The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1750-6220.htm

Nexus between
Unwrapping the nexus between the off-grid
the off-grid system and its impact system

on the islands and remote villages

of Ghana
Richard Kwasi Bannor Received 7 January 2022
Revised 17 February 2022
Department of Agribusiness Management and Consumer Studies, Accepted 3 March 2022
University of Energy and Natural Resources, Sunyani, Ghana
Bismark Amfo
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
University of Energy and Natural Resources, Sunyani, Ghana
Khadija Sarquah
Department of Energy and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Energy and Natural Resources, Sunyani, Ghana, and
Helena Oppong-Kyeremeh and Samuel Kwabena Chaa Kyire
Department of Agribusiness Management and Consumer Studies,
University of Energy and Natural Resources, Sunyani, Ghana

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to focus on the nexus between off-grid systems and impacts on islands and remote
villages in Ghana by investigating the sources and cost of energy, willingness to pay for electricity and impacts
of off-grid energy on the local economy, education, health, social activities, the environment and migration.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were obtained from 110 households; heterogeneous impact
analysis of off-grid technologies, average treatment effect by inverse probability weights (IPW) and inverse
probability weighted regression adjustment (IPWRA) models were used to analyse the data.
Findings – The sources of energy are gas, kerosene, wood fuel and dry-cell battery. All households in
communities with neither electricity nor off-grid system were willing to pay for electricity. Households
without off-grid systems (US$8.1) were willing to pay higher amounts per month for electricity. The off-grid
technologies improve the local economy, social activities, security, the environment, education and health as
well as reduce out-migration.
Originality/value – Most of the literature on mini-grid/off-grid systems have been from the engineering
and the technical perspective, with a few on the socioeconomic impacts of the systems and consumer
engagements. Besides, methods including descriptive statistics, energy technology sustainability framework
and qualitative analysis were used in these studies. Nevertheless, the authors used a more rigorous method of
the doubly robust inverse probability weighted regression adjustment model and a heterogeneous method to
model the impact analysis of off-grid systems.
Keywords Off-grid system, Islands and remote villages, Solar and wind energy, Electricity,
Inverse probability weighted regression adjustment (IPWRA)
Paper type Research paper
International Journal of Energy
Sector Management
The authors express their deepest gratitude to Ms Wilhemina Kwabeng Owusu for proofreading the draft © Emerald Publishing Limited
1750-6220
manuscript. Ms Precious Opoku-Dapaah’s support in making the map (Figure 1) is highly appreciated. DOI 10.1108/IJESM-01-2022-0004
IJESM 1. Introduction
Energy has been a vital need for driving economic growth globally, especially in the sub-
Saharan African region where the target of energy access has still not been met
(International Energy Agency, 2019). The International Energy Agency predicts that
Africa’s continent will still not attain universal energy access by 2030 with current trends;
about 530 million people in Africa would not have access to electricity. Today, a total of
about 600 million and 900 million people lack access to electricity and clean cooking
solutions, respectively (International Energy Agency, 2019).
In Ghana, although the country has reached about 85% of its electricity access
(Energy Commission, 2020), rural, isolated, low-population densities and island
communities are still underprivileged compared to urban areas (Nana Amoasi VII,
2020; Bukari et al., 2020). This has broadly been associated, primarily, with the current
power supply whereby challenges and economic viabilities do not permit centralised
grid connections in all country areas (Merem et al., 2018). Transmission and
distribution losses are also significant factors, recording a 19.01% increase in
transmission losses in 2019 (Energy Commission, 2020). Strategies including
decentralised renewable energy (RE) technologies, off-the-grid and mini-grid systems
are more viable for improving socioeconomic development in such rural communities
(Otchere-Appiah and Hagan, 2013).
Off-grid, mini-grid and decentralised systems refer to electricity generation systems
of a distributed network involving small-scale electricity generation disconnected from
the utility scale. The OECD reported that these systems primarily enhance the
provision of cost-effective solutions for rural communities where a grid connection is
challenging, considering transmission cost and population density (Corfee-Morlot et al.,
2019). Various studies justify how decentralised systems – including off-grid and mini-
grid systems – have improved electricity access worldwide (Corfee-Morlot et al., 2019;
Boateng, 2016; Naah and Hamhaber, 2015; Gurung et al., 2013). As a result, Ghana’s
policy focus on energy access targets by 2030 includes achieving universal electricity
access, improved clean cooking and modernised transportation (Togobo, 2016). The
action plan aims to drive rural electrification and promote productive uses of electricity
(Republic of Ghana, 2012).
However, because rural farming or island communities have dispersed settlements and
have low electricity demand, it renders grid-based electrification to these communities
highly uneconomical (Nerini et al., 2016). As a result, distributed generation is the possible
solution for rural electrification (Naah and Hamhaber, 2015; S
anchez et al., 2015; Otchere-
Appiah and Hagan, 2013). Consequently, over the years, with policy support, off-grid and
mini-grid systems have been supplied to some communities in Ghana, especially on solar
systems. In 2016, about six mini-grid systems were commissioned in some island
communities in Ghana (TTA, 2020).
Impacts of these systems on people’s livelihood are essential indicators of
expansion and future project implementations, particularly in economic sense and
viability potentials (Merem et al., 2018). Although some studies have assessed the
benefits of mini-grid systems on various communities, by far, challenges and
successes are choked (Boateng, 2016; Naah and Hamhaber, 2015; Obeng and Kumi,
2014; Shyu, 2013; Obeng and Evers, 2010; Obeng et al., 2008). Therefore, institutional
structures – such as a reduction on the annual real interest rates of renewable off-grid
systems (Babatunde et al., 2019) – that will protect low-income consumers in rural and
remote areas (Zerriffi, 2008) are suggested. Also, there is a need for improved capacity
for productive use of energy to improve living standards in the long term (Schmidt Nexus between
and Bensch, 2012). the off-grid
Hence, the government’s provision of electricity for such communities is based on equity
(ESMAP, 2016) and usually not on economic viabilities with unattractive business models
system
for investors (ESMAP, 2017). Some inhibiting factors could be traced from no/inaccurate
load assessment, resulting in wrong system sizing, lack of or inadequate community
engagement in designing the system, unrealistic user expectations, unsuccessful
organisational and ownership structures and poor local maintenance capabilities (Madriz-
vargas et al., 2015). Besides, the electricity supply in remote communities must be more than
just for lighting purposes; that is, to practically initiate improvement in the quality of life of
rural dwellers by developing ideal energy alternatives for the island and remote
communities for improved livelihoods.
Most of the literature on mini-grid/off-grid systems in Ghana have been from the
engineering and the technical perspective (Arranz-Piera et al., 2018; Sarkodie, 2017;
Ayamga et al., 2015; Otchere-Appiah and Hagan, 2014; Mohammed et al., 2013; Otchere-
Appiah and Hagan, 2013; Mahapatra and Dasappa, 2012; Kemausuor et al., 2011). A few
have concentrated on the socioeconomic impacts of such systems and consumer
engagements (Boateng, 2016; ESMAP, 2017; Naah and Hamhaber, 2015; Obeng and
Evers, 2010; Obeng and Kumi, 2014). However, methods including descriptive
statistics, energy technology sustainability framework and qualitative analysis were
used in these studies. Nevertheless, we used a more rigorous method of the doubly
robust inverse probability weighted regression adjustment (IPWRA) to simultaneously
analyse the impact of off-grid system on the health, security, environment, education
and migration of beneficiary households. The IPWRA estimator comprises a double-
robust property, serving as a reliable solution for possible biased estimates (Israel et al.,
2020). Also, under conditions of misspecification of an outcome or treatment, IPWRA is
still consistent with, at least, one correctly specified. We also undertook the
heterogeneous (different impacts based on household size and years of household head)
impact analysis of off-grid on monthly energy costs, the number of upper respiratory
sicknesses reported in a year and the frequency of migration in a household, which, to
the best of our knowledge, has received fewer studies in literature. Given these, the
study’s principal objective was to examine the impact of off-grid energy on the
livelihood of respondents on the island and rural communities in Ghana. The study
investigated the following specific research objectives:

To investigate the sources and cost of energy used by island and rural households
in Ghana.

To assess the willingness of Ghanaian island and rural households (without
electricity in their communities) to pay for electricity.

To explore the impacts of off-grid energy on the local economy, education, health,
social activities, the environment and migration in island and rural communities in
Ghana.

1.1 Electricity in Ghana

Ghana’s electricity mix is primarily from thermal (58.14%), hydro (39.60%) and imports
(2.26%) , and is characterised by centralised grid connection reaching about 85% access
across the country out of a target of universal access by 2030 (Energy Commission, 2020).
Over the years, Ghana’s electricity sector has been faced with challenges, including high
IJESM levels of distribution losses; lack of revenue because of the nonpayment of bills; poor tariff
structure, which makes it difficult for the power utilities to make significant investments to
improve the sector; and financial constraints (Kumi, 2017; Sakah et al., 2017). The country
still suffers energy insecurity challenges regarding reliability (Merem et al., 2018), although
the generation sector has reported overcapacity of electricity generation (Energy
Commission, 2020). Opportunities remain for the country to diversify its energy mix in RE
with the enormous resource potential, the advent of climate change issues and the potential
of contributing to the Rural Electrification Program (Republic of Ghana, 2019).

1.2 Renewable energy and off-grid/mini-grid systems in Ghana

In the past decade, awareness regarding RE technologies in meeting energy needs
has increased significantly in developing countries (Corfee-Morlot et al., 2019). Furthermore,
implementing projects of RE does not only support energy needs but has proven to be
instrumental in job creation, economic development, improvement in the standard and
quality of life (in areas such as health care and education) and, finally, reduction in carbon
emissions (Corfee-Morlot et al., 2019; Madriz-vargas et al., 2015). Encouraging electricity
from RE resources (solar, biomass and wind) in Ghana has the potential of substituting
energy resources and meeting electricity demands, especially with rural electrification
agenda (Akikur et al., 2013; Otchere-Appiah and Hagan, 2013). In Northern Ghana alone,
irradiance is between 5 and 6 kWh/m2/per day, with very low diffuse radiation of about 32%
(Frank, 2016). Ghana has achieved significant off-grid solar photovoltaic (PV) electrification
from 0.3 MWp in 1987 to 3.8 MWp in 2013, and 2.5-kWp grid-connected system installed by
the Volta River Authority (VRA) with further upcoming grid systems (Frank, 2016). The
total RE solar PV generation for 2019 was projected at 42.64 GWh, including projects of the
VRA, Beijing Fuxing Xiao-Cheng (BXC Ghana) and Meinergy (Energy Commission, 2020).
Other RE projects are Safisana biogas from organic portions of municipal solid waste,
Lavender hill biogas from feacal waste and Tsatsadu mini-hydro plant.
The majority of Ghana’s off-grid and mini-grid systems are made up of solar, complemented
with wind and diesel generators and very few waste-to-energy. The solar systems used usually
are in the form of solar home systems (SHSs), solar street lights, solar water pumps and solar
PV off-grid applications. Through the World Bank and the Ghana Energy Development Access
Project implementation, about 14,000 SHSs were installed in 11 districts of Ghana (TTA, 2020).
About 100 decentralised 30 kWp per district were installed under the Ghana Health Services’
“Motec-Grameen” projects in the Upper East Region of Ghana, while 8 kWp for community
clinic water PV and vaccines facility was also installed in 2012 (Frank, 2016). In 2011, about 106
Community-based Health Planning and Services (CHPS) compounds were provided with about
316 SHSs, solar street lights and solar refrigeration for vaccines, with a combined wattage
capacity of about 54,000 Wp across the length and breadth of the country in the first phase of
the Ghana Energy Development Access Project (GEDAP) implementation (Naah and
Hamhaber, 2015). Although RE mix in Ghana energy is less than targeted, the above
presupposes a vast opportunity for RE resources available to securely serve rural communities
and replace unclean energy use with improved technology and policy support.

1.3 Impacts of off-grid/mini-grid renewable energy systems on communities

The bases for installing energy systems are to serve the purpose of electrification and clean
cooking purposes. Several studies have attempted to assess the impacts these RE off-grid/mini-
grid systems have on the livelihoods of the beneficiary communities, social, economic, gender
and cultural wise, amongst others (Naah and Hamhaber, 2015; Saarinen, 2015; Obeng and
Kumi, 2014; Sharif and Mithila, 2013; Shyu, 2013; Welsch et al., 2013; Mondal and Klein, 2011;
Obeng and Evers, 2010; Gurung et al., 2011, 2012, 2013; Obeng et al., 2008; Gustavsson and Nexus between
Ellega, 2004; Davis, 2001). These studies are essential for future developments, especially in the off-grid
developing countries. For instance, in Ghana, Boateng (2016) investigated potential
socioeconomic and environmental impacts of solar PV mini-grid deployment in three local
system
communities. The study highlighted that improvement in the current capacity is needed
because there is undercapacity in output electricity (Boateng, 2016). One of the possible reasons
is as a result of increased population and the taste for electricity use. However, the initiative has
improved livelihoods in terms of educational performance, health and social well-being. In
another study, the impacts of the flagship electrification project – GEDAP – was evaluated in
the Upper West Region of Ghana. The off-grid solar PV systems in the six districts considered
in the study are reported to improve aspects such as education (children’s studies at night) and
social capital. However, limitations such as system wattage capacity, higher interest rates, low
technical know-how and inadequate monitoring are affecting the sustainability of the systems
(Naah and Hamhaber, 2015). Obeng et al. (2008) also reported on the impacts of solar PV
lighting on indoor air smoke in a rural off-grid community. In other developing countries such
as Bangladesh, Mondal and Klein (2011) evaluated how SHS contributed to fighting poverty in
rural Bangladesh using a quasi-experimental evaluation design. It was evident that the system
provided access to electricity, information, increased recreational activities and the general well-
being of its users. Likewise, Chakrabarti and Chakrabarti (2002) also reported that solar PV off-
grid/mini-grid system was beneficial from a sociological perspective on rural communities.
This helped women spend less on kerosene fuel and kept their business activities after sunset
(Chakrabarti and Chakrabarti, 2002). Another study by Njirambo and Annegarn (2013) also
recorded how electricity in a community in the rural village of Tsilitwa provided an
opportunity for empowerment and increased income levels. However, the findings of this study
recommend that, to optimise the full developmental benefits of rural electrification, non-energy-
related factors must be considered. This includes resources such as financial services,
infrastructure and the people factor for policy and project implementation. It is also suggested
that improving household socioeconomic status will mitigate multidimensional energy poverty
(Abbas et al., 2020).

2. Methodology
2.1 Study area
The study area included Pediatorkope, Atigagorme, Tattobator and Kofiwhikrom in the
Ada East, Sene East, Sene West and Amansie Central, respectively (see Figure 1). Given the
locations of these communities, national grid extensions were practically unfeasible.
Therefore, these communities benefitted as part of the projects by the Ghana Energy
Development and Access Project to provide RE-based mini-grid for electricity access to
remote and island communities on the Volta Lake (IEA/IRENA, 2013).
In Ada East, a significant island named Pediatorkope was selected. About 10% of the
population in the district live in the Pediatorkope islands and its 22 communities (Ada East
District Assembly, 2016). Pediatorkope islands are on the Volta Lake in Ghana (refer to the
study area map for details). The primary activities of the people in the district are fishing,
oyster mining and farming (Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, 2016a; Otchere,
2016). The plant at Pediatorkope consists of a 39-kW capacity solar PV, an 11-kW wind
turbine technology and is supported by a 25.6-kW diesel-powered generator serving as a
backup.
Atigagorme is an island located in the Sene East of the Bono East Region of Ghana. The
island constitutes about 90 households with a population of about 710 inhabitants. About
71.6% of the population in the district do not have access to electricity via the national grid
IJESM

Figure 1.
Map of the study area

(Ghana Statistical Service, 2014a, 2014b). The situation is worsened because of the coverage
of the Volta Lake in most parts, resulting in several islands (Ghana Statistical Service,
2014a, 2014b), which is not cost-effective to connect to the national grid. The mini-grid at
Atigagorme consists of a 40-kW solar PV component supported by a 15.52-kW diesel-
powered generator.
Tattobator, on the other hand, is another fishing community on another island on the
Volta Lake in the Sene West District of Ghana. Like Sene East, about 61% of the population
is not connected to the national grid (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014b). Unlike Atigagorme,
the community does not have an off-grid system that supplies electricity to the community.
Contrasting the three other study areas, Kofiwhikrom is an inland area located in the
Amansie Central of Ghana. The majority of the population are engaged in agriculture and
related activities. Even though some significant towns are connected to the national grid,
about 60.9% do not have access to electricity via the national grid (Ministry of Finance and
Economic Planning, 2016b; Ghana Statistical Service, 2014c). This community is powered
by a solar PV off-grid system owned and operated by Black Star Energy.

2.2 Sampling and data

Data were collected from off-grid connected households and households without the off-grid
system via a multistage sampling technique. First, the off-grid communities were selected
purposively, given the availability of off-grid in the said-selected communities. The non-off-
grid community on one of the islands on Volta Lake was also purposively selected as it
shares similarities with the islands with grid systems. Finally, based on the number of users
of the off-grid system in each community by the caretakers, the households were selected
randomly. In Tattabator (a non-off-grid community), the number of households in the
community was received from the leader in the community. Afterwards, the households Nexus between
were selected randomly. A total of 15 households were interviewed in Pediatorkope, 20 in the off-grid
Kofiwhikrom, 30 in Atigagorme and 60 in Tattabator. Cumulatively, 65 households on the
off-grid system were interviewed, and 60 households without the off-grid system were
system
interviewed. A total of 125 households were selected for the study; however, only 110
(representing 88% of the sample) were useable for analysis after the data collection. Trained
RE postgraduate students and agricultural extension officers served as enumerators for the
data collection.

2.3 Inverse probability weighted regression adjustment model specification

Different models such as propensity score matching (PSM), endogenous switching
regression, augmented inverse-probability weighting and difference-in-difference (DDD)
have been used in analysing the impact of interventions and technologies (Bannor and
Gyekye, 2022; Glynn and Quinn, 2010; Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983). However, most of these
models have deficiencies such as biases in small data in PSM, the requirement for pre-
treatment data in DDD application and the requirement for endogenous variables in
endogenous switching regression, which are not available in this study (Guo et al., 2020;
Cornelissen et al., 2016; Mora and Reggio, 2015). Therefore, to analyse the impact of off-grid
system usage on an outcome such as livelihoods and environmental characteristics of the
respondents, the IPWRA model was adopted by this study. The model, proposed by
Wooldridge (2010), has been used by several studies in impact analysis (Lu et al., 2021; Israel
et al., 2020; Kazal et al., 2020; Tambo and Mockshell, 2018; Manda et al., 2018). The IPWRA,
noted as a doubly robust estimator, applies reweighting and jointly regression-adjustment
approaches to estimate the mean treatment effects on the treated (ATT) and potential mean
outcomes (Lu et al., 2021; Manda et al., 2018). The IPWRA estimator comprises a double-
robust property, serving as a reliable solution for possible biased estimates (Israel et al.,
2020). Also, under conditions of misspecification of an outcome or treatment, IPWRA is still
consistent with, at least, one correctly specified (Manda et al., 2018). The probability of
obtaining treatment is stated as:

pðGÞ ¼ PrðWi ¼ 1jGÞ ¼ HfzðGÞg ¼ E ðWi jGÞ (1)

where G represents pre-treatment covariates’ multidimensional vector from observable

attributes; H{z(G)} represents the function of cumulative distribution; and G as a vector
represents (e.g. livelihood and environmental) factors used in attaining treatment effects.
The resulting propensity scores are used to create a sample which is artificial and
independent from treatment allocations. For a treatment with an inverse weight of 1 and
^ ðGÞ
P
for non-treatment, the weight is jointly specified as:
ð1P^ ðGÞÞ

^ ðGÞ
P
q ¼ Wi þ ð1  Wi Þ
 (2)
1P ^ ð GÞ

^ is the propensity scores that are estimated.

where P
Conversely, inverse probability weight (IPW) and regression adjustment (RA) were
analysed with linear regression model for both off-grid and non-off-grid users. Therefore,
the predicted outcome variables – such as livelihood and environmental factors for the
treatment effects – were obtained. Although RA is focused on obtaining the outcome, IPW
IJESM emphasises on the treatment effects. Following Lu et al. (2021), the RA model for the ATT is
stated as follows:
Xa 

ATTR ¼ a1 S i¼1
Wi rS ðG; w S Þ  rJ G; w J (3)

where as represents the number of respondents on the off-grid system; and r(G) represents
the regression model for respondents on the off-grid system and non-off-grid system users
anchored on the covariates G observed and parameters w i = (d i  i). Upon merging the
weighting [equation (2)] with RA [equation (3)], the IPWRA estimator is established.
Consequently, a correct specification of either RA or IPW model is required in obtaining
estimates of treatment effects that are reliable, based on the covariates given. For example,
suppose a misspecification occurred in the outcome model whereas the treatment model is
correctly specified, then consistent estimates of the outcome effects are generated (Lu et al.,
2021). Thus, IPWRA estimator expresses the ATT as:
    
Xa
1
ATTIPWRA ¼ aS i¼1
W i r *
S G *
; w *
S  rJ
*
G; w *
J (4)
 
where w *S ¼ d *S ;  *S is attained from a procedure in estimating the weighted regression.
 2
Xa Wi fi  w *  G *
S S
min
 (5)
w *S ; *S i¼1 ^
^p G; b

 2
Xa ð1  W Þi fi  w *  G *
J J
min
 (6)
w *J ; *J i¼1 ^
^p G; b

This implies that, in comparing RAs generated by ATT, there is an analogous ATT for
IPWRA aside the estimated weighted unit adopted in the regression parameters
(Wooldridge, 2010).

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Personal and household characteristics
Table 1 encapsulates the personal and household characteristics of communities with and
without off-grid systems (solar and wind power) in the island and rural communities of
Ghana. The test statistics show significant differences in the characteristics between
households with and without off-grid system. There were more males in communities with
off-grid system (80%) than communities without it (65%). The aggregate shows that most
(73%) of the respondents were males. In Ghana, most household heads are males, which
makes them answerable to household issues – including research surveys. On average, a
respondent was 43 years old.
Less than half (45%) of the respondents were indigenes/natives (Table 1). This means
that more than half were settlers (44%) and migrants (11%). Internal migration is more
common than international migration [FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization), 2017].
More than 40% of households in Ghana have one migrant, and about half of Ghanaians are
internal migrants [GSS (Ghana Statistical Service), 2019]. About 36% of the respondents had
 Communities with Communities without
Nexus between
off-grid system off-grid system Test- Aggregate the off-grid
Variable Description (n = 55) (n = 55) statistics (N = 110) system
Gender (%) Male 80.00 65.45 3.87*** 72.73
Female 20.00 34.55 27.27
Age of Mean 41.78 43.33 32.69*** 42.55
household head Standard deviation 10.48 15.95 13.45
Minimum 22 18 18
Maximum 65 78 78
Residential Indigene (native) 47.27 43.64 14.47*** 45.45
status (%) Settler (permanent) 40.00 47.27 43.64
Migrant (temporary) 12.73 9.09 10.91
Level of None 32.73 41.82 14.55*** 36.27
education (%) Basic 40.00 25.45 32.73
Secondary/vocational 12.73 23.64 18.18
Tertiary 14.55 9.09 11.82
Years of Mean 8.65 7.65 12.24*** 8.15
education Standard deviation 6.42 6.76 6.58
Minimum 0 0 0
Maximum 17 17 17
Marital status Single 25.45 32.73 3.37*** 29.09
(%) Married 74.55 67.27 70.91
Household head Yes 76.36 40.00 1.53* 58.18
(%) No 23.64 60.00 41.82
Household size Mean 5.85 5.20 18.14*** 5.53
Standard deviation 3.11 2.71 2.92
Minimum 1 1 1
Maximum 15 14 15
Main economic Farming 34.55 3.64 14.09*** 19.09
activity (%) Fishing 43.64 61.82 52.73
Formal job 1.82 0.00 0.91
Trading/handicraft/ 18.18 21.82 20.00
other informal jobs
Table 1.
Student 1.82 12.73 7.27 Personal and
household
Note: * and *** denote statistical significance at 10% and 1%, respectively characteristics

no formal education. The mean shows that a respondent had eight years of formal
education. This means that an average respondent completed Class 6, though some had
tertiary education. The majority (70%) of the respondents were married and 58% were
household heads. On average, about six people constituted a household. This is not
surprising because the study was conducted in rural and island communities where large
household size is a regular phenomenon. Also, from the table, the respondents were
predominantly into fishing (53%), crop farming (19%) and trading/handicraft/other
informal jobs (20%).

3.2 Energy usage in island and rural communities of Ghana

3.2.1 Sources and cost of energy used by island and rural households in Ghana. The study
communities were typically rural and, thus, had no electricity. The study explored off-grid
technologies used by households in the island and rural areas of Ghana. The data used in the
analysis reveal an equal quota (55 each) of households in communities with off-grid system
IJESM and communities without it. Thus, half of the respondents did not use off-grid technologies
(solar and/or wind). Such households used other sources of energy (see Table 2). For the
remaining half, 15% used solar energy while 35% used solar and wind energy. These
sources of energy were used because of the lack of electricity.
Table 2 shows sources and cost of energy used by households in the island and rural
Ghana. The sources of energy were gas (10%), kerosene (5%), wood fuel (100%) and dry-cell
battery (59%). The average monthly expenditure on wood fuel (US$28) was higher than the
remaining sources of energy (less than US$10 each). Likewise, Bukari et al. (2020) reveal
that, in Ghana, wood fuel is largely the major source of fuel for cooking because of its
cheaper source of energy in rural communities compared with other sources of energy.
However, firewood is used frequently for daily cooking in rural communities, which
increases its cost. Generally, the sources of energy were used for cooking, smoking of fish,
lighting and fishing. Gas, kerosene and wood fuel were used for cooking. In addition,
kerosene was used for lighting, through the use of kerosene lamps. Because some
respondents were drawn from islands (fishing communities), 43% used wood fuel for
smoking fish, which is a common practice in fishing communities of Ghana. Also, one-third
of the respondents used torchlight for fishing. The majority of the respondents (66%) used
torchlights for lighting at home.
On average, the walking distance for obtaining wood fuel (33 min) was the highest
among energy sources (Table 2). Most rural Ghanaian households obtain firewood from
their farms which could be farther away from the communities. The walking distance for the
purchase of gas was 30 min. Most rural communities in Ghana do not have gas stations.
Thus, people fill their gas cylinders in nearby towns/cities. Mostly, kerosene and battery for
torchlight are retailed in rural communities. This reduces the walking distance for the
purchase of kerosene (15 min) and torchlight battery (5 min).
3.2.2 Usage of electrical appliances/devices before and after off-grid technology. Electrical
appliances/devices being used by the respondents are radio, television, refrigerator, fan,
light and iron (Table 3). Some respondents did not own/use these appliances/devices, while
others used them daily or weekly. Ownership/usage of electrical appliances/devices was
higher after off-grid technologies (solar or wind) than before. For instance, over 90% did not
own/use television, refrigerator, fan, light or iron before off-grid technologies. However, after
installing off-grid technologies, ownership and usage of these appliances improved
immensely (Table 3). With off-grid technologies, the majority of the respondents used these
electrical appliances every day.
This implies that off-grid technologies enhance the use of electrical appliances/devices. In
spite of the extra cost of living, the usage of electrical appliances/devices is relevant. For
instance, the use of radio and television increases people’s access to information. As fishing
and crop production communities, radio and television provide relevant information about
modern production techniques/technologies, input-subsidy programmes, other forms of
government/private sector supports for farmers, commodity prices, availability of markets,
and other agricultural information. These enhance farmers’ productivity and income.
Furthermore, the use of a refrigerator enhances the storage of food, which reduces food
spoilage/wastage. In the study area, refrigerators could be used to store fish and farm
produce (harvested crops, especially vegetables). This reduces spoilage of farm produce and
selling at low prices when there is excess supply.

3.3 Willingness of Ghanaian island and rural households to pay for electricity
Table 4 presents how respondents rated the supply of off-grid technologies (solar and wind
energy). For the availability of off-grid technologies, 60% of the respondents were satisfied,
Source of energy Description Value
Nexus between
the off-grid
Gas system
Usage (%) Yes 9.09
No 90.91
Monthly expenditure (US$) Mean 6.22
Standard deviation 3.78
Minimum 4.09
Maximum 16.34
Purpose (%) Cooking 100.00
Walking distance for purchase of gas (min) Mean 30
Standard deviation 12.43
Minimum 20
Maximum 40
Kerosene
Usage (%) Yes 3.64
No 96.36
Monthly expenditure (US$) Mean 2.66
Standard deviation 1.78
Minimum 0.41
Maximum 4.09
Purpose (%) Cooking 50.00
Lighting 50.00
Walking distance for purchase of kerosene (min) Mean 15
Standard deviation –
Minimum 15
Maximum 15
Wood fuel
Usage (%) Yes 100.00
No 0.00
Monthly expenditure (US$) Mean 28.27
Standard deviation 37.20
Minimum 0.00
Maximum 163.43
Purpose (%) Cooking 98.18
Smoking of fish 42.73
Walking distance for obtaining wood fuel (min) Mean 32.73
Standard deviation 33.41
Minimum 0
Maximum 180
Torchlight
Usage (%) Yes 59.09
No 40.91
Monthly expenditure (US$) Mean 9.07
Standard deviation 5.34
Minimum 1.02
Maximum 24.51
Purpose (%) Lighting 65.73
Studying 33.00
Fishing 32.73
Walking distance for purchase of battery (min) Mean 4.62 Table 2.
Standard deviation 3.62
Minimum 0
Sources and cost of
Maximum 20 energy used by
island and rural
Note: Exchange rate: the currency of Ghana is Ghana Cedis (GH¢); US$1 = GH¢4.895 households
IJESM Percentage (%)
Appliance/device Usage Before off-grid After off-grid

Radio Do not use/own 18.18 14.55

Every day 77.27 85.45
Weekly 4.55 0.00
Television Do not use/own 90.91 30.91
Every day 9.09 65.45
Weekly 0.00 3.64
Refrigerator Do not use/own 98.18 65.45
Every day 1.82 32.73
Weekly 0.00 1.82
Fan Do not use/own 97.27 60.00
Every day 2.73 40.00
Table 3.
Light Do not use/own 90.00 10.91
Usage of electrical Every day 10.00 89.09
appliances/devices Iron Do not use/own 97.27 80.00
before and after off- Every day 1.82 9.09
grid technology Weekly 0.91 10.91

Rating (%)
Description Strongly satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Strongly dissatisfied

Availability 38.18 21.82 12.73 5.45 21.82

Table 4. Reliability 34.55 21.82 16.36 5.45 21.82
Rating the supply of Price 27.27 14.55 18.18 14.55 25.45
off-grid technologies Overall satisfaction with off-grid 72.73 9.09 3.64 12.73 1.82

while 27% were dissatisfied. This implies that the majority of the respondents were pleased
with the accessibility of solar and wind energy in the study area. Therefore, once installed in
the community, people could easily get access to off-grid technologies. For reliability, 56%
were satisfied, while 27% were dissatisfied. This suggests that most of the respondents
were delighted with the consistency in solar and wind energy supply. Solar and wind energy
are less consistent/dependent when the installed devices/machines are faulty, and there are
unfavourable weather conditions.
Almost equal proportions of respondents were satisfied (42%) and dissatisfied (40%)
with the prices of off-grid technologies (Table 4). After installation in rural communities, the
extra cost deters some households from adopting solar and wind energy. That
notwithstanding, the likelihood that high-income households in rural communities would
adopt solar and wind energy is high. Generally, most respondents (82%) were satisfied with
off-grid technologies, while 15% were dissatisfied. In spite of the relevance of solar and wind
energy in rural communities without electricity, few might be dissatisfied because of the
extra cost and the less power from the off-grid system, which is inadequate to support
certain economic ventures. Furthermore, consumers were dissatisfied because of “load
limiters” in their energy metres which prevents the usage of the required amount they can
consume. Simultaneously, this deters new and potential users from the facility.
We further assessed the willingness of Ghanaian island and rural households without
electricity to pay for electricity in their communities (Table 5). From the results, all the
respondents in communities without off-grid systems were willing to pay for electricity. Nexus between
This highlights the relevance of electricity. On average, communities without off-grid the off-grid
system (US$8.1) were willing to pay higher amounts per month for electricity.
system
3.4 Impacts of off-grid energy in the island and rural communities
This subsection explores the impacts of off-grid energy (solar and wind) on the local
economy, education, health, social activities, the environment and household expenditure of
island and rural communities in Ghana. Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics. These
tables present community status before and after off-grid technology installations, in terms
of the local economy, electricity usage, social activities, the environment, education and
health. Table 6 shows that the local economies of the study communities were better-off
after off-grid technologies as compared with before off-grid technologies, in terms of the
number of drinking spots, electrical shops, corn mills, cinema centres and emigration. Off-
grid technologies such as solar and wind energy are substitutes for electricity for electric
power supply for drinking spots, corn mills and cinema centres. The presence of off-grid
technologies leads to the opening of retail shops to sell electrical appliances/devices.
The opening of drinking spots, electrical shops, corn mills and cinema centres creates
employment in communities. They further enhance the infrastructural development of rural
communities. Also, drinking spots and cinema centres are sources of entertainment for rural
folks. Employment, infrastructural development and entertainment reduce out-migration
from rural communities to urban areas. Most youths migrate from rural to urban areas
because of poverty, poor infrastructural development and lack of good employment
opportunities in rural communities (Ofosu-Mensah and Ababio, 2011; Flamm, 2010).
For electricity usage, none of the respondents used refrigerators for the storage of
agricultural products before off-grid technologies in the communities. However, off-grid
technologies in the communities enabled 10% of the respondents to store agricultural
products in refrigerators. This reduces wastage and spoilage of farm produce, especially
vegetables and fish and leftover foods. It also facilitates the storage of farm produce for
higher market prices.
For social and environment, off-grid communities were better-off than non-off-grid
communities in terms of crime rate, entertainment shows in the evening, church
programmes in the evening, reduction in kerosene and candle burning at home and
reduction in tree cutting for energy purposes (Table 6). Darkness in communities with
neither off-grid (solar or wind energy) nor wind power could lead to a higher rate of crime at
night. Solar and wind energy are used to generate electricity for powering entertainment
shows and church programmes in the evening. Because of darkness, rural folks in
communities with neither off- nor on-grid might be afraid to attend entertainment and
church programmes in the evening. Without off- or on-grid, rural folks are likely to use

WTP for electricity Description Communities without off-grid system (n = 55)

WTP (%) Yes 100.00

No 0.00
Monthly amount (US$) Mean 8.06 Table 5.
Standard deviation 3.83 WTP for electricity
Minimum 2.04 by island and rural
Maximum 20.43 households in Ghana
 IJESM

Table 6.

grid technologies
Community status
before and after off-
Community status Description Response
Local economy Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum

Number of drinking spots Before off-grid 1.36 1.34 0 5

After off-grid 3.11 3.41 0 10
Number of electrical shops Before off-grid 0.05 0.40 0 3
After off-grid 0.80 1.90 0 10
Number of corn mills Before off-grid 0.98 1.19 0 3
After off-grid 1.09 1.32 0 3
Number of cinema centres Before off-grid 0.00 0.00 0 0
After off-grid 0.07 0.42 0 3
Number that migrates from the area every year Before off-grid 0.89 1.26 0 4
After off-grid 0.22 0.50 0 2
Use of electricity (%) Yes No
Storage of agricultural products in refrigerator Before off-grid 0.00 100.00
After off-grid 9.09 90.91
Social and environment (%) Very high High Neutral Low Very low
Rate of crime Off-grid villages 1.82 1.82 9.09 3.64 83.64
Non-off-grid villages 0.00 31.73 41.82 18.18 7.27
Entertainment shows in the evening Off-grid villages 14.55 9.09 23.64 5.45 47.27
Non-off-grid villages 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
Church programmes in the evening Off-grid villages 65.45 16.36 12.73 0.00 5.45
Non-off-grid villages 0.00 0.00 34.55 38.18 27.27
Kerosene and candle burning at home Off-grid villages 3.64 0.00 9.09 0.00 87.27
Non-off-grid villages 0.00 21.82 52.73 18.18 7.27
Tree cutting for energy purposes Off-grid villages 30.91 14.55 21.82 3.64 29.09
Non-off-grid villages 72.73 20.00 3.64 3.64 0.00
Education (%) Very high High Neutral Low Very low
Study hours after 6 p.m. Before 16.36 1.82 23.64 7.27 50.91
After 41.82 18.18 21.82 0.00 18.18
Access to educational programmes Before 16.36 5.45 18.18 7.27 52.73
After 34.55 14.55 20.00 5.45 25.45
Access to internet services Before 7.27 0.00 34.55 9.09 49.09
After 25.45 7.27 32.73 1.82 32.73
Bright and reliable light Before 18.18 5.45 18.18 10.91 47.27
After 50.91 5.45 14.55 3.64 25.45
Health (%) Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum
Number of respiratory-tract-related illness in the Off-grid villages 0.00 0.00 0 0
household in the past one year Non-off-grid villages 3.13 0.77 2 4
Number of health professionals staying in the village Off-grid villages 3.69 1.40 1 5
Non-off-grid villages 2.11 0.60 1 3
Very high High Neutral Low Very low
Rate of the stay of a health professional in the village Off-grid villages 34.55 14.55 20.00 9.09 21.82
Non-off-grid villages 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.73 67.27
Diseases Off-grid villages 1.82 1.82 40.00 7.27 49.09
Non-off-grid villages 0.00 30.91 36.36 21.82 10.91
kerosene lamps and candles as energy sources at home. These increase the risk of fire Nexus between
outbreaks at home and respiratory diseases. Without off-grid technologies, tree cutting for the off-grid
energy purposes is high. This subsequently leads to deforestation.
Table 6 further reveals that education in the study communities has improved after
system
off-grid technologies (solar and wind energy) than before. This is in terms of study hours
after 6 p.m., access to educational programmes, access to internet services and bright
and reliable lights. In the absence of on-grid, students use solar and wind energy to
study at night. This provides a brighter and more reliable source of light for studying
than kerosene lamps, candle and torchlight. Brighter lights prevent eye diseases.
Students as well as crop and fish farmers can access educational programmes with
radio, television, mobile phones and other electrical devices. Mobile phones could be
used to source information from the internet.
Households in off-grid communities were better-off in terms of health than those in non-
off-grid communities (Table 6). The health indicators used for the study are the number of
respiratory tract-related illnesses, the number of health professionals staying in the village,
the rate of the stay of a health professional in the village and the occurrence of other
diseases. Rural communities without off-grid electricity predominantly use kerosene lamps
or candles. Inhalation of smoke from these sources of light increases the risk of respiratory
tract-related illnesses. Also, many health workers (especially nurses) might not stay in rural
communities without off-grid electricity. This further has adverse implications on the health
of rural folks. Without health centres, rural folks would have to rely on nearby towns or
cities for health services.
3.4.1 Average treatment effect by inverse probability weight and inverse probability
weighted regression adjustment estimations for the impacts of off-grid system. To further
check the robustness of the IPWRA impact model, the study used the IPWs to compare with
the IPWRA results (Table 7). From Table 7, there exists a similarity between the IPW and
IPWRA results; however, the IPWs give added results of percentages which is very easy to
interpret. Also, given the similarity between the IPW and IPWRA results, the IPWRA model
could be christened as robust (refer to Section 2.3 for more information). From the table, IPW
analysis shows that an off-grid system in a community reduces the annual number of
respiratory sicknesses (such as cold) in a household by approximately two. From the field
survey and interaction, it was noted that most of the households in the non-off-grid
communities use lanterns and lamps in the evenings to provide light. These energy sources
emanate unhealthy smoke, resulting in increases in upper respiratory tract-related illnesses.
In terms of percentage, the number of respiratory sicknesses in a household is reduced by
approximately 96% with availability of an off-grid system in a community. The crime rate
is also reduced by 64% in an off-grid community compared to a non-off-grid community.
With streetlights available, some crimes such as stealing fishing nets and outboard motors
(especially on the islands in the Volta Lake) are reduced.
Likewise, the monthly total energy cost is reduced by 60% in an off-grid household
compared to a non-off-grid household; the high costs of energy emanates from car batteries,
firewood, kerosene and dry-cells. Given the existence of an off-grid system, most of the costs
related to these energy sources are reduced or eliminated, hence, reducing energy costs. In
terms of migration, the off-grid impacts migration negatively. That is, migration is reduced
by approximately 90% for an off-grid household. Similarly, the rate of cutting of firewood is
also reduced by approximately 36% in a household in an off-grid community. In contrast,
study time after 6 p.m. among school-going children in a household with an off-grid system
is increased by more than 200%.
IJESM Outcome mean
Outcome variable ATE Off-grid Non-off-grid (%) increase

ATE by use of IPW analysis

Health
Respiratory sicknesses 2.92 (0.35)*** 0.12 (0.33) 3.04 (0.11)*** 0.96 (0.11)***
Stay of health professionals 3.11 (1.51)** 4.40 (1.51)*** 1.29 (0.59)*** 2.40 (1.18)**
Security
Crime rate 2.01 (0.29)*** 1.11 (0.28)*** 3.13 (0.10)*** 0.64 (0.09)**
Livelihood
Total energy costs 162.41 (60.08)*** 106.60 (57.86)* 269.01 (25.28)*** 0.60 (0.21)***
Migration 0.61 (60.79)** 0.07 (0.14) 0.68 (0.17)*** 0.90 (0.22)***
Environment
Rate of cutting firewood 1.73 (0.13)*** 3.03 (0.11)*** 4.76 (0.07)*** 0.36 (0.02)***
Education
Study after 6 p.m. 3.55 (0.70)*** 4.73 (0.70)*** 1.18 (0.52)*** 2.99 (0.61)***

ATE by use of IPWRA model

Health
Respiratory sicknesses 2.38 (0.195)*** 0.70 (0.17)*** 3.08 (0.09)*** n.a.
Stay of health professionals 1.13 (0.22)*** 2.45 (0.21)*** 1.32 (0.08)*** n.a.
Security
Crime rate 1.44 (0.19)*** 1.73 (0.16)*** 3.17 (0.11)*** n.a.
Livelihood
Monthly energy costs 216.05 (24.59)*** 32.59 (4.49)*** 248.64 (23.88)*** n.a.
Migration 0.01 (0.22) 0.56 (0.15)*** 0.58 (0.15)*** n.a.
Environment
Rate of cutting firewood 1.81 (0.21)*** 2.98 (0.20)*** 4.79 (0.06)*** n.a.
Table 7. Education
Study after 6 p.m. 2.59 (0.20)*** 3.76 (1.17)*** 1.17 (0.05)*** n.a.
Impacts of an off-grid
system using ATE Notes: *, ** and *** denote statistical significance at 10%, 5% and 1%, respectively. Figures in parentheses are robust
by IPW and IPWRA standard errors; “n.a.” denotes “not applicable”

Table 7 further shows results for average treatment effect using IPWRA. Under health, the
results revealed that, if all households were not to have an off-grid system, the average
annual number of upper respiratory sicknesses reported would be three more. In contrast,
the perceived rate of stay of health professionals in an off-grid community is approximately
one point more than in the non-off-grid community. Health professionals revealed that,
without an energy source, one could not even charge the phones to make calls. However,
with the off-grid system in place, one can easily charge his/her phone and watch television in
the evening. In the interaction with health professionals to triangulate the responses from
the community members, it was noted that, apart from the improvement in the rate of stay
in the village and islands, general health-care delivery in the communities has improved.
Notable among the benefits of electrical power is the proper storage of vaccines – for
instance, proper storage of vaccines that help prevent the six killer diseases (diphtheria,
measles, whooping cough, poliomyelitis, etc.) in children. Also, proper suppository storage
for treating high temperatures in children, attending to labour cases at night and detaining
patients in the evenings have improved. Further, respiratory tract infections (such as cold or
coryza, coughing, pneumonia, chest infections) and eye, nose and throat irritations because
of the smoke emanating from kerosene lamps and lanterns have reduced. On improving
home visits, a community health nurse at Pediatorkope responded that, “I can undertake
home visits and education in the evenings now that there is light”. Also, she indicated that
reported cases of scorpion stings and snake bites in the evenings have reduced because of Nexus between
the availability of street lights in some communities, especially during the warm seasons. In the off-grid
Kofihwikrom, a nurse noted that she is confident of her security in the evenings and can
even stay for a whole week without moving to the city. Access to energy is a ranked
system
indicator for better health-care and services delivery (Corfee-Morlot et al., 2019). Generally,
the health and well-being of inhabitants in the communities are impacted based on both
models of analysis on the off-grid system. Similarly, Mondal and Klein (2011) and Naah and
Hamhaber (2015) on an off-grid system in rural Bangladesh and rural north of Ghana also
recorded improved indoor air quality with the implementation of SHSs and mini-grid
delivery.
From the table, the results reveal that on an interval scale of very high to very low (5 to
1), households with an off-grid system perceive the crime rate to reduce by approximately 1
point from the average of 3 (average crime) in the non-off-grid system. In detail, residents in
the non-off-grid community perceived the crime rate to be average compared to being low in
off-grid communities.
Under livelihoods, monthly energy costs for a household connected to the off-grid system
is reduced by approximately GH¢216.05 compared to the average of GH¢249 in a non-off-
grid household. In contrast, migration is marginally reduced by 0.01 in an off-grid household
compared to a non-off-grid household. The differences are minimal even though off-grid
impacts migration from these villages negatively. The minimal differences could be
attributed to the inability to use the generated power from the off-grid system for primary
economic uses. An assemblyman in one of the islands retorted, “Emigration to the islands
might be stalled and even reduced because of the inability to use the available electrical
power for productive purposes on the islands”.
Nevertheless, labour migration from the sampled villages (especially the islands of
Pediatorkope and Atigagorme to big cities such as the Big Ada or Accra and Kejebi) had
been on the rise prior to having access to electrical power. In Pediatorkope, the rate of
migration from the island had reduced. From the key informants’ interviews, emigration has
also improved mainly because of electrical power. Likewise, Mondal and Klein (2011)
reported a reduction in migration from rural communities after having had access to the off-
grid system. In this study, the respondents attested that, prior to the energy access, most
youth left the community in search of jobs/employment and other income activities. The
reduction in migration can be sustained with a robust system supporting productive uses of
off-grid electricity.
Likewise, cutting firewood in households with the off-grid system is negatively impacted
by approximately two points. However, study time after 6 p.m. among children of school-
going age is positively impacted with an increasing point by approximately three. The
children in most of these communities can now do their homework in the evening with
reliable and bright light. Besides, they can watch educational programmes on television
because of the available energy. It is also evident that other studies (Naah and Hamhaber,
2015; Njirambo and Annegarn, 2013; Mondal and Klein, 2011; Gustavsson and Ellega, 2004)
in various jurisdictions confirm improvement in quality of education. This includes
exposure on the side of children, increased learning hours, reduction in indisposition and
absenteeism attitudes by teachers. However, another study in a South African village
challenged the nexus between access to electricity and development, such that individuals
may not have the same experience or otherwise (Njirambo and Annegarn, 2013). The
attribution is that people may have a taste for TV and other appliances for entertainment.
Nevertheless, these also improve the social life aspect of inhabitants, access to information
and access to educational programmes.
IJESM From Table 8, the results revealed the heterogeneous impact analysis of off-grid on monthly
energy costs, number of upper respiratory sicknesses and migration. From the table, the
results reveal that the impacts of off-grid on the monthly energy costs, number of
respiratory sicknesses and migration are heterogeneous. From Table 8, compared to
households in the first quartile (average household size of four), off-grid system impact was
more on a household with an average size of eight. In contrast, the number of respiratory
sicknesses was impacted less in the second quartile compared to the first quartile. On
migration, as the household size increases, the impact of off-grid on migration also increases.
Likewise, as the household size increases (a reference to the second quartile), the impact on
total energy costs increases. From the table, it can be deduced that off-grid impact on
monthly energy costs and migration increases with an increase in the household head’s
educational level. This could be attributed to the consumption rate for activities such as
listening to news and other radio and television programmes that might be less interesting
to less-educated people in the villages.

4. Conclusions and policy implications

Off-grid technologies used by island and rural households in Ghana are solar and wind
energy for electricity. The sources of energy used by households in Ghana’s island and rural
areas are gas, kerosene, wood fuel and dry-cell battery. The average monthly expenditure on
wood fuel (US$28) was higher than the remaining sources of energy (less than US$10 each).
Generally, these sources of energy were used for cooking, smoking of fish, lighting and
fishing. Off-grid technologies enhance usage of electrical appliances/devices such as radio,
television, refrigerator, fan, light and iron. Households with off-grid technologies were
generally satisfied with solar and wind energy availability, reliability and price. All
households in communities with neither electricity nor off-grid system were willing to pay
for electricity. One-third of households in communities with off-grid systems were willing to
pay for electricity. Households without off-grid systems (US$8.1) were willing to pay higher
amounts per month for electricity. Off-grid technologies (solar and wind energy) improve the
local economy, social activities, security (reduction in crime rate), the environment,
education and health.
Government and private organisations should assist islands and remote villages to
access off-grid technologies such as solar and wind energy. To improve the current state of
livelihoods in rural and island communities, scaling up existing system capacity or
increasing system coverage is necessary for consideration. This will enhance the productive
use of electricity to diversify the income sources of inhabitants. The provision of adequate,
affordable and clean energy (such as electricity) would decrease the use of kerosene and dry-
cell batteries as alternative sources. The high willingness of households in the study location
to pay for electricity provides business opportunities for private agencies and individuals.
Such agencies could provide off-grid technologies for islands and remote villages at a fee.
The study is not without limitations. One critical limitation of the study is the scope of
the study, which is limited to a few islands and remote villages in Ghana. It is, therefore,
suggested that future research may extend the scope by considering a nationally
representative sample, including northern rural Ghanaian communities using off-grid/mini-
grid systems. Another limitation of the study is not decomposing the impact analysis based
on the amount of power supply from the off-grid system and the type of off-grid system.
These variables could also influence the extent of the impact of the off-grid system;
therefore, future studies should consider the same.
Different impacts based on household size
Monthly energy costs Respiratory sicknesses Migration
Two quantiles Number of observations Average Off-grid system Non-off-grid system Off-grid system Non-off-grid system Off-grid system Non-off-grid system

1 66 4 31.68 (31.68)*** 232.77 (20.81)*** 0.71 (0.22)*** 3.08 (0.11)*** 0.42 (0.18)*** 0.53 (0.20)***
2 44 8 36.11 (5.50)*** 288.87 (51.91)*** 0.69 (0.25)*** 3.07 (0.17)*** 0.67 (0.23)*** 0.58 (0.19)***
Different impacts based on number of years of education of household head
1 77 5 31.98 (4.69)*** 248.12 (33.18)*** 0.15 (0.09)*** 2.91 (0.13)*** 0.61 (0.19)*** 0.67 (0.18)***
2 33 15 33.56 (8.98)*** 268.77 (39.39)*** 1.86 (0.38)*** 2.85 (0.29)*** 0.62 (0.25)*** 0.23 (0.19)***

Notes: ***Statistical significance at 1%. Figures in parentheses are robust standard errors

impact of off-grid
Table 8.

system
Heterogeneous
system
the off-grid
Nexus between
IJESM References
Abbas, K., Li, S., Xu, D., Baz, K., Rakhmetova, A. and Asia, S. (2020), “Do socioeconomic factors
determine household multidimensional energy poverty? Empirical evidence from South Asia”,
Energy Policy, Vol. 146, p. 111754.
Ada East District Assembly (2016), “Health”, available at: http://aeda.gov.gh/departments/health/
(acccessed on 21 June 2021).
Akikur, R.K., Saidur, R., Ping, H.W. and Ullah, K.R. (2013), “Comparative study of stand-alone and
hybrid solar energy systems suitable for off-grid rural electrification: a review”, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 27, pp. 738-752.
Arranz-Piera, P., Kemausuor, F., Darkwah, L., Edjekumhene, I., Cortés, J. and Velo, E. (2018), “Mini-grid
electricity service based on local agricultural residues: feasibility study in rural Ghana”, Energy,
Vol. 153, pp. 443-454.
Ayamga, A.E., Kemausuor, F. and Addo, A. (2015), “Technical analysis of crop residue biomass energy
in an agricultural region of Ghana”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 96, pp. 51-60.
Babatunde, O.M., Babatunde, D.E., Denwigwe, I.H., Adedoja, T.B., Adedoja, O.S. and Okharedia, T.E.
(2019), “Analysis of an optimal hybrid power system for an off-grid community in Nigeria”,
International Journal of Energy Sector Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 335-357.
Bannor, R.K. and Gyekye, Y. (2022), “Unpacking the nexus between broiler contract farming and its
impact in Ghana”, The European Journal of Development Research, pp. 1-28, doi: 10.1057/s41287-
021-00489-8.
Boateng, E. (2016), “The potential socio-economic and environmental impacts of solar PV mini-grid
deployment on local communities: a case study of rural island communities on the Volta lake,
Ghana”, available at: https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/49358 (accessed on 12 January 2021).
Bukari, D., Tuokuu, F.X.D., Suleman, S., Ackah, I. and Apenu, G. (2020), “Ghana’s energy access
journey so far: a review of key strategies”, International Journal of Energy Sector Management,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 139-156.
Chakrabarti, S. and Chakrabarti, S. (2002), “Rural electrification programme with solar energy in a
remote region–a case study in an island”, Energy Policy, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 33-42.
Corfee-Morlot, J., Parks, P., Ogunleye, J. and Ayeni, F. (2019), “Achieving clean energy access in Sub-
Saharan Africa: a case study for the OECD, UN environment, world bank project: “financing
climate futures: rethinking infrastructure”, available at: www.oecd.org/environment/cc/climate-
futures (accessed 12 February 2021).
Cornelissen, T., Dustmann, C., Raute, A. and Schönberg, U. (2016), “From LATE to MTE: alternative
methods for the evaluation of policy interventions”, Labour Economics, Vol. 41, pp. 47-60.
Davis, M. (2001), “Socio-economic impacts of rural electrification in Namibia: comparisons between grid,
solar and unelectrified households”, Energy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 5-13.
Energy Commission (2020), “National energy statistics”, available at: www.energycom.gov.gh/
(accessed on 21 May 2021).
ESMAP (2016), “Ghana: Mini-Grids for Last-Mile electrification knowledge series”, available at: www.
eca-uk.com (accessed 8 April 2021).
ESMAP (2017), “Mini grids for timely and low-cost electrification in Ghana”, available at: www.
worldbank.org (accessed 12 January 2021).
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) (2017), Evidence on Internal and International Migration
Patterns in Selected African Countries, FAO, Rome, p. 12.
Flamm, S. (2010), “The linkage between migration and child labour: an international perspective,
migration and child labour”, Stanford Journal of International Relations, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 15-25.
Frank, A. (2016), “Off-Grid opportunities in ghana’s rural North. Rising demand for High-Quality
applications”, available at: www.renewables-made-in-germany.com (acessed 14 March 2021).
Ghana Statistical Service (2014a), 2010 Population and Housing Census, Sene East District Analytical Nexus between
Report, available at www2.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/2010_District_Report/Brong%20Ahafo/
SENE%20EAST.pdf (accessed 1 September 2021).
the off-grid
Ghana Statistical Service (2014b), 2010 Population and Housing Census, Sene West District Analytical
system
Report. available at: www2.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/2010_District_Report/Brong%20Ahafo/
SENE%20WEST.pdf (accessed 12 August 2021).
Ghana Statistical Service (2014c), 2010 Population and Housing Census, Amansie Central District
Analytical Report, available at: www2.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/2010_District_Report/
Ashanti/AMANSIE%20CENTRAL.pdf (accessed 1 June 2021).
Glynn, A.N. and Quinn, K.M. (2010), “An introduction to the augmented inverse propensity weighted
estimator”, Political Analysis, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 36-56.
GSS (Ghana Statistical Service) (2019), Ghana Living Standards Survey (GLSS 7) Main Report, GSS,
Accra, Ghana, p. 321.
Guo, S., Fraser, M. and Chen, Q. (2020), “Propensity score analysis: recent debate and discussion”,
Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 463-482.
Gurung, A., Ghimeray, A.K. and Hassan, S.H.A. (2012), “The prospects of renewable energy
technologies for rural electrification: a review from Nepal”, Energy Policy, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 374-380.
Gurung, A., Gurung, P.O. and Sang, E.O. (2011), “The potential of renewable energy technology for
rural electrification in Nepal: a case study from Tangting”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 36 No. 11,
pp. 3203-3210.
Gurung, A., Karki, R., Sik, J., Won, K. and Oh, S. (2013), “Roles of renewable energy technologies in
improving the rural energy situation in Nepal: Gaps and opportunities”, Energy Policy, Vol. 62,
pp. 1104-1109.
Gustavsson, M. and Ellega, A. (2004), “The impact of solar home systems on rural livelihoods.
Experiences from the nyimba energy service company in Zambia”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 29
No. 7, pp. 1059-1072.
IEA/IRENA (2013), “Ghana energy development and access project (GEDAP”,)”, available at: www.iea.
org/policies/4953-ghana-energy-development-and-access-project-gedap (accessed 12 January
2021).
International Energy Agency (2019), “Africa energy outlook IEA”, available at: www.iea.org/news/
africas-energy-future-matters-for-the-world (acessed 15 January 2020).
Israel, M.A., Amikuzuno, J. and Danso-Abbeam, G. (2020), “Assessing farmers’ contribution to
greenhouse gas emission and the impact of adopting climate-smart agriculture on mitigation”,
Ecological Processes, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Kazal, M.M.H., Rahman, M.S. and Rayhan, S.J. (2020), “Determinants and impact of the adoption of
improved management practices: case of freshwater prawn farming in Bangladesh”,
Aquaculture Reports, Vol. 18, p. 100448.
Kemausuor, F., Adu-Poku, I., Adkins, E. and Brew-Hammond, A. (2011), “Estimating the cost
of electrification technology options to aid electricity access scale up: the case of Ghana”,
available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTAFRREGTOPENERGY/Resources/
717305-1327690230600/8397692-1327697380446/Electrification_cost_estimation_Ghana_
4Pager.pdf (accessed 12 February 2020).
Kumi, E.N. (2017), “The electricity situation in Ghana: challenges and opportunities”, available at:
www.cgdev.org/publication/electricity-situation-ghana-challenges-and-opportunities (accessed
12 March 2020).
Lu, W., Addai, K.N. and Ng’ombe, J.N. (2021), “Impact of improved rice varieties on household food
security in Northern Ghana: a doubly robust analysis”, Journal of International Development,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 342-359.
IJESM Madriz-Vargas, R., Bruce, A., Watt, M., Nacional, U. and Rica, C. (2015), “A review of factors influencing
the success of community renewable energy minigrids in developing countries”, available at:
www.researchgate.net/publication/290797684_A_Review_of_Factors_Influencing_the_Success_
of_Community_Renewable_Energy_Minigrids_in_developing_countries (accessed 12 June 2021).
Mahapatra, S. and Dasappa, S. (2012), “Rural electrification: optimising the choice between
decentralised renewable energy sources and grid extension”, Energy for Sustainable
Development, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 146-154. No
Manda, J., Gardebroek, C., Kuntashula, E. and Alene, A.D. (2018), “Impact of improved maize varieties
on food security in Eastern Zambia: a doubly robust analysis”, Review of Development
Economics, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 1709-1728.
Merem, E.C., Twumasi, Y., Wesley, J., Isokpehi, P., Fageir, S., Crisler, M., Romorno, C., Hines, A., Ochai,
G.S., Leggett, S. and Nwagboso, E. (2018), “Assessing renewable energy use in Ghana: the case
of the electricity sector”, Energy and Power, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 16-34.
Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (2016a), “The composite budget of the ada east district
assembly for the 2016 fiscal year”, available at: www.mofep.gov.gh/sites/default/files/
composite-budget/2016/GR/Ada-East.pdf (accessed 12 April 2020).
Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (2016b), “The composite budget of the amansie district
assembly for the 2016 fiscal year”, available at: www.mofep.gov.gh/sites/default/files/
composite-budget/2013/AR/Amansie_Central.pdf (accessed 14 June 2021).
Mohammed, Y.S., Mokhtar, A.S., Bashir, N. and Saidur, R. (2013), “An overview of agricultural biomass for
decentralized rural energy in Ghana”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 20, pp. 15-25.
Mondal, A.H. and Klein, D. (2011), “Impacts of solar home systems on social development in rural
Bangladesh”, Energy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 17-20.
Mora, R. and Reggio, I. (2015), “Didq: a command for treatment-effect estimation under alternative
assumptions”, The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 796-808.
Naah, J. and Hamhaber, J. (2015), “Lighting up the villages: Livelihood impacts of decentralized stand-
alone solar photovoltaic electrification in rural Northern Ghana”, doi: 10.5027/jnrd.v5i0.01
(accessed 12 June 2021).
Nana Amoasi VII (2020), “Ghana sleepping on renewable energy adoption”, available at: www.ghanaweb.
com/GhanaHomePage/features/Ghana-sleepping-on-renewable-energy-adoption-1001017
Nerini, F.F., Broad, O., Mentis, D., Welsch, M., Bazilian, M. and Howells, M. (2016), “A cost comparison
of technology approaches for improving access to electricity services”, Energy, Vol. 95,
pp. 255-265, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2015.11.068.
Njirambo, M. and Annegarn, H.J. (2013), “Paradoxical impacts of electricity on life in a rural South
african village”, Energy Policy, Vol. 58, pp. 295-302.
Obeng, G., Akuffo, F., Braimah, I., Evers, H.-D. and Mensah, E. (2008), “Impact of solar photovoltaic
lighting on indoor air smoke in off-grid rural Ghana”, Energy for Sustainable Development,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 55-61.
Obeng, G. and Evers, H. (2010), “Impacts of public solar PV electrification on rural micro-enterprises:
the case of Ghana”, Energy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 223-231.
Obeng, G. and Kumi, E.N. (2014), “Quantitative impacts of solar PV on television viewing and radio
listening in quantitative impacts of solar PV on television viewing and radio listening in off-grid
rural Ghana”, Energy and Environment Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, doi: 10.5539/eer.v4n1p62
Ofosu-Mensah, M. and Ababio, E. (2011), “Labour migration during the colonial period to the obuasi
mines in Ghana”, International Research Journal of Library, Information and Archival Studies,
Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 68-80.
Otchere, P.A. (2016), “User perspectives on a sustainable community development project: assessing
the impact of empower playground’s play systems on the pediatorkope island in Ghana”, MA
 Thesis submitted to Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia, available at: https:// Nexus between
dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/72185/Otchere-Phebe-MA-IDS-August-2016.pdf;
sequence=3
the off-grid
Otchere-Appiah, G. and Hagan, E.B. (2013), “Decentralized bioenergy generation: an option to extend
system
access to electricity in remote areas and curb perennial power outages in Ghana”, International
Journal of Development and Sustainability, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1513-1522.
Otchere-Appiah, G. and Hagan, E.B. (2014), “Potential for electricity generation from maize residues in
rural Ghana: a case study of brong ahafo region”, International Journal of Renewable Energy
Technology Research, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 1-10.
Republic of Ghana (2012), “Sustainable energy for all action plan”, available at: www.energycom.gov
Republic of Ghana (2019), “Ghana’s renewable energy master plan”, available at: http://www.
energycom.gov.gh/
Rosenbaum, P.R. and Rubin, D.B. (1983), “The Central role of the propensity score in observational
studies for causal effects”, Biometrika, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 41-55.
Saarinen, R. (2015), “Wellbeing of african villagers within empowered by sustainable energy services
their community”, available at: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/16542
Sakah, M., Diawuo, F.A., Katzenbach, R. and Gyamfi, S. (2017), “Towards a sustainable
electrification in Ghana: a review of renewable energy deployment policies”, doi: 10.1016/j.
rser.2017.05.090.
S
anchez, A.S., Torres, E.A. and Kalid, R.A. (2015), “Renewable energy generation for the rural electri fi
cation of isolated communities in the amazon region”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Vol. 49, pp. 278-290.
Sarkodie, W.O. (2017), “Assessment of maize and rice residues for rural electrification in Ghana: a case
study in Ejisu-Juaben”, available at: http://repository.pauwes-cop.net/bitstream/handle/1/122/
MT_Wilson%20Ofori%20Sarkodie.pdf?sequence=1
Schmidt, C.M. and Bensch, G. (2012), “Impact evaluation of productive use – an implementation
guideline for electrification projects”, Energy Policy Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 186-195.
Sharif, I. and Mithila, M. (2013), “Rural electrification using PV: the success story”, Energy Procedia,
Vol. 33, pp. 343-354.
Shyu, C. (2013), “Energy for sustainable development end-users ‘ experiences with electricity supply
from stand-alone mini-grid solar PV power stations in rural areas of Western China”,
doi: 10.1016/j.esd.2013.02.006.
Tambo, J.A. and Mockshell, J. (2018), “Differential impacts of conservation agriculture technology
options on household income in Sub-Saharan Africa”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 151, pp. 95-105.
Togobo, W.A. (2016), “Renewable energy resources and potentials in Ghana (issue November)”,
available at: https://ambaccra.esteri.it/ambasciata_accra/resource/doc/2016/12/renewable_
resources_and_potentials_20.12.2016.pdf
TTA (2020), “Design, supply, installation, operations and management of Mini-Grids for electrification
in selected volta’s lake island communities in Ghana”, available at: http://arthuradvisors.com/?
page_id=374 (accessed 3 August 2021).
Welsch, M., Bazilian, M., Howells, M., Divan, D., Elzinga, D., Strbac, G., Jones, L., Keane, A., Gielen,
D., Balijepalli, V.S.K.M. and Brew-Hammond, A. (2013), “Smart and just grids for Sub-
Saharan Africa: exploring options”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 20,
pp. 336-352.
Wooldridge, J.M. (2010), Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (2nd ed.), The MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Zerriffi, H. (2008), “From acaı to access: distributed electrification in rural Brazil”, International Journal
of Energy Sector Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 90-117.
IJESM Further reading
Bakkabulindi, G., Sendegeya, A., Silva, I.D. and Lugujjo, E. (2010), “Technical, economic and
sustainability considerations of a solar PV Mini-Grid as a tool for rural electrification in
Uganda”, Strathmore Energy Research Centre, available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11071/3805
(accessed 23 April 2021).
Donkoh, S.A., Alhassan, H. and Nkegbe, P.K. (2014), “Food expenditure and household welfare in
Ghana”, African Journal of Food Science, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 164-175.
Hamilton, B.W. (2001), “Using engel’s law to estimate CPI bias”, American Economic Review, Vol. 91
No. 3, pp. 619-630.

Corresponding author
Richard Kwasi Bannor can be contacted at: richard.bannor@uenr.edu.gh

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com