Table 3 Scores for the economic sustainability dimension
From: Sustainability assessment of a micro hydropower plant in Nepal
Themes | Dimensional weighting (%) | Code | Indicators | Score | Notes on scoring | Theme score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Investment | 25 | ECO1 | Loan % of funding | 5 | No loan | 4.43 |
ECO2 | Grant % of funding | 5 | Completely funded by a governmental organization (AEPC) | |||
ECO3 | Payback period | 4 | Planned period of 6Â years relatively short, but has not been reached completely due to delay in construction and HH connection | |||
ECO4 | Life cycle costs | 0 | Unable to score | |||
ECO5 | Repair and maintenance costs | 4 | Not very high | |||
Community contribution | 10 | ECO6 | Villager’s monetary contribution | 3 | Main usual monthly electricity charges | 4.00 |
ECO7 | Work on MHP activities (sweat equity) | 5 | Sweat work during construction, now for canal cleaning | |||
Employee remuneration | 5 | ECO8 | Official salary agreement (operator) | 3 | Contractual agreement | 3.50 |
ECO9 | Salary levels of employees/operator of MHP (absolute numbers) | 4 | Operator is satisfied | |||
Electricity tariff | 15 | ECO10 | Tariff collection pattern | 3 | Satisfying | 3.4 |
ECO11 | Monthly tariff collection | 3 | Satisfying | |||
ECO12 | Tariff for domestic use | 3 | Satisfying, separate tariff for HH and business use | |||
ECO13 | Tariff for commercial use | 3 | Satisfying, separate tariff for HH and business use | |||
ECO14 | Collection of tariffs that keep pace with inflation | 5 | Well adjusted (raised basic tariff from 60 to 80 NRs) | |||
Project benefits | 35 | ECO15 | General income increase per household | 3 | Satisfying | 3.42 |
ECO16 | Employment opportunity | 3 | Satisfying (e.g., carpentry) | |||
ECO17 | No. of new income-generating activities | 5 | Plenty of new income-generating activities | |||
ECO18 | Time saved from collecting firewood and wheat grinding | 5 | Average savings of 4Â h/day, independent from collecting fire wood, e.g., due to rice cooker | |||
ECO19 | Competitiveness of the local community concerning electricity | 0 | Unable to score | |||
ECO20 | Sustainable end use of electricity | 5 | A relatively long list of sustainable end use of electricity | |||
ECO21 | Mechanism for sale of electricity to national grid | 1 | No policy mechanism, no sale in place | |||
ECO22 | No. of local energy suppliers | 2 | One energy supplier (NEA) | |||
ECO23 | Revenue/benefits of the local supplier | 1 | No notable increase in benefits (officially NEA as a whole operating at losses) | |||
ECO24 | Change in no. of local enterprises | 5 | Significant improvements, e.g., carpenter, miller, poultry farms | |||
ECO25 | Revenue/benefits of the local enterprises | 1 | Main family enterprises which are producing many home necessities | |||
ECO26 | Water allocation | 2 | Only little water used, due to small MHP | |||
Entrepreneurial potential | 10 | ECO27 | Openness to new experience | 5 | Existing ideas on using electricity for business: mustard mill, off-season vegetable farming (with irrigation), dairy farming (storing of milk), welding, tailoring, knitting, and handicraft for trade | 3.50 |
ECO28 | Conscientiousness | 2 | For 26.6%, the risk of failure would be too high for a realization of the ideas. Villager’s consciousness is affected by a lack of awareness of opportunities due to low education—government initiatives needed | |||
Aggregated score—economic dimension | 3.74 | |||||