A Multidimensional Expert-Based Assessment of Solar Home Systems’ Impact Across Nepal’s Himalayan, Hilly, and Terai Regions : An Analytical Hierarchy Process Approach = 네팔 히말라야, 구릉, 테라이 지역에 걸친 태양열 주택 시스템의 영향에 대한 다차원 전문가 기반 평가: 분석적 계층 프로세스 접근법

국문 초록 (Abstract)

히말라야, 구릉지 및 테라이(Terai) 지역을 아우르는 네팔의 지리적 다양성은 가구별 에너지 접근성, 비용 부담 능력 및 지속가능성 측면에서 뚜렷한 격차를 야기하고 있다. 전 세계적으로 약 6억 7,500만 명의 인구가 여전히 전력 부족을 겪고 있는 상황(IEA, 2024)에서, 개발도상국 내 분산형 에너지 솔루션의 필요성은 더욱 강조되고 있다. 네팔의 경우, 태양광 홈 시스템(Solar Home Systems, 이하 SHS)이 농촌 지역의 전력화 간극을 메우기 위한 실질적인 오프그리드(off-grid) 전략으로 부상하였다. 그러나 생태적·제도적 맥락에 따른 SHS의 다면적 영향에 대한 연구는 여전히 미비한 실정이다.
본 연구는 네팔의 주요 생태 권역별 SHS 도입에 따른 사회경제적, 기술적, 환경적 및 정책적 차원의 영향력을 전문가 기반의 심층 평가를 통해 분석하였다. 분석 과정에서는 계층화 분석법(AHP)을 활용하여 정부, NGO/INGO, 민간 부문 전문가들의 구조화된 판단을 통합함으로써 주요 영향 요인과 세부 기준의 우선순위를 도출하였다. 계층 모델은 가구 에너지 소비, 사회경제 및 보건, 지역사회 및 환경, 기술 및 혁신, 경제 및 재무적 영향, 정책 및 제도적 지원 등 6개의 주요 차원과 지역적 실태를 반영하는 18개의 세부 기준으로 구성되었다. Saaty의 9점 척도를 이용한 쌍대비교 분석 결과, 일관성 비율(CR≤0.1)은 허용 범위 내로 나타났으며, 지리적 요건, 금융 구조 및 거버넌스가 지속가능성에 미치는 영향에 따라 지역 및 기관별 우선순위가 상이함을 확인하였다.
본 연구는 다기준 의사결정 프레임워크 내에 전문가 지식을 통합함으로써 기존 SHS 연구의 방법론적·정책적 공백을 메우고, 개발도상국 환경에서 분산형 재생에너지 개입 효과를 평가할 수 있는 재현 가능한 모델을 제시한다. 본 연구의 결과는 생태 권역별 SHS 영향력에 대한 전문가들의 인식을 가시화하고, 장기적 지속가능성에 기여하는 기술적·재정적·제도적 요인들에 대한 실무적인 통찰을 제공한다. 궁극적으로 본 연구는 증거 기반의 정책 수립에 기여하며, 네팔 신재생에너지 진흥센터(AEPC)와 같은 기관이 지속가능발전목표(SDG 7)에 부합하는 형평성 있고 회복력 있는 지역 맞춤형 농촌 전력화 전략을 설계하는 데 기초 자료로 활용될 것으로 기대된다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Nepal’s diverse geography, spanning the Himalayan, Hilly, and Terai Regions, continues to create marked disparities in household energy access, affordability, and sustainability. Despite national progress, an estimated 675 million people worldwide still lack access to electricity (IEA, 2024), underscoring the need for decentralized solutions in developing countries. In Nepal, Solar Home Systems (SHS) have become a viable off-grid strategy for bridging rural electrification gaps. However, their multidimensional impact remains insufficiently examined across ecological and institutional contexts.
This study conducted a comprehensive expert-based assessment of the socio-economic, technological, environmental, and policy dimensions of SHS adoption across Nepal’s major ecological zones. Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), this study integrates structured expert judgments from government, NGOs/INGOs, and private-sector institutions to prioritize key impact dimensions and sub-criteria. The hierarchical model encompasses six principal dimensions–household energy use, socio-economic and health, community and environment, technology and innovation, economic and financial impact, and Policy and Institutional support–supported by eighteen sub-criteria that reflect the regional reality. Pairwise comparisons, conducted using Saaty’s (1–9) scale with acceptable consistency ratios (CR≤0.1), reveal variations in regional and institutional priorities that illuminate how geography, financing, and governance affect sustainability.
By integrating expert knowledge within a multi-criteria decision framework, this study bridges the methodological and policy gaps in existing SHS studies. It develops a replicable model for evaluating decentralized renewable-energy interventions in developing country contexts. The findings are expected to provide actionable insights into how experts perceive the relative importance of SHS impacts across ecological regions, highlighting the technological, financial, and institutional factors that influence long-term sustainability. Ultimately, this study contributes to evidence-based policy formulation and supports institutions, such as Nepal’s Alternative Energy Promotion Center, in designing region-specific strategies for equitable and resilient rural electrification aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 7.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Chapter 1. Introduction 1
• 1.1 Research Background 1
• 1.2 Purpose of the Research 6
• 1.3 Structure of the Research 10
• Chapter 2. Energy Issues and Policies of Nepal 13
• 2.1 Overview of Nepal’s Energy Sector 13
• 2.2 Renewable Energy Development in Nepal 18
• 2.3 Policy and Institutional Context for Solar Home Systems in Nepal 22
• 2.4 Problem Context and Research Gap 26
• 2.4.1 Synthesis of Challenges Affecting SHS Development in Nepal 29
• 2.4.2 Research Gap Emerging from Existing Literature 31
• 2.4.3 Policy Gaps in Addressing Regional Specificities of SHS 33
• Chapter 3. Literature Review 35
• 3.1 Introduction to the Literature Review 35
• 3.2 Solar Home Systems (SHS) in the Global and South Asian Context 37
• 3.2.1 Global Evolution of SHS: Trends, Impact, and Lessons 38
• 3.2.2 SHS in South Asia: Historical Trajectory and Regional Experiences 38
• 3.2.3 Cross-Country Comparison: What South Asia Teaches Nepal? 39
• 3.2.4 Integration of Global and Regional Insights for Nepal 39
• 3.3 Solar Home Systems (SHS) Studies in Nepal 40
• 3.3.1 Early SHS Research in Nepal: Lighting, Kerosene Reduction, and Energy Access 40
• 3.3.2 Socioeconomic and Lifestyle Impacts: Education, Health, Productivity, and Women’s Empowerment 41
• 3.3.3 Technology Studies: System Performance, Battery Reliability, and Service Quality 41
• 3.3.4 Environmental Impact Studies: GHG Reduction, Forest Conservation, and Air Quality 41
• 3.3.5 SHS and Rural Development: Community Resilience, Communication, and Social Transformation 42
• 3.3.6 Institutional and Governance Studies: Subsidy Effectiveness, Policy Gaps, and Federal Challenges 42
• 3.3.7 Market and Private Sector Studies: Supply Chains, Competitiveness, and After-Sales Service 42
• 3.3.8 Productive Use Studies: Limited but Emerging Evidence 43
• 3.3.9 Ecological and Regional Comparative Studies 43
• 3.3.10 Methodological Gap in Nepal’s SHS Literature 43
• 3.3.11 Synthesis and Implication for This Research 43
• 3.4 Impact Identification in the Context of Nepal 44
• 3.4.1 Dimension 1: Household Energy Use 45
• 3.4.2 Dimension 2: Socioeconomic, Education, and Health 46
• 3.4.3 Dimension 3: Community and Environment 48
• 3.4.4 Dimension 4: Technology and Innovation 49
• 3.4.5 Dimension 5: Economic and Financial Impact 50
• 3.4.6 Dimension 6: Institutional and Policy Transformation 52
• 3.5 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP): Theory, Application, and Relevance to SHS Studies 53
• 3.6 Research Gap Positioning: From Literature to the Present Research Model 55
• 3.7 Conceptual Framework 55
• 3.8 Previous Studies Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process 57
• Chapter 4. Models and Methodology 60
• 4.1 Analytical Hierarchy Process: 60
• 4.1.1 First Step: Formulation of the Hierarchical Structure 62
• 4.1.2 Second Step: Formulation of Pairwise Comparison Questionnaire 63
• 4.1.3 Third Step: Construction of Pairwise Comparison Matrices 64
• 4.1.4 Fourth Step: Computation of Priority Weights 65
• 4.1.5 Fourth Step: Fifth Step: Consistency Check 66
• 4.2 Methodological Framework 67
• 4.3 AHP Survey and Data 69
• 4.3.1 AHP Survey Design 71
• 4.3.2 Data Collection Procedure 72
• 4.3.3 Implications on The Existing Literature 72
• Chapter 5. Analysis, Results, and Discussion 74
• 5.1 Empirical Results 74
• 5.1.1 Inconsistency Results 74
• 5.1.2 Overall Aggregated Results of Dimensions 76
• 5.1.3 Results of Impacts Within Each Dimension 78
• 5.1.4 Results of Overall Ranking of Impacts 84
• 5.1.5 Experts Perspective 88
• 5.2 Discussion of Results 90
• 5.2.1 Explanation: Why Technology and Innovation Ranked First 95
• 5.2.2 Comparison of Findings with Previous Literature 97
• 5.3 Policy Implications 99
• 5.3.1 Policy Interpretation of Key SHS Impact Dimensions 101
• 5.3.2 Regional Differentiation of SHS Priorities 102
• 5.4 Comparative analysis of expert questionnaire responses 104
• Chapter 6. Conclusion 106
• 6.1 Summary of Results 106
• 6.2 Study Limitations and Future Research 109
• 6.3 Final Remarks 110
• Bibliography 111
• Appendices 125
• Acknowledgments 148