*3.2. Ownership of Household Appliances*

Table 5 (FCT) and Table 6 (Lagos State) are contingency tables with the association between the households' ownership of various household appliances and their monthly spend on non-cooking energy. The results from Table 5 show a statistically significant association between the FCT households' ownership of various household appliances and their monthly spend on non-cooking energy. Households that spend at least \$6 monthly on non-cooking energy owned more mechanical fans than would be expected, and the post hoc analysis using the odds ratio (OR) suggested that these households were 3.62 times more likely to own a mechanical fan compared to those spending less than \$6 monthly on non-cooking energy. A similar result was obtained with the ownership of televisions, i.e., households spending at least \$6 dollars monthly on their non-cooking energy owned more televisions than could be explained by chance, and the OR implied that these households were 7.65 times more likely to own a television compared to those spending less than \$6 per month. Ownership of a CD/DVD player was also significantly associated with the monthly spend on non-cooking energy. The OR suggested that households spending at least \$6 monthly on non-cooking energy were 8.7 times more likely to own a CD/DVD player compared to those spending less than \$6 monthly.


**Table 5.** Association between the ownership of household appliances and the monthly spend on non-cooking household energy, FCT.

Figures provided in the table are counts of respondents in the categories while figures in parentheses are expected counts. Results of the Chi-square statistical tests are provided, while the post hoc test results are presented using the odds ratio. \*\* *p* < 0.01; \*\*\* *p* < 0.001.

The results in Table 6 also show that there is a significant association between the ownership of household appliances in Lagos State households, and their monthly spend on non-cooking energy. The households were asked about their ownership of selected household appliances, and just as with the FCT results, the predictor variables here were used as proxies for household wealth. The results show that there was a significant positive association between the ownership of the household appliances and household monthly spend on non-cooking energy, suggesting the wealthier households owned more appliances in their households, even when these appliances could not be powered by their SHS. The OR values indicates wealthier Lagos State households, i.e., those spending at least \$20 monthly on non-cooking energy, are almost 124 times more likely to own a mechanical fan and almost 6 times more likely to own a CD/DVD player, when compared to the households spending less than \$20 monthly.


**Table 6.** Association between the ownership of household appliances and the monthly spend on non-cooking energy, Lagos State.

Figures provided in the table are counts of respondents in the categories while figures in parentheses are expected counts. Results of the Chi-square statistical tests are provided, while the post hoc test results are presented using the odds ratio. \*\* *p* < 0.01; \*\*\* *p* < 0.001.

#### *3.3. Preference for Grid Connection and Satisfaction with SHS Capacity*

Table 7 sets out the association between amount households are willing to pay for grid connection and the monthly spend on non-cooking energy, FCT. The results indicate a statistical association between the amount the FCT households were willing to pay for a one-off connection fee, and their monthly spend on non-cooking energy. For the households willing to pay a connection fee for the grid, their willingness to pay, in monetary terms, was significantly associated with their monthly spend on non-cooking energy. This association was driven by households willing to pay amounts greater than \$28 for this connection—households that spent at least \$6 monthly on non-cooking energy were more likely to be willing to pay a minimum grid connection fee of \$28, compared to those spending less than \$6 monthly. Note that other outcome variables were tested for an association with 'monthly spend on cooking energy' to gauge the households' desire for grid electricity (e.g., preference for stable grid connection for 4–6 h/day to current SHS connection, willingness to pay a one-off grid connection fee, maximum monthly tariff households are willing to pay for this connection, and their satisfaction with daily duration of SHS). However, none provided a significant result.


**Table 7.** Association between amount households are willing to pay for one-off grid connection fee and the monthly spend on non-cooking energy, FCT.

Figures provided in the table are counts of respondents in the categories while figures in round parentheses are expected counts. Results of the Chi-square test is presented, \* *p* < 0.05. The figures in square parentheses are the adjusted standardized residual values.

The dissatisfaction with SHS capacity, and desire for grid electricity (or any technology capable of powering larger appliances) was also mentioned in the respondents' answers to questions about how they felt about their SHS, for example ('FCT-R' stands for 'FCT respondent'):

*'The only problem I have with it is that it cannot (power) my television or my fridge and my fan, that is the only problem I have with the solar' (FCT-R1).*

*'I would prefer a bigger one that can take a fridge and television' (FCT-R4).*

*'I really want NEPA, if it were available, I would pay for NEPA. But since there is no NEPA, that is why we went for solar' (FCT-R7).*

NEPA is an acronym for the National Electric Power Authority, a now defunct institution that once managed the electricity supply system in Nigeria and is commonly used as a metaphor for grid electricity in Nigeria.

Table 8 shows that the preference of the Lagos State households to connect to the grid, and to pay a one-off connection fee, was significantly associated with their monthly spend on non-cooking energy. The results suggested that wealthier households (spending more than \$20 monthly on non-cooking energy) were 13 times more likely to prefer a stable grid connection with 4–6 h of electricity access per day, and were 9 times more willing to pay a connection fee to access this stable grid, compared to the less wealthy households spending less than \$20 monthly on non-cooking energy. Table 8 also shows that the maximum amount these households were willing to spend as monthly tariffs for this connection was significantly associated with their monthly spend on non-cooking energy. The results implied that the wealthier households were more likely to pay higher sums (in excess of \$40), as monthly tariffs for this stable connection to the grid compared to the less wealthy households, while the less wealthy households were more likely to pay smaller sums (less than \$30) as monthly tariffs for the stable grid electricity.


**Table 8.** Association between the preference for a stable grid connection to SHS, willingness to pay for one and the satisfaction with SHS duration, and monthly spend on non-cooking energy in Lagos State households.

Figures provided are counts of respondents in the categories while figures in parentheses are expected counts. Results of the statistical tests are provided using the Chi-square and Fisher's exact test. Post hoc tests are performed using the odds ratio and adjusted standardized residuals, which are presented in square parentheses. \*\* *p* < 0.01; \*\*\* *p* < 0.001.

The preference for grid-based electricity was also suggested by the respondents' answers to questions about how they felt about their SHS, with responses such as the following ('LG-R' stands for 'Lagos State respondent'):

*'I prefer NEPA because, you know the solar cannot (power) a fan, but NEPA can (power) the fan, fridge, television' (LG-R3).*

*'If NEPA (is available) I would prefer it, so I can have fridge and fan' (LG-R12).*

*'I just think it (SHS) is a waste of money (* ... *) it does not have fan, it cannot (power) a freezer, meanwhile in one week you spend N2,500 (\$7) on it (* ... *) If there is NEPA, nobody in this environment will use it' (LG-R11).*

The households were asked if they were satisfied with the daily duration of their SHS, and the results for the Lagos State communities are also shown in Table 8. There was a significant association between their response to this question and the household monthly spend on non-cooking energy. The results suggest that the less wealthy households (spending less than \$20 monthly on non-cooking energy) were more likely to be satisfied with its duration while the wealthier households (spending more than \$20 monthly on non-cooking energy) were less likely to be satisfied, than could be explained by chance. The OR value suggests that less wealthy households were 8.4 times more likely to be satisfied by the SHS duration, compared to the wealthier households.

In summary, the results show that while most of the households across both FCT and Lagos State use SHS as their main household lighting energy source, none of them were satisfied with its capacity. It also suggested that the wealthier households in both locations were likely to own appliances that could not be accommodated by their SHSs, when compared to the less wealthy households. Furthermore, the results imply that among the FCT households, the wealthier ones were significantly more willing to pay for a connection to the grid, compared to their less wealthy neighbours. The Lagos State results were similar, with wealthier households more likely to prefer a grid connection and be more willing to pay for it, compared to the less-wealthy households.

#### **4. Discussion**

Four themes emerged from the data obtained across both locations. First, differences were observed in the main lighting energy source used by the households across both locations. SHS was the dominant source used for lighting across both locations, 66% using it as their main source in FCT while 86% used it as a main source in Lagos State. Further, 30% of households in FCT used dry cell batteries for their main lighting energy source, while no household in Lagos State reporting this. The dominant nature of SHS for lighting in the households is to be expected, considering research has shown that once solar PV technologies are introduced into households, they displace kerosene used for lighting [40–42]. The difference in SHS use observed across both locations could be explained by the fact the FCT households, on average, have a greater number of rooms compared to the Lagos State households (see Table 2). Both types of SHS used in the households surveyed provide only 4 lighting points, hence many of the FCT households (65% with greater than 4 rooms) would require separate energy sources to provide lighting for the other rooms. This likely explains their relatively high use (30%) of dry cell batteries, compared to Lagos State households (84% with less than 5 rooms).

Second, as set out in Tables 5 and 6, multiple households owned various appliances that could not be accommodated by their SHS and hence were, for all intents and purposes, unusable. While this behaviour seemed baffling, it has been documented in previous research. In their survey in rural Kenya, Lee et al. [34] (p. 91) observed a similar situation and referred to it as "aspirational" purchases, while Stojanovski et al. [20], in their survey of SHS-using rural Kenyan and Ugandan households, implied that these purchases might provide their owners with a sense of having higher social status. Stojanovski et al. [20] also indicated the households believed, without any proof, that the national grid would soon be extended to their communities, which would allow them to use these aspirational appliances.

Third, studies on communities using SHS as their primary lighting providers have shown that many view it as more of a pre-electrification process, and are willing to make payments to a value that would be economically sustainable for a grid-type utility [13,43]. This was observed in the results of this study as seen in Tables 7 and 8, with 86% of FCT households and 68% of Lagos State households stating a willingness to pay a one-off connection fee for access to grid electricity. This follows on from the earlier observation, i.e., a significant number of households purchase electrical appliances that cannot be accommodated by their SHS, in the hope of getting a grid connection in the future and make use of the energy services (space cooling, entertainment, etc.) these appliances provide. Finally, while the energy services afforded to the households by their SHSs differed across both locations (FCT households had lighting and mobile phone charging, while the Lagos State households' SHS included a television) none of the households in either location indicated being satisfied with the energy capacity of their SHS.

These themes show that while both locations had similar issues with their lack of electrification, there were some differences in the way households used energy sources, and their desire to connect to the grid. This suggests it might be pertinent for policy makers and private institutions involved with rural electrification to tailor their interventions as opposed to applying a blanket approach to these rural communities. For example, the levels of subsidies or grants that might be offered for rural electrification projects could be made to be dependent on the relative wealth of the communities to be electrified, based on metrics that indicate their wealth and willingness to pay for electricity access. However, further research is required to determine whether these observed differences are statistically significant.

SHSs are often seen as a means to get households onto the modern energy ladder [33,44,45]. However, the results show that for many it was a less desirable substitute for a grid-based service. Their inability to connect as many appliances to the SHS as they would have liked seemingly led to the statistically significant associations between the wealth of a household and (i) their ownership of various household appliances with wattages too high for their SHS, and (ii) their desire to connect to, and pay for, a grid-type electricity supply. This confirms the intuition that wealthier households are more likely to purchase these high wattage appliances and therefore will be more inclined to prefer a grid connection. The minimum wage of approximately \$50 per month in Nigeria [46] at the time of conducting the survey provides some context regarding the FCT households' willingness to spend in excess of \$28 for a one-off grid connection fee, and the Lagos State households' willingness to make monthly \$40-plus electricity tariff payments for ongoing access to the grid. However, it is important to note that a household stating they are willing to pay for a grid connection does not necessarily equate to their ability to pay for said connection or indeed a decision to actually do it if the opportunity arises. Nonetheless, the findings demonstrate that a significant number of the households are unable to move up the energy ladder (or in the case of the MTF, up the tier levels) regardless of their willingness or ability to pay, as they do not have access to an electricity connection that can meet their demands. In this situation, the household can be referred to as being 'energy locked in'.

There are other ways to get rural households up the energy ladder ahead of expansion of the national grid, and ahead of alternative major infrastructure investments in mini-grids. One approach is so-called "swarm electrification", to connect a number of SHS units across a community, which will act to smooth the total electricity demand through diversity effects and share the generation capacity from all individual systems [47], as a sort of 'micro-grid'. This bottom-up approach to electrification eliminates the typical oversizing in the design of mini-grids and grid extension projects while enabling households to transition to a higher energy access tier using their legacy SHS [44,47]. Another approach is the development of a diverse and competitive market for energy efficient, DC-powered plug-and-play appliances. As described by Narayan et al. [48], these consume a fraction of the energy required by their mainstream counterparts running on AC. Some SHS providers bundle these efficient appliances with their service, and in the households surveyed for this research the SHS came with four energy efficient, DC-powered LED bulbs at 1 W each, a torchlight at 1.1 W, and (in Lagos State) a television at 10.8 W. Creating more energy efficient appliances, such as the Youmma refrigerator which has a power rating of 17.8 W [49] and having them come with a standardized, compatible plug-and-play facility, can enable SHS-using households to move up the MTF tiers. However, in order for this energy efficient appliance market to grow, quality standards need to be created and adopted by countries involved with SHS electrification programs. Further, traditional household electronics manufacturers, with the know-how of making these appliances, could be encouraged to get involved in the production of energy-efficient DC-powered appliances. This would help provide a greater selection of appliances, and more competition in the market.

A natural progression of this research would be to expand the numbers of surveys to include communities using a wider variety of off-grid technologies, for example from simple solar lanterns to solar mini-grids, and observe the changes, if any, to the results of this research. Further, expanding the number of locations to include more remote rural communities that are a further distance from major cities/urban centres than in this research, might result in energy-use patterns that provide different results. It should also be noted that the choice of interviewing the heads of households led to the majority of the respondents in the study being male. The traditional role women have with the collection of cooking fuel, food preparation and cooking due to cultural gender norms [50–52] would likely reduce the time they can spend using certain energy services provided by the SHS, for example watching a television. It is therefore possible women might have different opinions to men with regards to their views and aspirations about their non-cooking energy service demands and the ability of a SHS to meet them, and the significance of these gender-based differences, if any, could be the subject of future research.

#### **5. Conclusions**

Energy is a crucial input for socioeconomic development, and it follows that the ability to not only access modern energy, but to transition to a wide range of energy services, is instrumental to the development of any society. This research set out to examine energy transitions in rural Nigeria, with the following objectives:


The results showed that none of the households were satisfied with the energy capacity of their SHS, and that the wealthier households were willing to pay relatively large sums to connect to the grid so they could use energy services unavailable to them with their SHS. However, they were unable to do so due to the unavailability of any electricity supply technology that would power their appliances. While the goal of SDG7 may have been achieved across these communities with the provision of SHS, many of the households clearly exhibited some frustration and dissatisfaction with the actual level of energy access, as they do not see a clear transition pathway up the energy ladder.

Two methods were suggested to help rural households in this situation move up the MTF energy access tiers: swarm electrification using the existing SHS technologies, and the provision of a greater selection of energy efficient, plug-and-play DC-powered appliances. Public and private entities in Nigeria involved in rural electrification with SHS could use the findings shown here to better understand the energy transition needs of rural households, and provide the interventions required to move them up the ladder. For example, they could provide funding into researching swarm electrification technology in rural Nigeria.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualisation, O.H., S.M., and M.L.; methodology, O.H., S.M., and M.L.; software, O.H.; validation, O.H., S.M., and M.L.; format analysis, O.H., investigation, O.H.; resources, O.H., S.M., and M.L.; data curation, O.H.; writing—original draft preparation, O.H.; writing—review and editing, O.H., S.M., and M.L.; visualisation, O.H.; supervision, S.M. and M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** This work was supported by the Centre for Environment and Sustainability, University of Surrey.

*Energies* **2020**, *13*, 6682

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
