IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v124y2019icp199-205.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the driving factors of prepaid electricity meter rejection in the largest township of South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Kambule, Njabulo
  • Yessoufou, Kowiyou
  • Nwulu, Nnamdi
  • Mbohwa, Charles

Abstract

Technology rejection phenomenon manifests itself differently across different societies. Over the past two decades, low income households in Soweto have persistently rejected prepaid electricity meters. Until now, the basis of the rejection in the region remains scientifically underexplored. We therefore conduct an exploratory study pertaining prepaid meter rejection in Soweto. Through triangulation research and survey approach, 88 households based in Orlando East and Diepkloof were interviewed by means of a questionnaire. Our study identifies three factors that could potentially be linked to the rejection of prepaid electricity meters in Soweto, namely: lack of quality consultation and education, the high levels of electricity consumption, and unattainable politically motivated promises are the main reasons that currently fuel prepaid meter rejection. We emphasise that the current state of the Free Basic Electricity (FBE) policy also fuels rejection, as it remains socio-economically inadequate and irrelevant for indigent households. We therefore note the need for an FBE policy review and update as well as the establishment of a policy monitoring committee to ensure implementation and enforcement. This study should be regarded as an exploratory study pending a more systematic causal analysis in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Kambule, Njabulo & Yessoufou, Kowiyou & Nwulu, Nnamdi & Mbohwa, Charles, 2019. "Exploring the driving factors of prepaid electricity meter rejection in the largest township of South Africa," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 199-205.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:124:y:2019:i:c:p:199-205
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.09.041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518306542
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.09.041?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rezaei, Rohollah & Ghofranfarid, Marjan, 2018. "Rural households' renewable energy usage intention in Iran: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 382-391.
    2. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    3. Faruqui, Ahmad & Sergici, Sanem & Sharif, Ahmed, 2010. "The impact of informational feedback on energy consumption—A survey of the experimental evidence," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 1598-1608.
    4. Tewari, D. D. & Shah, Tushaar, 2003. "An assessment of South African prepaid electricity experiment, lessons learned, and their policy implications for developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(9), pages 911-927, July.
    5. O'Sullivan, Kimberley C. & Howden-Chapman, Philippa L. & Fougere, Geoff, 2011. "Making the connection: The relationship between fuel poverty, electricity disconnection, and prepayment metering," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 733-741, February.
    6. Assefa, G. & Frostell, B., 2007. "Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 63-78.
    7. Sudhir Rama Murthy & Monto Mani, 2013. "Discerning Rejection of Technology," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, April.
    8. Yuan, Xueliang & Zuo, Jian & Ma, Chunyuan, 2011. "Social acceptance of solar energy technologies in China--End users' perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1031-1036, March.
    9. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ranganai Chidembo & Joseph Francis & Simbarashe Kativhu, 2022. "Rural Households’ Perceptions of the Adoption of Rooftop Solar Photovoltaics in Vhembe District, South Africa," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-11, August.

    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. Bhowmik, Chiranjib & Bhowmik, Sumit & Ray, Amitava, 2018. "Social acceptance of green energy determinants using principal component analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 1030-1046.
    2. Ephraim Bonah Agyekum & Ernest Baba Ali & Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar, 2021. "Clean Energies for Ghana—An Empirical Study on the Level of Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Development and Utilization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-14, March.
    3. Antoine Boche & Clément Foucher & Luiz Fernando Lavado Villa, 2022. "Understanding Microgrid Sustainability: A Systemic and Comprehensive Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    4. Du, Hua & Han, Qi & de Vries, Bauke & Sun, Jun, 2024. "Community solar PV adoption in residential apartment buildings: A case study on influencing factors and incentive measures in Wuhan," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 354(PA).
    5. Ponce, Pedro & Polasko, Kenneth & Molina, Arturo, 2016. "End user perceptions toward smart grid technology: Acceptance, adoption, risks, and trust," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 587-598.
    6. Karytsas, Spyridon & Theodoropoulou, Helen, 2014. "Socioeconomic and demographic factors that influence publics' awareness on the different forms of renewable energy sources," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 480-485.
    7. Kosorić, Vesna & Huang, Huajing & Tablada, Abel & Lau, Siu-Kit & Tan, Hugh T.W., 2019. "Survey on the social acceptance of the productive façade concept integrating photovoltaic and farming systems in high-rise public housing blocks in Singapore," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 197-214.
    8. Arifa Tanveer & Shihong Zeng & Muhammad Irfan & Rui Peng, 2021. "Do Perceived Risk, Perception of Self-Efficacy, and Openness to Technology Matter for Solar PV Adoption? An Application of the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-24, August.
    9. Mahesti Okitasari & Ranjeeta Mishra & Masachika Suzuki, 2022. "Socio-Economic Drivers of Community Acceptance of Sustainable Social Housing: Evidence from Mumbai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-17, July.
    10. Yuan, Xueliang & Zuo, Jian & Ma, Chunyuan, 2011. "Social acceptance of solar energy technologies in China--End users' perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1031-1036, March.
    11. Oseni, Musiliu O., 2015. "Assessing the consumers’ willingness to adopt a prepayment metering system in Nigeria," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 154-165.
    12. Liu, Wenling & Wang, Can & Mol, Arthur P.J., 2013. "Rural public acceptance of renewable energy deployment: The case of Shandong in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 1187-1196.
    13. Muhammad Aslam Mohd Safari & Nurulkamal Masseran & Alias Jedi & Sohif Mat & Kamaruzzaman Sopian & Azman Bin Abdul Rahim & Azami Zaharim, 2020. "Rural Public Acceptance of Wind and Solar Energy: A Case Study from Mersing, Malaysia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-24, July.
    14. Zhao, Dong-Xue & He, Bao-Jie & Johnson, Christine & Mou, Ben, 2015. "Social problems of green buildings: From the humanistic needs to social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1594-1609.
    15. Xueliang Yuan & Xiaohan Fan & Jiaxin Liang & Mengyue Liu & Yuqiang Teng & Qiao Ma & Qingsong Wang & Ruimin Mu & Jian Zuo, 2019. "Public Perception towards Waste-to-Energy as a Waste Management Strategy: A Case from Shandong, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-15, August.
    16. Nuccio Ludovico & Federica Dessi & Marino Bonaiuto, 2020. "Stakeholders Mapping for Sustainable Biofuels: An Innovative Procedure Based on Computational Text Analysis and Social Network Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-22, December.
    17. Ana María González & Harrison Sandoval & Pilar Acosta & Felipe Henao, 2016. "On the Acceptance and Sustainability of Renewable Energy Projects—A Systems Thinking Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-21, November.
    18. Rodrigo A. Estévez & Valeria Espinoza & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & Felipe Vásquez-Lavín & Stefan Gelcich, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Renewable Energies: Research Trends, Gaps and the Challenge of Improving Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, March.
    19. Rahman, Arief & Richards, Russell & Dargusch, Paul & Wadley, David, 2023. "Pathways to reduce Indonesia’s dependence on oil and achieve longer-term decarbonization," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 1305-1323.
    20. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2021. "Researchers perception regarding socio-technical approaches implementation in their own research. Thermal energy storage researchers as example," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).

    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:eee:enepol:v:124:y:2019:i:c:p:199-205. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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.