The Status of Household Electricity Use Behaviour Research in South Africa between 2000 and 2022

Abstract

Unsustainable use of electricity has severe implications on the environment and human well-being. With an estimated consumption of about 20% of total global electricity demand, the household sector is a key player in efforts for crafting interventions for reducing electricity consumption. Despite increasing calls for behavioural solutions to electricity conservation at the household level, more attention has been paid to technical than behavioural interventions. Yet a deeper understanding of electricity use behaviour is needed to design interventions and engender integration of behavioural interventions into demand-side management and decision making. Although South Africa is energy insecure and a major greenhouse gas emitter, less attention has been paid to household electricity use using behavioural lenses. Using a scoping review approach, this study inductively reviewed publications to examine the state of research on household electricity use in South Africa, focussing on (1) research trends and contexts, (2) conceptual focus, (3) proposed interventions for reducing electricity consumption and (4) future research needs. Very few publications considered reported and actual electricity use behaviour. Most publications (65%) paid attention to technical dimensions for reducing household electricity consumption such as economic nudges and technical retrofits, rather than behavioural strategies. Of the publications that focussed on behaviour, very few explicitly examined reported electricity use behaviour. Most publications did not consider the role of partnerships in designing interventions for reducing electricity consumption but rather employed individualistic perspectives. Overall, the results suggest that calls for behaviour change research have not been fully heeded. More studies on electricity use behaviour in different contexts, including across an income heterogeneity gradient, and the role of context dependent collective settings in drafting interventions, are required to better inform pathways to sustainable electricity use.

1. Introduction

Universal access to electricity is a basic human requirement and right [1], but there are growing concerns that unsustainable consumption of electricity can negatively affect the environment and human well-being [2,3]. Estimates suggest that the residential sector accounts for more than 20% of total global energy demands [4,5]; hence, more attention should be paid to understanding households’ electricity use dynamics needed to design electricity demand-side management and decision making. The environmental and socio-economic consequences of unsustainable electricity consumption and production are quite substantial and can be seen in greenhouse emissions [2,6] as well as energy insecurity and poverty [7]. Wasteful electricity consumption practices can result in high electricity expenditure bills [8,9], business risks due to supply interruptions from supply–demand imbalances [10], and negative environmental impacts from carbon emissions. Thus, demand-side management can address the risks of energy insecurity and can be part of a suite of options meant to address environmental impacts in the context of climate change. Demand-side management should be part of the larger scheme of things where demand flexibility is central to a sustainable future, where energy supply, storage and demand response are all inextricably linked.

Presently, the world is grappling with an economically devastating increase in energy prices [11] owing to a combination of factors, such as (1) increased demand for energy following improved economic activities post COVID-19 travel restrictions, (2) a struggling global economy hampered by rising inflation, and (3) restrictions of oil movement to global markets due to political instability in some oil producing countries. In response to this, many affected countries have returned to behavioural interventions for reducing the adverse effects of rising electricity prices and energy insecurity. Further, there is a renewed interest in and increasing calls for massive investments in renewable energy sources such as solar photovoltaic [11] and wind [12,13] to reduce high electricity bills and carbon emissions. Renewable energy has the potential to provide substantial benefits relating to energy security and carbon emission reduction as seen in some European countries such as Denmark [14], Poland [11,12] and Spain [15].

In South Africa, however, the adoption of renewable energy remains very low, with a share of only about 6% (excluding nuclear energy) of total energy production [16]. A huge share (85%) of electricity production in South Africa is primarily powered by fossil fuels, from cheap locally mined coal and imported diesel to power generators [16]. With a low intake of renewable energy, fossil fuels will play a major role in electricity provision in the foreseeable future. South Africa’s ability to generate electricity from fossils has declined by 10% in 2020 due to long-term poor maintenance of aging thermal infrastructure, which is now prone to frequent breakdowns [16]. The year 2020 is described as the most intensive year of load shedding, with the country experiencing a total of 860 h of load shedding [16], (although the current 2022 load shedding hours are more likely to exceed the 2020 level), with serious negative impacts on lives and livelihoods. Consequently, there has been an increase in diesel imports to power generators. With the rising costs of crude oil in the global market, the production costs of electricity will increase sharply, and consequently, the price of electricity will also increase. This trend does not secure energy security for the country, and at the same time, the processing of electricity from fossils will increase carbon emissions. The impacts of increased carbon emissions on climate change and its irreversible consequences cannot be overemphasized. Thus, developing interventions for reducing electricity consumptions remains a realist intervention in the short and long term.

However, despite increased realisation that typical household electricity-use practices such as not switching off lights when not needed, overloading refrigerators and leaving appliances on standby mode [17,18,19,20,21,22] can result in avoidable electricity losses, there has been limited attention to behavioural strategies for addressing wasteful behaviour, particularly in Africa. One of the key limitations for the integration of behavioural strategies into electricity demand-side management and decision making is limited insight into complex electricity consumption behaviour [19]. According to Frederiks et al. ([19], p. 1385), advanced understanding of household electricity consumption from a behavioural perspective “can help us design cost-effective and mass-scalable solutions to encourage sustainable energy use among consumers”.

Promotion of electricity conservation is understood from different perspectives. From a technical dimension, the implementation of electricity efficiency strategies such as appliance labelling to promote green consumption behaviour is widely reported but with mixed outcomes [23,24,25,26,27]. Shen and Shaijo [24], Si-Dai et al. [25] and Ward et al. [26] found that appliance labelling positively impacted consumer appliance purchasing behaviour. However, Wang et al. [27], using real purchase data on China’s largest online sales platform to explore consumers’ appliances purchasing behaviour, found that appliance labelling did not translate to green consumption behaviour, highlighting the mismatch between behavioural intentions and actual behaviour. Other technical solutions for reducing energy consumption include energy-efficient retrofitting of buildings [28], insulation of geysers (cylindrical electric water heaters) [29], technology-forcing for lighting [30] and advanced smart grid arrangements based on bidirectional flow of communication, information and power flows between consumers and energy suppliers [31]. Nonetheless, advances in technical solutions for promoting household energy conservation are useful but may not yield the desired behaviour change [27]. Further, technical solutions cannot address wasteful electricity consumption practices [32]. For example, households’ use of energy-efficient appliances can reduce electricity consumption, but the sheer number of energy-efficient appliances can erode the benefits of efficient technologies [23]. Further, technical interventions such as the use of energy-efficient appliances can be costly to low-income households [8,33,34].

In response to these limitations of these technical solutions, there is growing realisation in research of the opportunities offered by behavioural approaches for promoting electricity conservation at the household level [3,6,7,8,9,35]. Thus, integrating technical solutions with behaviour change interventions can yield optimum reduction of electricity consumption. Research shows that electricity saving at the household level is important because the benefits can accrue directly to households through reduced electricity bills [8,18,31,32], reduce electricity demand which can minimise the frequencies of load shedding [8], and reduce households’ carbon footprint [36]. An understanding of electricity use behavioural patterns can be used to inform interventions for reducing electricity consumption. Available behaviour research focusses on the impacts of feedback on behaviour change [37,38], the effectiveness of varied interventions [6,8,20,38], and human dimensions of transition to sustainable electricity use [35]. Although the benefits for reduced electricity consumption may not be visible at the household level, the aggregate benefits of uninterrupted supply of electricity and a decrease in households’ carbon footprint are arguably considerable given the size of the household sector. Although the behavioural dimensions of electricity consumption and conservation are now recognised within electricity use research, only few studies explicitly focus on the subject in the Global South, and it remains unclear whether a focus on the subject is evident in South Africa.

To foster the integration of behavioural approaches into demand-side management programmes and decision making, an improved understanding of electricity consumption behaviour and the determinants of behaviour [3,9,39,40,41,42], and effectiveness of interventions [8,17,19,20,38,43] is required. Empirical evidence can help in identifying wasteful electricity use practices and in developing predictive models needed for crafting pathways towards sustainable electricity consumption. However, a reliable synthesis of the growing body of evidence is needed to inform processes of evidence-based decision making in sustainability research, policy and practice [44]. Research suggests that calls for behaviour change research have been widely heeded in the Global North [30,35,36,37,39]. While the conceptual insights developed in the Global North are important, some of them might not be applicable to the Global South due to contextual differences. In South Africa, research on this subject tends to be fragmented and aspect-specific, e.g., a focus on geysers only [18,29], which makes it difficult to identify research advances and gaps as a basis for mapping pathways for promoting electricity conservation. This in turn makes it difficult to develop a common understanding and makes a case for investing in behavioural interventions as a complimentary solution to technical approaches. In response to this research gap, this study inductively reviewed publications (published between 2000 and 2022 in South Africa) within household electricity use research focussing on (1) research contexts and trends, (2) conceptual focus, (3) interventions for reducing electricity consumption, and (4) future research needs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

The quantitative scoping review was conducted following the guidelines of the Reporting standards for Systematic Evidence Synthesis (ROSES) proposed by Haddaway et al. [44]. Data gathering involved two phases. The first phase was a comprehensive and systematic search of publications in common academic electronic search engines, Web of Science, Scopus, Sabinet and Google Scholar. Web of Science and Scopus are the most comprehensive databases containing different types of publications including journal articles, books, book chapters and conference proceedings, and they are very diverse in terms of the journals and disciplines covered (e.g., social sciences, humanities, life sciences and physical sciences) [45]. We are cognisant of the critiques levelled against Google Scholar as a reliable database for literature reviews [45,46], particularly its use as the principal search engine [47]. Although Google Scholar has numerous limitations, it provided relevant publications that could not be retrieved from other databases consistent with assertions by Falagas et al. [45]. The publications search was limited to journal articles, conference proceedings, government reports, and theses published in South Africa between 2000 and 2022. The timeframe was specifically selected to capture the evolution, if any, of household electricity use research given the growth of this literature elsewhere. The following steps were applied:

Literature search: Searches strings for publications in the databases were performed using the following key words, phrases or combinations of words: “household electricity” OR “household electricity use” OR “household energy use” OR “household energy” OR “residential electricity use” OR “residential energy use” “South Africa” (

Table 1. Databases and search commands used.

Database	Search Command Used
Web of Science	TS = (“household electricity” OR “household electricity use” OR “household energy use” OR “household energy” OR “residential electricity use” OR “residential energy use” AND “South Africa”) AND TI = (“household electricity” OR “household electricity use” OR “household energy use” OR “household energy” OR “residential electricity use” OR “residential energy use” AND “South Africa”) AND AB = (“household electricity” OR “household electricity use” OR “household energy use” OR “household energy” OR “residential electricity use” OR “residential energy use” AND “South Africa”) AND AK = (“household electricity” OR “household electricity use” OR “household energy use” OR “household energy” OR “residential electricity use” OR “residential energy use” AND “South Africa”)
Google Scholar	Allintitle: “household electricity” OR “household electricity use” OR “household energy use” OR “household energy” OR “residential electricity use” OR “residential energy use” “South Africa”
Sabinet	Anywhere = (“household electricity” OR “household electricity use” OR “household energy use” OR “household energy” OR “residential electricity use” OR “residential energy use” “South Africa”)
Scopus	TITLE-ABS-KEY = (“household electricity” OR “household electricity use” OR “household energy use” OR “household energy” OR “residential electricity use” OR “residential energy use” “South Africa”)

). The data collection process and stages are summarised in Figure 1. The initial search returned 384 articles and after removal of duplicates and irrelevant articles, the screening process yielded 183 articles (Figure 1).

Screening of publications: To select and retain publications focussed on household electricity use, all publications from the initial search were carefully screened, following careful reading of their respective titles and abstracts. During this process, all publications that were deemed irrelevant were excluded. The inclusion criteria were publications that: (1) clearly focussed on household electricity use (reported and actual behaviour) and factors influencing behaviour, (2) reported on practical or potential interventions for promoting electricity conservation at the household level, and (3) were based on coal-powered electricity. Publications that focussed on other forms of energy such as solar, wind and nuclear, and on contexts other than households (e.g., industrial, commercial and university settings) were excluded. The initial screening process retained 26 relevant articles which were retrieved in full text. Reference lists of the remaining articles were evaluated to search for further relevant literature [47], following the same screening process and inclusion criteria. This resulted in a total of 40 relevant publications for review. The process of searching for literature and screening of publications was continuous beginning in June 2020 and ending in August 2022. The first round of searching for and screening of publications was performed by one of the authors, and additional searches and screening were conducted by all authors.

2.2. Data Analyses

The analysis employed an inductive approach, whereby the research themes were not pre-selected and analysed but emerged from the analysis of relevant publications [48]. Following preliminary reading of the abstracts of the selected publications, thematic codes were developed after several iterations, and the publications were divided into work packages according to the thematic codes to allow for quantification of the results. To explore the conceptual focus and insights of the publications further, the text was analysed to answer the following research questions: (1) what are the research trends and contexts, (2) what is the conceptual focus of the publications, (3) what type of interventions for reducing electricity consumption are reported and discussed, (4) what is the extent of focus on behavioural interventions as a pathway for promoting household electricity savings, (5) what determinants of electricity use behaviour are reported, and (6) what are future research needs? The distribution of publications based on type of publication (grey literature, including theses or journal publications), year of publication and conceptual focus of the articles were presented descriptively in the form of proportions and histograms.

2.3. Limitations of the Study

The limitations of our method of analysis are threefold. First, scoping reviews generally lack a standardised methodological approach; hence, transparency in the research process is required [49]. The steps undertaken in this study are clearly outlined. Second, despite the rigorous efforts to include all relevant literature for this study, the risk of omission errors is possible due to indexing errors or the search criteria used. For example, conceptual ambiguity on electricity is common; the terms electricity and energy are used interchangeably, yet energy might also be used to refer to liquid fuels such as crude oil, diesel or heating oil. Third, some unpublished research works might not have been publicly available at the time of the search, which might have resulted in their exclusion from the analysis. Despite these limitations, the study provides useful insights into the state of research on household electricity use in South Africa, needed to carve out future research needs and pathways towards sustainable electricity use in the residential sector.

3. Results

3.1. Research Context, Trends and Focus

Out of the 385 publications from the initial search, only 40 publications (10%) explicitly focussed on household energy use. Of all the publications, about 75% were journal articles, and the remainder were grey literature including reports, theses, and conference proceedings. Most publications (94%) assessed household electricity use at the national level, while only 6% focussed on local. Few studies focussed on specific demographic groups (low-income and high-income) and differences between them. Regarding the distribution of publications by period of publication, the findings showed an increasing trend between 2000 and 2022, but a substantial proportion of publications (more than 75%) were published after 2011 (Figure 2). The increase in literature post 2011 suggests the subject of household electricity use is gaining traction, and perhaps a response to the load shedding problem that began in South Africa in 2008. These studies are a promising step towards developing pathways to sustainability transition in the residential sector. However, relative to the Global North (e.g., the European Union and United States of America), the literature on household electricity use behaviour and the determinants of behaviour is still very limited, making it difficult to sufficiently inform both policy and practice for promoting household electricity conservation.

Publications focussed on household electricity use were grouped into specific research focuses (Figure 3). Most publications (about 65%) focussed on electricity saving interventions, followed by those that examined electricity use behaviour and its determinants (35%). The remaining publications considered electricity use behaviour only and the role of partnerships and co-production of knowledge in designing electricity-saving interventions [8,50,51,52].

3.2. Electricity Use Behaviour

Assessment of electricity use behaviour varied among publications, ranging from assessment of behaviour of a single household item (e.g., geyser) to a full suite of typical household items. Only three publications [3,9,20] examined behaviour regarding the use of a wide range of household items and facilities such as refrigerators and freezers, heaters and fans, water heaters, electric jugs, television sets, washing machines and lights. Williams et al. [3] reported evidence of electricity-saving practices among high-income households such as cooling down hot food before refrigeration and using washing machines on full load. Wasteful behaviour was also evident, including not turning off heaters and leaving electronic gadgets on standby mode. Similarly, Mutumbi et al. [9] and Thondhlana et al. [20] reported a mix of sustainable and wasteful electricity use behaviour among low-income households. Most publications examined electricity use behaviour for specific appliances. For example, Nel et al. [18] found that households tended to switch on electric water heaters three time longer than was necessary, resulting in avoidable electricity wastage. Other publications examined changes in specific behavioural actions related to heating and cooling in response to changing seasons [53,54] and reported both pro-environmental and wasteful actions.

3.3. Determinants of Electricity Use Behaviour and Savings

The publications focussed on two main dimensions of determinants of electricity use behaviour—demographic and psychological factors. Nine out of fourteen publications examined the influence of socio-demographic factors such as age, size of family, income, and knowledge on reported electricity use behaviour, for example [3,9,55,56,57,58,59,60].

In general, the examination shows that older people were more likely to save electricity than younger people possibly due to older members of households incurring the costs of unsustainable electricity use, or not having young members within their households who were likely to consume more electricity through day-to-day household activities such as cooking and entertainment [3,57,60]. Further, big households were more likely to exhibit poor electricity use behaviour than small households due to absolute high electricity demand associated with more people [55], larger living spaces [40], high number of electronic gadgets [58], and difficulty in assigning responsibility for sustainable electricity use in bigger households [3,57]. One publication [20] found no significant relationship between socio-demographic factors and electricity use behaviour.

Other publications examined the influence of education on electricity use behaviour at the household level. The publications [59,61,62] show that the level of education plays a very important role in influencing a household’s decision to purchase energy-efficient appliances, which can result in substantial electricity savings. The publications show that making the right decision (i.e., buying energy-efficient gadgets) is also mediated by awareness about the negative effects on household budgets and the environment of buying less-efficient electronics. However, we did not find any publication that showed the purchasing propensity of energy-efficient appliances across an income gradient. This understanding is needed in the context of South Africa and elsewhere in developing countries given the high levels of poverty. High poverty levels may mean that purchasing of energy-efficient appliances might not be feasible for people struggling to make a living.

Seven publications examined the effects of psychological factors on electricity-saving behaviour, including personal value orientations (e.g., [8,20]). These publications claim that personal values such as openness to change can yield electricity-saving behaviour, although other contextual factors such as convenience [9] might shape the ultimate behavioural outcomes. For example, Williams et al. [3] report a positive correlation between universalism and electricity-saving behaviour, arguing that people who were concerned with nature or cared for the welfare of others were highly likely to act in the interest of the environment.

Nel et al. [18] showed that people’s willingness to engage in electricity-saving behaviour was determined by how much effort was needed to perform that behaviour. For example, participants who perceived that it was not easy to switch their electric water heaters on and off manually did not switch them off. Davis and Durbach [63] focussed on the influence of attitudes on behaviour, showing that the shift from regular light bulbs to more efficient fluorescent lights was largely shaped by attitudes. Positive attitudes such as confidence and determination yielded electricity savings while negative attitudes such as doubt and frustration resulted in non-engagement in electricity conservation.

Altogether, the articles advance our understanding of the socio-demographic factors that can predict electricity use behaviour as found elsewhere [39,61]. However, given the detailed empirical evidence required to inform our understanding of behaviour, we argue that the available literature in South Africa is insufficient to draw general and transferable conclusions about household electricity use behaviour. A notable gap relates to lack of understanding of how electricity use behaviour and its determinants manifest across a socio-economic heterogeneity gradient. South Africa has marked inequalities among demographic groups, and it is plausible to argue that the electricity needs, access and affordability between different income groups are varied [64,65]. For example, high-income households generally consume more electricity than low-income households. Therefore, more and future research on electricity use behaviour in South Africa should consider an income heterogeneity gradient, consistent with calls elsewhere [65]. This is because the level of behavioural interventions required for one income group might be different from the other, as seen elsewhere [66,67,68].

3.4. Electricity-Saving Interventions

The publications covered three types of electricity-saving interventions, namely technical, economic and behavioural, but publications that considered technical interventions were more widespread (62%) than those dedicated to behavioural (27%) and economic (11%) strategies (Figure 4). Technical interventions were divided into two main groups, namely technical fixes and efficiency interventions. For example, Ritchie [69] suggested improvements to algorithms for controlling hot-water load to reduce electricity consumption without inconveniencing the customer or the need for retrofitting household water heating systems. Similarly, Longe et al. [31] highlighted the potential of developing sophisticated devices for reducing household electricity consumption during demand peak hours. The devices are designed to make use of algorithms to schedule non-use of shiftable household appliances during peak periods without inconveniencing the consumer. For example, a refrigerator is designed to work 24 h a day, but users would not be inconvenienced if it was switched off for two hours during peak usage periods. It is argued that these smart devices could save up to 25% and 67% of household electricity in winter and summer, respectively, if applied on other household appliances such as heaters and washing machines. Catherine et al. [70] show that a ripple relay system designed to shift the heating load of geysers out of peak demand times can reduce electricity consumption, and in turn, minimise pressure on the grid. The authors argue that such technical interventions could result in considerable electricity savings, bringing much-needed stability to the national grid.

Other technical fixes relate to new technologies aimed at steering households towards reduced electricity consumption. For example, calls have been made for poor households to find cleaner non-grid alternatives, such as coal, through the fire lighting method to reduce air pollution [71]. This method is identified as a cheaper way that dirty fuels such as coal can be used by households for cooking, which in turn, can minimise grid instability, carbon emissions and electricity expenditure.

Hohne and Numbi’s [29] study on the effects of installation of efficient water heating systems on electricity consumption showed that Electricity Tankless Water Heaters (ETWH) ensured instant hot water access while consuming less electricity. Unlike the conventional water heating methods, the ETWH is switched on only when hot water is needed, which saves considerable amounts of electricity. Hohne and Numbi [29] have also endorsed the implementation of the Hybrid Solar/electric storage tank Water Heater (HSWH) which has been designed to use solar energy during the day and then to switch automatically to electricity during the night. This system has been designed to minimise electricity use and costs in cases where hot water is needed both during the day and the night. Hohne and Numbi [29] suggest that retrofitting conventional water heating methods can make them more energy efficient. These findings are consistent with the findings by Catherine et al. [70] on cylindrical water geysers, which suggest that technical improvements to water geysers such as installing dual elements rather than one element, insulation, and installing ripple relays can improve heat retention by 12%. Other studies on similar technical fixes include those by Longe [31], Notje [72] and Setlhaolo and Xia [73]. Five publications focussed on improving energy efficiency for specific household appliances using technical designs and control topologies, including geysers [29,74], air conditioning [74], heat pumps [75], and entertainment gadgets (audio and visual) that can consume electricity on standby mode [76]. These studies suggest that technical improvements on household appliances which operate on standby mode can minimise unnecessary electricity losses and contribute to grid stability.

Market-based behavioural nudges were underrepresented in the literature, with only three publications [18,62,77] mentioning economic instruments for behaviour change. These publications focussed on time-based electricity tariffs, that is, differential pricing between peak and non-peak periods and financial incentives to discourage the use of electricity during peak periods. However, Du Preez [62] warns that economic interventions are temporary, arguing that behaviour motivated by financial incentives is only exhibited when the incentives are being administered and tend to disappear as soon as the incentives stop. Nyatsanza [77] also showed that economic interventions such as ‘price hikes’ had the ability to save up to 15% of electricity consumed by households, but this could drop with rebound effects associated with such interventions.

Relative to technical interventions, behavioural strategies for promoting electricity savings were also largely underrepresented in the reviewed publications with only seven of the articles recognising them. The focus of the few articles is on the effectiveness of behavioural interventions such as awareness raising and provision of feedback on electricity-saving performance following interventions [9,20,60,62,65]. Thondhlana and Kua [20] reported substantial reductions in electricity consumption following implementation of behavioural interventions that included discussions on saving measures, information provision strategies and feedback on monthly saving performance. Williams et al. [60] showed that households that received sufficient information on electricity saving tips and performance feedback saved more electricity than those that did not receive the same information. These studies lend weight to the importance of behavioural interventions in promoting electricity conservation, already highlighted by the South African Department of Energy [78] in 2012 as an important pathway towards an energy-sustainable future but arguably without gaining traction. Further, there is limited research on the involvement of electricity users in co-designing electricity-saving interventions, although these approaches are increasingly receiving attention [36,53].

Based on the available literature, there seems to be good coverage of technical interventions for promoting electricity savings at the household level including household retrofitting, diversifying the energy mix, smart technologies and appliance-specific technical improvements. However, a big missing link regarding technical interventions is the affordability of the smart devices and retrofits. We believe that affordability is an important consideration for research because despite good intentions to save electricity, technical solutions might be beyond the reach of many households. Further, significant gaps between technical energy solutions and adoption of these technologies have been reported [79]. It has been reported that current energy systems based on technical solutions are characterised by path dependency because consumers of electricity seldom think about how it is generated and the sustainability implications of its use [80]. This suggests that technical solutions are useful but insufficient to address unsustainable electricity use practices if the users of electricity are not involved. However, only two publications [16,53] considered co-designed interventions on household electricity savings. The central argument for a transdisciplinary approach to addressing electricity savings is that the involvement of relevant stakeholders (for example, electricity suppliers, distributors, and users) in electricity use research can allow for collective problem formulation and co-designing of interventions [81,82,83]. A comparative review of electricity use behaviour from individualistic perspective and context-dependent collective settings concluded that incorporating a social or community component was likely to lead to long-term energy efficiency [83]. In other words, encouraging electricity savings at the household level requires a collective understanding of the sustainability challenge (wasteful electricity use practices), its impacts on the environment and human well-being, and ways of addressing the sustainability challenge. Transdisciplinary approaches can allow for the development of interventions that are relevant to different context realities as suggested by others [36,75,83].

4. Conclusions and Future Research Directions

This paper has presented a scoping review of the status of research on household electricity use in South Africa between 2000 and 2022. Our analysis suggests that while there is growing work on this subject, available work is generally insufficient to make conclusive judgements. In particular, there is limited work on reported electricity use behaviour across the different income groups. Concerning electricity-saving interventions, the analysis shows an overrepresentation of technical fixes relative to behavioural strategies. The limited literature on behavioural interventions makes it difficult to draw useful conclusions on the effectiveness of behavioural interventions and determinants of success. In the context of developing countries in general, and South Africa in particular, technical interventions for promoting sustainable electricity use by households might not be feasible among low-income communities who often struggle to meet their daily needs. This is because technical fixes such as smart devices and retrofits require financial commitments. It is also widely known now that technical fixes cannot address unsustainable practices [32]. Further, electricity efficiency gains through technical interventions can be offset by consumption growth [84] related to ownership of household electronic equipment. In addition, considering the dispersed nature of electricity use in the residential sector, it is more difficult to regulate it using technical interventions in households than in the industrial sector, which is relatively centralised [85]. Therefore, a consideration of behavioural dimensions of electricity use seems logical.

In a nutshell, the state of research on household electricity use in South Africa reveals significant gaps, making it difficult to identify the behaviour to be changed and appreciating the main factors influencing behaviour. Future research should consider electricity behaviour as a basis for identifying behaviour change strategies for improving electricity conservation. Further, comparative analyses on the effectiveness of combined technical and behavioural strategies are needed to inform strategies for optimising electricity conservation. Lastly, we believe that individualistic approaches to understanding electricity use behaviour might be limited in their effectiveness due to varied contexts. Thus, more studies on electricity use behaviour in different contexts, including across an income heterogeneity gradient, and the role of context-dependent collective settings in drafting interventions are required to better inform pathways to sustainable electricity use.