Brown-out of policy ideas? A bibliometric review and computational text analysis of research on energy access

Abstract

Introduction:

The target of universal access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services—key for individual, social, and economic well-being—is unlikely to be achieved by 2030 based on the current trend. Public policy will likely need to play a key role in accelerating progress in this regard. Although perspectives from the field of policy studies can support this effort, to what extent they have been employed in the literature on energy access remains unclear.

Methods:

This study analyzed nearly 7,500 publications on energy access through a combination of bibliometric review and computational text analysis of their titles and abstracts to examine whether and how they have engaged with public policy perspectives, specifically, policy process research, policy design studies, and the literature on policy evaluation.

Results:

We discovered 27 themes in the literature on energy access, but public policy was not among them. Subsequently, we identified 23 themes in a new analysis of the 1,751 publications in our original dataset, mentioning “policy” in their title or abstract. However, few of them engaged with public policy, and even those that did comprised a rather small share of the literature. Finally, we extracted phrases pertaining to public policy in this reduced dataset, but found limited mention of terms related to the policy process, policy design, or policy evaluation.

Discussion:

While to some extent this might reflect the multidisciplinary nature of the research on energy access, a manual review of the abstracts of select publications corroborated this finding. Also, it shed light on how the literature has engaged with public policy and helped identify opportunities for broadening and deepening policy relevant research on energy access. We conclude that, despite their relevance to energy access, public policy perspectives have infrequently and unevenly informed existing research on the topic, and call on scholars in both communities to address this gap in the future.

1. Introduction

Access to energy is important for individual, social, and economic well-being. Affordable, clean, and modern energy, while probably not sufficient, is essential for—among other objectives—alleviating poverty, reducing hunger, improving public health, broadening education, and fostering economic development. To cite just one instance, it is estimated that replacement of open fires and outdated stoves with clean cooking technologies could save 800,000 children, who die due to hazardous indoor air pollution, annually (SEforALL, 2023). The significance of energy access has been duly noted by international organizations as well. Illustratively, in 2014/2015, the United Nations (UN) included universal access as part of its Sustainable Development Goal on Energy (SDG 7) (UN DESA, 2023a).

The first target of SDG 7 (i.e., SDG 7.1) is: “By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services” (UN DESA, 2023b). The focus of this target is on both access to electricity as well as access to clean cooking. However, the progress thus far has been inadequate to reach this target, and shows signs of slowing down further. According to UN DESA (2023b), the number of people without access to electricity decreased significantly from 1.2 billion in 2010 to 733 million in 2020. However, based on the current rate of progress, nearly 650 million people will still lack access to electricity by 2030. Further, 2.4 billion people −31 percent of global population—continue to use inefficient and high pollution cooking fuel. Based on the current trend, the increase in clean cooking will barely keep up with population growth and only 72 percent of the world is likely to have access to clean cooking even by 2030 (IEA et al., 2021).

The problem of energy access has a strong regional dimension as it mostly concerns the Global South, especially South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Over 98 percent of the population of Eastern Asia, Southeastern Asia, and Latin America has access to electricity (IEA et al., 2021). While electrification was low even in South Asia at the start of the previous decade, the region has made rapid progress since then. Presently, three of four people without access to electricity live in sub-Saharan Africa and the number of people without electricity access has in fact been increasing recently (IEA et al., 2021). Further, more than half the people without access to clean cooking fuel and technology live in Asia, but low-income countries in Africa have amongst the lowest rate of access to clean cooking in the world (UN DESA, 2023b). The challenge has been worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic; the number of people without access to electricity and to clean cooking is estimated to have actually increased between 2019 and 2021 due to a pause in implementation, shift in government priorities, rise in energy prices, and increase in poverty (IEA, 2021).

1.1. Addressing energy access from a policy perspective

Various interventions are required in different parts of the energy system in order to address the energy access problem. The expansion of energy infrastructure (whether centralized or decentralized), for example, is key for providing energy access in the long-term. For communities situated close to the electricity grid or gas pipeline, extension of the infrastructure is a plausible solution. However, such an approach can be more challenging to implement in a short-term in areas with no or little infrastructure. In this case, decentralized or stand-alone infrastructure or technologies can be necessary. Countries such as Bangladesh, Kenya, and Uganda have—in fact—successfully integrated grid, minigrid, and off-grid electrification to significantly increase electricity access over the previous decade (IEA et al., 2021), but many others have not.

Financing is another key intervention necessary for improving energy access. It is estimated that an annual investment of approximately USD 50 billion is necessary in order to achieve universal electricity access and USD 4 billion to achieve universal access to clean cooking (Climate Policy Initiative, 2019). In contrast, only USD 13 billion was mobilized—approximately 25 percent of the requirement—to increase electricity access and only USD 32 million—less than one percent of the requirement—was raised to provide clean cooking access (Climate Policy Initiative, 2019). Further, India and Bangladesh accounted for over 60 percent of the total tracked financing on energy access (Climate Policy Initiative, 2019). More financing will be especially important for countries in sub-Saharan Africa, which witness low and, in some cases, even declining investment in energy access.

Public policy at different levels of government also can, and—in all likelihood—will need to, play a significant role in accelerating progress toward SDG 7.1. Broadly, the literature on public policy has identified four categories of policy instruments (Hood, 1983), each of which is relevant for the energy access problem. First, governments can collect and/or provide reliable information, for example, in order to shed light on the status of energy access and to increase willingness to adopt clean cooking fuels and technologies (IEA et al., 2022). Second, governments can create regulations and/or standards, for example, that ensure interoperability of off-grid, minigrid, and grid technologies, help phase-out of high polluting fuels in the medium- or long-term, and create a social safety net for marginalized or vulnerable communities in order to increase their purchasing power. Third, governments can use economic incentives, for example, to promote fuel switching through better targeting of fossil fuel subsidies and to stimulate private investment for energy access (Zinecker et al., 2018; IEA, 2021). Finally, governments can mobilize their organizational machinery to build infrastructure, create new partnerships, and provide new services to the public.

1.2. Analyzing research in the policy realm for energy access

The academic field of policy sciences or policy studies has shed light on various dimensions of public policy(-making) which can help advance energy access. Here, we highlight three perspectives that are applicable in this effort.

First, the achievement of universal energy access will likely require the mobilization of policy relevant knowledge in the policy process in order to alter policy priorities, introduce new policy alternatives, foster policy innovation, or enhance policy implementation. The research on policy process addresses questions such as why and how specific issues come on the policy agenda (Kingdon, 1995); why specific alternatives are considered or favored to solve policy issues (Voß and Simons, 2014) and how they are calibrated (Haelg et al., 2020); why and how policies change (Sabatier, 1988; Hall, 1993; Baumgartner et al., 2018); how and when policies spread from one polity to another (Marsh and Sharman, 2009; Graham et al., 2013; Goyal, 2021); and how policies are implemented on the ground (and why they often change in the process) (Pressman and Wildavsky, 1984; Grin and Loeber, 2007). It can, therefore, help in understanding geographic and temporal variation in the processes and substance of public policy regarding energy access.

Second, the policies adopted to increase energy access will need to be cognizant of, if not coordinated or integrated with, policies at different levels of government that address other—potentially even competing—objectives of the energy system, such as energy security or environmental sustainability. The literature on policy design can aid the formulation of effective, forward-looking policies by addressing questions such as what the likely effects of different types of policy instruments and their calibrations in accomplishing policy objectives are (Olejniczak et al., 2020); how the different instruments in the policy “mix” interact with one another; to what extent are the various objectives and instruments in the policy mix consistent, coherent, and congruent with one another (Howlett and Rayner, 2013); whether the policy mixes at different levels of government are synergistic, additive, or counterproductive (Howlett and How, 2015); how the policies use procedural policy instruments to steer the policy process (Howlett, 2000); and whether the policy design is in line with policy capacities of the jurisdiction (Mukherjee et al., 2021).

Third, given the place of energy access on the international agenda, the evaluation of past policies or policies in other countries can facilitate lesson drawing and enable course correction through policy learning. The research on policy failure, policy success, and program evaluation has created useful knowledge in this regard. The key insights of this literature include: (i) a distinction among and appraisal of formal or government-driven, information or society-driven, and hybrid evaluation (Weiss, 1993; Hildén et al., 2014; Schoenefeld and Jordan, 2017); (ii) the need to distinguish among programmatic success, process success, and political success (Bovens et al., 2001; Vedung, 2006; Bovens, 2010; Marsh and McConnell, 2010a,b); (iii) criteria for assessing success (or failure) along each dimension (McConnell, 2010); (iv) the recognition that success along each dimension can vary over time (Goyal, 2021a); and (v) anticipation of policy success based on policy process or policy design characteristics (Bali et al., 2019; Goyal, 2021a).

While existing studies have conducted reviews of the research on energy access, to what extent and how the literature has engaged with public policy—specifically, perspectives on policy process, policy design, and policy evaluation—as a central theme is unclear. This study aims to address this gap through a review and computational text analysis of the bibliographic records of research on energy access.

2. Research methods

In this study, we combine bibliometric review and computational text analysis to examine whether and how scientific research has examined energy access and, within that area, to what extent policy questions have been pre-eminent.

Bibliometrics involves the—usually, quantitative—analysis of bibliographic records of scientific publications. A bibliographic record is an entry in a bibliographic database (such as Scopus or Web of Science) that contains identifying information as well as metadata of scientific publications. The fields in a bibliographic record include information on the authors, year, publication title, source, abstract, authors' keywords, and so on. A bibliometric review can shed light on the state of research on a topic and has previously been used in both energy research and policy studies (Goyal, 2017, 2021b; Goyal and Howlett, 2018; Goyal et al., 2022). We conducted the bibliometric analysis using the bibliometrix package in the R programming language (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017). Bibliometrix is an open-source library with functions for mapping scientific activity and examining the relationships among different publications in a bibliographic dataset. Here, we focused on the following to obtain an overview of the dataset: (i) annual scientific production; (ii) most prolific authors, institutions, and countries; (iii) sources actively publishing in this research area; and (iv) publications with the most citations till date.

We use the following search query to identify publications relevant to energy access: “affordable energy” OR “clean cooking access” OR “electricity access” OR “energy access” OR “rural electrification” OR “SE4All” OR “sustainable energy for all” OR [“universal access” AND (cooking OR electricity OR energy OR fuel OR power)]. The search is conducted on both Scopus and the Web of Science, among the most widely used bibliographic databases, on 8 February 2023. On Scopus, it returned 6,541 publications while on the Web of Science it returned 5,432 publications. We used the Scopus of Science package (version 0.0.4) in Python (version 3.10.10) to combine publications from the two databases, resulting in 7,783 unique publications (4,190 publications were duplicated). After removing publications with no abstract, our complete dataset contains 7,498 publications. For analysis of policy-related research on energy access, we use a subset of 1,751 publications (hereafter, the policy subset) whose title or abstract mention the term “policy” (including its plural, “policies”) in their title or abstract.

Subsequently, we conducted topic modeling—on publication titles and abstracts—to identify the key themes in the general literature (complete dataset) as well as the policy-related literature (policy subset). Fewer than 300 publications in the complete dataset were not in English, and even these contained a title and abstract in English. Topic modeling is a computational text analysis technique for “discovering” latent themes in a document collection based on mathematical/statistical analysis (Blei et al., 2003). While several topic modeling algorithms have been proposed over the past decade (Rosen-Zvi et al., 2004; Blei and Lafferty, 2007; Wang et al., 2007; Blei, 2012; Roberts et al., 2014), we use BERTopic for this study. BERTopic creates coherent topic representations using a novel approach based on state-of-the-art techniques in machine learning and natural language processing (Grootendorst, 2022). This involves document embedding using a pre-trained transformer model, dimensionality reduction, clustering, and identification of key terms within each cluster. The number of themes in the dataset is initially determined by the algorithm; we go through these manually and combine themes with over 80–85 percent similarity in order to obtain the final list of themes for our dataset. We repeated the bibliometric review and the topic modeling analysis for the policy subset to compare and contrast the findings in the general literature on energy access with the policy-related literature.

Subsequently, we examined the number of occurrences of key phrases pertaining to “policy” in order to delve deeper into the mention of public policy within this dataset. This analysis of term occurrence used the KeyphraseVectorizer package in Python. KeyphraseVectorizer extracts key phrases matching specific parts of speech (in our case a noun phrase) in a document collection and counts their occurrences per document in the collection (Schopf et al., 2022). The phrases relevant to policy process, policy design, or policy evaluation were then identified and classified based on our knowledge of public policy. It is, of course, plausible that in a multidisciplinary research field—such as that of energy access—authors do not use the terminology of policy sciences or policy studies even though they engage with the notions of policy process, policy design, or policy evaluation (especially in the abstract). Therefore, we also reviewed abstracts of 10 percent of the policy subset, selected randomly, to check whether our findings regarding the volume of research on policy processes, policy design, and policy evaluation were robust. In addition, a close reading of abstracts of this randomly selected subset led to the inclusion of generic phrases that might also help identify work pertaining to the policy process (e.g., “coalition” or “policy direction”), policy design (e.g., “policy feature” or “policy scenario”) or policy evaluation (e.g., “effective policy” or “policy lessons”). The abstracts of the publications selected through this process were reviewed manually to check to what extent and how the literature has delved into the policy process, policy design, or policy evaluation.

Our research design suffers from at least two limitations. First, while a manual review of select abstracts allows us to corroborate the centrality of policy process, policy design, or policy evaluation to the publication, it does not capture several other types of engagement with policy studies. These include, for example, a review of the research in policy sciences to inform the research question, the use of methods of policy analysis to design the study, and a discussion of policy relevant literature to inform recommendations for public policy and future research. Second, by limiting our search to Scopus and the Web of Science, we miss out on relevant publications not indexed by these. This is likely to be especially true for research on energy access that may have been published in more localized sources, for example, for higher policy impact.

3. Results

3.1. Overview of the datasets

As mentioned earlier, our complete dataset consists of nearly 7,500 bibliographic records. The earliest publications in this field are Post (1926), Keepper (1938), and Landis (1938), all focusing on rural electrification in the United States. However, the number of publications before 1970 was fewer than 10 and before 1980 was fewer than 50 (Figure 1). Energy access only started receiving more attention in the 1980s with over 100 publications in that decade alone. The field has grown exponentially since then, witnessing over 250 publications in the 1990s, nearly 700 publications in the 2000s, and over 3,500 publications in 2010s. This decade has seen even more activity; for example, in 2022 over 750 publications were published on the topic. Meanwhile, policy-related research has grown significantly since around 2011, with over 100 publications in 2016 and more than 200 since 2021. The exponential growth in the volume of scientific research on energy access is possibly an indication of the increase in attention to the problem as well as the success of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the SDGs in raising its profile.

Figure 1

Research on energy access has involved over 15,000 authors, with an average of 3.4 co-authors per publication. About 600 authors have written five or more publications in this field while about 150 authors have 10 or more publications. A co-authorship network of the 100 most prolific scholars in this field is shown in Figure 2. J. Urpelainen is the most prolific author in this field with 67 publications on energy access (Table 1). Other authors who have published frequently in this field include A. Kumar (n: 45), D. Palit (n: 43), S. Pachauri (n: 41), and E. Colombo (n: 38). J. Urpelainen (n: 28), D. Palit (n: 27), and S. Pachauri (n: 25) appear in the list of the most prolific authors in the policy subset as well, along with M. Bazilian (n: 17) and B. Sovacool (n: 17).

Figure 2

Based on the institutional affiliation of the corresponding author, the countries with the most publications in the complete dataset are: the United States (n: 587), India (n: 416), the United Kingdom (n: 383), China (n: 382), Germany (n: 181), South Africa (n: 168), Spain (n: 141), Italy (n: 128), Sweden (n: 104), and Australia (n: 103). This suggests that the Global South has played a more prominent role in this research area than in areas such as the energy transition (Goyal et al., 2022). A comparison with the policy subset reveals that institutions in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany have a relatively high ratio of publications in the policy subset (38 percent, 34 percent, and 30 percent, respectively), while institutions in Spain and China have a relatively low ratio (15 percent and 19 percent, respectively).

A close look at institutional activity—based on the number of authorships—shows that Politecnico Di Milano (n: 157), KTH Royal Institute of Technology (n: 125), the University of California (n: 121), the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (n: 109), North China Electric Power University (n: 106), and the University of Cape Town (n: 103) have all published over 100 documents in this field (Table 2). Amongst the 15 most prolific institutions in this field, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, University College London, the University of Cambridge, and Columbia University have a relatively high ratio of policy relevant publications (76 percent, 47 percent, 44 percent, and 41 percent, respectively).

While publications on energy access thus far have appeared in over 2,500 sources, there is a relatively low average of approximately three publications per source. Indeed, a majority of these sources have only one publication in this research area and 100 sources have 10 or more documents published. The sources with the most publications include: Energy Policy (n: 302), Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (n: 298), Energy for Sustainable Development (n: 224), Renewable Energy (n: 222), Energies (n: 177), Energy Research and Social Science (n: 172), Energy (158), Applied Energy (n: 89), Sustainability (Switzerland) (n: 77), and the Journal of Clean Production and Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments (n: 63 each). The prominent presence of these sources even in the policy subset—with only a slightly different ranking in some cases—indicates that the importance of public policy for addressing energy access is acknowledged by the key avenues and communities in this field. It is, however, striking to note the absence of journals focusing on public policy broadly in this literature. Among prominent journals in public policy, only Global Policy (n: 3), the Review of Policy Research (n: 3), the Journal of Asian Public Policy (n: 2), the Journal of Public Policy (n: 1), and Policy and Society (n: 1) have a presence in the complete dataset.

3.2. Themes in the research on energy access

A list of the globally most cited publications within this dataset provides a preview of the themes that have been discussed in this research area (Table 3). Here, we observe significant emphasis on different technological alternatives in the context of energy access. Owusu and Asumadu-Sarkodie (2016), for example, highlight energy access as an opportunity associated with renewable energy. Similarly, other studies emphasize the potential of small hydropower (Paish, 2002), sustainable hydrogen production (Navarro Yerga et al., 2009), waste sludge (Tyagi et al., 2013), bioenergy (Creutzig et al., 2015), and DC microgrid technology (Kumar et al., 2017) in providing affordable and clean energy for all. Meanwhile, Zarfl et al. (2015) caution that significant increase in hydropower capacity alone will be insufficient for closing the electricity gap. In contrast, Shiu and Lam (Shiu et al., 2004) show that electricity consumption has a positive effect on economic growth and call for accelerating rural electrification in China. Two studies mention energy access in the context of the ongoing energy transition: Newell and Mulvaney (2013) contend that energy access is a key aspect of a just transition to a low carbon economy while Pachauri and Jiang (2008) note a significant difference in the share of households with electricity access between China and India.

While total citation count is one measure of the broad impact of a publication, it does not necessarily indicate the impact of the publication within the research area of energy access. The local citation count of a publication (i.e., the number of documents within this dataset that cite the publication) can shed some light here (Table 4). In general, we observe three broad strands of research that have high local citation count. The first includes studies that delve into the economic or social impact of energy access, for example, in the form of a gain in labor productivity (Kirubi et al., 2009), increase in female employment (Dinkelman, 2011), and higher literacy rate (Kanagawa and Nakata, 2008). The second, once again, focuses on alternatives—often based on renewable energy—for increasing energy access, spanning off-grid, micro- or mini-grid, and grid extension (Deichmann et al., 2011; Palit and Chaurey, 2011; Szab et al., 2011; Alstone et al., 2015; Mandelli et al., 2016). The third includes studies with a more explicit message for public policy: Cook (2011) highlights the need to focus on livelihoods rather than on cost recovery in order to increase rural electrification while Bhattacharyya (2006) stresses the importance of looking beyond rural electrification (in India) due to the low share of electricity in the rural energy mix.

To obtain a more systematic account of the literature, we identify 27 key themes in the research on energy access based on a topic modeling analysis (Table 5). The theme on “rural electrification” focuses on issues such as off-grid vs. grid extension, the role of local communities and cooperatives, and providing electricity to remote areas (Santiago and Roxas, 2012; Yosiyana and Simarangkir, 2015). Some themes also pertain to other policy objectives related to energy access. For example, the theme on “energy security” delves into topics around geopolitics, price dynamics, and providing energy in a changing climate (Kemfert, 2010; Panpuek and Teetong, 2016). Similarly, the theme on “energy poverty” focuses on issues surrounding the measurement of energy poverty, the relationship between poverty and energy access, and energy poverty and climate vulnerability (Bartiaux et al., 2018; Awan et al., 2022; Yadava and Sinha, 2022). Closely related to this, the theme on “energy justice” situates energy access in different settings such as low carbon development, post capitalism and post liberalism, and in the aftermath of crises or disasters (Luque-Ayala, 2018; Lacey-Barnacle et al., 2020; Hesselman et al., 2021). In a different vein, the criticality of energy access has also been discussed in the case of a “wireless network” (Xing et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2020; An and Park, 2022).

As anticipated previously, various themes in the literature focus on technology alternatives for energy production. The theme on “solar energy”, for example, discusses the technical and economic potential of solar energy, the different solar energy technologies, and the impact they can create on society (Diniz et al., 2006; Al-Shetwi et al., 2016; Kadri and Hadj Abdallah, 2016). Closely related to this, the theme on “solar home system” sheds light on aspects such as the financing, adoption, and evaluation of solar energy for household energy services (Ondraczek, 2011; Pode, 2013; Hellqvist and Heubaum, 2023). Similarly, the theme on “hydropower” delves into whether and how small-, micro-, and pico- hydropower can play a role in electrification (Koirala et al., 2017; Bhandari et al., 2018; Ariyabandu, 2020). Meanwhile, the theme on “bioenergy” examines the potential of different fuel sources and technologies in supplying energy (Okure et al., 2018; Andriatoavina et al., 2021; Kamalimeera and Kirubakaran, 2021). In addition, the literature has studied the production of hydrogen and other materials for energy in the theme on “energy materials” (Navarro et al., 2009; Nawaz et al., 2021) as well as the manufacturing, performance, and life cycle assessment of small “wind energy” (Masud, 1998; Mukulo et al., 2014; Rama Prabha et al., 2017).

Several themes are centered around the role of standalone alternatives for improving energy access. The most prevalent theme, that of “hybrid energy”, focuses largely on the feasibility and performance of systems that combine renewable energy, fossil fuel-based energy, and/or storage (Nigussie et al., 2017; Rehman et al., 2020; Thirunavukkarasu and Sawle, 2021). The theme on “minigrid”, for example, discusses the role of microgrids and minigrids in providing electricity in remote, low-density areas in an adjustable and expandable manner (Moner-Girona et al., 2018; Adefarati and Bansal, 2019; Mudaheranwa et al., 2023). With a more specific focus on system design, the theme on “system optimization” explores the balance among parameters such as the net present cost, the cost of electricity, the share of renewable energy, and the reliability of supply within a (hybrid) microgrid or minigrid system, and the role of an energy management strategy therein (Das et al., 2021; Mustafa Kamal et al., 2022; Sharma et al., 2023). Rather than prioritizing technical optimization, the theme on “multicriteria analysis” uses techniques such as analytic hierarchical process, the best worst method, and multi-objective optimization to also consider environmental and social objectives in microgrid design (Kumar et al., 2019; Juanpera et al., 2020; Elkadeem et al., 2021). In contrast, the theme on “DC microgrid” is primarily concerned with the technological design and feasibility of a direct current microgrid or nanogrid system in providing sustainable energy (Nasir et al., 2019; Kothari et al., 2022; Kumar and Bhat, 2022). Relatedly, the theme on “energy storage” studies different battery technologies in hybrid, microgrid, or more general stationary energy systems (Dhundhara et al., 2018; Jing et al., 2019; Kebede et al., 2021).

While much of the research focuses on energy production alternatives, some themes also address distribution and end-use. The theme on “grid stability” discusses topics linked to the integration of distributed energy and renewable sources with the electricity grid, such as intermittency, scheduling, and dispatch (Dou et al., 2014; Li et al., 2022; Wang, 2022). Meanwhile, the theme on “smart grid” highlights the role of a dynamic, interactive grid for building an electricity network of the future and tapping into the potential of demand response, real-time monitoring, and short-term forecasting through big data and machine learning (Nizar et al., 2008; El-Hawary, 2014; Zhang et al., 2017). Relatedly, the theme on “electricity distribution” examines technological challenges as well as solutions—such as the single-wire earth return system—in the distribution network for reducing the cost of electricity (van Niekerk and Hofsajer, 2000; Hosseinzadeh et al., 2011). In a different vein, the theme on “household energy” delves into barriers to clean energy adoption at the household level, with an emphasis on cooking. Studies within this theme emphasize alternatives such as income generation—for example, through off-farm employment—provision of social security, and targeted subsidization for influencing household behavior (He et al., 2016; Puzzolo et al., 2016; Sharma and Dash, 2022).

Some themes pertain to a more macro-level discussion on energy access. For example, the theme on “financing” underlines the need to mobilize financing, including climate financing and development financing—especially in Sub-Saharan Africa—in order to promote sustainable energy for all (Chirambo, 2018; Michaelowa et al., 2021). A key issue here is the strengthening of institutions in order to tap into diverse sources of investment (Sheba and Bello, 2020). The theme on “energy planning”, meanwhile, delves into topics such as the use of satellite data to measure electrification, the estimation of electricity demand, and geospatial planning of transmission and supply infrastructure (Mentis et al., 2015, 2016; Dominguez et al., 2018). With a regional focus, the theme on “Energy Union” focuses on topics such as the role of renewable energy in providing affordable energy; EU level policies on energy, including the fuel quality directive and the renewable energy directive; and the requirements and implications of a resilient Energy Union (Zhang et al., 2017; Mexhuani et al., 2022).

The remaining themes engage with energy access in the wider context of the economy, environment, and society. The theme on “economy and environment” examines the influence of energy access on characteristics such as economic growth, ecological footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions (Vidyarthi, 2015; Balsalobre-Lorente et al., 2021; Arnaut and Dada, 2022). The theme on “energy and gender”, meanwhile, studies the linkages among climate change, energy access, and renewable energy development on the one hand and entrepreneurship, gender (in)equality, and social inclusion on the other hand (Mohideen, 2012, 2021; Pueyo et al., 2020). Finally, the theme on energy impact analyzes the relationship between electrification and various socio-economic indicators, such as those pertaining to agriculture, child nutrition, household labor supply, and reproductive behavior (Saha, 1994; Lahiri, 2005; Rolland et al., 2013). Nearly 2700 documents are classified as miscellaneous as they do not distinctly match any of these themes.

3.3. Themes in the policy-related research on energy access

A topic modeling analysis of this subset results in 23 themes in the policy relevant literature on energy access (Table 6).

An examination of these themes shows that many of them correspond to the themes in the complete dataset. Even in the policy relevant literature, several themes delve into technological alternatives for generating energy, including “solar energy”, “bioenergy”, and “hydropower.” Similarly, the prospect of “hybrid energy” and “minigrid” is also advanced in this research area. Further, the demand or end-use perspective on energy has been has been discussed in the theme on “household energy.” In terms of policy objectives, the focus on “energy security” is retained in this subset. Meanwhile, the themes on “financing”, “energy planning”, and “Energy Union” capture energy access at a more macro level. In addition, two of the themes study the relationship of energy to the economy, the environment, and the society: “economy and environment” and “energy and gender.”

A comparison of the themes prominent in the complete dataset and those prominent in the policy subset is shown in Table 7. As one might expect, the more technologically oriented themes in the complete dataset are not prominent in the policy relevant literature. These span energy generation (“wind energy” and “energy materials”), system configuration (“DC microgrid”, “system optimization”, “multicriteria analysis”, and “energy storage”), energy distribution (“grid stability”, “smart grid”, “electricity distribution”) and application area (“wireless network”).

On the other hand, several themes pertaining to policy objectives are more prominent in this subset. The theme on energy poverty, for example, is captured partially by the theme on “energy behavior” and partially by the theme on “measuring access.” While the theme on “energy behavior” examines the energy preferences of households for cooking, lighting, and other energy services (Klasen et al., 2005; Louw et al., 2008; Olang et al., 2018), the theme on “measuring access” establishes the status of energy access among households, communities, or public facilities such as primary health centers (Pelz and Urpelainen, 2020; Mani et al., 2021; Pelz et al., 2021). Similarly, the objective of rural electrification is discussed in the themes on “community electrification” and “governing electrification”; while the former focuses more on the role of civil society organizations and remote communities in improving energy access (Torero, 2016), especially in the case of last mile connectivity in Latin America, the latter focuses more on the role of the government in electrifying villages, especially in the context of Asia (Zomers and Gaunt, 2010; Derks and Romijn, 2019; Pandyaswargo et al., 2022). Even energy justice is covered by two themes in this subset, with one more inclined toward geographies in the Global North and concerns of affordability (Bartiaux et al., 2018; Evensen et al., 2018; Ozarisoy and Altan, 2021) and the other toward geographies in the Global South and issues of inequity and “politics of access” (Castán Broto et al., 2018; Cotton et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2022).

The policy relevant literature also delves into themes that are less prominent in the complete dataset. The theme on “energy transition”, for example, discusses the challenge of transitioning away from fossil fuels as much as the opportunity of deploying renewable energy (Ghose, 2009). In addition, it emphasizes the need for effective governance in promoting a sustainable energy transition (Karim et al., 2019). Closely related to the theme on “energy transition”, the theme on “energy and sustainability” highlights the role of the (renewable) energy system in promoting sustainable development—mainly in the context of Africa—and the need for effective governance therein (Kenfack et al., 2014; Sheba and Bello, 2020; Yetano Roche et al., 2020). The theme on “energy for agriculture”, meanwhile, examines issues such as the role of energy access in facilitating access to groundwater for irrigation, the influence of different electricity pricing mechanisms on groundwater conservation, and the impact of tubewell irrigation on crop production (Bhandari, 2001; Evans et al., 2012; Sidhu et al., 2020). The lack of access to amenities (including electricity) in urban slums—often despite their proximity to the electricity grid—are highlighted in the theme on “slum electrification” (van Leeuwen et al., 2017; Yaguma et al., 2022). Finally, the theme on “energy governance” addresses issues such as the lack of local level capacity for the devolution of energy governance, the role of energy communities in energy governance, and the influence of politics on electricity access reform in low- and middle-income countries (Gore et al., 2019; Gebreslassie et al., 2022; Volkert and Klagge, 2022).

The themes in this subset can be broadly classified as mainstream, emerging, marginal, and declining in the context of energy access based on their relative importance over time (Figure 3). Themes with a high number of publications as well as a large share of publications in the past 5 years, for example, can be considered as mainstream and growing in importance (i.e., top right quadrant of Figure 3). These include the themes on “hybrid energy”, “household energy”, “energy behavior”, and “solar energy.” Further, themes such as “bioenergy”, electrification, “energy transition”, “Energy Union”, and “minigrid” appear to be mainstream, but steady. Meanwhile, the themes with fewer publications but a high share of publications in the recent past are more likely to be emerging: “economy and environment”, “energy and gender”, “energy justice”, “financing”, “energy and sustainability” and—to some extent–“slum electrification”, “energy planning”, “measuring access”, “energy governance”, and the “politics of access.” In contrast, the themes on “energy security”, “hydropower”, and “energy for agriculture” appear to be declining in their relative importance in the recent past.

Figure 3

While the themes in this subset are more policy relevant, whether even this strand of the literature has paid sufficient attention to public policy remains unclear. First, as noted above, several themes in this subset are common to the broader literature on energy access. On the one hand, this indicates that different themes in the broader literature have been addressed from a policy perspective; however, on the other hand, it raises the question whether their treatment of public policy has been cursory rather than in-depth. Second, although various themes address policy objectives, none of the themes are centered around public policy, with the possible exception of “energy governance” and “politics of access” to some extent. This is also reflected in the terms associated with the themes, which are predominantly domain-specific and terms such as governance, institution, law, policy making, politics, and program are prominent in only five of the 23 themes. Third, the themes that, prima facie, signal the most engagement with public policy—such as “energy governance” and “politics of access”—constitute a rather small share (less than five percent) of the policy relevant literature on energy access, as seen in Figure 3.

In the next section, we examine the use of terms related to public policy in further detail to understand whether and how the policy relevant literature has engaged with public policy.

4. Analysis: where is the policy?

The term policy (including its plural, policies) has been mentioned more than 2,800 times in the titles or abstracts of the policy relevant literature on energy access. However, as noted above, the mentions of phrases involving policy are relatively few. Apart from the phrase “energy policy” (n: 413), only the phrase “policy maker(s)” (n: 318) has over 100 occurrences in this dataset. Even phrases such as “policy implication(s)” (n: 75) or “policy recommendation(s)” (n: 51) are mentioned infrequently. In addition, “policy analysis” occurs on only 14 occasions in this dataset. We analyze the occurrence of phrases related to the policy process, policy design, and policy evaluation in more detail (Table 8). In total, 429 of the 1,751 policy-related studies mention any of these phrases, indicating that less than 6 percent of the overall literature and less than 25 percent of the policy-related literature has delved into policy processes, policy designs, or policy evaluation concerning energy access.

We observe that concepts related to the policy process have been mentioned in approximately 150 publications in the policy-related literature on energy access. These can approximately be classified based on the likely stage of the policy process in which they could be the most relevant. The phrases pertaining to agenda setting (“policy agenda(s)”, “policy attention”, “policy discourse”, and “policy issues”) have been mentioned approximately 30 times in this dataset. Meanwhile, phrases relevant to policy formulation (“policy development”, “policy discussion”, “policy formulation”, and “policy planning”) occur approximately 35 times. The phrases related to decision-making (“policy change(s)”, “policy decision(s)”, “policy initiatives”, and “policy reform”), meanwhile, are mentioned about 50 times in this literature. Finally, the phrase “policy implementation” occurs only 14 times in this subset.

A closer look at publications that mention some of these phrases indicates that they are largely used in a descriptive or normative sense. For example, the term policy agenda is most commonly used to state that energy poverty is not on, or is only beginning to appear on, the policy agenda (Sareen et al., 2020; Castaño-Rosa and Okushima, 2021), or to propose a policy agenda for the issue (Amin et al., 2022; Thomson et al., 2022). An analysis of variation in energy access on the policy agenda—illustratively, over time or across geographies—is rarely done. Similarly, policy change is typically used in a descriptive manner in existing research (Kelkar and Nathan, 2021; Patel et al., 2021). Studies that examine the policy process have created insights on various dynamics in this area, such as the consensus and conflict among different discourses or narratives—including energy access or energy for all—in the energy transition (Mohan and Topp, 2018; Shukla and Swarnakar, 2022; Wibisono et al., 2023); the importance of domestic and international politics in influencing policy activity on energy access (Byrne et al., 2018; Gore et al., 2019; Dye, 2021; Newell and Daley, 2022); the role of policy entrepreneurship in placing the issue on the agenda (Goyal et al., 2020); the challenges that access policies face during implementation, including complexities, corruption, discrimination, and resource logistics (Geall and Shen, 2018; Zaman and Brudermann, 2018; Aklin et al., 2021); and the potential of social movements in changing policy (Delina, 2022).

Terms that might be relevant for policy design are more frequent, and have received attention in about 250 publications on energy access. Broadly, these can in turn be viewed as terms indicating policy means, policy ends, or combinations of means and ends. The various phrases that could describe policy means (such as “policy instrument”, “policy intervention”, “policy measure”, and “policy option”) have been mentioned about 110 times in this dataset. Conservatively, the phrases that could describe policy ends (“policy focus”, “policy goal”, “policy objective”, and “policy priority”) have about 60 occurrences in this dataset. Meanwhile, phrases that could describe a combination of means and ends (“policy design”, “policy framework”, “policy mix”, “policy scenario”, and “policy strategy”) collectively occur about 80 times in this dataset.

As in the case of the policy process, mention of policy design is often in a descriptive context (Trotter et al., 2017; Ndiritu and Engola, 2020). Yet, several (types of) studies in the policy-related literature have clear relevance for policy design. First, some studies assess economic, social, or technological viability of alternatives and shed light on feasible policy designs for promoting energy access (Thapar, 2022). Second, studies also model energy systems and create knowledge on possible policy pathways for achieving medium- or long-term objectives, typically, in a dynamic environment (Gebremeskel et al., 2023). Third, other studies examine the synergies and trade-offs among different policy objectives, such as energy access, climate change mitigation, and gender (Antwi, 2022).

Research incorporating a policy studies perspective shows how the above work can be enriched to make it more policy relevant. For example, Minogue (2013) and Chindarkar (2017) emphasize the need to address not only the technological but also the political and the social context through policy design and also ensure administrative, financial, and technical capacity for implementation of the design. Similarly, Kern et al. (2017) and Malhotra (2022) underscore the importance of considering the interaction among various objectives and instruments in a policy “mix” for effective policy design, especially as various energy policies often address potentially competing policy objectives (see also Trotter and Brophy, 2022). Finally, Barnett et al. (2020) exhibit the necessity of accounting for path dependence and the existing policy landscape for policy designing by showing that a policy mix can, paradoxically, weaken due to internal contradictions created by layering or patching policy through the addition of new policy instruments over time.

The number of publications that matched the phrases for policy evaluation was about 50. The phrase “policy evaluation” (or even associated phrases such as “policy failure”, “policy success”, “program evaluation”, “program failure”, or “program success”) have been mentioned on less than five occasions in the policy relevant literature on energy access. The terms closest to evaluation in this subset are “successful implementation” (n: 14), “effective policy” (n: 13), “policy lesson(s)” (n: 7). However, successful implementation or effective policy have been generally used to refer to technical implementation (Kirchhoff et al., 2016) or to make a case for a specific policy recommendation (Landi et al., 2013; Khan et al., 2022) rather than to an empirical evaluation of policy.

Research that has undertaken some form of policy evaluation has shed light on different dimensions of policy-making for energy access. These include the role of public policy in reducing multidimensional energy poverty in Ghana (Crentsil et al., 2019), the influence of deregulation on the electricity system in low- and middle-income countries (Mutale and Mensah-Bonsu, 2009), and the positive effect of renewable energy policy in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) on energy access, primary energy supply, and energy intensity (Moustapha, 2022). In one example of the potential of lesson drawing in this area, Soyemi et al. (2021) assess the implementation of energy access policies in several countries to provide policy recommendations for Nigeria. Meanwhile, some studies have highlighted the several challenge(s) of providing universal energy access: the potential trade-offs among different policy objectives associated with energy access (Kansakar et al., 2009), the need for technical expertise in policy designing and policy implementation (Ndiritu and Engola, 2020), the necessity of close collaboration between the private sector and the public sector (Landi et al., 2013), the limitations of economic competition in “small” electricity systems (Nepal et al., 2018), and the continued need for subsidization as well as the “competition” between off-grid and on-grid energy for furthering access (Hellqvist and Heubaum, 2023).

A review of the abstracts of 176 randomly selected publications—i.e., 10 percent of the policy-related literature—corroborated the findings of the computational text analysis. We found that approximately 25 percent of this subset engaged with the policy process, policy design, or policy evaluation. Only three publications in this subset focused on some aspect of the policy processes, and none of them engaged with the literature on policy studies explicitly. Further, 34 publications paid attention to policy design in their problematization, analysis, or recommendations. Finally, 10 publications evaluated policy, program, or process in some form.

5. Discussion

To ensure universal access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services by 2030 is a key target (SDG 7.1) for the sustainable development goal on energy (SDG 7). Despite the significant progress on increasing access to clean cooking and electricity over the past decade, the COVID-19 pandemic—among other reasons—has caused a slowdown and even backsliding in this effort. At the current pace, SDG 7.1 will not be achieved for either clean cooking (likely attainment: approximately 70 percent of the global population) or electricity (likely attainment: approximately 90 percent of the global population). As public policy can help accelerate the progress toward universal energy access, this study examined whether and how perspectives from policy sciences or policy studies—specifically, policy process research, policy design studies, and the literature on policy evaluation—have been used in nearly 7,500 publications on energy access indexed either by Scopus or the Web of Science.

Using topic modeling, we identified 27 themes in the literature on energy access. While some of these focused on policy objectives—such as “rural electrification”, “energy security”, “energy poverty”, and “energy justice”—many focused on technological alternatives for increasing access—such as “solar energy”, “solar home system”, “hydropower”, “bioenergy”, “wind energy”, and “energy materials”—or configuration of the energy system, such as “hybrid energy”, “minigrid”, “DC microgrid”, “multicriteria analysis”, “system optimization”, and “energy storage.” In addition, some themes discussed energy distribution or end-use (“grid stability”, “electricity distribution”, “smart grid”, “household energy”) while others emphasized more macro-level themes (“financing”, “energy planning”, “Energy Union”) or the relationship of energy to the economy, environment, and society (“energy impact”, “economy and environment”, “energy and gender”). This analysis revealed public policy was not a key theme in the literature on energy access.

Subsequently, we examined the themes in the more policy-related literature on energy access (i.e., publications mentioning policy in their title or abstract) to see whether the situation in this literature was different. The themes discovered in this analysis were quite similar to those in the broader literature on energy access. However, some of the more technologically oriented themes spanning energy generation (“wind energy” and “energy materials”), system configuration (“DC microgrid”, “system optimization”, “multicriteria analysis”, and “energy storage”), energy distribution (“grid stability”, “smart grid”, “electricity distribution”) and application area (“wireless network”) were not prominent here. Instead, themes pertaining to policy objectives stood out more clearly, with “energy behavior” and “measuring access” addressing energy poverty, “community electrification” and “governing electrification” speaking to rural electrification, and “energy justice” and “politics of access” engaging with energy justice in different geographies. In addition, themes surrounding “energy for agriculture”, “slum electrification”, “energy transition”, “energy and sustainability”, and “energy governance” were also discovered. Yet, with the possible exception of “energy governance” and “politics of access”—which were a small part of the literature—the themes in this literature also showed limited engagement with public policy.

We analyzed the occurrence of terms related to policy process, policy design, and policy evaluation in the policy-related literature on energy access. We found hardly any mentions of phrases pertaining to policy, with even phrases such as “policy implication(s)”, “policy recommendation(s)”, and “policy analysis” receiving much fewer than 100 mentions in our dataset. Further, phrases pertaining to the policy process (such as “policy agenda”, “policy change”, “policy implementation”), policy design (such as “policy design”, “policy mix”, “policy objective”, “policy instrument”), or policy evaluation (such as “policy evaluation”, “policy failure”, “policy success”) were hardly mentioned or mentioned in a cursory or descriptive manner. Sophisticated research based on the policy sciences or policy studies was uncommon despite its relevance for energy access.

It is plausible that a larger volume of the literature has, in fact, engaged with topics concerning the policy process, policy design, and policy evaluation, but used generic phrasing and terminology for a multidisciplinary audience. Although we cannot rule this possibility out completely, our manual review of randomly selected abstracts of 10 percent of policy-related literature too indicated that only 25 percent of the studied engaged with the policy process, policy design, or policy evaluation in some form. Most of these, too, focused on policy design, few on policy evaluation, and almost none on the policy process. Further, even among these, hardly any engaged explicitly with the policy studies literature. This could inhibit knowledge cumulation or energy access and instead create fragmentation among different bodies of research.

A manual review of publications mentioning terms relevant to the policy process, policy design, or policy evaluation revealed uneven treatment of these perspectives. While several studies had clear relevance to policy design, this strand of research on energy access could benefit further from insights from policy studies such as (i) the importance of accounting for the political and social context as well as policy capacity in policy design(ing); (ii) the potential interaction among different policy objectives and policy instruments that could be synergistic or conflicting; and (iii) the need to account for path dependence and the existing policy landscape in policy analysis. On the other hand, policy evaluation has received much less attention in the field of energy access. Here, there is scope for much more breadth as well as depth, shedding light on policy failures and successes around the world, incorporating process and political assessment of public policy in evaluation, and studying when and how policies help achievement of universal access to energy. Finally, the policy process has received the least attention in this literature even though policy design is affected significantly by policy-making dynamics. Research examining why some governments adopt policies concerning energy access, whether and how vested interests influence policy design, and how energy access policies are implemented can create useful knowledge for explaining and altering the status quo.

The reasons for the observed structure of knowledge in this research area could be several. First, publications on technological and economic assessment seem to dominate research on energy access and other social science perspectives may have received less attention within this scholarly community. Second, the policy sciences or policy studies community has likely focused primarily on the Global North (especially North America) and concerns of the Global South (such as energy access) have not found traction among scholars in this field. Third, there might be limited opportunities for scholarly exchange between the two communities of researchers. Fourth, public policy education—although growing rapidly—is still not mainstream in the Global South with most degree programs, departments, and schools being less than two decades old (El-Taliawi et al., 2021). Fifth, such research requires access to fine-grained socioeconomic indicators (including metrics for energy access), policy documents, and people involved in the policy process, all of which might pose a high barrier.

An examination of the dataset—and, especially, the publications that have engaged with the policy process, policy design, and policy evaluation—reveals how these factors might be at play. First, many of the studies that engage with the policy process, for example, are published in just one source: Energy Research and Social Science. At the same time, journals focusing on public policy have published little on the topic of energy access, possibly resulting in a dearth of avenues for this kind of research. Second, studies that engage with the policy design literature appear to have been written by scholars who have co-authored with researchers in the policy studies community, indicating that more opportunities for an exchange of perspectives is likely to be fruitful. Third, several studies on policy evaluation, for example, are based on countries where English is an official or semi-official language, suggesting that the ability to access or interpret data might indeed pose a challenge to diversify the policy-relevant research on energy access. Future research could investigate whether these findings are specific to the literature on energy access and whether the findings differ in the case of research on energy justice or energy poverty, for example. If so, these research areas could serve as a bridge between the literature on energy access and the research on public policy.

To conclude, future research activity on public policy in and for energy access is much needed if the backsliding on SDG 7.1 is to be reversed and progress toward the achievement of the SDGs is to be made. This study proposes different perspectives through which this can be done and demonstrates how the few studies that have done so have created useful scholarly knowledge for addressing the energy access challenge.

References

• 1

  AdefaratiT.BansalR. C. (2019). Reliability, economic and environmental analysis of a microgrid system in the presence of renewable energy resources. Appl. Energy.236, 1089–1114. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.12.050

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AklinM.ChengC-.YUrpelainenJ. (2021). Inequality in policy implementation: caste and electrification in rural India. J. Public Policy41, 331–359. 10.1017/S0143814X20000045

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Al-ShetwiA. Q.SujodM. Z.Al TarabshehA.AltawilI. A. (2016). Design and economic evaluation of electrification of small villages in rural area in Yemen using stand-alone PV system. Int. J. Renew. Energy Res.6, 289–298. 10.20508/ijrer.v6i1.3212.g6785

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AlstoneP.GershensonD.KammenD. M. (2015). Decentralized energy systems for clean electricity access. Nat. Clim. Chang.5, 305–314. 10.1038/nclimate2512

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AminN.ShabbirM. S.SongH.AbbassK. (2022). Renewable energy consumption and its impact on environmental quality: a pathway for achieving sustainable development goals in ASEAN countries. Energy Environ.10.1177/0958305X221134113

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  AnH.ParkH. (2022). Energy-balancing resource allocation for wireless cooperative IoT networks with SWIPT. IEEE Int. Things J.9, 12258–12271. 10.1109/JIOT.2021.3135282

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  AndriatoavinaD. A. S.FakraD. A. H.RazafindralamboN. A. M. N.PraeneJ. P.AndriamampianinaJ. M. M. (2021). Potential of fueling spark-ignition engines with syngas or syngas blends for power generation in rural electrification: a short review and SWOT. analysis. Sustain. Energy Technol. Asses. 47, 101510. 10.1016/j.seta.2021.101510

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  AntwiS. H. (2022). The trade-off between gender, energy and climate change in Africa: the case of Niger Republic. GeoJournal87, 183–195. 10.1007/s10708-020-10246-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  AriaM.CuccurulloC. (2017). bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr.11, 959–975. 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  AriyabanduR. D. S. (2020). “The village beneficiary as a decision maker,” in Renewable Energy-Small Hydro, eds VarmaC. V. J.RaoA. R. G. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), 361–370.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  ArnautM.DadaJ. T. (2022). Exploring the nexus between economic complexity, energy consumption and ecological footprint: new insights from the United Arab Emirates. Int. J. Energy Sector Manag. 10.1108/IJESM-06-2022-0015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  AwanA.BilgiliF.RahutD. B. (2022). Energy poverty trends and determinants in Pakistan: empirical evidence from eight waves of HIES 1998–2019. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 158, 112157. 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112157

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  BaliA. S.CapanoG.RameshM. (2019). Anticipating and designing for policy effectiveness. Policy Soc.38, 1–13. 10.1080/14494035.2019.1579502

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Balsalobre-LorenteD.LeitãoN. C.BekunF. V. (2021). Fresh validation of the low carbon development hypothesis under the ekc scheme in portugal, italy, greece and spain. Energies. 14. 10.3390/en14010250

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  BarnettB.WellsteadA. M.HowlettM. (2020). The evolution of Wisconsin's woody biofuel policy: policy layering and dismantling through dilution. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 67, 101514. 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101514

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  BartiauxF.VandeschrickC.MoezziM.FrogneuxN. (2018). Energy justice, unequal access to affordable warmth, and capability deprivation: a quantitative analysis for Belgium. Appl. Energy225, 1219–1233. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.04.113

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D.MortensenP. B. (2018). Punctuated equilibrium theory: explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In: WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A. editors. Theories of the Policy Process.Abingdon-on-Thames: Taylor and Francis. p. 53–100.

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  BhandariR.SaptalenaL. G.KuschW. (2018). Sustainability assessment of a micro hydropower plant in Nepal. Energy Sustain. Soc. 8, 1. 10.1186/s13705-018-0147-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  BhandariH. N. (2001). Impact of shallow tubewell irrigation on crop production in the Terai Region of Nepal. Philippine Agricult. Sci.84, 102–113. Available online at: https://eurekamag.com/research/003/804/003804778.php

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  BhattacharyyaS. C. (2006). Energy access problem of the poor in India: is rural electrification a remedy?Energy Pol.34, 3387–3397. 10.1016/j.enpol.2005.08.026

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  BleiD. M. (2012). Probabilistic topic models. Commun ACM55, 77–84. 10.1145/2133806.2133826

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  BleiD. M.LaffertyJ. D. A. (2007). correlated topic model of science. Ann. Appl. Stat.1, 17–35. 10.1214/07-AOAS114

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  BleiD. M.NgA. Y.JordanM. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3, 993–1022. 10.5555/944919.944937

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  BovensM. (2010). A comment on Marsh and McConnell: towards a framework for establishing policy success. Public Adm.88, 584–585. 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01804.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  BovensM.HartP.PetersB. G.AlbækE. (2001). Success and Failure in Public Governance: A Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham; Northampton; Mass: Edward Elgar.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  ByrneR.MbevaK.OckwellD. (2018). A. political economy of niche-building: Neoliberal-developmental encounters in photovoltaic electrification in Kenya. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.44, 6–16. 10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.028

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  Castán BrotoV.BaptistaI.KirshnerJ.SmithS.Neves AlvesS. (2018). Energy justice and sustainability transitions in Mozambique. Appl Energy228, 645–655. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.057

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Castaño-RosaR.OkushimaS. (2021). Prevalence of energy poverty in Japan: a comprehensive analysis of energy poverty vulnerabilities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 145, 111006. 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  ChindarkarN. (2017). Beyond power politics: evaluating the policy design process of rural electrification in Gujarat, India. Public Adm. Dev.37, 28–39. 10.1002/pad.1777

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  ChiramboD. (2018). Towards the achievement of SDG 7 in sub-Saharan Africa: creating synergies between Power Africa, sustainable energy for all and climate finance in-order to achieve universal energy access before 2030. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.94, 600–608. 10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  Climate Policy Initiative (2019). Energizing Finance: Understanding the landscape 2019. Vienna: Sustainable Energy for All.

  • Google Scholar

• 32

  CookP. (2011). Infrastructure, rural electrification and development. Energy Sustain. Dev.15, 304–313. 10.1016/j.esd.2011.07.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  CottonM.KirshnerJ.SaliteD. (2021). The politics of electricity access and environmental security in mozambique. Adv. Sci. Technol. Secur. Appl.2021, 279–302. 10.1007/978-3-030-63654-8_11

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  CrentsilA. O.AsumanD.FennyA. P. (2019). Assessing the determinants and drivers of multidimensional energy poverty in Ghana. Energy Policy. 133, 110884. 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110884

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  CreutzigF.RavindranathN. H.BerndesG.BolwigS.BrightR.CherubiniF.et al. (2015). Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment. GCB Bioenergy7, 916–944. 10.1111/gcbb.12205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  DasB. K.HassanR.TusharM. S. H. K.ZamanF.HasanM.DasP.et al. (2021). Techno-economic and environmental assessment of a hybrid renewable energy system using multi-objective genetic algorithm: a case study for remote Island in Bangladesh. Energy Convers Manage.230, 113823. 10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113823

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  DeichmannU.MeisnerC.MurrayS.WheelerD. (2011). The economics of renewable energy expansion in rural Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Policy.39, 215–227. 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.034

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  DelinaL. L. (2022). Coal development and its discontents: Modes, strategies, and tactics of a localized, yet networked, anti-coal mobilisation in central Philippines. Extract. Indus. Soc..9, 101043. 10.1016/j.exis.2022.101043

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  DerksM.RomijnH. (2019). Sustainable performance challenges of rural microgrids: Analysis of incentives and policy framework in Indonesia. Energy Sustain. Dev.53, 57–70. 10.1016/j.esd.2019.08.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  DhundharaS.VermaY. P.WilliamsA. (2018). Techno-economic analysis of the lithium-ion and lead-acid battery in microgrid systems. Energy Convers Man.177, 122–142. 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.09.030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  DinizA. S. A. C.FrancaE. D.CamaraC. F.MoraisP. M. R.VilhenaL. (2006). “The important contribution of photovoltaics in a rural school electrification program,” in 2006 IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conference (Waikoloa, HI: IEEE), 2528–2531, 10.1109/WCPEC.2006.279760

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  DinkelmanT. (2011). The effects of rural electrification on employment: new evidence from South Africa. Am. Econ. Rev.101, 3078–3108. 10.1257/aer.101.7.3078

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  DominguezC.OrehounigK.CarmelietJ. (2018). “Modelling of rural electrical appliances saturation in developing countries to project their electricity demand: a case study of sub-Saharan Africa,” in ECOS 2018. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems, ed Universidade do Minho (University of Minho), 1–12.

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  DouZ.NiuH.GaoY.YangM.YangR. (2014). Study on day-ahead dispatch strategy of active distribution network. Nongye Gongcheng Xuebao/Trans. Chin. Soc. Agricult. Eng.30, 126–133. 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2014.11.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  DyeB. J. (2021). Unpacking authoritarian governance in electricity policy: Understanding progress, inconsistency and stagnation in Tanzania. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.80, 102209. 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102209

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  El-HawaryM. E. (2014). The smart grid - State-of-the-art and future trends. Elect. Power Comp. Syst.42, 239–250. 10.1080/15325008.2013.868558

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  ElkadeemM. R.YounesA.SharshirS. W.CampanaP. E.WangS. (2021). Sustainable siting and design optimization of hybrid renewable energy system: a geospatial multi-criteria analysis. Appl. Energy. 295, 117071. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117071

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  El-TaliawiO. G.NairS.Van der WalZ. (2021). Public policy schools in the global south: a mapping and analysis of the emerging landscape. Policy Sci.54, 371–395. 10.1007/s11077-020-09413-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  EvansA. E. V.GiordanoM.ClaytonT. (2012). Investing in Agricultural Water Management to Benefit Smallholder Farmers in West Bengal, India: AgWater Solutions Project Country Synthesis Report. Colombo: IWMI Working Papers. p. 148.

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  EvensenD.DemskiC.BeckerS.PidgeonN. (2018). The relationship between justice and acceptance of energy transition costs in the UK. Appl. Energy222, 451–459. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.165

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  GeallS.ShenW. (2018). Solar energy for poverty alleviation in China: State ambitions, bureaucratic interests, and local realities. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 41, 238–248. 10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  GebremeskelD. H.AhlgrenE. O.BeyeneG. B. (2023). Long-term electricity supply modelling in the context of developing countries: the OSeMOSYS-LEAP soft-linking approach for Ethiopia. Energy Strat. Rev.45, 101045. 10.1016/j.esr.2022.101045

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  GebreslassieM. G.CuvilasC.ZalengeraC.ToL. S.BaptistaI.RobinE.et al. (2022). Delivering an off-grid transition to sustainable energy in Ethiopia and Mozambique. Energy Sustain. Soc. 12, 23. 10.1186/s13705-022-00348-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  GhoseM. K. (2009). Technological challenges for boosting coal production with environmental sustainability. Environ. Monit. Assess.154, 373–381. 10.1007/s10661-008-0404-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  GoreC. D.BrassJ. N.BaldwinE.MacLeanL. M. (2019). Political autonomy and resistance in electricity sector liberalization in Africa. World Dev.120, 193–209. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.03.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  GoyalN. (2017). A “review” of policy sciences: bibliometric analysis of authors, references, and topics during 1970–2017. Policy Sci.50, 527–537. 10.1007/s11077-017-9300-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  GoyalN. (2021). Policy diffusion through multiple streams: the (non-)adoption of energy conservation building code in India. Pol. Stud. J.50, 641–669. 10.1111/psj.12415

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  GoyalN. (2021a). Explaining policy success using the multiple streams framework: political success despite programmatic failure of the solar energy policy in Gujarat, India. Polit Policy49, 1021–1060. 10.1111/polp.12426

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  GoyalN. (2021b). Limited demand or unreliable supply? A bibliometric review and computational text analysis of research on energy policy in India. Sustainability13, 13421. 10.3390/su132313421

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  GoyalN.HowlettM. (2018). Framework or metaphor? Analysing the status of policy learning in the policy sciences. J. Asian Public Policy2018, 1–17. 10.1080/17516234.2018.1493768

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  GoyalN.HowlettM.ChindarkarN. (2020). Who coupled which stream(s)? Policy entrepreneurship and innovation in the energy–water nexus in Gujarat, India. Public Adm Dev.40, 49–64. 10.1002/pad.1855

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  GoyalN.TaeihaghA.HowlettM. (2022). Whither policy innovation? Mapping conceptual engagement with public policy in energy transitions research. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 89, 102632. 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102632

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  GrahamE. R.ShipanC. R.VoldenC. (2013). The diffusion of policy diffusion research in political science. Br. J. Polit. Sci.43, 673–701. 10.1017/S0007123412000415

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  GrinJ.LoeberA. (2007). Theories of policy learning: agency, structure, and change. In: FischerF.MillerG.SidneyM. S. editors. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods. Boca Raton, FL: CRC/Taylor and Francis.

  • Google Scholar

• 65

  GrootendorstM. (2022). BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure. arXiv:220305794. 10.48550/arXiv.2203.05794

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  HaelgL.SewerinS.SchmidtT. S. (2020). The role of actors in the policy design process: introducing design coalitions to explain policy output. Policy Sci.53, 309–347. 10.1007/s11077-019-09365-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  HallP. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comp. Polit.25, 275–296. 10.2307/422246

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  HeW.YanJ.ZhouH.LiX. (2016). The factors influencing rural household firewood consumption: A theoretical model and empirical research of a typical area in Chongqing municipality. Shengtai Xuebao.36, 1369–1379. 10.5846/stxb201407191470

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  HellqvistL.HeubaumH. (2023). Setting the sun on off-grid solar?: policy lessons from the Bangladesh solar home systems (SHS) programme. Clim. Pol. 23, 88–95. 10.1080/14693062.2022.2056118

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  HesselmanM.VaroA.GuyetR.ThomsonH. (2021). Energy poverty in the COVID-19 era: Mapping global responses in light of momentum for the right to energy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 81, 102246. 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102246

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  HildénM.JordanA.RaynerT. (2014). Climate policy innovation: developing an evaluation perspective. Env. Polit.23, 884–905. 10.1080/09644016.2014.924205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  HoodC. (1983). The Tools of Government. London: Macmillan.

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  HosseinzadehN.MayerJ. E.WolfsP. J. (2011). Rural single wire earth return distribution networks - Associated problems and cost-effective solutions. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.33, 159–170. 10.1016/j.ijepes.2010.08.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  HowlettM. (2000). Managing the “hollow state:” procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Can. Public Admin. Admin. Publique Du Can.43, 412–431. 10.1111/j.1754-7121.2000.tb01152.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  HowlettM.HowY. P. (2015). del Rio P. The parameters of policy portfolios: verticality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy mix formulation. Environ. Plan. C-Gov. Pol.33, 1233–1245. 10.1177/0263774X15610059

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  HowlettM.RaynerJ. (2013). Patching vs packaging in policy formulation: assessing policy portfolio design. Polit. Gov.1, 170–182. 10.12924/pag2013.01020170

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  IEA (2021). World Energy Outlook 2021. Paris: IEA.

  • Google Scholar

• 78

  IEA IRENA, UNSD, World Bank, and WHO.. (2021). Tracking SDG7: The Energy Progress Report 2021. Washington DC: The World Bank.

  • Google Scholar

• 79

  IEA IRENA, UNSD, World Bank, and WHO.. (2022). Tracking SDG7: The Energy Progress Report 2022. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

  • Google Scholar

• 80

  JingW.LaiC. H.LingD. K. X.WongW. S. H.WongM. L. D. (2019). Battery lifetime enhancement via smart hybrid energy storage plug-in module in standalone photovoltaic power system. J. Energy Storage21, 586–598. 10.1016/j.est.2018.12.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  JuanperaM.BlechingerP.Ferrer-Mart,íL.HoffmannM. M.PastorR. (2020). Multicriteria-based methodology for the design of rural electrification systems: a case study in Nigeria. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 133, 110243. 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110243

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  KadriY.Hadj AbdallahH. (2016). Performance evaluation of a stand-alone solar dish Stirling system for power generation suitable for off-grid rural electrification. Energy Convers Man.129, 140–156. 10.1016/j.enconman.2016.10.024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  KamalimeeraN.KirubakaranV. (2021). Prospects and restraints in biogas fed SOFC for rural energization: a critical review in indian perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 143, 110914. 10.1016/j.rser.2021.110914

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  KanagawaM.NakataT. (2008). Assessment of access to electricity and the socio-economic impacts in rural areas of developing countries. Energy Policy36, 2016–2029. 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.041

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  KansakarD.PantD.ChaudharyJ. (2009). Reaching the Poor: Effectiveness of the Current Shallow Tubewell Policy in Nepal. Groundwater Governance in the Indo-Gangetic and Yellow River Basins.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p. 183–202.

  • Google Scholar

• 86

  KarimM. E.KarimR.IslamM. T.Muhammad-SukkiF.BaniN. A.MuhtazaruddinM. N.et al. (2019). Renewable energy for sustainable growth and development: an evaluation of law and policy of Bangladesh. Sustainability11, 5774. 10.3390/su11205774

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  KebedeA. A.CoosemansT.MessagieM.JemalT.BehabtuH. A.Van MierloJ.et al. (2021). Techno-economic analysis of lithium-ion and lead-acid batteries in stationary energy storage application. J. Energy Storage40, 102748. 10.1016/j.est.2021.102748

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  KeepperW. E. (1938). Discussion. Am. J. Agric. Econ.20, 386–389. 10.1093/ajae/20.1.386

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  KelkarG.NathanD. (2021). Cultural and economic barriers in switching to clean cooking energy: does women's agency make a difference?Energies14, 7242. 10.3390/en14217242

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  KemfertC. (2010). Energy demand forecasts and climate policy agenda. In: ConradyR.BuckM. editors. Trends and Issues in Global Tourism 2010. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. p. 47–54.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  KenfackJ.BossouO. V.VoufoJ.DjomS. (2014). Addressing the current remote area electrification problems with solar and microhydro systems in Central Africa. Renew Energy67, 10–19. 10.1016/j.renene.2013.11.044

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  KernF.KivimaaP.MartiskainenM. (2017). Policy packaging or policy patching? The development of complex energy efficiency policy mixes. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.23, 11–25. 10.1016/j.erss.2016.11.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  KhanT.WaseemM.TahirM.LiuS.YuM. (2022). Autonomous hydrogen-based solar-powered energy system for rural electrification in Balochistan, Pakistan: An energy-economic feasibility analysis. Energy Convers Manage.271, 116284. 10.1016/j.enconman.2022.116284

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  KingdonJ. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York, NY: HarperCollins College Publishers.

  • Google Scholar

• 95

  KirchhoffH.KebirN.NeumannK.HellerP. W.StrunzK. (2016). Developing mutual success factors and their application to swarm electrification: microgrids with 100 % renewable energies in the Global South and Germany. J. Clean. Prod.128, 190–200. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.080

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  KirubiC.JacobsonA.KammenD. M.MillsA. (2009). Community-based electric micro-grids can contribute to rural development: evidence from Kenya. World Dev.37, 1208–1221. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.11.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  KlasenS.CorniaG. A.GrynspanR.López-CalvaL.F.LustigN.FosuA.et al. (2005). Economic inequality and social progress^*. Rethinking society for the 21st century: report of the international panel on social progress: volume 1. Socio-Econ. Transform. 12018, 83–139. 10.1017/9781108399623.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  KoiralaN.LubitzD.DhakalR.BhandariS.DevG. P.DhakalY.et al. (2017). Review of low head turbines system of Nepal for rural electrification. In: 2017 6th International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications. San Diago, CA: ICRERA.

  • Google Scholar

• 99

  KothariD. P.PathakA.PandeyU. (2022). “Design of microgrids for rural electrification,” in Residential Microgrids and Rural Electrifications, eds PadmanabanS.SharmeelaC.SivaramanP.Holm-NielsenJ. B. (New York, NY: Academic Press), 87–108.

  • Google Scholar

• 100

  KumarA.BhatA. H. (2022). Role of dual active bridge isolated bidirectional DC-DC converter in a DC microgrid. Microgrids Model. Cont. Appl.2022, 141–55. 10.1016/B978-0-323-85463-4.00006-X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  KumarA.SinghA. R.DengY.HeX.KumarP.BansalR. C.et al. (2019). Integrated assessment of a sustainable microgrid for a remote village in hilly region. Energy Convers Man.180, 442–472. 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.10.084

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  KumarD.ZareF.GhoshA.Microgrid TechnologyD. C. (2017). System architectures, AC grid interfaces, grounding schemes, power quality, communication networks, applications, and standardizations aspects. IEEE Access.5, 12230–12256. 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2705914

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  Lacey-BarnacleM.RobisonR.FouldsC. (2020). Energy justice in the developing world: a review of theoretical frameworks, key research themes and policy implications. Energy Sustain. Dev.55, 122–138. 10.1016/j.esd.2020.01.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  LahiriD. (2005). Factors limiting information needs in rural development in India: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Politics and Information Systems: Technologies and Applications, International Institute of Informatics and Systemics. Florida: International Institute of Informatics & Systemics, 237–246.

  • Google Scholar

• 105

  LandiM.SovacoolB. K.EidsnessJ. (2013). Cooking with gas: policy lessons from Rwanda's National Domestic Biogas Program (NDBP). Energy Sustain. Dev.17, 347–356. 10.1016/j.esd.2013.03.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  LandisG. H. (1938). Voltage regulation and control in the development of a rural distribution system. Trans. Am. Inst. Elect. Eng.57, 541–547. 10.1109/T-AIEE.1938.5057846

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  LiY.LiX.ShiC.LiY.LiM.LiL.et al. (2022). Optimal dispatching of distributed energy supply system based on model predictive control. In: Proceedings - 2022, 7th Asia Conference on Power and Electrical Engineering. Hangzhou: ACPEE.

  • Google Scholar

• 108

  LouwK.ConradieB.HowellsM.DekenahM. (2008). Determinants of electricity demand for newly electrified low-income African households. Energy Policy36, 2812–2818. 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.02.032

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  Luque-AyalaA. (2018). “Post-development carbon,” in Rethinking Urban Transitions: Politics in the Low Carbon City eds Luque-AyalaA.MarvinS.BulkeleyH. (London: Routledge), 224–241.

  • Google Scholar

• 110

  MalhotraA. (2022). Trade-offs and synergies in power sector policy mixes: The case of Uttar Pradesh, India. Energy Policy164, 112936. 10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112936

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  MandelliS.BarbieriJ.MereuR.ColomboE. (2016). Off-grid systems for rural electrification in developing countries: definitions, classification and a comprehensive literature review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.58, 1621–1646. 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.338

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  ManiS.PatnaikS.LahariyaC. (2021). Electricity access, sources, and reliability at primary health centers in India and effect on service provision: evidence from two nation-wide surveys. Indian J. Commun. Med.46, 51–56. 10.4103/ijcm.IJCM_170_20

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  MarshD.McConnellA. (2010a). Towards a framework for establishing policy success. Public Adm.88, 564–583. 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01803.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  MarshD.McConnellA. (2010b). Towards a framework for establishing policy success: a reply to Bovens. Public Adm.88, 586–587. 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01805.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  MarshD.SharmanJ. C. (2009). Policy diffusion and policy transfer. Policy Stud.30, 269–288. 10.1080/01442870902863851

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  MasudJ. (1998). Wind Power Project at Pasni 1998 1998-09-01; United Kingdom.Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

  • Google Scholar

• 117

  McConnellA. (2010). Policy success, policy failure and grey areas in-between. J. Public Policy30, 345–362. 10.1017/S0143814X10000152

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  MentisD.AnderssonM.HowellsM.RognerH.SiyalS.BroadO.et al. (2016). The benefits of geospatial planning in energy access - a case study on Ethiopia. Appl. Geograp.72, 1–13. 10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.04.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  MentisD.WelschM.Fuso NeriniF.BroadO.HowellsM.BazilianM.et al. (2015). A GIS-based approach for electrification planning-a case study on Nigeria. Energy Sustain. Dev.29, 142–150. 10.1016/j.esd.2015.09.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  MexhuaniA.BylykbashiK.JupajB.ShalaA.RubiniL. (2022). The state of the electrical sector in Western Balkan countries. Case study: republic of Kosovo. J. Phy. Conf. Ser.2385, 012101. 10.1088/1742-6596/2385/1/012101

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  MichaelowaA.HochS.WeberA. K.KassayeR.HailuT. (2021). Mobilising private climate finance for sustainable energy access and climate change mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Clim Policy21, 47–62. 10.1080/14693062.2020.1796568

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  MinogueM. (2013). Regulatory governance of off-grid electrification. Green Energy Technol.116, 253–270. 10.1007/978-1-4471-4673-5_10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  MohanA.ToppK. (2018). India's energy future: Contested narratives of change. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.44, 75–82. 10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.040

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  MohideenR. (2012). “The implications of clean and renewable energy development for gender equality in poor communities in South Asia,” in 2012 IEEE Conference on Technology and Society in Asia (Singapore: IEEE), 1–6. 10.1109/TSAsia.2012.6397976

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  MohideenR. (2021). “Technology for social well-being: Strengthening urban resilience in developing countries integrating infrastructure, energy, health and social inclusion,” in 2021 IEEE Conference on Norbert Wiener in the 21st Century (21CW) (Chennai: IEEE), 1–9. 10.1109/21CW48944.2021.9532527

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  Moner-GironaM.Solano-PeraltaM.LazopoulouM.AckomE. K.VallveX.Szab,óS.et al. (2018). Electrification of Sub-Saharan Africa through PV/hybrid mini-grids: Reducing the gap between current business models and on-site experience. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.91, 1148–1161. 10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  MoustaphaM. A. M. (2022). Yu Q, Danqauh BA. Does renewable energy policy increase energy intensity? Evidence from the ECOWAS region. Int. J. Energy Sector Manag.16, 728–746. 10.1108/IJESM-12-2020-0023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  MudaheranwaE.NtagwirumugaraE.MasengoG.CipciganL. (2023). Microgrid design for disadvantaged people living in remote areas as tool in speeding up electricity access in Rwanda. Energy Strategy Rev.46, 101054. 10.1016/j.esr.2023.101054

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  MukherjeeI.CobanM. K.BaliA. S. (2021). Policy capacities and effective policy design: a review. Policy Sci.54, 243–268. 10.1007/s11077-021-09420-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  MukuloB. M.NgaruiyaJ. M.KamauJ. N. (2014). Determination of wind energy potential in the Mwingi-Kitui plateau of Kenya. Renew Energy63, 18–22. 10.1016/j.renene.2013.08.042

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  Mustafa KamalM.AsharafI.FernandezE. (2022). Optimal renewable integrated rural energy planning for sustainable energy development. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 53, 102581. 10.1016/j.seta.2022.102581

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  MutaleJ.Mensah-BonsuC. (2009). “Electricity supply industry arrangements and policies on rural electrification,” in 2009 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (Calgary, AB: IEEE), 1–5. 10.1109/PES.2009.5275677

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  NasirM.JinZ.KhanH. A.ZaffarN. A.VasquezJ. C.GuerreroJ. M.et al. (2019). Decentralized control architecture applied to DC nanogrid clusters for rural electrification in developing regions. IEEE Trans. Power Elect.34, 1773–1785. 10.1109/TPEL.2018.2828538

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  Navarro YergaR. M.Álvarez GalvánM. C.del ValleF.Villoria de la ManoJ.A.FierroJ. L. G. (2009). Water splitting on semiconductor catalysts under visible-light irradiation. Chem. Sus. Chem.2, 471–485. 10.1002/cssc.200900018

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  NavarroR. M.del ValleF.Villoria de la ManoJ. A.Álvarez-GalvánM. C.FierroJ. L. G. (2009). Photocatalytic water splitting under visible light concept and catalysts development. Adv. Chem. Eng. 36, 111–143. 10.1016/S0065-2377(09)00404-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  NawazA.GoudarziS.AsghariM. A.PichiahS.SelopalG. S.RoseiF.et al. (2021). Review of Hybrid 1D/2D photocatalysts for light-harvesting applications. ACS Appl. Nano Mat.4, 11323–11352. 10.1021/acsanm.1c01014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  NdirituS. W.EngolaM. K. (2020). The effectiveness of feed-in-tariff policy in promoting power generation from renewable energy in Kenya. Renew Energy.161, 593–605. 10.1016/j.renene.2020.07.082

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  NepalR.JamasbT.SenA. (2018). Small systems, big targets: power sector reforms and renewable energy in small systems. Energy Policy.116, 19–29. 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  NewellP.DaleyF. (2022). Cooking up an electric revolution: the political economy of e-cooking. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.91, 102730. 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102730

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  NewellP.MulvaneyD. (2013). The political economy of the ‘just transition'. Geogr J.179, 132–140. 10.1111/geoj.12008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  NigussieT.BogaleW.BekeleF.DribssaE. (2017). Feasibility study for power generation using off- grid energy system from micro hydro-PV-diesel generator-battery for rural area of Ethiopia: The case of Melkey Hera village, Western Ethiopia. AIMS Energy5, 667–690. 10.3934/energy.2017.4.667

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  NizarA. H.DongZ. Y.WangY. (2008). “Power utility nontechnical loss analysis with extreme learning machine method,” in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 23 (IEEE), 946–955. 10.1109/TPWRS.2008.926431

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  OkureM. A. E.TurinayoY. K.KucelS. B. (2018). “Techno-economic viability of husk powered systems for rural electrification in Uganda: Part II: Economic and policy aspects,” in The Nexus: Energy, Environment and Climate Change. Green Energy and Technology, eds Leal FilhoW.SurroopD. (Cham: Springer). 10.1007/978-3-319-63612-2_4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  OlangT. A.EstebanM.GasparatosA. (2018). Lighting and cooking fuel choices of households in Kisumu City, Kenya: a multidimensional energy poverty perspective. Energy Sustain. Dev.42, 1–13. 10.1016/j.esd.2017.09.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  OlejniczakK.SliwowskiP.LeeuwF. (2020). Comparing behavioral assumptions of policy tools: framework for policy designers. J. Comp. Pol. Anal. Res. Pract.22, 498–520. 10.1080/13876988.2020.1808465

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  OndraczekJ. (2011). The sun rises in the East (of Africa): the development and status of the solar energy markets in Kenya and Tanzania. In: 30th ISES Biennial Solar World Congress 2011. Kassel: SWC 2011.

  • Google Scholar

• 147

  OwusuP. A.Asumadu-SarkodieS. (2016). A. review of renewable energy sources, sustainability issues and climate change mitigation. Cogent. Eng.3, 1167990. 10.1080/23311916.2016.1167990

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  OzarisoyB.AltanH. (2021). Developing an evidence-based energy-policy framework to assess robust energy-performance evaluation and certification schemes in the South-eastern Mediterranean countries. Energy Sustain. Dev.64, 65–102. 10.1016/j.esd.2021.08.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  PachauriS.JiangL. (2008). The household energy transition in India and China. Energy Policy36, 4022–4035. 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  PaishO. (2002). Small hydro power: technology and current status. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.6, 537–556. 10.1016/S1364-0321(02)00006-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  PalitD.ChaureyA. (2011). Off-grid rural electrification experiences from South Asia: status and best practices. Energy Sustain. Dev.15, 266–276. 10.1016/j.esd.2011.07.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  PandyaswargoA. H.WibowoA. D.OnodaH. (2022). Socio-techno-economic assessment to design an appropriate renewable energy system for remote agricultural communities in developing countries. Sustain. Prod, Consum.31, 492–511. 10.1016/j.spc.2022.03.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  PanpuekK.TeetongR. (2016). Renewable Energy Policy and Barriers Under Fluctuation of Energy Price and Economic Growth in Thailand. CIGRE Session 46.

  • Google Scholar

• 154

  PatelS. N.FerrallI. L.KhaingadB.KammenD. M. (2021). Sustainable and socially resilient minigrid franchise model for an urban informal settlement in Kenya. Econ. Energy Environ. Pol.11, 27–49. 10.5547/2160-5890.11.1.spat

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  PelzS.ChindarkarN.UrpelainenJ. (2021). Energy access for marginalized communities: evidence from rural North India, 2015–2018. World Dev. 137, 105204. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105204

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  PelzS.UrpelainenJ. (2020). Measuring and explaining household access to electrical energy services: evidence from rural northern India. Energy Policy. 145, 111782. 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111782

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  PodeR. (2013). Financing LED solar home systems in developing countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.25, 596–629. 10.1016/j.rser.2013.04.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  PostG. (1926). Important features of a successful plan for rural electrification. Trans. Am. Inst. Elect. Eng.45, 515–527. 10.1109/T-AIEE.1926.5061244

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  PressmanJ. L.WildavskyA. (1984). Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland; Or, Why it's Amazing that Federal Programs Work at All, This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers Who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation: Berkeley, CA: Univ of California Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 160

  PueyoA.CarrerasM.NgooG. (2020). Exploring the linkages between energy, gender, and enterprise: evidence from Tanzania. World Dev.128, 104840. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104840

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  PuzzoloE.PopeD.StanistreetD.RehfuessE. A.BruceN. G. (2016). Clean fuels for resource-poor settings: a systematic review of barriers and enablers to adoption and sustained use. Environ. Res.146, 218–234. 10.1016/j.envres.2016.01.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  Rama PrabhaD.Narendiranath BabuT.Raj KumarE. (2017). Performance characteristics of an industrial cross flow wind turbine. Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol.8, 1071–1083. Available online at: https://iaeme.com/Home/article_id/IJMET_08_05_111

  • Google Scholar

• 163

  RehmanS.HabibH. U. R.WangS.BükerM. S.AlhemsL. M.GarniH. Z. A.et al. (2020). Optimal design and model predictive control of standalone HRES: a real case study for residential demand side management. IEEE Access.8, 29767–29814. 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2972302

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  RobertsM. E.StewartB. M.TingleyD. (2014). stm: R package for structural topic models. J. Stat. Softw.10, 1–40. 10.18637/jss.v091.i02

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  RollandM.Le MoalJ.WagnerV.RoyèreD.MouzonD. e. (2013). J. Decline in semen concentration and morphology in a sample of 26 609 men close to general population between 1989 and 2005 in France. Hum. Reprod.28, 462–470. 10.1093/humrep/des415

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  Rosen-ZviM.GriffithsT.SteyversM.SmythP. (2004). The author-topic model for authors and documents. In: Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Washington, DC: AUAI Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 167

  SabatierP. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Pol. Sci. 21, 129–168. 10.1007/BF00136406

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  SahaT. D. (1994). Community resources and reproductive behaviour in rural Bangladesh. Asia-Pac. Popul. J. U. N.9, 3–18. 10.18356/a4236253-en

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  SantiagoA.RoxasF. (2012). Identifying, developing, and moving sustainable communities through renewable energy. World J. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev.9, 273–281. 10.1108/20425941211271487

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  SareenS.ThomsonH.Tirado HerreroS.GouveiaJ. P.LippertI.LisA.et al. (2020). European energy poverty metrics: scales, prospects and limits. Global Trans.2, 26–36. 10.1016/j.glt.2020.01.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  SchoenefeldJ.JordanA. (2017). Governing policy evaluation?Towards N. Typol. Eval.23, 274–293. 10.1177/1356389017715366

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  SchopfT.KlimekS.MatthesF. (2022). “PatternRank: Leveraging pretrained language models and part of speech for unsupervised keyphrase extraction,” in Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2022). p. 243–248. 10.5220/0011546600003335

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  SEforALL (2023). SDG 7.1 - Access to Energy: Sustainable Energy for All. Available online: https://www.seforall.org/goal-7-targets/access (accessed June 13, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 174

  SharmaB.RizwanM.AnandP. (2023). A new intelligent approach for size optimization of a renewable energy based grid connected hybrid energy system. Int. J. Num. Model. Elect. Netw. Dev. Fields. 36, e3050. 10.1002/jnm.3050

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  SharmaV.DashM. (2022). Household energy use pattern in rural India: a path towards sustainable development. Environ. Chal. 6, 100404. 10.1016/j.envc.2021.100404

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  ShebaB.BelloH. (2020). The role of good governance in driving and promoting sustainable development in the provision of off-grid electricity solutions in nigeria. CSR Sustain. Ethics Gov.2020, 169–185. 10.1007/978-3-030-21154-7_8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  ShiuA.LamP-.L. (2004). Electricity consumption and economic growth in China. Energy Policy32, 47–54. 10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00250-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  ShuklaR.SwarnakarP. (2022). Energy justice in post-Paris India: Unpacking consensus and conflict through storylines and discourse coalitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.91, 102687. 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102687

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  SidhuB. S.KandlikarM.RamankuttyN. (2020). Power tariffs for groundwater irrigation in India: a comparative analysis of the environmental, equity, and economic tradeoffs. World Dev. 128. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104836

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  SmithS.MonstadtJ.OtsukiK. (2022). Enabling equitable energy access for Mozambique? Heterogeneous energy infrastructures in Maputo's growing urban periphery. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 90, 102684. 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102684

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  SoyemiA. O.SamuelI. A.AdesanyaA.AkinmejiA.AdenugbaF. (2021). A. robust energy policy review of selected African countries: an impetus for energy sustainability in Nigeria. J. Phy. Conf. Series1734, 012028. 10.1088/1742-6596/1734/1/012028

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  Szab,óS.BódisK.HuldT.Moner-GironaM. (2011). Energy solutions in rural Africa: mapping electrification costs of distributed solar and diesel generation versus grid extension^*. Environ. Res. Lett.6, 034002. 10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  ThaparS. (2022). Centralized vs decentralized solar: a comparison study (India). Renew Energy194, 687–704. 10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.117

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  ThirunavukkarasuM.SawleY. A. (2021). Comparative study of the optimal sizing and management of off-grid solar/wind/diesel and battery energy systems for remote areas. Front Energy Res. 9, 752043. 10.3389/fenrg.2021.752043

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  ThomsonH.DayR.RicaldeK.Brand-CorreaL. I.CedanoK.MartinezM.et al. (2022). Understanding, recognizing, and sharing energy poverty knowledge and gaps in Latin America and the Caribbean – because conocer es resolver. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 87, 102475. 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102475

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  ToreroM. (2016). The impact of rural electrification: challenges and ways forward. Revue d'Economie du Dev. 23, 49–75. 10.3917/edd.hs03.0049

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  TrotterP. A.BrophyA. (2022). Policy mixes for business model innovation: The case of off-grid energy for sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa. Res. Pol.51, 104528. 10.1016/j.respol.2022.104528

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  TrotterP. A.McManusM. C.MaconachieR. (2017). Electricity planning and implementation in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.74, 1189–1209. 10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  TyagiV. K.LoS-.L. (2013). Sludge: a waste or renewable source for energy and resources recovery?Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.25, 708–728. 10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.029

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  UN DESA (2023a). The 17 Goals: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available online at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed June 13, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 191

  UN DESA (2023b). Goal 7: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available online at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal (accessed June 13, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 192

  van LeeuwenJ. M.SekeramayiT.MartellC.FeinbergM.Bowersox-DalyS. (2017). A. baseline analysis of the Katanga slums: informing Urban public policy in Kampala, Uganda. Etude de la Population Africaine31, 3845–3854. 10.11564/31-2-1057

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  van NiekerkH. C.HofsajerI. W. (2000). “The use of series injection to eliminate voltage distortion in low and medium voltage networks,” in 2000 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference. Conference Record (Cat. No.00CH37053) (Clearwater, FL: IEEE), 1–6. 10.1109/ICPS.2000.854350

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  VedungE. (2006). Evaluation research. In: PetersBPierreJ editors. Handbook of Public Policy.London, UK: SAGE. p. 397–416.

  • Google Scholar

• 195

  VidyarthiH. (2015). Energy consumption and growth in South Asia: evidence from a panel error correction model. Int. J. Energy Sector Manag.9, 295–310. 10.1108/IJESM-10-2013-0002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  VolkertM.KlaggeB. (2022). Electrification and devolution in Kenya: opportunities and challenges. Energy Sustain. Dev.71, 541–553. 10.1016/j.esd.2022.10.022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  VoßJ. P.SimonsA. (2014). Instrument constituencies and the supply side of policy innovation: the social life of emissions trading. Env. Polit.23, 735–754. 10.1080/09644016.2014.923625

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  WangX. (2022). Active-reactive power collaborative optimization model of electrical interconnection system based on deep learning under the goal of “carbon neutrality”. J. Phy. Conf. Series.2360, 012032. 10.1088/1742-6596/2360/1/012032

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  WangX.McCallumA.WeiX. (2007). Topical n-grams: Phrase and topic discovery, with an application to information retrieval. In: Seventh IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM 2007). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.

  • Google Scholar

• 200

  WeissC. H. (1993). Where politics and evaluation research meet. Eval. Pract.14, 93–106. 10.1177/109821409301400119

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  WibisonoH.LovettJ. C.AninditoD. B. (2023). The contestation of ideas behind Indonesia's rural electrification policies: the influence of global and national institutional dynamics. Dev. Pol. Rev.41, e12650. 10.1111/dpr.12650

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  XingH.LiuL.ZhangR. (2016). Secrecy wireless information and power transfer in fading wiretap channel. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.65, 180–190. 10.1109/TVT.2015.2395725

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203

  YadavaR. N.SinhaB. (2022). Energy–poverty–climate vulnerability nexus: an approach to sustainable development for the poorest of poor. Environ. Dev. Sustain.10.1007/s10668-022-02812-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 204

  YagumaP.ParikhP.MulugettaY. (2022). Electricity access in Uganda's slums: multi-stakeholder perspectives from Kampala. Environ. Res. Commun. 4, 125008. 10.1088/2515-7620/aca9ad

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 205

  Yetano RocheM.VerolmeH.AgbaegbuC.BinningtonT.FischedickM.OladipoE. O.et al. (2020). Achieving sustainable development goals in Nigeria's power sector: assessment of transition pathways. Clim. Pol.20, 846–865. 10.1080/14693062.2019.1661818

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 206

  YosiyanaB.SimarangkirS. (2015). Off-grid rural electrification approaches – Lesson learnt from ASEAN. In: ISES Solar World Congress. Conference Proceedings. Daegu, 1646–1657. 10.18086/swc.2015.03.03

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 207

  ZamanR.BrudermannT. (2018). Energy governance in the context of energy service security: A qualitative assessment of the electricity system in Bangladesh. Appl. Energy.223, 443–456. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.04.081

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 208

  ZarflC.LumsdonA. E.BerlekampJ.TydecksL.TocknerK. (2015). A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquat. Sci.77, 161–170. 10.1007/s00027-014-0377-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 209

  ZhangS.ZhangD.ZhangY.CaoJ.XuH. (2017). “The research and application of the power big data,” in Seventh International Conference on Electronics and Information Engineering. 10.1117/12.2265486

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 210

  ZhouY.LiT.WangZ.XiaoN. (2020). Non-time-switching full-duplex relay system with SWIPT and self-energy recycling. Jisuanji Yanjiu yu Fazhan/Comp. Res. Dev.57, 1888–1897. 10.7544/issn1000-1239.2020.20190590

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 211

  ZineckerA.SharmaS.BeatonC.MerrillL.SanchezL. (2018). Getting on Target: Accelerating Energy Access Through Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.

  • Google Scholar

• 212

  ZomersA. N.GauntC. T. (2010). Small-scale rural electricity providers opportunities and challenges. In: 43rd International Conference on Large High Voltage Electric Systems 2010. Paris: CIGRE 2010.

  • Google Scholar