4.7 Article

Barriers to hydro-power resource utilization in Pakistan: A mixed approach

Journal

ENERGY POLICY
Volume 132, Issue -, Pages 723-735

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.030

Keywords

Hydropower development; Barriers; NVIVO; Q-methodology; Discourse analysis; Pakistan

Funding

  1. United States Agency for International Development under the initiative of US-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Energy (USPCAS-E) in Pakistan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The share of hydro power in the energy mix of Pakistan has not exceeded beyond 40% despite abundant hydro-power potential in the country. Owing to the slow pace of hydro-power development under the public sector, various policy frameworks and institutional arrangements have been introduced to develop the resources by involving the private sector. Even those arrangements have not succeeded in directing the attention of private investment towards the hydropower but the thermal sector. This study investigates the reasons behind the slow progress of hydro-power sector in Pakistan. A mixed approach comprising NVIVO analysis and Q methodology has been used to explore the impending reasons. Both, primary and secondary data, in the form of interviews, published reports, papers and other documents related to the hydro-power sector of Pakistan were collected for the analysis purpose. NVIVO analysis of primary and secondary data identified important variables that were further used for Q methodology. Q methodology revealed four important discourses on barriers to the hydropower development in Pakistan. Discourses included less participation of private sector in running the electricity market operations, incoherent planning, financial barriers and institutional barriers. The revelation of these discourses is important for framing policies on the development of indigenous renewable energy resources in Pakistan.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available