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