View
25
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
ENERGY ACCESS AND HOUSEHOLD RISK TRANSITIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA. David Kimemia & Harold Annegarn SeTAR Centre Dept. of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy Studies, University of Johannesburg. DUE Conference, CPUT 1-2 April 2014. The problem: “ fires, burns, scalds and poisonings ”. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
ENERGY ACCESS AND HOUSEHOLD RISK TRANSITIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA
David Kimemia & Harold Annegarn
SeTAR Centre
Dept. of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy Studies, University of Johannesburg
DUE Conference, CPUT1-2 April 2014
2
The problem:“fires, burns, scalds and poisonings”
• Accidents related to domestic energy use are common in S Africa’s low-income households (HHs).• Cause of morbidity and mortality; Economic losses• Poor disproportionately affected.• Underlying causes of the accidents not well understoodQuestions• How do energy-related household risks vary with energy access
and household incomes?• How has the introduction of LPG in certain communities impacted
household safety?
3
Introduction – background
• Solid fuels & kerosene widely used in deve’ countries• Inefficient combustion poses health problems• GBD estimates ~4 million deaths/yr. from HAP (Lim et al., 2012)• Significant health losses from fires, burns, poisonings • Lack of modern energy causes energy poverty; penalty• Greater efforts needed to broaden access to modern energy • HAP widely researched; research gap on safety aspects• ‘Environmental Risks Framework’ (Smith and Ezzati, 2005)• Scope: low-income HHs
4
Energy access situation in South Africa
• Energy access differs by locality – rural/urban; formal/informal• Wood, paraffin, candles, coal, electricity, LPG• Low-income households use multiple fuels and stoves• Choice depends on availability and relative cost-effectiveness• General decrease in use of wood, coal and paraffin (StatsSA,
2011)• Reductions related to health/safety concerns & electrification • Energy poverty lingers in low-income settlements• LPG interventions – 50% lower PM & CO than solid fuels
Basic energy technologies and risk incidents
6
7
Methods and data sources
• Quantitative analysis of 3 national datasets (DoE, 2009; PASASA, 2011; PASASA, 2012 - Hospital data 2006-2013)• Compute fuel-specific risk rating for 6 fuels• From the fuel risk rating, derive a household risk index
based on the combination of fuels used• Relate the household risk index to energy poverty and HH
income• Evaluation of LPG intervention on HH safety: Quantitative
survey of 200HHs, Atteridgeville, City of Tshwane
Results
• Paraffin has high risk rating across all incidents • Household risk unevenly spread spatially - indicating
energy use patterns • Risk is higher in non-electrified than electrified HHs• Substantially higher risk indices in paraffin-using HHs• Paraffin/candles combination have esp’ high risk of fires
9
Uses of various fuels and relative risk ratings
Fuel type
Freq’y of use (%)
Cause of incidents (%) Risk rating
All injuries
Burn injuries
All fires
Injury rating
Burn rating
Fire rating
Candles 49.84 3.78 15.34 40.17 0.076 0.308 0.806
Coal 3.04 1.22 2.76 0.44 0.402 0.909 0.145
Electric 73.04 49.76 15.21 5.68 0.681 0.208 0.078
Gas 3.00 1.5 3.77 5.68 0.500 1.256 1.892
Paraffin 33.26 35.88 42.73 47.16 1.079 1.285 1.418
Wood 2.47 7.85 20.19 0.87 3.178 8.174 0.352
10
Results cont’d:Risk variation with income
• Non-linear variation between risk and income
• Risk increases with income from R200 up to R450, then falls as income rises further
• R200-450 - use of riskier transitional fuels
• Similar variation between risk and energy poverty
Mean risk by per capita income
11
Results cont’d:Risk variation with energy poverty
• Non-linear variation between risk and energy poverty levels• As energy use rises to energy poverty threshold (2000
kWh/person/yr.), risk rises, but falls after the threshold.• Risk highest for HHs located half-way to poverty line• Contrasts with Smith & Ezzati (2005) postulation of
monotonic increase of risk with development
12
13
• LPG intervention in Atteridgeville well received• 72% of beneficiaries continued to purchase and use LPG after
free-gas supply ended• Impacts: Time saving; energy expenditure and safety have
improved• LPG still perceived most risky fuel • Bomb-effect phobia associated with LPG• Education can dispel negative perceptions & increase uptake
Results cont’d
14
• Household risks related to general poverty and energy poverty in non-linear way• A pro-poor approach needed to promote modern energy• LPG intervention raises HH welfare and improves safety• Inclusion of safe stove as part of Gov’t subsidised houses• Need for comprehensive & well-enforced SABS regulations on
appliances safety• Educate communities on safe-use of energy technologies• Programmes to raise per capita HH incomes above R500/m• Better data gathering and surveillance system needed
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
• Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves [GACC] for a grant to SeTAR Centre stove laboratory• University of Johannesburg for research funds• PASASA (now HESASA) and DoE for the datasets• Colleagues and field research assistants
15
References
Department of Energy. Socio-economic impact of electrification: household perspective. Pretoria, DoE, 2009
Pachauri, S., Spreng, D., 2011. Measuring and monitoring energy poverty. Energy Policy, 39, 2011, pp. 7497-7504.
Smith, K. and Ezzati, M.: “How environmental health risks change with development: The epidemiologic and environmental risk transitions revisited” Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 2005, pp. 291-333.
Statistics South Africa. 2011. Census 2011 methodology and key results. Available from www.StatsSA.gov.za, 2 February 2013/02/02.
Smith, K.R.: “In praise of petroleum?” Science, 298, 2002, pp. 1847-47
16
Thank you
Recommended