Comparative Analysis of Energy Poverty among Rural and Urban Households in Oyo and Ogun States, Nigeria

International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume VI, Issue XI, November 2019 | ISSN 2321–2705

Comparative Analysis of Energy Poverty among Rural and Urban Households in Oyo and Ogun States, Nigeria

O. A.Ajetunmobi¹⁺, J.O. Oladeebo², L.O. Olarinde³ and M.O. Adio⁴

^{1, 2, 3 & 4}Department of Agricultural Economics, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology. Ogbomoso, PMB 4000, Oyo State, Nigeria
⁺ Corresponding Author

Abstract: Studies on poverty analysis have extended beyond just income and nutritional poverty status determination in recent decades. The understanding of multi-dimensional poverty analysis has widened the scope of research works by considering other forms of poverty that are triggering the living conditions of people in the Nations. As a result, this study seeks to analyse and compare the energy poverty status of rural and urban households in Oyo and Ogun States. Primary data through multistage random sampling technique was used to obtain 378 households and interviewed through structured questionnaires. Descriptive Statistics, energy inconvenience index, energy expenditure approach and a multinomial logit regression model were the tools employed. The study revealed that, socio-economic characteristics had significant effect on energy poverty of the urban more than the rural households. The inclination of the urban (17.7percent) to choose kerosene and gas as their energy mix was stronger than rural (1.06 percent) households. The most prominent energy mix available are kerosene, gas and charcoal (53.44%) and (53.16) for both rural and urban households. Age, household size (p<0.01), households’ education (p<0.05), distance travelled (p<0.01), number of trips made (p<0.01), transport cost (p<0.05), price of kerosene, price of charcoal, total income (p<0.01), and marital status are probable and significant factors responsible for the choice of energy used. The Pseudo R2 was 0.6591 implying that the model explained 65.91% of the deviation of energy choice made in the study area. The most inconvenient indicators of energy poverty are the number of trips, distance travelled and transport cost. The total energy inconvenience index of 0.025, total energy threshold or line of 0.020, energy inconvenience excess -125, energy shortfall of -11.667 and poverty index of -68.33 are indicators that, the rural households experienced energy poverty more than the urban. The pooled data of energy expenditure approach revealed that, the households are energy core-poor because about 53.97% spent a mean amount of N4971.18 and N5, 000.18 (> 10%) of their average total income on energy sources. Distance travelled, transport cost (p<0.05), household education (p<0.01), household size (p<0.01), amount spent on gas (p<0.01), amount spent on kerosene and total expenditure are significant variables subjecting the rural and urban households to energy poverty in the study area. In conclusion, households should have an economical budgetary allocation and be cautious not to spend more than 10 percent of their average monthly income on energy sources.

Keywords: Energy, energy poverty, energy poverty line

Read More