households in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and Gansu Province. Of this sample, 69% were PV system users and 31% were without electricity access. Survey questions addressed usage patterns of the SHS and time-use behavior of various household members. The consultants encountered accessibility challenges when attempting to visit selected locations as well as language difficulties. The survey intended to highlight differences between SHS adopting households and others, but suffers from several shortcomings. For example, the study states that interviewees were selected randomly without offering further information about how this randomisation was performed. Their analysis did not control for non-SHS factors that could contribute to observed changes, such as uneven development, education programmes, or the effects of poverty alleviation programmes referred to in REDP documents.
Despite these factors, the evaluation team concluded that SHS use has had a positive effect on household income for more than 53% of respondents. Among other benefits, they estimated improvements in family communication levels, increased workable hours, and improved access to information through radio and television. Use of alternative lighting sources, such as ghee and kerosene lamps, declined as a result of SHS penetration.47 Conversely, Meier48 uses the same dataset and finds no difference in per capita income between households with and without SHS, as well as overall increased demand for dry cells among SHS adopters, as depicted in Figure 11. With the same survey data, the World Bank concludes that “there are strong indications that poverty impacts have been achieved among a considerable number of people.�49
Figure 11: Percent change in monthly energy consumption among SHS users after SHS purchase, by quintile Source: Meier 2008.
15