Modelling household’s intentions to adopt hybrid power system in Ghana

Figures & data

Table 1. Typology of hybrid power systems.

	Types	Description	Source
1	PV/battery/diesel	PV or battery or diesel	Odoi-Yorke et al. (2022)
2	PV/diesel/grid	PV or diesel or grid	Odoi-Yorke et al. (2022)
3	Solar PV systems with biogas plants	solar PV systems with biogas plants	Mohammed et al. (2020)
4	Standalone solar PV/battery systems	solar PV or battery systems	Issahaku and Kemausuor (2022)
5	Solar PV/biogas/battery hybrid systems	Combination of solar PV with biogas or battery	Issahaku and Kemausuor (2022)
6	Solar PV, wind and diesel generators hybrids	Combination of solar PV, wind and diesel generators	Tay et al. (2022)
7	Solar-diesel hybrid systems	Combination of solar energy with a diesel generator	Lee et al. (2003)
8	Wind-diesel hybrid systems	Combination wind energy with a diesel generator,	Jaradat and Mashaqba (2014)
9	Solar-wind hybrid systems	Combination of solar and wind energy	Flett et al. (2004)
10	Biomass-diesel hybrid systems	use of biomass, such as agricultural waste with a diesel generator	Brown and Venkatesh (2005)

Authors Construct, 2021.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework. Authors’, Construct, 2021.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of respondents.

Demographic variables	Subgroups	Frequency (N = 266)	Percentage (100%)
Age	25–30	40	15.0
	31–35	106	39.8
	36–40	99	37.2
	41–45	19	7.1
	>45	2	0.8
Gender	Male	158	59.4
	Female	108	40.6
Educational level	Diploma/HND	40	15.0
	Bachelor’s Degree	65	24.4
	Master’s Degree	30	11.3
	PhD	5	1.9
	No formal Education	21	7.9
	WASSCE cert	86	32.3
	BECE cert	19	7.1
Type of residence	Self-owned	63	23.7
	Rented	170	63.9
	Care Taker	33	12.4
Religion	Christian	136	51.1
	Muslim	130	48.9
Size of household	Single room	12	4.5
	Chamber and Hall	26	9.8
	1-room self-contain	39	14.7
	Chamber &Hall self contain	78	29.3
	2 bed room	56	21.1
	3 bed room	40	15.0
	4 bed room	10	3.8
	5 bed room	5	1.9

Source: Field data, 2021.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of knowledge and awareness.

Indicators	Mean	Std. deviation
Renewable energy sources are inexhaustible sources of energy	3.91	0.83
Hybrid power systems incorporate one or more renewable energy sources	3.89	0.74
Hybrid power systems can be used independently of the national grid	2.91	1.19
Hybrid power systems can be used jointly with the national grid	3.86	0.94
OVERALL	3.64	0.93

Source: Field data, 2021.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of perceived usefulness.

Indicators	Mean	Std. deviation
Makes life easier for  me	3.87	0.71
Simple to use	3.89	0.67
Improves job quality and standard of living	3.82	0.72
Reliable for all uses	3.98	0.75
OVERALL	3.89	0.71

Source: Field data, 2021.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of perceived benefits.

Indicators	Mean	Std. deviation
Improve quality of life	2.69	0.82
Reduce energy expenditure	2.76	0.84
Increase disposable income	2.76	0.85
Contribute to energy security and freedom of choice	3.22	1.02
Create a mentality of self-sustainability	2.76	0.88
OVERALL	2.84	0.88

Source: Field data, 2021.

Table 6. Descriptive statistics of perceived risk.

Indicators	Mean	Std. deviation
Current hybrid power systems are not durable	3.21	1.02
Current hybrid power systems are not sustainable	3.20	1.00
Configurations of the current hybrid power systems are not stable	3.21	0.97
OVERALL	3.21	1.00

Source: Field data, 2021.

Table 7. Descriptive statistics of perceived cost.

Indicators	Mean	Std. deviation
Price of hybrid power systems is beyond budget	3.77	0.98
Servicing and maintenance charge for hybrid power systems is expensive	4.03	0.73
Total cost of hybrid power systems adoption and installation is expensive	3.97	0.73
OVERALL	3.92	0.81

Source: Field data, 2021.

Table 8. Descriptive statistics of willingness to adopt.

Indicators	Mean	Std. deviation
Confident with the idea of adopting the hybrid power system	3.04	1.18
Easy1to adopt the hybrid power system	2.87	1.05
OVERALL	2.96	1.12

Source: Field data, 2021.

Table 9. Descriptive statistics of intention to adopt.

Indicators	Mean	Std. deviation
Intend to use the hybrid system	2.62	0.84
Predict will use the hybrid system	2.71	0.97
OVERALL	2.67	0.91

Source: Field data, 2021.

Table 10. Model coefficients.

Model		Unstandardised coefficients		P value
		B	Std. error
11	(Constant)	0.882	0.177	.000
	WA	0.448	0.039	.000
	A	0.107	0.055	.054
	MS	−0.079	0.035	.023
	AS	0.007	0.002	.000

Source: Field data, 2021.

Table 11. ANOVA.

Model		Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	P value
11	Regression	77.179	4	19.295	47.605	0.000
	Residual	105.785	261	0.405
	Total	182.963	265

Source: Field data, 2021.

Table 12. Validation of model.

Model summary
Model	R	R square	Adjusted R square	Std. error of the estimate
11	0.649	0.422	0.413	0.63664

Source: Field data, 2021.

Odoi-Yorke, F., Abaase, S., Zebilila, M., & Atepor, L. (2022). Feasibility analysis of solar PV/biogas hybrid energy system for rural electrification in Ghana. Cogent Engineering, 9(1), 203–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.2034376

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Agyenim, F. B., Dzamboe, P. D., Mohammed, M., Bawakyillenuo, S., Okrofu, R., Decker, E., Agyemang, V. K., & Nyarko, E. H. (2020). Powering communities using hybrid solar biogas in Ghana, a feasibility study. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 19, 100837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2020.100837

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Issahaku, M., & Kemausuor, F. (2022). Techno-economic comparison of standalone solar PV and hybrid power systems for remote outdoor telecommunication sites in northern Ghana. Ghana Journal of Science, Technology and Development, 8(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.47881/371.967x

 Google Scholar

Tay, G., Acakpovi, A., Adjei, P., Aggrey, G. K., Sowah, R., Kofi, D., Afonope, M., & Sulley, M. (2022 July). Optimal Sizing and Techno-economic Analysis of a Hybrid Solar PV/wind/diesel Generator System. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1042(1), 012–014.

 Google Scholar

Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(50), 752-780. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01250

 Google Scholar

Jaradat, M. I. R. M., & Mashaqba, A. M. A. (2014). Understanding the adoption and usage of mobile payment services by using TAM3. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 16(3), 271. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIS.2014.063768

 Google Scholar

Flett, R., Alpass, F., Humphries, S., Massey, C., Morriss, S., & Long, N. (2004). The technology acceptance model and use of technology in New Zealand dairy farming. Agricultural Systems, 80(2), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2003.08.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2005). Model of adoption of technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 399. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148690

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar