IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i9p2566-d228094.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Electrification in Remote Communities: Assessing the Value of Electricity Using a Community Action Research Approach in Kabakaburi, Guyana

Author

Listed:
  • Niebert Blair

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand
    Current address: College of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand.)

  • Dirk Pons

    (Industrial and Management Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand
    Current address: College of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand.)

  • Susan Krumdieck

    (Co-Leader Global Association for Transition Engineering, Director Advanced Energy and Material Systems Laboratory, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8041, New Zealand
    Current address: College of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand.)

Abstract

PROBLEM—Provision of electric services in remote communities operating a subsistence economy has been challenging both for policy-makers and engineers. The value of electricity services and the choice structures in remote economies are not well understood. NEED—There are several technical, economic, and environmental challenges to the top-down approach of electrification. There is a need for methods that can integrate multiple dimensions of social development that can fit the environmental, economic, and technical aspects of community development. APPROACH—To create a system that best fits with the rural community, a bottom-up approach is recommended; this depends on community participation to provide a coherent from-the-ground-up decision-making framework for rural residents, engineers, and policy-makers. OUTCOMES—We have developed a from-the-ground-up community participation approach to power system design, where the community activity system is studied before investigating energy development options and assessing the risks and benefits from the perspective of the people in the community. We present the approach called Community Access Resource for Electricity Sustainability (CARES), with its foundation in action research methodology to explore the values in the community, the valued electricity services (VES) that the community feel they need, and the way the community adopts the different value types through problem-solving. We conclude that the CARES approach provides rural residents, engineers, and policy-makers with a new bottom-up approach to rural electrification in remote economies. IMPLICATIONS—The implications of this design calls for designers to extend their workspace beyond the design office and to facilitate with remote communities in devising solutions that best fit their needs. ORIGINALITY—Original contributions are the identification of the different value types and VES from-the-ground-up, and the integration of these into a gamified, interactive, and virtual-reality setting for participants to play through and discuss major consequences from which prudent decisions for development can be made. Additionally, we have proposed a new cost index for the feasibility assessment of rural electrification projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Niebert Blair & Dirk Pons & Susan Krumdieck, 2019. "Electrification in Remote Communities: Assessing the Value of Electricity Using a Community Action Research Approach in Kabakaburi, Guyana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-31, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:9:p:2566-:d:228094
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/9/2566/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/9/2566/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mala, Kirti & Schläpfer, August & Pryor, Trevor, 2008. "Solar photovoltaic (PV) on atolls: Sustainable development of rural and remote communities in Kiribati," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 1345-1363, June.
    2. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    3. Mahmoud, Marwan M. & Ibrik, Imad H., 2003. "Field experience on solar electric power systems and their potential in Palestine," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 7(6), pages 531-543, December.
    4. R. M. Solow, 1974. "Intergenerational Equity and Exhaustible Resources," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(5), pages 29-45.
    5. Fuentes, M. & Vivar, M. & Hosein, H. & Aguilera, J. & Muñoz-Cerón, E., 2018. "Lessons learned from the field analysis of PV installations in the Saharawi refugee camps after 10 years of operation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 100-109.
    6. Bhattacharyya, Subhes C. & Srivastava, Leena, 2009. "Emerging regulatory challenges facing the Indian rural electrification programme," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 68-79, January.
    7. Eric Neumayer, 2013. "Weak versus Strong Sustainability," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14993.
    8. Tom Kuhlman & John Farrington, 2010. "What is Sustainability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(11), pages 1-13, November.
    9. Seshie, Yao M. & N’Tsoukpoe, Kokouvi Edem & Neveu, Pierre & Coulibaly, Yézouma & Azoumah, Yao K., 2018. "Small scale concentrating solar plants for rural electrification," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 195-209.
    10. van Gevelt, T. & Canales Holzeis, C. & George, F. & Zaman, T., 2017. "Indigenous community preferences for electricity services: Evidence from a choice experiment in Sarawak, Malaysia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 102-110.
    11. Alison Mathie & Jenny Cameron & Katherine Gibson, 2017. "Asset-based and citizen-led development: Using a diffracted power lens to analyze the possibilities and challenges," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 17(1), pages 54-66, January.
    12. Pode, Ramchandra & Pode, Gayatri & Diouf, Boucar, 2016. "Solution to sustainable rural electrification in Myanmar," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 107-118.
    13. Foley, Gerald, 1992. "Rural electrification in the developing world," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 145-152, February.
    14. Chambers, Robert, 1994. "The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 953-969, July.
    15. Raymond, Christopher M. & Bryan, Brett A. & MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Cast, Andrea & Strathearn, Sarah & Grandgirard, Agnes & Kalivas, Tina, 2009. "Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1301-1315, March.
    16. Jeremy Richardson, 2000. "Government, Interest Groups and Policy Change," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(5), pages 1006-1025, December.
    17. repec:oup:wbrobs:v:27:y:2010:i:1:p:33-51 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Lozano, Lorafe & Taboada, Evelyn B., 2021. "Elucidating the challenges and risks of rural island electrification from the end-users’ perspective: A case study in the Philippines," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).

    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. Cook, David & Davidsdottir, Brynhildur & Petursson, Jón Geir, 2015. "Accounting for the utilisation of geothermal energy resources within the genuine progress indicator—A methodological review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 211-220.
    2. Ngo Long & Vincent Martinet, 2018. "Combining rights and welfarism: a new approach to intertemporal evaluation of social alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 35-64, January.
    3. Ozgur Isil & Michael T. Hernke, 2017. "The Triple Bottom Line: A Critical Review from a Transdisciplinary Perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(8), pages 1235-1251, December.
    4. Quentin Couix, 2019. "Natural resources in the theory of production: the Georgescu-Roegen/Daly versus Solow/Stiglitz controversy," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 1341-1378, November.
    5. Alan Randall, 2020. "On Intergenerational Commitment, Weak Sustainability, and Safety," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-18, July.
    6. Bazhanov, A., 2011. "The Dependence of the Potential Sustainability of a Resource Economy on the Initial State: a Comparison of Models Using the Example of Russian Oil Extraction," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, issue 12, pages 77-100.
    7. Padmanabha Hota & Bhagirath Behera, 2016. "Opencast coal mining and sustainable local livelihoods in Odisha, India," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 29(1), pages 1-13, April.
    8. Luke McGrath & Stephen Hynes & John McHale, 2020. "Linking Sustainable Development Assessment in Ireland and the European Union with Economic Theory," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 51(2), pages 327-355.
    9. Koji Tokimatsu & Rintaro Yamguchi & Masayuki Sato & Rieko Yasuoka & Masahiro Nishio & Kazuhiro Ueta, 2014. "Assessing future sustainability by forecast of Genuine Savings paths," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 16(4), pages 359-379, October.
    10. Argentino Pessoa & Mário Rui Silva, 2009. "Environment Based Innovation: Policy Questions," FEP Working Papers 308, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    11. Howarth, Richard B., 2007. "Towards an operational sustainability criterion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 656-663, September.
    12. Adrian Boos, 2015. "Genuine Savings as an Indicator for “Weak” Sustainability: Critical Survey and Possible Ways forward in Practical Measuring," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-37, April.
    13. Louis Dupuy, 2012. "International Trade and Sustainability : A survey," Working Papers hal-00701426, HAL.
    14. Robert D. Cairns, 2011. "Accounting for Sustainability: A Dissenting Opinion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-16, August.
    15. Klauer, Bernd & Bartkowski, Bartosz & Manstetten, Reiner & Petersen, Thomas, 2017. "Sustainability as a Fair Bequest: An Evaluation Challenge," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 136-143.
    16. Hoberg, Nikolai & Baumgärtner, Stefan, 2017. "Irreversibility and uncertainty cause an intergenerational equity-efficiency trade-off," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 75-86.
    17. Alan Randall, 2021. "Monitoring Sustainability and Targeting Interventions: Indicators, Planetary Boundaries, Benefits and Costs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-19, March.
    18. SCHUMACHER, Ingmar & ZOU, Benteng, 2006. "Habit in pollution. A challenge for intergenerational equity," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2006006, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    19. Toman, Michael & Pezzey, John C., 2002. "The Economics of Sustainability: A Review of Journal Articles," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-03, Resources for the Future.
    20. Weidner, Helmut, 2005. "Global equity versus public interest? The case of climate change policy in Germany," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Civil Society and Transnational Networks SP IV 2005-102, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:9:p:2566-:d:228094. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.