| Literature DB >> 36072255 |
Abstract
The reliable and renewable Electricity services have a substantial contribution to the environment, economy, and social cohesion. Nevertheless, in developing countries like Ethiopia, electricity services are irregular and unreliable. The study aims to analyze households' preference for reliable electricity services using primary data collected from 210 sample households in Hosanna and Durame towns of Southern Ethiopia. The households' preferences were analyzed using the choice experiment valuation technique. The study used both Conditional and Mixed Logit models to estimate the mean and marginal Willingness to Pay (WTP) for the attributes. The result suggests that households are willing to pay 230.84 ETB ($8.34), 229.34 ETB ($8.2), 2230 ETB ($8.3), and 230 ETB ($8.26) per month for improvement scenario one, two, three and four respectively in addition to the current monthly charge. Hence, the government should heavily invest in improving electricity transmission and distribution capacity besides upscaling the generation capacity.Entities:
Keywords: Choice experiment; Ethiopia; Marginal willingness to pay; Mean willingness to pay; Reliable electricity services
Year: 2022 PMID: 36072255 PMCID: PMC9441307 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10283
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1A photograph of a Woman baking staple bread in Southern Nation Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR), on three-stone fire during the outage. Source: Wakjira, 2018).
Figure 2Maps of Ethiopia and the study area, Retrieved November 14 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions of Ethiopia. Source: Google (2021).
The key attributes and the attribute levels for improved electricity services.
| Attributes | Definition | Levels |
|---|---|---|
| Time of outages | The time of occurrence of the outage | 3 (Daytime, Night-time, and midnight time) |
| Frequency of outages | The average number of outages per month | 3 (1, 3 and 5) |
| Duration of outages | The length of outages in hours. | 3 (1, 2 and 3) |
| Notification of outages | Informing the consumer before the outage | 2 (no prior notification, prior notification during blackout) |
| Additional costs | The cost that is added to the per monthly electricity bill | 3 (20,40 and 80 ETB) |
A sample of choice set that was provided for the respondents.
| Attributes | Service A | Service B | Current services |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time of outages | Mid-night time | Night-time | Neither Service A nor Service B: I prefer to stay with my current service |
| Frequency of outages per month | Outage three times a month | Outage ones a month | |
| Duration of outages | Outage for 2 h | Outage for 3 h | |
| Notification of outages | No prior notification | Notification during blackouts | |
| Additional costs | 80 ETB | 40 ETB |
Summary of variables used in the models.
| Variable | Description | Mean | Std. dev | Min | Max | obs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age of HH | The age of HH's head | 45.98 | 17.59 | 21 | 83 | 210 |
| Male HH | 1if head of HH is male | .576 | .496 | 0 | 1 | 210 |
| Education | 1if head of HH has formal education | .567 | .497 | 0 | 1 | 210 |
| Family size | Total no of the family for HH head | 4.39 | 2.239 | 1 | 10 | 210 |
| Income of HH | Total per monthly income of HH head | 10,250.7 | 6504.4 | 1500 | 16,000 | 210 |
| Monthly exp | monthly expenditure by HH head | 8758.2 | 102.4 | 1000 | 15,000 | 210 |
| Occupation | 1 if head of HH is farmer | 0.67 | 0.32 | 0 | 1 | 210 |
| No of livestock | Total no of livestock owned by HH | 3.018 | 4.99 | 0 | 20 | 210 |
| Interest in business | 1 if HH head has willing to engage in business | .681 | .348 | 0 | 1 | 210 |
| Owns house | 1if HH head owns house | .493 | .523 | 0 | 1 | 210 |
| Bank account | 1if HH head had bank account | .619 | .345 | 0 | 1 | 210 |
| Marital status | 1 if HH head is married | .641 | .213 | 0 | 1 | 210 |
Source: Survey result, 2018.
Figure 3Indicates the estimated maintenance costs and costs on alternative sources of energy incurred by households due to power interruptions. Source: Survey result, 2018.
Estimates from the CLM.
| Choice | Coef. | Std.Err | Z | p>|z| | 95%Conf. | Interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Additional cost | −1.004 | .141 | −7.11 | 0.000 | −1.28 | −.727 |
| Frequency 3 | −.657 | .177 | −3.71 | 0.000 | −1.004 | −.309 |
| Frequency 5 | −.579 | .201 | −2.88 | 0.004 | −.974 | −.185 |
| Duration 2 | −2.475 | .161 | −15.36 | 0.000 | −2.79 | −2.16 |
| Duration 3 | −5.138 | .294 | −17.45 | 0.000 | −5.71 | −4.56 |
| Night time outage | −.652 | .174 | −3.75 | 0.000 | −1.079 | −.311 |
| Status-quo | 7.48 | .448 | 16.71 | 0.000 | 8.36 | 9.59 |
| LR chi2 | 2822.70 | |||||
| Prob > chi2 | 0.000 | |||||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.68 | |||||
| Log-likelihood | −652.73 | |||||
| Number of observation | 3780 | |||||
| Number of respondents | 210 |
Source: Survey result, 2018.
The Haussmann test for IIA assumption.
| Coefficients (b) | (B) Fe | (b)−(B) Difference | sqrt(diag(V_b−V_B)) S.E. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency 3 | .9953 | .1786 | .8167 | .308 |
| Frequency 5 | 1.2138 | .393 | .8207 | .379 |
| Duration 2 | −.322 | −2.214 | 1.89 | .288 |
| Duration 3 | −2.922 | −6.014 | 3.091 | .371 |
| Night time outage | −.300 | −.332 | .032 | .328 |
| chi2(6) | (b−B)'[(V_b−V_B)ˆ(−1)](b−B) | |||
| Prob > chi2 | 0.0000 |
Source: Author's computation, 2018.
The estimates from the MXL model.
| Choice | Coef. | Std.Err | Z | p>|z| | 95% Conf | Interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | ||||||
| Additional cost | −1.27 | .224 | −5.35 | 0.000 | −1.63 | −.759 |
| Frequency 3 | −1.073 | .264 | −4.01 | 0.000 | −1.58 | −.543 |
| Frequency 5 | −.772 | .303 | −2.79 | 0.010 | −1.44 | −.252 |
| Duration 2 | −3.27 | .278 | −11.42 | 0.000 | −3.72 | −2.63 |
| Duration 3 | −16.64 | 2.42 | −6.03 | 0.000 | −19.38 | −9.86 |
| Night time outage | −1.09 | .266 | −4.26 | 0.000 | −1.65 | −.611 |
| Status-quo | −10.68 | .982 | −10.40 | 0.000 | −12.13 | −8.288 |
| SD | ||||||
| Additional cost | 1.005 | .172 | 5.83 | 0.000 | .668 | 1.344 |
| Frequency 3 | .054 | .275 | −0.60 | 0.857 | −.704 | .374 |
| Frequency 5 | −.699 | .402 | −0.29 | 0.065 | −.906 | .673 |
| Duration 2 | .141 | .276 | −11.42 | 0.618 | −.182 | .901 |
| Duration 3 | 7.570 | 1.196 | 5.52 | 0.000 | 4.264 | 8.96 |
| Night time outage | .649 | .551 | 0.34 | 0.091 | .267 | .393 |
| Status-quo | 1.880 | .403 | 2.38 | 0.006 | 1.752 | 1.96 |
| LR chi2 | 109.81 | 0.000 | ||||
| Prob > chi2 | ||||||
| Log-likelihood | −271.9 | |||||
| Number of observations | 3780 | |||||
| Number of respondents | 210 | |||||
Source: Survey, 2018.
The estimates of MWTP.
| MWTP | Std.err | p-value | 95% confidence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency 3 | .8603 | .2304 | 0.000 | .291 .389 |
| Frequency 5 | .884 | .239 | 0.011 | .073 .136 |
| Duration 2 | .560 | .423 | 0.000 | .389 .731 |
| Duration 3 | .702 | 3.145 | 0.000 | .189 .860 |
| Night time outage | .857 | .260 | 0.001 | .368 .634 |
Source: survey, 2018.
The estimates of compensating surplus.
| Improvement scenario | Electricity service attributes | Compensating surplus | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency of outage per monthly | Duration of outage per monthly | Time of Outage | ETB per month | Equivalent $ value | |
| 1 | 3 times per month | Outage for 2 h per month | The outage that occurs during the nighttime | 230.8 | 8.34 |
| 2 | 5 times per month | Outage for 2 h per month | The outage that occurs during the nighttime | 229.3 | 8.2 |
| 3 | 3 times per month | Outage for 3 h per month | The outage that occurs during the nighttime | 230 | 8.3 |
| 4 | 5 times per month | Outage for 3 h per month | Outage that occurs during the nighttime | 228.5 | 8.26 |
Source: Survey, 2018.
The estimates of social welfare per monthly and annually.
| Scenarios | Total monthly WTP for two towns households in birr (US$) | Total annual WTP for two towns households in birr (US$) |
|---|---|---|
| Improvement scenario 1 | 5,803,317.6 (110,263.03) | 69,639,811.2 (1,323,156.4) |
| Improvement scenario 2 | 5,765,607.6 (109,546.5) | 69,187,291.2 (1,314,558.5) |
| Improvement scenario 3 | 5,782,200 (109,861.8) | 69,386,400 (1,318,341.6) |
| Improvement scenario 4 | 5,745,998.4 (109,173.9) | 68,951,980.8 (1,310,087.6) |
Source: Survey, 2018.
Reason for choosing the status quo option.
| Reason for choosing the status-quo | Number of households | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| The current service is not too bad | 1 | 4 |
| The alternatives in the choice sets are not much different from the current service. | 3 | 12 |
| Afraid of the price increment | 10 | 40 |
| The current service is financially better | 5 | 20 |
| Others | 4 | 16 |
| No specific reason | 2 | 8 |
| Total | 25 | 100% |
Source: Survey, 2018.