IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eco/journ2/2024-03-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Evaluation of People’s Acceptability of Rural Household Energy: A Study of Kaski District, Nepal

Author

Listed:
  • Durga Prasad Chapagai

    (School of Business, Pokhara University, Nepal; & Department of Management Studies, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Technology, Majhitar, India)

  • Neeta Dhusia Sharma

    (Department of Management Studies, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Technology, Majhitar, India)

  • Amit Kumar Roy

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Technology, Majhitar, India)

  • Manish Kumar Roy

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Technology, Majhitar, India)

Abstract

Rural energy infrastructure development is essential for promoting holistic and sustainable advancement in emerging nations. This effort seeks to address poverty, improve quality of life, protect the environment, and strengthen resilience against external disruptions. The involvement of governments, development organizations, the private sector, and local communities is essential to ensuring the widespread availability of modern energy services for rural people. The effective implementation of rural energy initiatives hinges on the pivotal issue of popular acceptance. We utilized Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques to determine the public's view of the suitability of various resources (Firewood, LPG, Kerosene, Electricity, and Biogas) for household cooking in local communities. This assessment was based on eight distinct criteria. The criteria have been derived from prior research and a preliminary survey conducted in the rural Kaski area of Nepal. Moreover, the fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) will be employed to determine individuals' preferences for various energy sources. Based on the input from customers and impartial experts, the study determined that the most sustainable sources of energy in the rural Kaski area of Nepal are electricity and biogas, notwithstanding their limited usage. According to the study, firewood is the optimal choice for cooking in rural areas attributable to its exceptional effectiveness concerning food preparation, availability, and friendliness. Although the LPG is widely acknowledged as a most dependable energy source, it is not favored by users due to concerns of safety, friendly, and cost. Rural users regard electric cooking as unreliable, with safety concerns and food quality testing, but people generally embrace it as a healthy and ecologically friendly option. The utilization of biogas is influenced by factors such as cost, reliability, and sensory perception of food.

Suggested Citation

  • Durga Prasad Chapagai & Neeta Dhusia Sharma & Amit Kumar Roy & Manish Kumar Roy, 2024. "An Evaluation of People’s Acceptability of Rural Household Energy: A Study of Kaski District, Nepal," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 14(3), pages 422-433, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eco:journ2:2024-03-43
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/ijeep/article/download/15867/7894
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/ijeep/article/view/15867
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aldy, Joseph Edgar & Leiserowitz, Anthony A & Kotchen, Matthew J, 2012. "Willingness to Pay and Political Support for a U.S. National Clean Energy Standard," Scholarly Articles 8832942, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    2. Arkadiusz Piwowar, 2021. "The problem of energy poverty in the activities of agricultural advisory centres in Poland," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Behera, Bhagirath & Rahut, Dil Bahadur & Jeetendra, Aryal & Ali, Akhter, 2015. "Household collection and use of biomass energy sources in South Asia," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 468-480.
    4. Joseph E. Aldy & Matthew J. Kotchen & Anthony A. Leiserowitz, 2012. "Willingness to pay and political support for a US national clean energy standard," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(8), pages 596-599, August.
    5. Judith I. M. de Groot & Elisa Schweiger & Iljana Schubert, 2020. "Social Influence, Risk and Benefit Perceptions, and the Acceptability of Risky Energy Technologies: An Explanatory Model of Nuclear Power Versus Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1226-1243, June.
    6. Das, Karabee & Pradhan, Greeshma & Nonhebel, Sanderine, 2019. "Human energy and time spent by women using cooking energy systems: A case study of Nepal," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 493-501.
    7. Aklin, Michaël & Cheng, Chao-Yo & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2018. "Social acceptance of new energy technology in developing countries: A framing experiment in rural India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 466-477.
    8. Indre Siksnelyte-Butkiene & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Dalia Streimikiene, 2020. "Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) for the Assessment of Renewable Energy Technologies in a Household: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.
    9. Thomas, Gareth & Demski, Christina & Pidgeon, Nick, 2019. "Deliberating the social acceptability of energy storage in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    10. Tika Ram Pokharel & Hom Bahadur Rijal, 2021. "Energy Transition toward Cleaner Energy Resources in Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-16, April.
    11. Han, Hongyun & Wu, Shu & Zhang, Zhijian, 2018. "Factors underlying rural household energy transition: A case study of China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 234-244.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. George E. Halkos & Eleni-Christina Gkampoura, 2020. "Reviewing Usage, Potentials, and Limitations of Renewable Energy Sources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    3. Baral, Nabin & Rabotyagov, Sergey, 2017. "How much are wood-based cellulosic biofuels worth in the Pacific Northwest? Ex-ante and ex-post analysis of local people's willingness to pay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-106.
    4. L. Mundaca & H. Moncreiff, 2021. "New Perspectives on Green Energy Defaults," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 357-383, September.
    5. Jarke-Neuert, Johannes & Perino, Grischa & Schwickert, Henrike, 2021. "Free-Riding for Future: Field Experimental Evidence of Strategic Substitutability in Climate Protest," SocArXiv sh6dm, Center for Open Science.
    6. Jens Abildtrup & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Suzanne Elizabeth Vedel & Udo Mantau & Robert Mavsar & Davide Pettenella & Irina Prokofieva & Florian Schubert & Anne Stenger & Elsa Varela & Enrico Vidale & , 2024. "Preferences for climate change policies: the role of co-benefits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 110-128, January.
    7. Sangiuliano, Stephen Joseph, 2017. "Turning of the tides: Assessing the international implementation of tidal current turbines," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 971-989.
    8. Heeter, Jenny & Bird, Lori, 2013. "Including alternative resources in state renewable portfolio standards: Current design and implementation experience," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1388-1399.
    9. Sundt, Swantje & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity: A meta-analysis of the literature," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-8.
    10. Taylan G. Topcu & Konstantinos Triantis, 2022. "An ex-ante DEA method for representing contextual uncertainties and stakeholder risk preferences," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 309(1), pages 395-423, February.
    11. Soon, Jan-Jan & Ahmad, Siti-Aznor, 2015. "Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 877-887.
    12. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    13. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: evidence from a choice experiment," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112963, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Faber, Isaac & Lane, William & Pak, Wayne & Prakel, Mary & Rocha, Cheyne & Farr, John V., 2014. "Micro-energy markets: The role of a consumer preference pricing strategy on microgrid energy investment," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 567-575.
    15. Aklin, Michaël & Bayer, Patrick & Harish, S.P. & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2013. "Understanding environmental policy preferences: New evidence from Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 28-36.
    16. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo, 2017. "Does Mitigation Begin At Home?," Working Papers 0634, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    17. Tvinnereim, Endre & Ivarsflaten, Elisabeth, 2016. "Fossil fuels, employment, and support for climate policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 364-371.
    18. Ayodele, T.R. & Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O. & Ajayi, O.D. & Yusuff, A.A. & Mosetlhe, T.C., 2021. "Willingness to pay for green electricity derived from renewable energy sources in Nigeria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    19. Yu, Ying & Yamaguchi, Kensuke & Thuy, Truong Dang & Kittner, Noah, 2022. "Will the public in emerging economies support renewable energy? Evidence from Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    20. Gençer, Emre & Agrawal, Rakesh, 2016. "A commentary on the US policies for efficient large scale renewable energy storage systems: Focus on carbon storage cycles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 477-484.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fuzzy AHP; Household Energy; MCDM; People’s Acceptability; Rural Consumption;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • P18 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Energy; Environment
    • Q43 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Energy and the Macroeconomy
    • D10 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eco:journ2:2024-03-43. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ilhan Ozturk (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.econjournals.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.