IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v108y2017icp102-110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indigenous community preferences for electricity services: Evidence from a choice experiment in Sarawak, Malaysia

Author

Listed:
  • van Gevelt, T.
  • Canales Holzeis, C.
  • George, F.
  • Zaman, T.

Abstract

Providing indigenous communities with electricity services requires an understanding of preferences to ensure that electrification schemes are congruent with the communities’ specific development pathways. We contribute to the literature by using a choice experiment to rank and quantify household preferences for electricity services in two indigenous villages in Sarawak, Malaysia. Specifically, we disaggregated electricity services into five attributes: private use for household appliances and lighting, public use for community facilities, productive use for income generation, the operator model and the monthly tariff. We found that the most value was placed on the operator-model underpinning the provision of electricity services and that there was a strong preference for a community-based model over a utility-based model. Interestingly, our results suggest that the preference for a community-based operator model may be related to the experience of using electricity for productive uses. We contend that our results demonstrate the importance of social and institutional challenges to providing electricity services to indigenous communities in Sarawak and highlight the need for the state utility to engage with indigenous communities to overcome these challenges.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:108:y:2017:i:c:p:102-110
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517303452
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.054?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. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    2. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1842-1854, May.
    3. Altman, Jon C., 2004. "Economic development and Indigenous Australia: contestations over property, institutions and ideology," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 1-22.
    4. John Knight & Ramani Gunatilaka, 2011. "Does Economic Growth Raise Happiness in China?," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 1-24.
    5. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    7. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    8. Bergmann, Ariel & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nick, 2008. "Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 616-625, April.
    9. Jon C. Altman, 2004. "Economic development and Indigenous Australia: contestations over property, institutions and ideology," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 513-534, September.
    10. Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), 2010. "Choice Experiments in Developing Countries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13208.
    11. Anderson, Robert B. & Dana, Leo Paul & Dana, Teresa E., 2006. "Indigenous land rights, entrepreneurship, and economic development in Canada: "Opting-in" to the global economy," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 45-55, February.
    12. Kyran O'Sullivan & Douglas F. Barnes, 2007. "Energy Policies and Multitopic Household Surveys : Guidelines for Questionnaire Design in Living Standards Measurement Studies," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6615, December.
    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. Javier Muro & Leo Zurita-Arthos & José Jara & Esteban Calderón & Richard Resl & Andreas Rienow & Valerie Graw, 2020. "Earth Observation for Settlement Mapping of Amazonian Indigenous Populations to Support SDG7," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-17, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Osborne, Matthew & Lambe, Fiona & Ran, Ylva & Dehmel, Naira & Tabacco, Giovanni Alberto & Balungira, Joshua & Pérez-Viana, Borja & Widmark, Erik & Holmlid, Stefan & Verschoor, Arjan, 2022. "Designing development interventions: The application of service design and discrete choice experiments in complex settings," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(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. Kim, Kyung Jae & Lee, Hwarang & Koo, Yoonmo, 2020. "Research on local acceptance cost of renewable energy in South Korea: A case study of photovoltaic and wind power projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    2. Huh, Sung-Yoon & Woo, JongRoul & Lim, Sesil & Lee, Yong-Gil & Kim, Chang Seob, 2015. "What do customers want from improved residential electricity services? Evidence from a choice experiment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 410-420.
    3. Vecchiato, Daniel & Tempesta, Tiziano, 2015. "Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-179.
    4. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    5. Yan, Zhen & Zhou, Jie-hong, 2015. "Measuring consumer heterogeneous preferences for pork traits under media reports: choice experiment in sixteen traceability pilot cities, China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212609, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Johannes Geyer & Thorben Korfhage, 2015. "Long‐term Care Insurance and Carers' Labor Supply – A Structural Model," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 1178-1191, September.
    8. Daniele Pacifico, 2012. "Fitting nonparametric mixed logit models via expectation-maximization algorithm," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 12(2), pages 284-298, June.
    9. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
    10. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    11. Staus, Alexander, 2008. "Standard and Shuffled Halton Sequences in a Mixed Logit Model," Working Papers 93856, Universitaet Hohenheim, Institute of Agricultural Policy and Agricultural Markets.
    12. repec:zbw:rwirep:0495 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Drake, Coleman, 2019. "What are consumers willing to pay for a broad network health plan?: Evidence from covered California," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 63-77.
    14. Galassi, Veronica & Madlener, Reinhard, 2017. "The Role of Environmental Concern and Comfort Expectations in Energy Retrofit Decisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 53-65.
    15. Landry, Craig E. & Allen, Tom & Cherry, Todd & Whitehead, John C., 2012. "Wind turbines and coastal recreation demand," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 93-111.
    16. Jeffrey E. Harris & Beatriz G. Lopez‐Valcarcel & Patricia Barber & Vicente Ortún, 2017. "Allocation of Residency Training Positions in Spain: Contextual Effects on Specialty Preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 371-386, March.
    17. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    18. Robert Donnelly & Francisco J.R. Ruiz & David Blei & Susan Athey, 2021. "Counterfactual inference for consumer choice across many product categories," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 369-407, December.
    19. Yan, Zhen & Zhou, Jie-hong, 2015. "Measuring consumer heterogeneous preferences for pork traits under media reports: choice experiment in sixteen traceability pilot cities, China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211884, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    21. Steffen Andersen & Glenn Harrison & Arne Hole & Morten Lau & E. Rutström, 2012. "Non-linear mixed logit," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 77-96, July.

    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:108:y:2017:i:c:p:102-110. 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.