A systematic review and meta-analysis of solar technology impacts on rural households: experiences from the Global South.

Abstract

Renewable energy technologies are widely prescribed to address multiple developmental needs, especially in developing contexts. As reflected in the growing body of literature, these devices and energy sources can generate socio-economic and environmental benefits and offer relatively rapid transitions to more sustainable practices. In this regard, it is essential to understand and identify the links among their impacts at a household and community level. This study aimed to critically examine how the impacts of solar technologies have been examined and measured at the household level, focusing on low-income and rural communities across the Global South. This review systematically focuses on research within a specified temporal range, 1999 to 2019, concerning the UNDG’s definition of impact and the sustainable livelihood’s theoretical framework. The motivation for this review is to establish whether research of the developing contexts have been able to respond to the multi-dimensionality of energy access and determine whether research has been a reflection of the changing energy narratives on energy needs. In addition, this review examines how and whether the impacts of solar energy technologies (SETs) are examined in relation to specific livelihood outcomes. Following the PRISMA 2009 and 2020 guideline for systematic reviews, the Web of Science, Google Scholar, and WorldCat databases were used. The initial search yielded (n=175187), which was later reduced to a total of n=56 cases that met the geographic, temporal, and contentrelated criteria. It was found that over the temporal range, Global South countries contributed a significantly lower number of published research compared to the global north countries. Over time, progressive trends in the proportion, dissemination and development of different SET’s could be identified as literature was found to have investigated several types of SETs across 24 different Global South countries using eight different analyses dominated by mixedmethod approaches and field survey methods. The meta-analysis revealed that despite the diversity in indicators, no studies reported against all capital bases of rural livelihoods. In addition, the classification identified that there were more qualitative and indirect measures of SET impact at the household level. Despite financial indicators appearing in all the reviewed studies, the diversity and inclusivity of the indicators used were reflected in the increasing proportion with which other livelihood impacts were recorded over the temporal range. From the analysis of mean impacts, the overall impression given is that SET’s have a positive impact on the livelihoods rural households in developing countries. However, the proportion of studies using each indicator is insufficient for these impacts to be definitive due to the variation. The review concludes that the impacts of solar technologies at the household level in developing contexts are not specific to livelihoods benefits in how they are reported. This makes it difficult to assess the overall successes of RET- transfer in the domestic sector. A recommendation based on this review is to use mixed method approaches, more diverse indicators and the SLA and UNDG’s definition of impact. This would ensure that future impact analyses are a true reflection of all possible impacts of SET’s on rural households and the selection of the most appropriate SET’s to be installed in rural households. There should be significant efforts to bring together academia, industry, and government to facilitate and encourage further research and expand SET’s across more developing countries to promote development and innovation within the industry. Lastly, to ensure that SET’s have a sustainable impact on rural households the operation and maintenance of SET’s needs to increase.