Statistical Associations Explored 104

Outcome Variable:Do you think these types energy should be used over current means of energy provisions?

The variable ‘do you think these types energy should be used over current means of energy provisions?’ had four significant associations which could potentially be used as indicators of whether a respondent is likely to want renewable energy sources over current means of energy provisions. Those respondents who indicated that renewable and sustainable means of energy provision should be used over their current means of energy provision tended to have:

- A larger number of people in the household. - A higher total number of people in employment.

- A greater number of female household members in employment.

- Live in larger houses, as indicated by having a high number windows’ in the house.

These associations may be the result of several factors. Having a larger number of people in the household will increase the demand for energy. This may result in people considering other energy resource options, especially if they are unhappy with their current supplies. The ‘total number of people in household’ was significantly associated with whether a respondent was ‘unhappy with main fuel for lighting because: unreliable’ and ‘unhappy with main fuel for cooking because: expensive’. As a result of being unable to meet their current energy requirements with the resources available, respondents may support the move to use alterative renewable energy resources.

- 105 -

People who are in employment may be able to interact with a variety of different people, and so even with limited education may be exposed to information and ideas and thus be more aware of the options renewable energy sources offer. Households with a higher total number of people in employment will correspond to households with a higher number of total occupants; in fact the two variables were shown to be significantly associated. It could be that the same factors which are influencing those respondents from households with a larger total number of occupants might well be the actual reasons for why those from household with a higher number of people in employment are in favour of using renewables over current means. The fact that the people are employed may be an additional factor that may not have any bearing at all; more people may have to work in the household in order to meet their basic energy needs. This is supported by the fact that these two variables were also found to share significant correlation with several of the same variables.

A similar conclusion may be drawn from the observations made of the relationship between the variable ‘number of females in employment’ and the outcome variable. It is not necessarily the case that the more females in employment will ultimately mean a better reception towards renewable energy sources, but merely that a higher number of females in employment is in part a result of a household with a larger number of occupants. These two variables (‘number of females in employment’ and ‘total number of people in household’) were found to have a significant association with each other so it is likely we are actually observing the overriding effect of the influencing factor the variable ‘total number of people in the household’.

As the number of windows in the household increased, so did the likelihood that respondents would want renewable energy sources to be used over current means. This could be due to several factors but the most plausible reasoning would be that households with more windows are likely to be larger and thus have more people residing within it. This is supported by the additional variable analysis which showed a significant positive correlation between this variable and the variable ‘total number of people in household’. Once again this highlights the total number of people in the household as being a significant overriding factor in influencing a respondent’s belief in using renewable energy sources over current means of energy generation.

The factors above are all interlinked. The variable ‘total number of people in household’ was however the only variable to exhibit significant associations with all of the other variables that were found to be significantly associations with outcome variable (‘do

- 106 -

you think these types energy should be used over current means of energy provisions?’). This would suggest that this variable is therefore noteworthy and ‘useful’ when considering factors that could be used as indicators for how a respondent would feel about the use of renewable energy sources over their current means.

Outcome variable: Would you pay slightly more for energy from renewable or sustainable sources if you knew it was safer and more reliable?

The variable ‘would you pay slightly more for energy from renewable or sustainable source if you knew it was safer and more reliable?’ was found to be significantly associated with only one variable, ‘monthly electricity expenditure’. Respondents were more likely to pay slightly more for energy from renewable or sustainable source if it was safer and more reliable the higher their monthly expenditure on electricity was. A reason why these people were willing to pay slightly more for a renewable or sustainable energy source that is safer and more reliable may well be because they are happy with using these types of modern energy resources because of how easy they are to use but want something that is more reliable which would remove the need for using additional fuel sources (which all of the respondents did) which in turn could lead to an overall reduction in energy expenditure.

Reliability was highlighted during the descriptive analysis as a factor desired by respondents above safety so it is reasonable to surmise that is again the real factor here that is driving the respondent’s choice to say pay slightly more for a safer and more reliable supply.

The variable ‘total household fuel expense per month’ was found to be significantly associated with the variable ‘monthly electricity expenditure’. Respondents with a lower total monthly expenditure on electricity were more likely to have lower total household fuel expenditure per month as well as being more likely to pay slightly more for a safer and more reliable energy supply from renewable or sustainable sources. It is likely that although they have to make use of an alternative fuel for household lighting, which may suggest issues with the reliability of their main fuel, it is not that they do not desire the benefits that can be gained from the use of such energy sources but simply that they do not wish to pay more or in fact cannot afford to increase their monthly fuel expenditure beyond the level they are currently paying.

- 107 -

Outcome variable: ‘Would you pay part of the set up costs for a renewable or sustainable energy supply if it meant a safer supply’.

The variable ‘Pay part of the set up costs for renewable or sustainable energy supply if meant a safer supply’ was significantly associated with seven variables.

Respondents who indicated that they would be willing to contribute towards the set up costs of a renewable or sustainable energy supply if it meant a safer supply tended to have:

- A lower number of electrical lights in the household. - Had access to electricity for a shorter period of time. - A lower total household weekly income from employment. - Lower male weekly incomes from employment.

- A lower monthly expenditure on transport.

- Use main fuel for lighting because: easily available. - Not use paraffin/kerosene for household cooking.

Households with fewer electrical lights were more likely to pay towards the set up costs of a renewable or sustainable energy supply that offered a safer supply. These respondents were also more likely to have a lower monthly expenditure on transport and education fees. It could be surmised that these households had fewer outgoings per month and thus had the ability to reallocate funds to enable them to pay towards the set up costs. Whereas respondents from households which had a higher monthly expenditure had less flexibility to do so.

Another explanation could be that respondents whose households had a higher number of electrical lights were less likely to pay towards the set up costs of a renewable or sustainable energy supply that offered safer energy because they considered electricity to be a safe source of energy. Thus they did not see the need to pay towards an alternative supply that specifically offered this attribute. This could also be the reason why respondents from households that had access to electricity for a longer period of time were also less likely to contribute as they were content with the level of safety they experienced. As these two variables were not significantly correlated with each other, and there is no evidence that one is exerting any influence on the other, it is reasonable

- 108 -

to assume that it is the confidence in their current energy supply that affects their attitude towards paying.

Respondents from households which had a higher weekly income from employment were less likely to pay towards the set up costs for a safer energy supply. This could be because safety is not a property desired enough on its own in an energy source that it would warrant additional expenditure. Households with a lower weekly income from employment were more likely to pay towards the set up costs for a safer energy supply. They were also less likely to buy all of the fuels they use and more likely to use firewood/biomass for household cooking. It is plausible that the firewood/biomass used is the source of fuel that these households do not have pay for. Firewood/biomass fuels have been previously shown to be a major cause of acute respiratory disease in India as discussed earlier (IEA 2007, Smith 2000).

Extended use of ‘modern’ cleaner fuels may be an unviable and unaffordable solution for households with lower incomes who are forced to make use of the cheaper fuels available regardless of the health hazards they present. It therefore makes sense that they would be willing to contribute towards the setup of an energy source that would ultimately give them access to a safer supply. It is the desire for a safer fuel that is the driving force behind a respondent’s willingness to contribute towards set up costs. As it is only those households on lower incomes who are in need of such an energy supply, it is only from respondents from these households that we see this mind-set.

Households where the male weekly income was lower were more likely to pay towards the set up costs for a safer energy supply. This variable was found to be significantly associated with the variable ‘total household weekly income from employment’. Unsurprisingly, as the male weekly income per household increases so does the total household weekly income. The reasons for why male weekly income is significantly associated with the outcome variable are probably as a result of its close association with the variable ‘total household weekly income from employment’ which arises from the fact that male weekly income represents the main source of household income. Thus the same factors highlighted and discussed previously relating to total household weekly income from employment explains why respondents would pay towards set up costs for a safer supply. Although as male weekly income was found to have a very strong association with the total household weekly income from employment, it could be used as an indicator to proxy for it and the same conclusions be drawn.

- 109 -

The reason why respondents from households with a higher monthly expenditure on transport were less likely to pay towards the set up costs of a renewable or sustainable energy supply even if it meant a safer supply may be because they do not consider safety an important enough factor to warrant the additional expenditure or because it is an unviable option because of an already stretched household budget.

Respondents who came from households with a lower monthly expenditure on transport were more likely to pay towards the set up costs because they did not have such constrained household budgets, thus could reallocate to cover the costs. The reasons for why they would want to do this are explained by the significant associations between ‘monthly expenditure on transport’ and ‘total number of electrical lights’ and ‘firewood/biomass used for household cooking’.

The respondents from households with lower monthly transport expenditure were also more likely to come from households that used firewood/biomass for household cooking and used fewer electric lights. The reasons for why these factors are important in influencing a respondent’s choice to pay towards set up costs have been discussed previously. It is plausible that these relationships are the real motivation for why these respondents would reallocate what money they had to fund such a project as they are considering the long term benefits a safer supply would offer, such as improved health. This highlights that having the flexibility to reallocate funds is as important a factor as having the funds available in the first place, and that exploring the different levels of household expenditure could be used as a means of determining whether the burden is substantial enough that it would limit the ability to reallocate funds and could help identify target areas in order to mitigate some of the financial constraints. Even with this the respondents are unlikely to invest if an energy source does not offer them enough of an incentive to do so, it must offer a property that is desired, which in this example was a safer supply.

All of the respondents used electricity as their main energy source for lighting. However, respondents who used this energy source because it was easily available were more likely to pay towards the set up costs of a renewable or sustainable energy source if it also meant a safer supply. These respondents were also from households which had access to electricity for a shorter period of time, used fewer electrical lights and had a smaller total weekly income from employment. The reasons why these respondents were more likely to pay towards set-up costs is possibly because they did not consider electricity a ‘safe’ energy source and are only making use of it because of its

- 110 -

availability- the lack of confidence is further demonstrated by the fact that they use fewer electrical lights. This could just be a temporal factor which may diminish as confidence increases the longer the energy source is used, which would further explain why respondents who have had access to electricity for a longer period of time and use more electric lights are less likely pay towards the set up costs just for a safer supply. A further explanation may be provided by exploring the significant correlation between ‘reasons for using fuel for lights: easily available’ and the variable ‘total household weekly income from employment’. Households with a smaller total weekly income may be unable to afford or access other energy sources that are available and therefore have no choice but to use what is available to them even if it is considered ‘unsafe’. Safety therefore would be a desirable characteristic to these respondents who would be willing to pay towards an energy resource that would provide them with access to such an energy supply.

The respondents from households that use paraffin/kerosene for household cooking were less likely to pay towards the set up costs of a renewable or sustainable energy supply even if it meant a safer supply. The most plausible explanation for this is that these respondents already consider paraffin/kerosene to be a safe energy source and therefore do not see the need in contributing towards the set up if this is the only benefit they will acquire. It is the same reasoning offered for why respondents who had access to electricity for a longer time and used more electrical lights were also less likely to pay towards the set up costs. Both of these two variables were significantly associated with ‘paraffin/kerosene used for cooking’ with the same group of respondents across them less likely to pay towards the set up.

An alternative reason could be that the respondents of households that did not use paraffin/kerosene for household cooking who were more likely to pay towards the set up costs for a safer supply were more aware of some of the hazards associated with using this fuel (poisoning, explosions, fire, low birth weight, increased risk of respiratory problems and cancer (Epstein et al. 2013, Lam et al. 2012, WHO 2009)). These respondents are also from households with lower weekly incomes from employment which as shown earlier are the households that were more likely to use firewood/biomass for cooking. As such it is possible that respondents desired a safer energy source to meet their energy needs but because paraffin/kerosene is not perceived to be safe, the respondents are willing to pay towards the set up in order to access a safer supply.

- 111 -

Out of the variables that were found to be significantly associated with the outcome variable, ‘total household weekly income from employment’ and ‘number of years household has had access to electricity’ appear to be the most useful indicators for whether people are more or less likely to pay towards the set up costs of a renewable or sustainable energy source if it meant a safer supply. However both of these variables appear to be influenced by secondary factors which may well provide the actual reasons for why respondents were more or less likely to pay towards the set up costs for a safer supply. Although these variables could still be used, used alone they may not provide a true reflection and lead to improper conclusions being drawn.

Outcome variable: ‘Would you pay part of the set up costs for a renewable or sustainable energy supply if it meant a more reliable supply’.

Five variables were found to be significantly associated with the outcome variable ‘Would you pay part of the set up costs for a renewable or sustainable energy supply if it meant a more reliable supply’. Respondents who indicated that they would be willing