 hhd number men, CER 82 1.54 .819 .090 1 4 >14 yrs old RDTL 58 1.31 .706 .093 0 4 Total 140 1.44 .780 .066 0 4
ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. hhd number women, Between Groups 1.238 1 1.238 1.113 .293 >14 yrs old Within Groups 153.505 138 1.112 Total 154.743 139 hhd number men, Between Groups 1.739 1 1.739 2.898 .091 >14 yrs old Within Groups 82.804 138 .600 Total 84.543 139
356 Table 5-9, Female/male headed households
Crosstabs project name * female/male head of hhd Crosstabulation
female/male head of hhd Total
female male project CER Count 2 80 82 name % within project name 2.4% 97.6% 100.0% RDTL Count 3 55 58 % within project name 5.2% 94.8% 100.0% UNDP Count 5 50 55 % within project name 9.1% 90.9% 100.0% Total Count 10 185 195 % within project name 5.1% 94.9% 100.0%
Figure 5-10, Table 5-10, Dwelling size and construction
Crosstabs construction, concrete block * project name
Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP construction, concrete concrete block 5 8 12 25 block local materials 77 50 43 170 Total 82 58 55 195
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 7.349(a) 2 .025 Likelihood Ratio 7.449 2 .024 Linear-by-Linear 7.310 1 .007 Association N of Valid Cases 195 a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.05.
Crosstab roof, zinc or not * project name
Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP roof, zinc corrugated iron 78 33 53 164 or not local materials 4 25 2 31 Total 82 58 55 195
357 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 45.740(a) 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 42.360 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear .293 1 .588 Association N of Valid Cases 195 a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.74.
dwelling number of rooms by projectname no of rooms 95% Confidence Interval N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error for Mean Minimum Maximum CER 82 4.78 1.414 .156 4.47 5.09 2 9 RDTL 58 4.60 .724 .095 4.41 4.79 4 7 UNDP 55 4.82 .925 .125 4.57 5.07 3 7 Total 195 4.74 1.111 .080 4.58 4.90 2 9
ANOVA no of rooms Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 1.552 2 .776 .626 .536 Within Groups 238.110 192 1.240 Total 239.662 194
Crosstabs construction, concrete block * project name project name Total CER RDTL construction, concrete concrete block 5 8 13 block local materials 77 50 127 Total 82 58 140
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.388(b) 1 .122 Continuity 1.562 1 .211 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio 2.348 1 .125 Fisher's Exact Test .146 .106 Linear-by-Linear Association 2.371 1 .124 N of Valid Cases 140 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.39.
358 Crosstab roof, zinc or not * project name project name Total CER RDTL roof, zinc corrugated iron 78 33 111 or not local materials 4 25 29 Total 82 58 140
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 30.224(b) 1 .000 Continuity 27.941 1 .000 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio 31.578 1 .000 Fisher's Exact Test .000 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 30.008 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 140 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12.01.
Crosstabs construction, concrete block * project name Count project name Total CER UNDP construction, concrete concrete block 5 12 17 block local materials 77 43 120 Total 82 55 137
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 7.485(b) 1 .006 Continuity 6.109 1 .013 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio 7.380 1 .007 Fisher's Exact Test .008 .007 Linear-by-Linear Association 7.431 1 .006 N of Valid Cases 137 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.82.
359 Crosstab roof, zinc or not * project name Count project name Total CER UNDP roof, zinc corrugated iron 78 53 131 or not local materials 4 2 6 Total 82 55 137
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .121(b) 1 .728 Continuity .000 1 1.000 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio .124 1 .725 Fisher's Exact Test 1.000 .541 Linear-by-Linear Association .120 1 .729 N of Valid Cases 137 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.41.
Number of rooms Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 2 4 2.1 2.1 2.1 3 11 5.6 5.6 7.7 4 75 38.5 38.5 46.2 5 63 32.3 32.3 78.5 6 29 14.9 14.9 93.3 7 11 5.6 5.6 99.0 8 1 .5 .5 99.5 9 1 .5 .5 100.0 Total 195 100.0 100.0
Histogram
80
60
40 Frequency
20
Mean =4.74 Std. Dev. =1.111 N =195 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of rooms
360
Table 5-11, Educational parameters
Oneway Descriptives Std. Std. 95% Confidence Minim Maxim N Mean Deviation Error Interval for Mean um um no in hhd who attend CER 82 1.84 1.591 .176 1.49 2.19 0 6 school RDTL 58 1.86 1.357 .178 1.51 2.22 0 5
UNDP 55 2.04 1.587 .214 1.61 2.47 0 5 Total 195 1.90 1.518 .109 1.69 2.12 0 6 average years of CER 82 3.5755 2.25132 .24862 3.0808 4.0701 .00 10.50 schooling RDTL 58 4.5953 2.30639 .30284 3.9888 5.2017 .00 11.00
UNDP 55 3.0958 1.84660 .24900 2.5966 3.5950 .00 7.50 Total 195 3.7435 2.23071 .15974 3.4284 4.0585 .00 11.00 average yrs CER 61 4.6609 2.95284 .37807 3.9047 5.4172 1.00 12.00 schooling, adults RDTL 54 5.5790 3.34825 .45564 4.6651 6.4929 .67 15.00
UNDP 32 4.3453 2.45773 .43447 3.4592 5.2314 .25 10.50 Total 147 4.9295 3.03257 .25012 4.4352 5.4238 .25 15.00 average yrs CER 62 4.2524 2.24100 .28461 3.6833 4.8215 1.00 10.00 schooling, children RDTL 48 3.9868 1.88647 .27229 3.4390 4.5346 1.00 9.00 attending school UNDP 40 3.7563 2.20406 .34849 3.0514 4.4611 1.00 11.00 Total 150 4.0351 2.11929 .17304 3.6932 4.3770 1.00 11.00 distance to school - CER 39 .5192 .42503 .06806 .3815 .6570 .10 2.08 SD RDTL 58 .2241 .12949 .01700 .1901 .2582 .04 .66
UNDP 30 1.2037 1.73834 .31738 .5546 1.8528 .01 7.82 Total 127 .5461 .95313 .08458 .3788 .7135 .01 7.82
Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. no in hhd who attend school 2.225 2 192 .111 average years of schooling .990 2 192 .374 average yrs schooling, adults 2.432 2 144 .091 average yrs schooling, children attending school 1.171 2 147 .313 distance to school - SD 40.921 2 124 .000
361 ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. no in hhd who attend Between Groups 1.386 2 .693 .298 .742 school Within Groups 445.763 192 2.322 Total 447.149 194 average years of schooling Between Groups 67.469 2 33.734 7.214 .001 Within Groups 897.889 192 4.677 Total 965.358 194 average yrs schooling, Between Groups 38.102 2 19.051 2.103 .126 adults Within Groups 1304.583 144 9.060 Total 1342.684 146
average yrs schooling, Between Groups 6.150 2 3.075 .682 .507 children attending school Within Groups 663.066 147 4.511 Total 669.217 149 distance to school - SD Between Groups 19.012 2 9.506 12.349 .000 Within Groups 95.454 124 .770 Total 114.466 126
Oneway Descriptives average years of schooling Std. 95% Confidence Interval N Mean Deviation Std. Error for Mean Minimum Maximum CER 82 3.5755 2.25132 .24862 3.0808 4.0701 .00 10.50 UNDP 55 3.0958 1.84660 .24900 2.5966 3.5950 .00 7.50 Total 137 3.3829 2.10437 .17979 3.0273 3.7384 .00 10.50
Test of Homogeneity of Variances average years of schooling Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. .782 1 135 .378
ANOVA average years of schooling Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 7.575 1 7.575 1.720 .192 Within Groups 594.682 135 4.405 Total 602.258 136
362 T-Test Group Statistics Std. Error project name N Mean Std. Deviation Mean distance to school - SD CER 39 .5192 .42503 .06806 RDTL 58 .2241 .12949 .01700
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Std. Mean Error 95% Confidence Sig. (2- Differen Differen Interval of the F Sig. t df tailed) ce ce Difference distance to Equal school - SD variances 21.114 .000 4.967 95 .000 .29509 .05941 .17714 .41305 assumed Equal variances not 4.207 42.78 .000 .29509 .07015 .15360 .43659 assumed
T-Test Group Statistics Std. Error project name N Mean Std. Deviation Mean distance to school - SD CER 39 .5192 .42503 .06806 UNDP 30 1.2037 1.73834 .31738
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Std. Mean Error 95% Confidence Sig. (2- Differen Differen Interval of the F Sig. t df tailed) ce ce Difference distance to Equal school - SD variances 25.576 .000 -2.373 67 .021 -.68444 .28841 -1.26010 -.10877 assumed Equal variances not -2.109 31.67 .043 -.68444 .32459 -1.34587 -.02300 assumed
363 Distance to school, CER and UNDP (excluding Pandevou)
T-Test Group Statistics Std. Error project name N Mean Std. Deviation Mean distance to school - SD CER 39 .5192 .42503 .06806 UNDP 23 .4870 .65656 .13690
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Std. Mean Error 95% Confidence Sig. (2- Differen Differen Interval of the F Sig. t df tailed) ce ce Difference distance to Equal school - SD variances 2.550 .116 .235 60 .815 .03227 .13723 -.24223 .30678 assumed Equal variances not .211 33.05 .834 .03227 .15289 -.27876 .34331 assumed
364 Proxy indicators for wealth - construction materials
Crosstabs project name * construction, concrete block Count construction, concrete block Total concrete local block materials project CER 5 77 82 name RDTL 8 50 58
UNDP 2 43 45 Total 15 170 185
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 3.771(a) 2 .152 Likelihood Ratio 3.555 2 .169 Linear-by-Linear .000 1 1.000 Association N of Valid Cases 185 a 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.65.
project name * roof, zinc or not Crosstab Count
roof, zinc or not Total corrugated local iron materials project CER 78 4 82 name RDTL 33 25 58
UNDP 43 2 45 Total 154 31 185
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 42.048(a) 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 39.616 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear 1.052 1 .305 Association N of Valid Cases 185 a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.54.
365 Proxy indicators for wealth - pre-SHS lighting expenditure
Oneway Descriptives Std. 95% Confidence N Mean Deviation Std. Error Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum candle CER 82 $3.3061 $3.99667 $.44136 $2.4279 $4.1843 $.00 $24.00 expenditure RDTL 58 $2.2371 $2.90288 $.38117 $1.4738 $3.0003 $.00 $20.00 before receiving SHS UNDP 48 $1.8672 $1.97331 $.28482 $1.2942 $2.4402 $.00 $7.00 Total 188 $2.6089 $3.29598 $.24038 $2.1347 $3.0831 $.00 $24.00
kerosene CER 82 $3.8268 $3.03222 $.33485 $3.1606 $4.4931 $.00 $15.00 expenditure RDTL 58 $3.6121 $2.03013 $.26657 $3.0783 $4.1459 $1.00 $10.00 before receiving SHS UNDP 50 $3.5083 $2.28121 $.32261 $2.8600 $4.1566 $.00 $10.00 Total 190 $3.6774 $2.55952 $.18569 $3.3112 $4.0437 $.00 $15.00
ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. candle expenditure Between Groups 74.286 2 37.143 3.511 .032 before receiving SHS Within Groups 1957.181 185 10.579 Total 2031.467 187 kerosene expenditure Between Groups 3.508 2 1.754 .266 .767 before receiving SHS Within Groups 1234.655 187 6.602 Total 1238.163 189
candle expenditure before receiving SHS (UNDP and RDTL) Oneway Descriptives Std. 95% Confidence Interval for N Mean Deviation Std. Error Mean Minimum Maximum RDTL 58 $2.2371 $2.90288 $.38117 $1.4738 $3.0003 $.00 $20.00 UNDP 48 $1.8672 $1.97331 $.28482 $1.2942 $2.4402 $.00 $7.00 Total 106 $2.0696 $2.52027 $.24479 $1.5842 $2.5549 $.00 $20.00
ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 3.594 1 3.594 .563 .455 Within Groups 663.339 104 6.378 Total 666.933 105
366 Use of vehicle batteries and appliances Crosstabs project name * car battery use car battery use Total no yes project CER 81 0 81 name RDTL 57 1 58 UNDP 55 0 55 Total 193 1 194
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.357(a) 2 .308 Likelihood Ratio 2.427 2 .297 Linear-by-Linear .026 1 .871 Association N of Valid Cases 194 a 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .28.
project name * SHS use with TV Crosstab SHS use with TV Total no yes project CER 76 0 76 name RDTL 53 2 55 UNDP 41 0 41 Total 170 2 172
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.305(a) 2 .116 Likelihood Ratio 4.611 2 .100 Linear-by-Linear .130 1 .718 Association N of Valid Cases 172 a 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .48.
project name * SHS use with radio Crosstab SHS use with radio Total no yes project CER 79 0 79 name RDTL 55 2 57 UNDP 41 0 41 Total 175 2 177
367 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.259(a) 2 .119 Likelihood Ratio 4.581 2 .101 Linear-by-Linear .147 1 .702 Association N of Valid Cases 177 a 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .46.
project name * SHS use with fan Crosstab Count SHS use with fan Total
no project CER 79 79 name RDTL 57 57 UNDP 41 41 Total 177 177
Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square .(a) N of Valid Cases 177 a No statistics are computed because SHS use with fan is a constant.
project name * SHS use with other appliance Crosstab Count SHS use with other appliance Total
no yes project CER 79 0 79 name RDTL 56 1 57 UNDP 41 0 41 Total 176 1 177
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.117(a) 2 .347 Likelihood Ratio 2.278 2 .320 Linear-by-Linear .073 1 .787 Association N of Valid Cases 177 a 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .23.
368 Section 5.4.3
System installation dates Case Summaries installation date system 1 project name Minimum Maximum Mean CER 01-MAR-03 01-JUN-07 18-DEC-04 RDTL 01-SEP-06 01-FEB-07 01-DEC-06 UNDP 01-JAN-07 13-MAR-07 04-FEB-07 Total 01-MAR-03 01-JUN-07 22-FEB-06
Table 5-13 (part 1) Incidence of broken systems Crosstabs project name * SHS currently working Crosstabulation SHS currently working Total no yes project CER Count 7 35 42 name % within project name 16.7% 83.3% 100.0% RDTL Count 2 56 58 % within project name 3.4% 96.6% 100.0% UNDP Count 1 54 55 % within project name 1.8% 98.2% 100.0% Total Count 10 145 155 % within project name 6.5% 93.5% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 10.085(a) 2 .006 Likelihood Ratio 8.914 2 .012 Linear-by-Linear 8.027 1 .005 Association N of Valid Cases 155 a 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.71.
Table 5-13 (part 2) Systems repaired in last 12 months Crosstabs project name * SHS fixed in last 12 mths Crosstabulation
Count SHS fixed in last 12 mths Total
no yes project CER 32 10 42 name RDTL 50 8 58 UNDP 48 7 55 Total 130 25 155
369 E-5.5 Community priorities
Figure 5-14, ranking of lighting-derived benefits Oneway Descriptives Std. 95% Confidence N Mean Deviation Std. Error Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum weighting, light CER 23 .3597 .08667 .01807 .3223 .3972 .25 .57
RDTL 23 .4422 .14369 .02996 .3801 .5044 .28 .83
UNDP 21 .4595 .13381 .02920 .3986 .5204 .25 .75 Total 67 .4193 .12941 .01581 .3878 .4509 .25 .83 weighting, CER 23 .278 .0734 .0153 .246 .310 .1 .5 finances RDTL 23 .261 .0935 .0195 .221 .302 .1 .4
UNDP 21 .226 .0645 .0141 .197 .256 .1 .4 Total 67 .256 .0802 .0098 .237 .276 .1 .5 weighting, CER 23 .152 .0884 .0184 .113 .190 .0 .3 convenience RDTL 23 .112 .1273 .0266 .057 .167 .0 .4
UNDP 21 .176 .0605 .0132 .149 .204 .1 .3 Total 67 .146 .0991 .0121 .121 .170 .0 .4 weighting, CER 23 .2104 .07205 .01502 .1793 .2416 .10 .39 health RDTL 23 .1847 .12244 .02553 .1318 .2377 .00 .36
UNDP 21 .1381 .06104 .01332 .1103 .1659 .05 .25 Total 67 .1789 .09351 .01142 .1561 .2017 .00 .39
ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. weighting, light Between Groups .128 2 .064 4.179 .020 Within Groups .978 64 .015 Total 1.105 66 weighting, finances Between Groups .031 2 .015 2.492 .091 Within Groups .394 64 .006 Total .425 66 weighting, convenience Between Groups .047 2 .023 2.499 .090 Within Groups .602 64 .009 Total .649 66 weighting, health Between Groups .059 2 .029 3.617 .032 Within Groups .519 64 .008 Total .577 66
Descriptives – CER N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Light 23 .25 .57 .3597 .08667 Finances 23 .1 .5 .278 .0734 Health 23 .10 .39 .2104 .07205 Convenience 23 .0 .3 .152 .0884 Valid N (listwise) 23
370 Descriptive Statistics Statistics : Mean
0.40
0.30
Values 0.20
0.10
0.00 Light Health Finances Convenience Variables
Descriptives – RDTL N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Light 23 .28 .83 .4422 .14369 Finances 23 .1 .4 .261 .0935 Health 23 .00 .36 .1847 .12244 Convenience 23 .0 .4 .112 .1273 Valid N (listwise) 23
Descriptive Statistics Statistics : Mean
0.40
0.30
Values 0.20
0.10
0.00 Light Health Finances Convenience Variables
371 Descriptives – UNDP N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Light 21 .25 .75 .4595 .13381 Finances 21 .1 .4 .226 .0645 Health 21 .05 .25 .1381 .06104 Convenience 21 .1 .3 .176 .0605 Valid N (listwise) 21
Descriptive Statistics Statistics : Mean
0.40
0.30
Values 0.20
0.10
0.00 Light Health Finances Convenience Variables
Comparison of CER and UNDP results Oneway Descriptives 95% Confidence Interval for N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Minimum Maximum
Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound weighting, light CER 23 .3597 .08667 .01807 .3223 .3972 .25 .57 UNDP 21 .4595 .13381 .02920 .3986 .5204 .25 .75 Total 44 .4074 .12130 .01829 .3705 .4442 .25 .75 weighting, health CER 23 .2104 .07205 .01502 .1793 .2416 .10 .39 UNDP 21 .1381 .06104 .01332 .1103 .1659 .05 .25 Total 44 .1759 .07566 .01141 .1529 .1989 .05 .39
ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. weighting, light Between Groups .109 1 .109 8.772 .005 Within Groups .523 42 .012 Total .633 43 weighting, health Between Groups .057 1 .057 12.781 .001 Within Groups .189 42 .004 Total .246 43
372
Mean weightings across all projects Descriptives N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation weighting, light 67 .25 .83 .4193 .12941 weighting, finances 67 .1 .5 .256 .0802 weighting, health 67 .00 .39 .1789 .09351 weighting, convenience 67 .0 .4 .146 .0991 Valid N (listwise) 67
Figure 5-11 Crosstabs ranking, derived, first * project Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP ranking, derived, domestic 21 12 11 44 first study 2 11 10 23 Total 23 23 21 67
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 10.207(a) 2 .006 Likelihood Ratio 11.691 2 .003 N of Valid Cases 67 a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.21.
Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project CER
ranking, derived, first ranking, derived, first domestic ranking, derived, first study
373 Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project RDTL
ranking, derived, first ranking, derived, first domestic ranking, derived, first study
Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project UNDP
ranking, derived, first ranking, derived, first domestic ranking, derived, first study
ranking, derived, second * project Crosstab Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP ranking, domestic 2 9 7 18 derived, productive 3 1 3 7 second social 0 1 0 1 study 18 12 11 41 Total 23 23 21 67
374 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 9.285(a) 6 .158 Likelihood Ratio 10.478 6 .106 N of Valid Cases 67 a 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .31.
Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project CER
ranking, derived, second ranking, derived, second domestic ranking, derived, second productive ranking, derived, second social ranking, derived, second study
Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project RDTL
ranking, derived, second ranking, derived, second domestic ranking, derived, second productive ranking, derived, second social ranking, derived, second study
375 Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project UNDP
ranking, derived, second ranking, derived, second domestic ranking, derived, second productive ranking, derived, second social ranking, derived, second study
ranking, derived, third * project Crosstab Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP ranking, domestic 0 2 3 5 derived, productive 20 14 16 50 third social 0 7 2 9 study 3 0 0 3 Total 23 23 21 67
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 18.149(a) 6 .006 Likelihood Ratio 22.072 6 .001 N of Valid Cases 67 a 9 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .94.
376 Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project CER
ranking, derived, third ranking, derived, third domestic ranking, derived, third productive ranking, derived, third social ranking, derived, third study
Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project RDTL
ranking, derived, third ranking, derived, third domestic ranking, derived, third productive ranking, derived, third social ranking, derived, third study
377 Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project UNDP
ranking, derived, third domestic tasks productive tasks social interaction study
ranking, derived, fourth * project Crosstab Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP ranking, derived, productive 0 8 2 10 fourth social 23 15 19 57 Total 23 23 21 67
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 11.660(a) 2 .003 Likelihood Ratio 13.540 2 .001 N of Valid Cases 67 a 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.13.
378 Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project CER
ranking, derived, fourth ranking, derived, fourth productive ranking, derived, fourth social
Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project RDTL
ranking, derived, fourth ranking, derived, fourth productive ranking, derived, fourth social
379 Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project UNDP
ranking, derived, fourth ranking, derived, fourth productive ranking, derived, fourth social
Table 5-14 Frequencies ranking, derived benefits Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 1234 11 16.4 16.4 16.4 1243 7 10.4 10.4 26.9 1324 4 6.0 6.0 32.8 1342 1 1.5 1.5 34.3 2134 39 58.2 58.2 92.5 2143 2 3.0 3.0 95.5 3124 3 4.5 4.5 100.0 Total 67 100.0 100.0
Table 5-15 Crosstabs ranking, derived benefits, high frequency * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP ranking, derived 9 3 2 1 6 benefits, high 1234 2 3 6 11 frequency 1243 0 6 1 7 1324 0 1 3 4 2134 18 11 10 39 Total 23 23 21 67
380 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 18.491(a) 8 .018 Likelihood Ratio 19.929 8 .011 N of Valid Cases 67 a 12 cells (80.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.25.
Table 5-16 Crosstabs ranking, derived first-second * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP ranking, derived AA 20 21 18 59 first-second BB 3 2 3 8 Total 23 23 21 67
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .367(a) 2 .832 Likelihood Ratio .381 2 .826 N of Valid Cases 67 a 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.51.
Table 5-17 ranking, derived benefits, high frequency * women/men Crosstabulation Count women/men Total men women ranking, derived 9 4 2 6 benefits, high 1234 5 6 11 frequency 1243 3 4 7 1324 4 0 4 2134 21 18 39 Total 37 30 67
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.448(a) 4 .349 Likelihood Ratio 5.957 4 .202 N of Valid Cases 67 a 7 cells (70.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.79.
381 ranking, derived, first * women/men Crosstab Count women/men Total men women ranking, derived, domestic 24 20 44 first study 13 10 23 Total 37 30 67
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .024(b) 1 .877 Continuity .000 1 1.000 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio .024 1 .877 Fisher's Exact Test 1.000 .543 N of Valid Cases 67 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10.30.
ranking, derived, second * women/men Crosstab Count women/men Total men women ranking, domestic 8 10 18 derived, productive 6 1 7 second social 1 0 1 study 22 19 41 Total 37 30 67
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.329(a) 3 .228 Likelihood Ratio 5.058 3 .168 N of Valid Cases 67 a 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .45.
ranking, derived, third * women/men Crosstab Count women/men Total men women ranking, domestic 5 0 5 derived, productive 26 24 50 third social 4 5 9 study 2 1 3 Total 37 30 67
382 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.846(a) 3 .183 Likelihood Ratio 6.730 3 .081 N of Valid Cases 67 a 6 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.34.
ranking, derived, fourth * women/men Crosstab Count women/men Total men women ranking, derived, productive 5 5 10 fourth social 32 25 57 Total 37 30 67
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .130(b) 1 .719 Continuity .000 1 .988 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio .129 1 .719 Fisher's Exact Test .743 .490 N of Valid Cases 67 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.48.
Table 5-18, women ranking, derived first-second * project Crosstab Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP ranking, derived AA 10 9 10 29 first-second BB 1 0 0 1 Total 11 9 10 30
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.787(a) 2 .409 Likelihood Ratio 2.067 2 .356 N of Valid Cases 30 a 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .30.
383 Table 5-18, men ranking, derived first-second * project Crosstab Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP ranking, derived AA 10 12 8 30 first-second BB 2 2 3 7 Total 12 14 11 37
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .736(a) 2 .692 Likelihood Ratio .706 2 .703 N of Valid Cases 37 a 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.08.
Figure 5-12 Frequencies – CER Domestic Study Productive Social N Valid 23 23 23 23 Missing 0 0 0 0 Mean .3671 .2929 .211 .129 Std. Deviation .07720 .08559 .0594 .0989
Statistics Statistics : Mean
0.30
0.20 Values
0.10
0.00 Domestic Productive Study Social Variables
384 Frequencies – RDTL Domestic Study Productive Social N Valid 23 23 23 23 Missing 0 0 0 0 Mean .3666 .3724 .154 .107 Std. Deviation .12973 .17708 .1158 .1098
Statistics Statistics : Mean
0.30
0.20 Values
0.10
0.00 Domestic Productive Study Social Variables
Frequencies – UNDP Domestic Study Productive Social N Valid 21 21 21 21 Missing 0 0 0 0 Mean .3172 .3342 .198 .151 Std. Deviation .09064 .07668 .0371 .0675
385 Statistics Statistics : Mean
0.3000
0.2000 Values
0.1000
0.0000 domestic study productive social Variables
Frequencies – all projects domestic study productive social N Valid 67 67 67 67 Missing 0 0 0 0 Mean .3513 .3331 .188 .128 Std. Deviation .10308 .12560 .0817 .0948
Statistics Statistics : Mean
0.3000
0.2000 Values
0.1000
0.0000 domestic study productive social Variables
386 Comparison of weightings by project Oneway Descriptives Std. Std. 95% Confidence N Mean Deviation Error Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum weighting, CER 23 .2929 .08559 .01785 .2559 .3299 .20 .45 study RDTL 23 .3724 .17708 .03692 .2958 .4489 .17 1.00
UNDP 21 .3342 .07668 .01673 .2993 .3691 .25 .55 Total 67 .3331 .12560 .01534 .3025 .3638 .17 1.00 weighting, CER 23 .3671 .07720 .01610 .3337 .4004 .22 .50 domestic tasks RDTL 23 .3666 .12973 .02705 .3105 .4227 .00 .61
UNDP 21 .3172 .09064 .01978 .2759 .3584 .20 .50 Total 67 .3513 .10308 .01259 .3261 .3764 .00 .61 weighting, CER 23 .211 .0594 .0124 .186 .237 .1 .3 productive RDTL 23 .154 .1158 .0242 .104 .205 .0 .3 tasks UNDP 21 .198 .0371 .0081 .181 .215 .1 .3 Total 67 .188 .0817 .0100 .168 .208 .0 .3
weighting, CER 23 .129 .0989 .0206 .086 .171 .0 .3 social RDTL 23 .107 .1098 .0229 .059 .154 .0 .3 interaction UNDP 21 .151 .0675 .0147 .120 .181 .0 .3 Total 67 .128 .0948 .0116 .105 .151 .0 .3
Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. weighting, study 3.356 2 64 .041 weighting, domestic tasks 1.591 2 64 .212 weighting, productive tasks 15.592 2 64 .000 weighting, social interaction 9.112 2 64 .000
ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. weighting, study Between Groups .073 2 .036 2.398 .099 Within Groups .969 64 .015 Total 1.041 66 weighting, Between Groups .036 2 .018 1.709 .189 domestic tasks Within Groups .666 64 .010 Total .701 66 weighting, Between Groups .041 2 .020 3.245 .045 productive tasks Within Groups .400 64 .006 Total .441 66
weighting, social Between Groups .021 2 .011 1.187 .312 interaction Within Groups .571 64 .009 Total .593 66
387 Comparison of weightings by groups of women and men Oneway Descriptives Std. Std. 95% Confidence Interval N Mean Deviation Error for Mean Minimum Maximum weighting, women 30 .3321 .15216 .02778 .2753 .3889 .18 1.00 study men 37 .3340 .10134 .01666 .3002 .3678 .17 .58
Total 67 .3331 .12560 .01534 .3025 .3638 .17 1.00 weighting, women 30 .3437 .09836 .01796 .3070 .3805 .00 .50 domestic tasks men 37 .3574 .10770 .01771 .3214 .3933 .20 .61
Total 67 .3513 .10308 .01259 .3261 .3764 .00 .61 weighting, women 30 .189 .0728 .0133 .162 .216 .0 .3 productive men 37 .187 .0893 .0147 .157 .216 .0 .3 tasks Total 67 .188 .0817 .0100 .168 .208 .0 .3
weighting, women 30 .135 .0943 .0172 .100 .170 .0 .3 social men 37 .122 .0960 .0158 .090 .154 .0 .3 interaction Total 67 .128 .0948 .0116 .105 .151 .0 .3
ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. weighting, study Between Groups .000 1 .000 .004 .951 Within Groups 1.041 65 .016 Total 1.041 66 weighting, Between Groups .003 1 .003 .286 .595 domestic tasks Within Groups .698 65 .011 Total .701 66 weighting, Between Groups .000 1 .000 .015 .902 productive tasks Within Groups .441 65 .007 Total .441 66
weighting, social Between Groups .003 1 .003 .311 .579 interaction Within Groups .590 65 .009 Total .593 66
388 Figure 5-13 ranking, intrinsic, first * project Crosstab Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP ranking, intrinsic, finance 5 0 0 5 first light 18 23 21 62 Total 23 23 21 67
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 10.337(a) 2 .006 Likelihood Ratio 11.485 2 .003 N of Valid Cases 67 a 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.57.
Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project CER
ranking, intrinsic, first ranking, intrinsic, first finance ranking, intrinsic, first light
389 Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project RDTL
ranking, intrinsic, first ranking, intrinsic, first finance ranking, intrinsic, first light
Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project UNDP
ranking, intrinsic, first ranking, intrinsic, first finance ranking, intrinsic, first light
ranking, intrinsic, second * project Crosstab Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP ranking, convenience 0 3 3 6 intrinsic, finance 17 15 17 49 second health 1 5 1 7 light 5 0 0 5 Total 23 23 21 67
390 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 17.371(a) 6 .008 Likelihood Ratio 20.129 6 .003 N of Valid Cases 67 a 9 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.57.
Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project CER
ranking, intrinsic, second ranking, intrinsic, second convenience ranking, intrinsic, second finance ranking, intrinsic, second health ranking, intrinsic, second light
Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project RDTL
ranking, intrinsic, second ranking, intrinsic, second convenience ranking, intrinsic, second finance ranking, intrinsic, second health ranking, intrinsic, second light
391 Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project UNDP
ranking, intrinsic, second ranking, intrinsic, second convenience ranking, intrinsic, second finance ranking, intrinsic, second health ranking, intrinsic, second light
ranking, intrinsic, third * project Crosstab Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP ranking, convenience 13 7 15 35 intrinsic, finance 1 6 3 10 third health 9 10 3 22 Total 23 23 21 67
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 10.576(a) 4 .032 Likelihood Ratio 11.621 4 .020 N of Valid Cases 67 a 3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.13.
392 Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project CER
ranking, intrinsic, third ranking, intrinsic, third convenience ranking, intrinsic, third finance ranking, intrinsic, third health
Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project RDTL
ranking, intrinsic, third ranking, intrinsic, third convenience ranking, intrinsic, third finance ranking, intrinsic, third health
393 Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project UNDP
ranking, intrinsic, third ranking, intrinsic, third convenience ranking, intrinsic, third finance ranking, intrinsic, third health
ranking, intrinsic, fourth * project Crosstab Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP ranking, convenience 10 13 3 26 intrinsic, finance 0 2 1 3 fourth health 13 8 17 38 Total 23 23 21 67
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 11.317(a) 4 .023 Likelihood Ratio 13.018 4 .011 N of Valid Cases 67 a 3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .94.
394 Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project CER
ranking, intrinsic, fourth ranking, intrinsic, fourth convenience ranking, intrinsic, fourth finance ranking, intrinsic, fourth health
Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project RDTL
ranking, intrinsic, fourth ranking, intrinsic, fourth convenience ranking, intrinsic, fourth finance ranking, intrinsic, fourth health
395 Crosstab Statistics : Count project : project UNDP
ranking, intrinsic, fourth ranking, intrinsic, fourth convenience ranking, intrinsic, fourth finance ranking, intrinsic, fourth health
Table 5-19 Frequencies ranking, intrinsic benefits Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 1234 29 43.3 43.3 43.3 1243 20 29.9 29.9 73.1 1324 6 9.0 9.0 82.1 1342 4 6.0 6.0 88.1 1432 3 4.5 4.5 92.5 2134 3 4.5 4.5 97.0 2143 2 3.0 3.0 100.0 Total 67 100.0 100.0
Table 5-20 Crosstabs ranking, intrinsic, hi frequency * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP ranking, 9 6 5 1 12 intrinsic, hi 1234 10 5 14 29 frequency 1243 7 10 3 20 1324 0 3 3 6 Total 23 23 21 67
396 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 14.486(a) 6 .025 Likelihood Ratio 17.527 6 .008 Linear-by-Linear 3.502 1 .061 Association N of Valid Cases 67 a 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.88.
Table 5-21 Crosstabs ranking, intrinsic first-second * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP ranking, intrinsic AA 22 15 17 54 first-second BB 1 6 3 10 CC 0 2 1 3 Total 23 23 21 67
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.919(a) 4 .140 Likelihood Ratio 8.082 4 .089 N of Valid Cases 67 a 6 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .94.
Comparison of results for women and men ranking, intrinsic, hi frequency * women/men Crosstab Count women/men Total women men ranking, 9 4 8 12 intrinsic, hi 1234 14 15 29 frequency 1243 8 12 20 1324 4 2 6 Total 30 37 67
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.126(a) 3 .547 Likelihood Ratio 2.146 3 .543 Linear-by-Linear .845 1 .358 Association N of Valid Cases 67 a 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.69.
397 ranking, first-second, AA or not * women/men Crosstab Count women/men Total women men ranking, first-second, AA 25 29 54 AA or not 9 5 8 13 Total 30 37 67
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .260(b) 1 .610 Continuity .040 1 .842 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio .262 1 .608 Fisher's Exact Test .759 .424 Linear-by-Linear Association .256 1 .613 N of Valid Cases 67 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.82.
398 E-6.1 Study, reading
Section 6.1.1 Study, reading
Figure 6-1, Study, ease Frequencies study, ease
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid little easier 9 13.4 13.4 13.4 easier 30 44.8 44.8 58.2 much easier 28 41.8 41.8 100.0 Total 67 100.0 100.0
study, ease
30
20 Frequency
10
0 little easier easier much easier
Table 6-1, Study, ease Crosstabs study, ease * project Crosstabulation
Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP study, easier, little 5 1 3 9 ease easier 10 13 7 30 easier, much 8 9 11 28 Total 23 23 21 67
399
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.810(a) 4 .307 Likelihood Ratio 5.112 4 .276 Linear-by-Linear 1.473 1 .225 Association N of Valid Cases 67 a 3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.82.
Study, ease, Recoded into high frequency responses Crosstabs study, ease (high freq) * project Crosstabulation
Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP study, ease easier, much 8 9 11 28 (high freq) easier 15 14 10 39 Total 23 23 21 67
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.499(a) 2 .472 Likelihood Ratio 1.494 2 .474 Linear-by-Linear 1.356 1 .244 Association N of Valid Cases 67 a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.78.
Section 6.1.2 Duration of study, reading
Figure 6-2, Study duration Frequencies study, duration Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid same 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 more, little 9 13.4 13.4 14.9 more 33 49.3 49.3 64.2 more, much 24 35.8 35.8 100.0 Total 67 100.0 100.0
400 study, duration
50
40
30 Percent 20
10
0 same more, little more more, much
Table 6-2 Study duration Crosstabs study, duration * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP study, same 1 0 0 1 duration more, little 6 2 1 9 more 12 13 8 33 more, much 4 8 12 24 Total 23 23 21 67
Table 6-3, Study duration Recoded into high frequency responses Crosstabs study, duration, high frequency * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP study, duration, more, much 4 8 12 24 high frequency more 18 15 9 42 Total 22 23 21 66
401 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 7.086(a) 2 .029 Likelihood Ratio 7.259 2 .027 Linear-by-Linear 6.926 1 .008 Association N of Valid Cases 66 a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.64.
Comparison of CER and RDTL results Crosstabs study, duration, high frequency * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL study, duration, more, much 4 8 12 high frequency more 18 15 33 Total 22 23 45
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.585(b) 1 .208 Continuity .849 1 .357 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio 1.610 1 .204 Fisher's Exact Test .314 .179 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.549 1 .213 N of Valid Cases 45 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.87.
Descriptives study, children, usually (% of hhd) Std. 95% Confidence N Mean Deviation Std. Error Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum CER 54 .8963 .17628 .02399 .8482 .9444 .33 1.00 RDTL 48 .8181 .21836 .03152 .7547 .8815 .33 1.00 UNDP 40 .9492 .13134 .02077 .9072 .9912 .50 1.00 Total 142 .8847 .18732 .01572 .8537 .9158 .33 1.00
402 E-6.2 Domestic tasks
Section 6.2.1 Domestic tasks, ease Figure 6-3, Domestic tasks, ease Frequencies domestic tasks, ease Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid same 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 easier, little 15 22.4 22.4 23.9 easier 24 35.8 35.8 59.7 easier, much 27 40.3 40.3 100.0 Total 67 100.0 100.0
domestic tasks, ease
50
40
30 Percent 20
10
0 same easier, little easier easier, much domestic tasks, ease
Table 6-9, Domestic tasks, ease (n.b. 1 x household in 'same' category removed from Chi-square test sample) Crosstabs domestic tasks, ease * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP domestic easier, little 10 2 3 15 tasks, ease easier 4 15 5 24 easier, much 8 6 13 27 Total 22 23 21 66
403 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 19.436(a) 4 .001 Likelihood Ratio 18.466 4 .001 Linear-by-Linear 5.636 1 .018 Association N of Valid Cases 66 a 1 cells (11.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.77.
domestic, ease, high frequency * project Crosstabulation Crosstabs Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP domestic, ease, easier 14 17 8 39 high frequency easier, much 8 6 13 27 Total 22 23 21 66
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.108(a) 2 .047 Likelihood Ratio 6.148 2 .046 Linear-by-Linear 2.773 1 .096 Association N of Valid Cases 66 a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.59.
CER - Domestic tasks, ease, women/men Crosstab Count women/men Total women men domestic same 1 0 1 tasks, easier, little 5 5 10 ease easier 0 4 4 easier, much 5 3 8 Total 11 12 23
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 5.467(a) 3 .141 Likelihood Ratio 7.393 3 .060 Linear-by-Linear .001 1 .971 Association N of Valid Cases 23 a 7 cells (87.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .48.
404 Table 6-10, CER domestic, ease, high frequency * women/men Crosstab Count women/men Total women men domestic, ease, easier 5 9 14 high frequency easier, much 5 3 8 Total 10 12 22
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.473(b) 1 .225 Continuity .591 1 .442 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio 1.482 1 .223 Fisher's Exact Test .378 .221 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.406 1 .236 N of Valid Cases 22 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.64.
RDTL - Domestic tasks, ease, women/men Crosstab Count women/men Total women men domestic easier, little 0 2 2 tasks, ease easier 7 8 15 easier, much 2 4 6 Total 9 14 23
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.728(a) 2 .421 Likelihood Ratio 2.423 2 .298 Linear-by-Linear .104 1 .747 Association N of Valid Cases 23 a 4 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .78.
405 Table 6-10, RDTL domestic, ease, high frequency * women/men Crosstab Count women/men Total women men domestic, ease, easier 7 10 17 high frequency easier, much 2 4 6 Total 9 14 23
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .115(b) 1 .735 Continuity .000 1 1.000 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio .116 1 .733 Fisher's Exact Test 1.000 .565 Linear-by-Linear Association .110 1 .741 N of Valid Cases 23 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.35.
UNDP - Domestic tasks, ease, women/men Crosstab
Count women/men Total women men domestic easier, little 1 2 3 tasks, ease easier 3 2 5 easier, much 6 7 13 Total 10 11 21
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .564(a) 2 .754 Likelihood Ratio .571 2 .752 Linear-by-Linear .019 1 .890 Association N of Valid Cases 21 a 4 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.43.
406 Table 6-10, UNDP domestic, ease, high frequency * women/men Crosstab Count women/men Total women men domestic, ease, easier 4 4 8 high frequency easier, much 6 7 13 Total 10 11 21
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .029(b) 1 .864 Continuity .000 1 1.000 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio .029 1 .864 Fisher's Exact Test 1.000 .608 Linear-by-Linear Association .028 1 .867 N of Valid Cases 21 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.81.
Section 6.2.2 Domestic tasks, duration Figure 6-4, Domestic tasks, duration Frequencies domestic tasks, duration Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid same 2 3.0 3.0 3.0 more, little 17 25.4 25.4 28.4 more 34 50.7 50.7 79.1 more, much 14 20.9 20.9 100.0 Total 67 100.0 100.0
domestic tasks, duration
60
50
40
30 Percent
20
10
0 same more, little more more, much domestic tasks, duration
407 Table 6-11 Domestic tasks, duration domestic tasks, duration * project Crosstabulation Crosstabs Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP domestic same 2 0 0 2 tasks, more, little 11 3 3 17 duration more 9 15 10 34 more, much 1 5 8 14 Total 23 23 21 67
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 18.387(a) 6 .005 Likelihood Ratio 19.224 6 .004 Linear-by-Linear 13.859 1 .000 Association N of Valid Cases 67 a 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .63.
Table 6-12 Domestic tasks, duration, high frequency responses Crosstabs domestic, duration, high frequency * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP domestic, duration, more 22 18 13 53 high frequency more, much 1 5 8 14 Total 23 23 21 67
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 7.579(a) 2 .023 Likelihood Ratio 8.462 2 .015 Linear-by-Linear 7.463 1 .006 Association N of Valid Cases 67 a 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.39.
408 Section 6.2.3 Domestic tasks, survey results
Table 6-13, Usefulness of electricity for domestic tasks women - SHS usefulness for domestic tasks * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP women - SHS usefulness very useful 0 0 8 8 for domestic tasks useful 24 44 24 92 somewhat useful 5 0 0 5 Total 29 44 32 105
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 32.783(a) 4 .000 Likelihood Ratio 33.305 4 .000 Linear-by-Linear 22.049 1 .000 Association N of Valid Cases 105 a 6 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.38.
men - SHS usefulness for domestic tasks * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP men - SHS very useful 0 0 12 12 usefulness for useful 29 38 34 101 domestic tasks somewhat useful 6 1 0 7 not useful 0 1 0 1 Total 35 40 46 121
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 33.944(a) 6 .000 Likelihood Ratio 37.918 6 .000 Linear-by-Linear 20.561 1 .000 Association N of Valid Cases 121 a 9 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .29.
409 Table 6-14, Waking hours Oneway Descriptives Std. Std. 95% Confidence N Mean Deviation Error Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum average CER 82 16.0477 1.35258 .14937 15.7505 16.3449 13.00 20.00 waking RDTL 58 15.4966 1.35161 .17748 15.1412 15.8519 12.33 18.00 hours, adult UNDP 37 16.2599 1.28251 .21084 15.8323 16.6875 14.25 20.25 Total 177 15.9114 1.36418 .10254 15.7091 16.1138 12.33 20.25
average CER 62 14.7964 1.54103 .19571 14.4050 15.1877 12.00 19.00 waking RDTL 43 14.3624 1.17019 .17845 14.0023 14.7225 11.00 17.00 hours, child UNDP 32 14.7891 1.24793 .22061 14.3391 15.2390 12.00 17.00 Total 137 14.6585 1.37238 .11725 14.4266 14.8903 11.00 19.00
average CER 76 15.8925 1.60928 .18460 15.5248 16.2603 12.50 20.00 waking RDTL 56 15.2247 1.40624 .18792 14.8481 15.6013 11.50 18.00 hours, women UNDP 36 16.0139 1.16249 .19375 15.6206 16.4072 14.00 18.50 Total 168 15.6959 1.48709 .11473 15.4694 15.9224 11.50 20.00
average CER 82 16.0421 1.48210 .16367 15.7164 16.3677 13.00 20.00 waking RDTL 56 15.7455 1.62853 .21762 15.3094 16.1817 12.00 19.00 hours, men UNDP 34 16.2172 .85722 .14701 15.9181 16.5163 14.50 18.00 Total 172 15.9801 1.43749 .10961 15.7638 16.1965 12.00 20.00
ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. average waking Between Groups 15.998 2 7.999 4.468 .013 hours, adult Within Groups 311.533 174 1.790 Total 327.532 176 average waking Between Groups 5.494 2 2.747 1.469 .234 hours, child Within Groups 250.651 134 1.871 Total 256.145 136 average waking Between Groups 19.013 2 9.506 4.478 .013 hours, women Within Groups 350.295 165 2.123 Total 369.307 167
average waking Between Groups 5.307 2 2.653 1.288 .278 hours, men Within Groups 348.043 169 2.059 Total 353.350 171
410 Comparison of CER and UNDP households Oneway Descriptives
Std. Std. 95% Confidence N Mean Deviation Error Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum average CER 82 16.0477 1.35258 .14937 15.7505 16.3449 13.00 20.00 waking hours, UNDP 37 16.2599 1.28251 .21084 15.8323 16.6875 14.25 20.25 adult Total 119 16.1137 1.32943 .12187 15.8723 16.3550 13.00 20.25
average CER 76 15.8925 1.60928 .18460 15.5248 16.2603 12.50 20.00 waking hours, UNDP 36 16.0139 1.16249 .19375 15.6206 16.4072 14.00 18.50 women Total 112 15.9315 1.47621 .13949 15.6551 16.2080 12.50 20.00
ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. average waking Between Groups 1.149 1 1.149 .648 .422 hours, adult Within Groups 207.402 117 1.773 Total 208.551 118 average waking Between Groups .360 1 .360 .164 .686 hours, women Within Groups 241.532 110 2.196 Total 241.892 111
411 E-6.3 Productive tasks
Section 6.3.1 Productive tasks, ease.
Figure 6-5, Productive tasks, ease.
Frequencies
productive tasks, ease
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid easier, little 10 14.9 14.9 14.9 easier 37 55.2 55.2 70.1 easier, much 20 29.9 29.9 100.0 Total 67 100.0 100.0
productive tasks, ease
60
50
40
30 Percent
20
10
0 little easier easier much easier productive tasks, ease
Table 6-15 Productive tasks, ease Crosstabs productive tasks, ease * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP productive easier, little 7 2 1 10 tasks, ease easier 9 18 10 37 easier, much 7 3 10 20 Total 23 23 21 67
412 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 13.667(a) 4 .008 Likelihood Ratio 13.561 4 .009 Linear-by-Linear 4.556 1 .033 Association N of Valid Cases 67 a 3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.13.
Comparison CER and RDTL results Crosstabs productive tasks, ease * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL productive easier, little 7 2 9 tasks, ease easier 9 18 27 easier, much 7 3 10 Total 23 23 46
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 7.378(a) 2 .025 Likelihood Ratio 7.646 2 .022 Linear-by-Linear .052 1 .820 Association N of Valid Cases 46 a 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.50.
Comparison CER and UNDP results Crosstabs productive tasks, ease * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER UNDP productive easier, little 7 1 8 tasks, ease easier 9 10 19 easier, much 7 10 17 Total 23 21 44
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 5.001(a) 2 .082 Likelihood Ratio 5.556 2 .062 Linear-by-Linear 3.744 1 .053 Association N of Valid Cases 44 a 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.82.
413
Comparison UNDP and RDTL results Crosstabs productive tasks, ease * project Crosstabulation Count project Total RDTL UNDP productive easier, little 2 1 3 tasks, ease easier 18 10 28 easier, much 3 10 13 Total 23 21 44
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.310(a) 2 .043 Likelihood Ratio 6.543 2 .038 Linear-by-Linear 5.099 1 .024 Association N of Valid Cases 44 a 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.43.
Comparison of CER and RDTL results, high frequency Crosstabs productive, ease, high frequency * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL productive, ease, easier 16 20 36 high frequency easier, much 7 3 10 Total 23 23 46
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.044(b) 1 .153 Continuity 1.150 1 .284 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio 2.091 1 .148 Fisher's Exact Test .284 .142 Linear-by-Linear Association 2.000 1 .157 N of Valid Cases 46 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.00.
414 Table 6-16 Productive tasks, ease, women/men productive tasks, ease * women/men Crosstab Count women/men Total women men productive easier, little 2 8 10 tasks, ease easier 18 19 37 easier, much 10 10 20 Total 30 37 67
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.928(a) 2 .231 Likelihood Ratio 3.149 2 .207 Linear-by-Linear 1.734 1 .188 Association N of Valid Cases 67 a 1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.48.
415 Section 6.3.2 Productive tasks, duration Figure 6-6 Productive tasks, duration Frequencies productive tasks, duration
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid more, little 12 17.9 17.9 17.9 more 32 47.8 47.8 65.7 more, much 23 34.3 34.3 100.0 Total 67 100.0 100.0
productive tasks, duration
50
40
30 Percent 20
10
0 little more more much more productive tasks, duration
Table 6-17 Productive tasks, duration Crosstabs productive tasks, duration * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP productive more, little 7 5 0 12 tasks, duration more 12 14 6 32 more, much 4 4 15 23 Total 23 23 21 67
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 20.768(a) 4 .000 Likelihood Ratio 23.208 4 .000 Linear-by-Linear 15.201 1 .000 Association N of Valid Cases 67 a 3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.76.
416
Comparison of CER and RDTL results Crosstabs productive tasks, duration * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL productive more, little 7 5 12 tasks, duration more 12 14 26 more, much 4 4 8 Total 23 23 46
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .487(a) 2 .784 Likelihood Ratio .489 2 .783 Linear-by-Linear .199 1 .655 Association N of Valid Cases 46 a 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.00.
Comparison of duration results, women and men Crosstabs productive tasks, duration * women/men Crosstabulation Count women/men Total women men productive more, little 4 8 12 tasks, duration more 16 16 32 more, much 10 13 23 Total 30 37 67
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.004(a) 2 .605 Likelihood Ratio 1.019 2 .601 Linear-by-Linear .139 1 .710 Association N of Valid Cases 67 a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.37.
417 Section 6.3.3 Productive tasks, survey results
Table 6-18, Operation of businesses from home Crosstabs business operated * project name Crosstabulation Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP business no 36 43 46 125 operated yes 6 15 9 30 Total 42 58 55 155
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.580(a) 2 .275 Likelihood Ratio 2.533 2 .282 Linear-by-Linear .016 1 .901 Association N of Valid Cases 155 a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.13.
Table 6-19, Home business by business type Crosstabs business categories (numeric) * project name Crosstabulation Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP business shop 5 10 1 16 categories handicraft 0 1 3 4 (numeric) bakery 1 2 0 3 agricultural processing 0 2 4 6 Total 6 15 8 29
Table 6-20, Perception of usefulness of SHS for business, women/men Crosstabs women - SHS facilitate business * project name Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP women - SHS very useful 0 0 2 2 facilitate useful 23 44 26 93 business somewhat useful 3 0 2 5 not useful 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 2 2 Total 29 44 32 105
418 men - SHS facilitate business * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP men - SHS very useful 0 1 3 4 facilitate useful 27 38 35 100 business somewhat useful 5 0 4 9 not useful 3 1 2 6 5 0 0 2 2 Total 35 40 46 121
419 E-6.4 Social interaction
Section 6.4.1 Social interaction, ease Figure 6-7 Social interaction, ease Frequencies social interaction, ease
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid easier, little 2 3.0 3.0 3.0 easier 37 55.2 55.2 58.2 easier, much 28 41.8 41.8 100.0 Total 67 100.0 100.0
social interaction, ease
60
50
40
30 Percent
20
10
0 little easier easier much easier social interaction, ease
Table 6-21 Social interaction, ease Crosstabs social interaction, ease * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP social interaction, easier, little 2 0 0 2 ease easier 10 20 7 37 easier, much 11 3 14 28 Total 23 23 21 67
420 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 18.275(a) 4 .001 Likelihood Ratio 19.645 4 .001 Linear-by-Linear 2.517 1 .113 Association N of Valid Cases 67 a 3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .63.
Comparison of CER and UNDP results Crosstabs social interaction, ease * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER UNDP social interaction, easier, little 2 0 2 ease easier 10 7 17 easier, much 11 14 25 Total 23 21 44
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.804(a) 2 .246 Likelihood Ratio 3.575 2 .167 Linear-by-Linear 2.390 1 .122 Association N of Valid Cases 44 a 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .95.
Crosstabs social, ease, high frequency * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER UNDP social, ease, high easier 12 7 19 frequency easier, much 11 14 25 Total 23 21 44
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.588(b) 1 .208 Continuity .913 1 .339 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio 1.601 1 .206 Fisher's Exact Test .239 .170 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.552 1 .213 N of Valid Cases 44 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 9.07.
421
Section 6.4.2 Social interaction, duration
Figure 6-8 Social interaction, duration Frequencies social interaction, duration Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid more, little 6 9.0 9.0 9.0 more 34 50.7 50.7 59.7 more, much 27 40.3 40.3 100.0 Total 67 100.0 100.0
social interaction, duration
60
50
40
30 Percent
20
10
0 more, little more more, much social interaction, duration
Table 6-22 Social interaction, duration Crosstabs social interaction, duration * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL UNDP social interaction, more, little 4 1 1 6 duration more 12 17 5 34 more, much 7 5 15 27 Total 23 23 21 67
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 15.801(a) 4 .003 Likelihood Ratio 15.555 4 .004 Linear-by-Linear 7.686 1 .006 Association N of Valid Cases 67 a 3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.88.
422
Comparison of CER and RDTL results Crosstabs social interaction, duration * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL social interaction, more, little 4 1 5 duration more 12 17 29 more, much 7 5 12 Total 23 23 46
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.995(a) 2 .224 Likelihood Ratio 3.129 2 .209 Linear-by-Linear .061 1 .804 Association N of Valid Cases 46 a 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.50.
social interaction, ease * women/men Crosstab Count women/men Total women men social interaction, easier, little 1 1 2 ease easier 17 20 37 easier, much 12 16 28 Total 30 37 67
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .084(a) 2 .959 Likelihood Ratio .084 2 .959 Linear-by-Linear .082 1 .774 Association N of Valid Cases 67 a 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .90.
social interaction, duration * women/men Crosstab Count women/men Total women men social interaction, more, little 2 4 6 duration more 14 20 34 more, much 14 13 27 Total 30 37 67
423 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.043(a) 2 .594 Likelihood Ratio 1.048 2 .592 Linear-by-Linear 1.017 1 .313 Association N of Valid Cases 67 a 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.69.
Comparison of CER and RDTL, high frequency Crosstabs social interaction, duration, high freq * project Crosstabulation Count project Total CER RDTL social interaction, easier, much 7 5 12 duration, high freq 9 16 18 34 Total 23 23 46
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .451(b) 1 .502 Continuity .113 1 .737 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio .453 1 .501 Fisher's Exact Test .738 .369 Linear-by-Linear Association .441 1 .507 N of Valid Cases 46 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.00.
Section 6.4.3 Social interaction, survey results
Table 6-23, Visits by neighbours Frequencies women - frequency of visitors at night * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP women - frequency nightly 0 2 3 5 of visitors at night weekly 0 2 5 7 monthly 32 37 24 93 never 3 3 0 6 Total 35 44 32 111
424 men - frequency of visitors at night * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP men - frequency nightly 1 2 6 9 of visitors at night weekly 7 1 4 12 monthly 58 35 34 127 never 3 2 2 7 Total 69 40 46 155
Table 6-24, Visits by neighbours, women visitor frequency, women * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP visitor frequency, weekly or more 0 4 8 12 women monthly or less 35 40 24 99 Total 35 44 32 111
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 11.059(a) 2 .004 Likelihood Ratio 13.247 2 .001 Linear-by-Linear 10.643 1 .001 Association N of Valid Cases 111 a 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.46.
425 visitors, frequency, men * project name Crosstab
Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP visitors, frequency, weekly or more 8 3 10 21 men monthly or less 61 37 36 134 Total 69 40 46 155
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.109(a) 2 .128 Likelihood Ratio 3.981 2 .137 Linear-by-Linear 1.990 1 .158 Association N of Valid Cases 155 a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.42.
Visits by neighbours, comparison of CER and RDTL results Crosstabs visitor frequency, women * project name Crosstabulation Count project name Total CER RDTL visitor frequency, weekly or more 0 4 4 women monthly or less 35 40 75 Total 35 44 79
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 3.352(b) 1 .067 Continuity 1.727 1 .189 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio 4.851 1 .028 Fisher's Exact Test .125 .090 Linear-by-Linear Association 3.309 1 .069 N of Valid Cases 79 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.77.
426 E-7.1 Light Figure 7.1, Table 7.1 Light output
Descriptives Std. 95% Confidence N Mean Deviation Std. Error Interval for Mean Min Max total lamp CER 62 5.024 2.9203 .3709 4.283 5.766 2.0 21.0 hours RDTL 56 16.544 7.1435 .9546 14.631 18.457 3.0 36.0
UNDP 54 10.352 4.2810 .5826 9.183 11.520 3.0 19.0 Total 172 10.447 6.9263 .5281 9.405 11.490 2.0 36.0 total Watt CER 62 25.121 14.6014 1.8544 21.413 28.829 10.0 105.0 hours RDTL 56 165.438 71.4352 9.5459 146.307 184.568 30.0 360.0
UNDP 54 47.630 18.8595 2.5665 42.482 52.777 10.0 96.0 Total 172 77.872 75.0761 5.7245 66.572 89.172 10.0 360.0 lumen hours CER 62 1004.84 584.058 74.175 856.52 1153.16 400 4200 per day RDTL 56 8271.88 3571.761 477.297 7315.35 9228.40 1500 18000
UNDP 54 1877.37 760.479 103.488 1669.80 2084.94 304 3876 Total 172 3644.78 3863.807 294.613 3063.24 4226.33 304 18000
ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. total lamp hours Between Groups 3905.252 2 1952.626 76.775 .000 Within Groups 4298.174 169 25.433 Total 8203.426 171 total Watt hours Between Groups 651306.21 2 325653.110 176.101 .000 9 Within Groups 312520.96 169 1849.236 7 Total 963827.18 171 6 lumen hours per day Between Groups 179973822 899869111.96 2 201.930 .000 3.936 8 Within Groups 753121285 169 4456338.965 .105 Total 255285950 171 9.041
Table 7.2 Lamps switched on overnight
SHS night lighting number of lamps * project name Crosstabulation Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP SHS night lighting 0 62 26 43 131 number of lamps 1 0 27 11 38 2 0 3 0 3 Total 62 56 54 172
427 Appendix E—Statistical Analysis Data
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 48.491(a) 4 .000 Likelihood Ratio 58.943 4 .000 Linear-by-Linear 6.497 1 .011 Association N of Valid Cases 172 a 3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .94.
Table 7-3 Demand for additional lamps and longer duration Descriptives Std. 95% Confidence N Mean Deviation Std. Error Interval for Mean Min Max extra lights-% who CER 23 .79 .314 .065 .66 .93 0 1 requested RDTL 23 .16 .262 .055 .04 .27 0 1
UNDP 21 .86 .316 .069 .71 1.00 0 1 Total 67 .59 .434 .053 .49 .70 0 1 extra lights-average no. CER 23 1.52 1.031 .215 1.08 1.97 0 4 requested RDTL 23 .17 .280 .058 .04 .29 0 1
UNDP 21 1.38 .659 .144 1.08 1.68 0 2 Total 67 1.01 .946 .116 .78 1.24 0 4 lighting duration-% who CER 23 .12 .306 .064 -.01 .25 0 1 requested RDTL 23 .02 .104 .022 -.02 .07 0 1
UNDP 21 .29 .386 .084 .11 .46 0 1 Total 67 .14 .303 .037 .07 .21 0 1 lighting duration-average CER 23 .17 .466 .097 -.04 .37 0 2 increase requested RDTL 23 .02 .104 .022 -.02 .07 0 1
UNDP 21 .40 .573 .125 .14 .66 0 2 Total 67 .19 .446 .054 .08 .30 0 2
ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. extra lights-% who Between Groups 6.761 2 3.380 38.163 .000 requested Within Groups 5.669 64 .089 Total 12.430 66 extra lights-average no. Between Groups 25.336 2 12.668 24.000 .000 requested Within Groups 33.780 64 .528 Total 59.116 66 lighting duration-% who Between Groups .779 2 .390 4.727 .012 requested Within Groups 5.276 64 .082 Total 6.055 66
lighting duration-average Between Groups 1.556 2 .778 4.302 .018 increase requested Within Groups 11.570 64 .181 Total 13.125 66
428 Appendix E—Statistical Analysis Data
Comparison of CER and UNDP results
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means Sig. (2- Mean Std. 95% F Sig. t df tailed) Diff Error Confidence extra lights-% who Equal variances requested assumed .294 .590 -.710 42 .482 -.067 .095 -.259 .124 Equal variances not assumed -.709 41.587 .482 -.067 .095 -.259 .124 extra lights- Equal variances average no. assumed 4.163 .048 .518 42 .607 .137 .264 -.396 .669 requested Equal variances not assumed .528 37.790 .600 .137 .259 -.387 .660 lighting duration-% Equal variances who requested assumed 3.836 .057 -1.575 42 .123 -.165 .105 -.376 .046 Equal variances not assumed -1.559 38.129 .127 -.165 .106 -.378 .049 lighting duration- Equal variances average increase assumed 3.191 .081 -1.472 42 .149 -.231 .157 -.547 .086 requested Equal variances not assumed -1.458 38.641 .153 -.231 .158 -.551 .090
Fig 7-2 and 7-3 Demand for additional lamps and longer duration GGraph [DataSet2] C:\Documents and Settings\matt\My Documents\pgrad\Fieldwork\data\SPSS\Ch5(PE).sav
Project CER RDTL UNDP
20
15
10 Frequency
5
0 43210 43210 43210 Extra lights-average Extra lights-average Extra lights-average no. requested no. requested no. requested
429 Appendix E—Statistical Analysis Data
GGraph [DataSet2] C:\Documents and Settings\matt\My Documents\pgrad\Fieldwork\data\SPSS\Ch5(PE).sav
Project CER RDTL UNDP
25
20
15 Frequency 10
5
0 22100 22100 22100 Lighting duration- Lighting duration- Lighting duration- average increase average increase average increase requested (hours) requested (hours) requested (hours)
430 E-7.2 Finances
Section 7.2.1 Post-SHS expenditure on candles and kerosene
Table 7-5 Frequency of candle and kerosene use
Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent candle use freq * project name 171 99.4% 1 .6% 172 100.0% freq kero use * project name 172 100.0% 0 .0% 172 100.0%
candle use freq * project name Crosstabulation Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP candle never 36 57 32 123 use freq sometimes 20 0 18 38 daily 6 1 3 10 Total 62 58 53 171
freq kero use * project name Crosstabulation Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP freq never 31 56 9 95 kero sometimes 21 0 0 21 use often 1 0 0 1 daily 9 2 45 55 Total 62 58 54 172
Table 7-4 Monthly expenditure on candles and kerosene
Frequencies Statistics
average candle average kero expenditure expenditure N Valid 148 155 Missing 24 17 Mean $.4563 $.7821 Median $.0000 $.0000 Minimum $.00 $.00 Maximum $7.50 $5.81
431
CER expenditure, comparison of enumerator results
T-Test Group Statistics Std. Error interviewer N Mean Std. Deviation Mean average kero expenditure Costa 17 $1.1977 $1.18459 $.28731 Enty 20 $1.3904 $1.09396 $.24462 average candle Costa 15 $.1766 $.40418 $.10436 expenditure Enty 20 $.0259 $.11580 $.02589
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Mean 95% Confidence Interval of Sig. (2- Differenc Std. Error the Difference F Sig. t df tailed) e Difference Lower Upper average kero Equal variances expenditure assumed .194 .662 -.514 35 .610 -$.19274 $.37484 -$.95371 $.56824 Equal variances not assumed -.511 33.001 .613 -$.19274 $.37734 -$.96043 $.57496 average candle Equal variances 11.89 .002 1.590 33 .121 $.15074 $.09479 -$.04212 $.34360 expenditure assumed 8 Equal variances not assumed 1.402 15.733 .180 $.15074 $.10752 -$.07751 $.37899
432 Figure 7-4 Monthly expenditure by project
Descriptives
Std. 95% Confidence N Mean Deviation Std. Error Interval for Mean Min Max average candle CER 33 $.5854 $1.26552 $.22030 $.1367 $1.0341 $.00 $5.00 expenditure RDTL 56 $.0625 $.46771 $.06250 -$.0628 $.1878 $.00 $3.50
UNDP 35 $.0905 $.28370 $.04795 -$.0070 $.1880 $.00 $1.24 Total 124 $.2096 $.76714 $.06889 $.0732 $.3459 $.00 $5.00 average kero CER 35 $.6678 $1.24701 $.21078 $.2395 $1.0962 $.00 $5.81 expenditure RDTL 56 $.0470 $.35189 $.04702 -$.0472 $.1413 $.00 $2.63
UNDP 37 $1.3019 $1.12462 $.18489 $.9269 $1.6769 $.00 $3.29 Total 128 $.5795 $1.05245 $.09302 $.3954 $.7636 $.00 $5.81 candle and CER 33 1.2937 1.74287 .30339 .6757 1.9117 .00 6.55 kerosene RDTL 56 .1095 .58017 .07753 -.0458 .2649 .00 3.50 expenditure UNDP 35 1.4234 1.21820 .20591 1.0049 1.8419 .00 4.35 Total 124 .7955 1.32061 .11859 .5608 1.0303 .00 6.55
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. average candle Between Groups 6.369 2 3.185 5.837 .004 expenditure Within Groups 66.017 121 .546 Total 72.386 123 average kero expenditure Between Groups 35.459 2 17.729 21.063 .000 Within Groups 105.214 125 .842 Total 140.673 127 candle and kerosene Between Groups 48.342 2 24.171 17.600 .000 expenditure Within Groups 166.172 121 1.373 Total 214.514 123
RDTL, UNDP mean expenditure comparison
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. average candle Between Groups .002 1 .002 .009 .924 expenditure Within Groups 18.437 88 .210 Total 18.438 89 candle and kerosene Between Groups 34.799 1 34.799 42.275 .000 expenditure Within Groups 72.438 88 .823 Total 107.237 89
433 UNDP, CER mean expenditure T-Test Group Statistics Std. Error project name N Mean Std. Deviation Mean average kero expenditure CER 35 $.6678 $1.24701 $.21078 UNDP 37 $1.3019 $1.12462 $.18489 average candle CER 33 $.5854 $1.26552 $.22030 expenditure UNDP 35 $.0905 $.28370 $.04795
candle and kerosene CER 33 1.2937 1.74287 .30339 expenditure UNDP 35 1.4234 1.21820 .20591
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference of the Difference average kero Equal variances expenditure assumed .211 .647 -2.268 70 .026 -$.63407 $.27957 -$1.19165 -$.07649 Equal variances not assumed -2.261 68.274 .027 -$.63407 $.28038 -$1.19352 -$.07462 average candle Equal variances expenditure assumed 22.443 .000 2.255 66 .027 $.49492 $.21945 $.05678 $.93306 Equal variances not assumed 2.195 35.030 .035 $.49492 $.22546 $.03723 $.95261 candle and Equal variances kerosene assumed 2.389 .127 -.357 66 .722 -.12970 .36293 -.85432 .59491 expenditure Equal variances not assumed -.354 56.906 .725 -.12970 .36667 -.86398 .60457
CER, UNDP elimination of candle expenditure Crosstab Count project name Total CER UNDP candles, expenditure no expenditure 25 31 56 or not expenditure 10 6 16 Total 35 37 72
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.589(b) 1 .208 Continuity .954 1 .329 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio 1.599 1 .206 Fisher's Exact Test .262 .164 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.566 1 .211 N of Valid Cases 72 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.78.
434
CER, UNDP elimination of kerosene expenditure Crosstab Count project name Total CER UNDP kerosene, expenditure no expediture 23 10 33 or not expenditure 12 27 39 Total 35 37 72
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 10.843(b) 1 .001 Continuity 9.341 1 .002 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio 11.128 1 .001 Fisher's Exact Test .002 .001 Linear-by-Linear Association 10.693 1 .001 N of Valid Cases 72 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 16.04.
Table 7-6 Post-SHS candle expenditure, CER and UNDP T-Test Group Statistics Std. Error project name N Mean Std. Deviation Mean average candle CER 8 $2.4148 $1.50746 $.53297 expenditure UNDP 4 $.7918 $.41436 $.20718
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference of the Difference average Equal variances candle assumed 5.040 .049 2.068 10 .065 $1.62299 $.78475 -$.12554 $3.37152 expenditure Equal variances not assumed 2.838 8.806 .020 $1.62299 $.57182 $.32509 $2.92089
Post-SHS kerosene expenditure, CER and UNDP T-Test Group Statistics Std. Error project name N Mean Std. Deviation Mean average kero expenditure CER 12 $1.9478 $1.44454 $.41700 UNDP 27 $1.7841 $.92623 $.17825
435 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Std. Mean Error 95% Confidence Sig. (2- Differe Differe Interval of the F Sig. t df tailed) nce nce Difference average kero Equal $.1637 $.3837 expenditure variances .851 .362 .427 37 .672 -$.61375 $.94122 3 2 assumed Equal variances 15.17 $.1637 $.4535 .361 .723 -$.80193 $1.12940 not 3 3 0 assumed
Section 7.2.2 Savings on candles and kerosene expenditure Figure 7-5 Pre-SHS monthly expenditure Descriptives Std. 95% Confidence N Mean Deviation Std. Error Interval for Mean Min Max candle expenditure CER 42 $3.3167 $2.95186 $.45548 $2.3968 $4.2365 $.00 $12.00 before receiving RDTL 58 $2.2371 $2.90288 $.38117 $1.4738 $3.0003 $.00 $20.00 SHS UNDP 48 $1.8672 $1.97331 $.28482 $1.2942 $2.4402 $.00 $7.00 Total 148 $2.4235 $2.69917 $.22187 $1.9850 $2.8619 $.00 $20.00
kerosene CER 42 $4.3095 $3.33699 $.51491 $3.2696 $5.3494 $.50 $15.00 expenditure before RDTL 58 $3.6121 $2.03013 $.26657 $3.0783 $4.1459 $1.00 $10.00 receiving SHS UNDP 50 $3.5083 $2.28121 $.32261 $2.8600 $4.1566 $.00 $10.00 Total 150 $3.7728 $2.54301 $.20764 $3.3625 $4.1831 $.00 $15.00
pre-SHS, CER 42 7.6262 5.39484 .83244 5.9450 9.3073 1.00 25.00 candle+kero exp RDTL 58 5.8491 4.14368 .54409 4.7596 6.9387 1.50 29.00 (reported) UNDP 48 5.3342 3.56536 .51462 4.2989 6.3694 .00 17.00 Total 148 6.1864 4.44004 .36497 5.4652 6.9077 .00 29.00
ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. candle expenditure Between Groups 50.377 2 25.189 3.579 .030 before receiving SHS Within Groups 1020.593 145 7.039 Total 1070.970 147 kerosene expenditure Between Groups 17.096 2 8.548 1.328 .268 before receiving SHS Within Groups 946.470 147 6.439 Total 963.565 149 pre-SHS, candle+kero Between Groups 128.526 2 64.263 3.365 .037 exp (reported) Within Groups 2769.424 145 19.099 Total 2897.950 147
436 Figure 7-6 Reported reduction in expenditure Descriptives Std. 95% Confidence N Mean Deviation Std. Error Interval for Mean Min Max post-SHS, candle CER 37 2.2681 1.90386 .31299 1.6333 2.9029 .00 6.00 exp reduction RDTL 55 1.6773 1.30600 .17610 1.3242 2.0303 .00 5.00
UNDP 28 2.0218 2.39261 .45216 1.0940 2.9495 -.52 7.00 Total 120 1.9398 1.79898 .16422 1.6147 2.2650 -.52 7.00 post-SHS, kero exp CER 38 2.4753 1.96996 .31957 1.8278 3.1228 -.74 6.00 reduction RDTL 56 3.3105 1.57282 .21018 2.8893 3.7317 1.00 9.00
UNDP 30 2.5073 1.74720 .31899 1.8549 3.1597 -1.29 5.71 Total 124 2.8602 1.77813 .15968 2.5442 3.1763 -1.29 9.00 post-SHS, CER 34 4.4406 3.38247 .58009 3.2604 5.6208 -.74 12.00 candle+kero exp RDTL 53 4.8309 2.07531 .28507 4.2589 5.4030 1.50 9.50 reduction UNDP 26 4.4077 3.32647 .65237 3.0641 5.7513 -1.29 11.20 Total 113 4.6161 2.80747 .26410 4.0928 5.1394 -1.29 12.00
ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. post-SHS, candle exp Between Groups 7.967 2 3.983 1.236 .294 reduction Within Groups 377.157 117 3.224 Total 385.124 119 post-SHS, kero exp Between Groups 20.723 2 10.362 3.405 .036 reduction Within Groups 368.173 121 3.043 Total 388.896 123 post-SHS, candle+kero Between Groups 4.623 2 2.311 .290 .749 exp reduction Within Groups 878.150 110 7.983 Total 882.772 112
Comparison of CER, UNDP expenditure reduction T-Test Group Statistics Std. Error project name N Mean Std. Deviation Mean post-SHS, kero CER 38 2.4753 1.96996 .31957 exp reduction UNDP 30 2.5073 1.74720 .31899
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Sig. (2- Differenc Differenc Interval of the F Sig. t df tailed) e e Difference post-SHS, Equal kero exp variances 1.683 .199 -.070 66 .944 -.03207 .45802 -.94653 .88239 reduction assumed Equal variances -.071 65.059 .944 -.03207 .45153 -.93383 .86969 not assumed
437 Comparison of UNDP, RDTL pre-SHS expenditure
T-Test Group Statistics
Std. Error project name N Mean Std. Deviation Mean candle expenditure RDTL 58 $2.2371 $2.90288 $.38117 before receiving SHS UNDP 48 $1.8672 $1.97331 $.28482 kerosene expenditure RDTL 58 $3.6121 $2.03013 $.26657 before receiving SHS UNDP 50 $3.5083 $2.28121 $.32261
pre-SHS, candle+kero RDTL 58 5.8491 4.14368 .54409 exp (reported) UNDP 48 5.3342 3.56536 .51462
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Std. Mean Error 95% Confidence Sig. (2- Differenc Differen Interval of the F Sig. t df tailed) e ce Difference candle Equal expenditure variances .034 .855 .751 104 .455 $.36990 $.49280 -$.60734 $1.34714 before assumed receiving Equal SHS variances not .777 100.446 .439 $.36990 $.47583 -$.57408 $1.31388 assumed kerosene Equal expenditure variances 1.925 .168 .250 106 .803 $.10378 $.41488 -$.71876 $.92631 before assumed receiving Equal SHS variances not .248 99.056 .805 $.10378 $.41849 -$.72660 $.93416 assumed pre-SHS, Equal candle+kero variances .100 .752 .678 104 .499 .51497 .75963 -.99140 2.02134 exp assumed (reported) Equal variances not .688 103.828 .493 .51497 .74891 -.97017 2.00012 assumed
Mean UNDP, RDTL pre-SHS expenditure Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation pre-SHS, candle expenditure 104 .00 7.00 1.8213 1.63719 pre-SHS, kerosene expenditure 104 .00 9.00 3.3168 1.75714 pre-SHS, candle+kero expenditure 100 .00 11.21 4.9669 2.48157 Valid N (listwise) 100
438 Section 7.2.4 Willingness-to-pay for SHS services Table 7-8 Willingness-to-pay for existing SHS Descriptives Std. Std. 95% Confidence N Mean Deviation Error Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum women - CER 32 $.6719 $.69976 $.12370 $.4196 $.9242 $.00 $2.00 willingness to RDTL 44 $1.9318 $1.20845 $.18218 $1.5644 $2.2992 $1.00 $5.00 pay for existing SHS UNDP 32 $.6094 $.88659 $.15673 $.2897 $.9290 $.00 $2.50 Total 108 $1.1667 $1.16761 $.11235 $.9439 $1.3894 $.00 $5.00
men - CER 35 $.8500 $.69716 $.11784 $.6105 $1.0895 $.00 $2.00 willingness to RDTL 40 $2.0750 $1.34712 $.21300 $1.6442 $2.5058 $.00 $5.00 pay for existing SHS UNDP 46 $.9674 $1.24455 $.18350 $.5978 $1.3370 $.00 $5.00 Total 121 $1.2996 $1.26887 $.11535 $1.0712 $1.5280 $.00 $5.00
ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. women - willingness to Between Groups 43.533 2 21.766 22.332 .000 pay for existing SHS Within Groups 102.342 105 .975 Total 145.875 107 men - willingness to pay Between Groups 36.201 2 18.101 13.604 .000 for existing SHS Within Groups 157.001 118 1.331 Total 193.202 120
Comparison of CER and UNDP willingness-to-pay T-Test Group Statistics Std. Error project name N Mean Std. Deviation Mean women - willingness to CER 32 $.6719 $.69976 $.12370 pay for existing SHS UNDP 32 $.6094 $.88659 $.15673 men - willingness to pay CER 35 $.8500 $.69716 $.11784 for existing SHS UNDP 46 $.9674 $1.24455 $.18350
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Std. Sig. Mean Error 95% Confidence (2- Differen Differen Interval of the F Sig. t df tailed) ce ce Difference women - Equal variances willingness to assumed 3.245 .076 .313 62 .755 $.06250 $.19966 -$.33662 $.46162 pay for Equal variances existing SHS not assumed .313 58.825 .755 $.06250 $.19966 -$.33705 $.46205
men - Equal variances 11.05 .001 -.501 79 .618 -$.11739 $.23433 -$.58382 $.34904 willingness to assumed 7 pay for Equal variances existing SHS not assumed -.538 73.275 .592 -$.11739 $.21808 -$.55200 $.31721
439 Figure 7-8 willingness-to-pay, women * project name Crosstab % within project name project name Total CER RDTL UNDP willingness-to-pay, nothing 54.8% 24.1% 78.2% 51.6% women less than $2 35.7% 31.0% 9.1% 24.5% $2 9.5% 36.2% 10.9% 20.0% more than $2 8.6% 1.8% 3.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 42.377(a) 6 .000 Likelihood Ratio 45.225 6 .000 Linear-by-Linear 1.121 1 .290 Association N of Valid Cases 155 a 3 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.63.
willingness-to-pay, men * project name Crosstab % within project name project name Total CER RDTL UNDP willingness-to-pay, nothing 38.1% 32.8% 58.2% 43.2% men less than $2 45.2% 22.4% 12.7% 25.2% $2 14.3% 34.5% 25.5% 25.8% more than $2 2.4% 10.3% 3.6% 5.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 22.061(a) 6 .001 Likelihood Ratio 21.569 6 .001 Linear-by-Linear .145 1 .703 Association N of Valid Cases 155 a 3 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.44.
440 E-7.3 Convenience
Section 7.3 Convenience Table 7-9 CER candle and kerosene use by number of systems Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent candle no use or not * no. of systems, one or more 82 100.0% 0 .0% 82 100.0% kerosene no use or not * no. of systems, one or 82 100.0% 0 .0% 82 100.0% more candle use, daily or not * no. of systems, one or 82 100.0% 0 .0% 82 100.0% more kerosene use, daily or not * no. of systems, one or 82 100.0% 0 .0% 82 100.0% more
candle no use or not * no. of systems, one or more Crosstab Count
no. of systems, one or more Total one system two or more only systems candle no use never 37 12 49 or not sometimes or daily 25 8 33 Total 62 20 82
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .001(b) 1 .980 Continuity .000 1 1.000 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio .001 1 .980 Fisher's Exact Test 1.000 .597 Linear-by-Linear Association .001 1 .980 N of Valid Cases 82 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.05.
441 kerosene no use or not * no. of systems, one or more Crosstab
no. of systems, one or more Total one system two or more only systems kerosene no never 18 13 31 use or not sometimes or daily 44 7 51 Total 62 20 82
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 8.320(b) 1 .004 Continuity 6.861 1 .009 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio 8.148 1 .004 Fisher's Exact Test .007 .005 Linear-by-Linear Association 8.219 1 .004 N of Valid Cases 82 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.56.
candle use, daily or not * no. of systems, one or more Crosstab
no. of systems, one or more Total one system two or more only systems candle use, daily 7 1 8 daily or not sometimes or never 55 19 74 Total 62 20 82
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .680(b) 1 .410 Continuity .153 1 .696 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio .773 1 .379 Fisher's Exact Test .672 .371 Linear-by-Linear Association .671 1 .413 N of Valid Cases 82 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.95.
442 kerosene use, daily or not * no. of systems, one or more Crosstab
no. of systems, one or more Total one system two or more only systems kerosene use, daily 14 3 17 daily or not sometimes or never 48 17 65 Total 62 20 82
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .529(b) 1 .467 Continuity .168 1 .682 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio .558 1 .455 Fisher's Exact Test .545 .352 Linear-by-Linear Association .522 1 .470 N of Valid Cases 82 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.15.
Table 7-10 CER candle and kerosene expenditure by number of systems Group Statistics no. of systems, one or Std. Error more N Mean Std. Deviation Mean average candle one system only 60 $1.2886 $2.42346 $.31287 expenditure two or more systems 18 $.6614 $1.08223 $.25508 average kero expenditure one system only 62 $1.7863 $1.70166 $.21611 two or more systems 20 $.7562 $1.50052 $.33553
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence (2- Differen Differenc Interval of the F Sig. t df tailed) ce e Difference average Equal candle variances 3.578 .062 1.063 76 .291 $.62719 $.59010 -$.54808 $1.80247 expenditure assumed Equal variances 1.554 64.537 .125 $.62719 $.40368 -$.17911 $1.43350 not assumed average kero Equal $1.0301 expenditure variances 2.540 .115 2.419 80 .018 $.42588 $.18263 $1.87767 5 assumed Equal variances $1.0301 2.581 36.099 .014 $.39910 $.22081 $1.83949 not 5 assumed
443 CER users continuing to use kerosene; comparison of usage between single and multi-system households Group Statistics no. of systems, one or Std. Error more N Mean Std. Deviation Mean average kero expenditure one system only 44 $2.5171 $1.49185 $.22490 two or more systems 7 $2.1605 $1.89482 $.71618
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Std. Sig. Mean Error (2- Differenc Differen 95% Confidence Interval F Sig. t df tailed) e ce of the Difference average kero Equal expenditure variances .205 .653 .567 49 .574 $.35661 $.62944 -$.90830 $1.62152 assumed Equal variances .475 7.232 .649 $.35661 $.75066 -$1.40694 $2.12016 not assumed
444 E-7.4 Health
Section 7.4 draws upon statistical analysis of data concerning the elimination candle and kerosene usage for reading or study. This analysis is presented in Section E-6.1.
E-7.5 Perceptions
Figure 7-11 User satisfaction women - family content with SHS * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP women - family very content 4 10 19 33 content with content 1 24 9 34 SHS somewhat content 20 10 4 34 discontented 4 0 0 4 Total 29 44 32 105
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 53.875(a) 6 .000 Likelihood Ratio 54.957 6 .000 Linear-by-Linear 31.998 1 .000 Association N of Valid Cases 105 a 3 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.10.
men - family content with SHS * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP men - family very content 7 5 20 32 content with content 1 25 21 47 SHS somewhat content 25 9 5 39 discontented 2 1 0 3 Total 35 40 46 121
445 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 53.508(a) 6 .000 Likelihood Ratio 59.632 6 .000 Linear-by-Linear 26.798 1 .000 Association N of Valid Cases 121 a 3 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .87.
women - discontent with SHS * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP women - very content 1 1 14 16 discontent content 4 32 17 53 with SHS somewhat content 19 11 1 31 discontented 5 0 0 5 Total 29 44 32 105
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 70.350(a) 6 .000 Likelihood Ratio 72.494 6 .000 Linear-by-Linear 48.665 1 .000 Association N of Valid Cases 105 a 5 cells (41.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.38.
446 men - discontent with SHS * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP men - discontent very content 1 2 19 22 with SHS content 8 28 23 59 somewhat content 22 9 4 35 discontented 4 1 0 5 Total 35 40 46 121
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 58.080(a) 6 .000 Likelihood Ratio 58.743 6 .000 Linear-by-Linear 43.875 1 .000 Association N of Valid Cases 121 a 3 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.45.
Figure 7-12 Perceptions of security women - sense of security * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP women - very secure 2 5 16 23 sense of secure 4 25 16 45 security somewhat secure 22 14 1 37 not secure 1 0 0 1 Total 29 44 33 106
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 50.356(a) 6 .000 Likelihood Ratio 53.774 6 .000 Linear-by-Linear 38.980 1 .000 Association N of Valid Cases 106 a 3 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .27.
447 men - sense of security * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP men - very secure 1 5 16 22 sense of secure 4 24 20 48 security somewhat secure 28 10 9 47 not secure 2 1 0 3 Total 35 40 45 120
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 47.702(a) 6 .000 Likelihood Ratio 49.528 6 .000 Linear-by-Linear 33.918 1 .000 Association N of Valid Cases 120 a 3 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .88.
Perceptions of usefulness women - SHS usefulness * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP women - SHS very useful 2 7 18 27 usefulness useful 2 19 10 31 somewhat useful 25 18 4 47 Total 29 44 32 105
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 43.799(a) 4 .000 Likelihood Ratio 45.286 4 .000 Linear-by-Linear 34.336 1 .000 Association N of Valid Cases 105 a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.46.
448 men - SHS uesfulness * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP men - SHS very useful 1 5 17 23 uesfulness useful 4 14 17 35 somewhat useful 30 20 12 62 not useful 0 1 0 1 Total 35 40 46 121
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 34.565(a) 6 .000 Likelihood Ratio 36.766 6 .000 Linear-by-Linear 28.426 1 .000 Association N of Valid Cases 121 a 3 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .29.
449 Section 7.5.2 Change brought about by SHS
Figure 7-13 Magnitude of change arising from a SHS women - SHS delivered big change * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP women - SHS very big 7 2 6 15 delivered big big 0 2 5 7 change small 22 40 21 83 Total 29 44 32 105
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 12.971(a) 4 .011 Likelihood Ratio 14.571 4 .006 Linear-by-Linear .119 1 .730 Association N of Valid Cases 105 a 5 cells (55.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.93.
men - SHS delivered big change * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL UNDP men - SHS very big 7 2 6 15 delivered big big 0 2 4 6 change small 28 36 36 100 Total 35 40 46 121
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.843(a) 4 .144 Likelihood Ratio 8.594 4 .072 Linear-by-Linear .044 1 .834 Association N of Valid Cases 121 a 5 cells (55.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.74.
450 Comparison of RDTL and CER results women, SHS delivered big change, high-low * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL women, SHS delivered some change or big change, high-low great change 7 4 11 small or none 22 40 62 Total 29 44 73
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 3.092(b) 1 .079 Continuity 2.028 1 .154 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio 3.026 1 .082 Fisher's Exact Test .101 .078 Linear-by-Linear Association 3.050 1 .081 N of Valid Cases 73 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.37.
men, SHS delivered big change, high-low * project name Crosstab Count project name Total CER RDTL men, SHS delivered some change or big change, high-low great change 7 4 11 small or none 28 36 64 Total 35 40 75
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.491(b) 1 .222 Continuity .799 1 .371 Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio 1.498 1 .221 Fisher's Exact Test .328 .186 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.472 1 .225 N of Valid Cases 75 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.13.
451
Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne
Author/s: Bond, Mathew Robert Peter
Title: Rural electrification in East Timor: the development impact of solar home systems
Date: 2009
Citation: Bond, M. R. P. (2009). Rural electrification in East Timor: the development impact of solar home systems. PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Melbourne School of Engineering, The University of Melbourne.
Publication Status: Unpublished
Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/35367
File Description: Rural electrification in East Timor: the development impact of solar home systems
Terms and Conditions: Terms and Conditions: Copyright in works deposited in Minerva Access is retained by the copyright owner. The work may not be altered without permission from the copyright owner. Readers may only download, print and save electronic copies of whole works for their own personal non-commercial use. Any use that exceeds these limits requires permission from the copyright owner. Attribution is essential when quoting or paraphrasing from these works.