Within reach? Sustainable energy infrastructure financing for “hardest to reach” communities

Providing energy access in “hard to reach” under- or unelectrified contexts like informal settlements or remote rural regions requires rethinking how we develop and finance energy access business models. While terminologies like “hardest to reach,” “reaching the last mile” or “leaving no-one behind” have increasingly been used within energy access and broader development discourses, different country and regional contexts present unique and practical challenges for deploying electrification models in these areas. These challenges are also intrinsically linked to the viability gap, which results from a disjuncture between end-users' ability to pay and revenues required to cover the cost of service. “Hard to reach” areas can comprise geographically remote regions like rural villages or urban informal settlements where households and businesses are precluded from grid electricity and other key infrastructure services due to financial, socio-technical and socio-political barriers despite being directly “under the grid.” In this paper we argue that contextual grounding is needed when exploring the intricacies of delivering energy access in contexts that traditionally lack formal service provision, security of tenure and material certainty. We furthermore argue that it is necessary to critically engage with discourses that characterize geographic remoteness as “un-electrifiable.” Notwithstanding the increased focus on leaving no-one behind in the international agenda, more pragmatic grounding is needed to understand and draw lessons from energy access in dynamic contexts. Drawing on the authors' current and prior experience working on research projects on off-grid energy and other infrastructures across sub-Saharan Africa, the paper compares the geographic contexts of urban informality and geographically remote contexts through six case studies from Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, South Africa, the Kingdom of Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) and Madagascar. It explores the intricacies and practicalities of providing energy access in urban informal settlements, remote rural villages or displacement settings, and provides lessons for policy and practice.

1 Introduction

The provision of energy access in “hard to reach,” un- or under-electrified contexts like remote rural regions or urban informal settlements, requires rethinking how we develop and finance energy infrastructure. Importantly it requires addressing the persistent and pervasive challenges that hinder closing the electrification gap. The “hardest to reach” can be characterized in several ways. These include regions that are geographically “remote,” like certain rural villages and island countries or settlements located directly “under the grid” where households, businesses and social institutions are precluded from electricity and other key infrastructure services (Munro, 2020). In instances of geographic remoteness where physical distance or terrain poses a barrier, a lack of techno-economic feasibility is often cited as a constraint for extending the national grid to remote or geographically distant regions of a country (Dugoua et al., 2017). In urban or peri-urban contexts, entire settlements are precluded from grid access due to a range of financial, socio-technical and socio-political barriers despite being directly “under the grid.” Thus, proximity to grid infrastructure is not necessarily a precursor for energy access. This pertains to both having access to a grid connection, but also relates to affordability of energy services to enable the utilization of energy. Consequently, decentralized technologies like standalone solar home systems or mini-grids (and liquid petroleum gas (LPG) for cooking) have emerged as an alternative option for electrification in the informal city (Caprotti et al., 2022) and for reaching remote or rural communities (Baker, 2023).

Regardless of whether unelectrified communities are located within remote areas or directly under the grid in urban or peri-urban areas, each context presents a viability gap, defined as the shortfall between the revenues collected from end-users of an energy service and the cost of providing that service (Pérez-Arriaga et al., 2018). This hinders developing business models that are both financially viable and inclusive. Notwithstanding breakthroughs in off-grid technologies and the emergence of innovative business models in recent decades (Pailman et al., 2015), there are several notable challenges for making energy access technologies and associated business models financially viable in different settings and contexts. These are influenced by the broader environments in which off-grid business models are developed and iterated, including the policy and regulatory environment, institutional priorities, the political economy of service delivery to certain communities, incentives or disincentives for electrification, and the extent of coordinated and long-term planning (Pérez-Arriaga et al., 2020; Pailman, 2024). It further relates to the implementation of policy and regulation not necessarily keeping pace with technology and latent consumer demand. Importantly, the complexity of the geographic, socio-economic, techno-economic and socio-political drivers of the viability gap, influence the types of financing approaches that have been used in different “hard to reach” contexts. To further preface the characterization of the “hardest to reach” it is necessary to acknowledge the underlying socio-economic constraints and inequalities that continue to preclude households, communities and entire regions from accessing critical infrastructure and services and limit affordability. The ripple effects of these inequalities and their reproduction are experienced within and across a plethora of spatial and socio-economic contexts and scales.

Drawing on examples from Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, South Africa, Eswatini and Madagascar, this paper offers a conceptual contribution for energy infrastructure provision and financing approaches in varying “hardest to reach” contexts. These case studies were informed by the authors' collective practice-based insights on implementing off-grid and renewable energy research projects and innovation pilots in “hard to reach” contexts within these countries (Caprotti et al., 2025). The cases provide complementary and nuanced perspectives on the challenges and opportunities for energy provision beyond the “low hanging fruit¹” of electrification approaches, while demystifying notions around the “hardest to reach.”

This paper makes three key contributions. Firstly, it unpacks and analyses the dynamic and yet vague concept of the “hardest to reach,” in its multiple expressions and iterations at multiple scales, including communities and households, as well as governance, policy and other discourses and strategies. Secondly, the paper engages with the production and reproduction of the “hardest to reach” as part of a process of uneven geographical development that has long-standing roots in national and regional historical contexts as well as in the evolution of neoliberal economic development policies more globally. Thirdly, through holding the tension between national and international policy discourses on the “hardest to reach” and the complex reality of “hardest to reach” communities in urban and rural settings, we highlight emerging incentive-based financing approaches for serving hard to reach communities. Furthermore, we make specific recommendations for furthering the research agenda, and for informing policy and practice aimed at addressing infrastructural inequalities. As shown in Figure 1, Section 2 provides a characterization of “hardest to reach” communities, followed by Section 3, which introduces an emerging typology of the “hardest to reach.” Section 4 examines emerging financing models for energy access provision in “hardest to reach” communities. The paper concludes with a discussion of overarching factors shaping “hardest to reach” contexts with recommendations for energy policy, governance and finance.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Graphical overview of paper flow.

2 Characterizing the “hardest to reach”

Providing energy access to the “hardest to reach” or “reaching the last mile” has garnered significant attention within academic and international development discourses (see e.g., Garces et al., 2021; Falchetta et al., 2022; Leduchowicz-Municio et al., 2022; Pollio et al., 2023). This section explores what the “hardest to reach” means, drawing on examples from varying urban, rural and peri-urban settings (across geospatial, socio-economic and socio-political contexts), toward developing a typology for the “hardest to reach.” “Hardest to reach” communities are often characterized by geographic “remoteness,” isolation (Garces et al., 2021) or peripherality (Golubchikov and O'Sullivan, 2020; Tsiotas and Tselios, 2023). Geographic “remoteness” is often considered a common barrier for serving un-electrified and under electrified regions, due to amongst other reasons, a lack of techno-economic viability (Rai et al., 2021). Consequently, remoteness or perceived remoteness has often been conflated with being “hard to electrify” or “unreachable.” This has contributed to and exacerbated a stark urban-rural divide with respect to energy access rates. Dugoua et al. (2017) contend that while remoteness and population density are often cited as the major barriers to grid extension, socio-economic inequalities and factors hindering the uptake of electrification technologies are equally important to consider.

Similarly, unelectrified urban and peri-urban settings can also be considered a category of “hardest to reach” and encompass unique challenges, despite relative proximity to centralized grid infrastructure. For areas under the grid or on the periphery, proximity does not necessarily enable energy access for “hardest to reach” communities (Munro, 2020; Bobbins et al., 2023). Although intuitively, proximity to grid infrastructure should augur well for electrification, experiences from different geographies have shown how entire communities remain on the “edges” of infrastructure provision which perpetuates existing inequalities and disenfranchisement (Golubchikov and O'Sullivan, 2020; Munro, 2020; Bobbins et al., 2023; Cantoni et al., 2022; Siciliano et al., 2025; O'Sullivan et al., 2020). For example, Golubchikov and O'Sullivan (2020) show how “energy peripheries” exacerbate “energy vulnerabilities” and how even modes of low carbon energy production can perpetuate inequalities in development. While reasons including limitations on financial resources, limited feasibility from techno-economic and least-cost planning principles provide real practical constraints, without a critical reflection on the notions and constructions of “remoteness” and “peripherality” (Pugh and Dubois, 2021), there is a risk of exacerbating and reproducing existing urban-rural divides, inequalities within cities and rapidly urbanizing regions, and the spaces in between.

When conceptualizing the “hardest to reach,” geographic “remoteness,” may intuitively become the default or natural assumption for characterizing “hard to reach” communities. Aspects of a country or region's physical geography, including topography, size and geographically dispersed regions often influence the reality and perception of what is possible or feasible for electrification, and the approaches used. In Kenya, for example, hardest-to reach “remote” regions are included under the Kenya Off-grid Solar Access Project (KOSAP), which comprises clusters of historically marginalized counties, predominantly in the northern and northwestern regions of Kenya. These areas are considered challenging to reach due to geographic remoteness, as well as lower population density in comparison to the bigger cities (Energy Sector Magagment Assistance Programme, 2017; Harrington, 2020). However, even within the KOSAP territories, which are largely considered remote, there are variations in rural and peri-urban characterization as well as differing levels of regional incomes and levels of affordability across the counties.

In Rwanda, aspects of topography and physical size of the country make it paradoxically both challenging and possible to electrify the whole country with the national grid. Rwanda's cumulative connectivity rate is 80.1%, with 56.2% connected to the national grid, and 23.9% through off-grid technologies (mainly solar; Rwanda Energy Group, 2024). For example, while hilly terrain and other aspects of the country's physical geography make it difficult to extend the grid (Bisaga, 2018), the size of the country makes it technically possible to extend the grid to most parts. Beyond these geographical considerations, the wider socio-economic context, including low incomes in “hard to reach” communities in Rwanda, make affordability of electricity through the grid and off-grid alternatives challenging to many households, particularly those who have been classified as Ubudehe 1,² who are considered the least socio-economically well off. To address some of these challenges (as will be elaborated), geographically and socio-economically targeted finance through a tiered Pro-Poor subsidy has been used as one of the ways the Government of Rwanda is addressing the affordability gap of off-grid solar systems. The Government of Rwanda has prioritized national grid extension as part of its universal access approach, while mini-grids and solar home systems serve more as transitional technologies in lieu of grid access in certain areas (Pérez-Arriaga et al., 2020; Pailman, 2024). Thus, as exemplified through the case of Rwanda, institutional priorities at a national level can be a more determining feature for a country's electrification trajectory than geographic or socio-economic constraints alone. Institutional choices of technology mix, and level of public or private sector involvement in energy provision can be an overriding factor for shaping the overall enabling environment for energy access technologies. In addition to physical geographical constraints, the affordability gap is particularly pronounced in Rwanda, which poses a significant barrier for both grid and non-grid connected customers.

In addition to remote or rural communities, the concept of “energy islands” is important to consider as an archetype of “remoteness” and “hardest to reach.” This may be characterized by physical geographical isolation from the mainland, for instance in the case of Madagascar, or by functioning as an “island” despite being landlocked, for example Eswatini. In Madagascar, the electricity supply is characterized by a mixture of diesel, hydro and solar mini-grids that function independently from one another, rather than one national grid (Cholibois, 2020). Whilst supply in urban and port areas is dominated by the national utility JIRAMA, the private sector has become the dominant player in rural areas. For off-grid project developers, Madagascar's geographical isolation from the East African mainland results in significant challenges. Amongst others, it impacts logistical costs and exacerbates the impact of supply chain disruptions, resulting in project delays and increased capital expenditure (CapEx) costs.

In Eswatini, the hardest to reach is often characterized by rural areas distant from urban centers. Although Eswatini is a small country, it is mountainous, and many of the rural areas do not have an adequate road network. The country has focused its efforts on rural electrification, moving from 51% of the population in 2010 (SE4ALL, 2014) to 82% of the population in 2022 (Eswatini Electricity Company, 2022). However, the maintenance of rural infrastructure remains a problem, with rural residents indicating that it can take days for power to be restored following a storm. Like many countries, Eswatini is experimenting with village-level mini-grids to generate and supply power to those who are far from existing grid networks. In both national grid infrastructure and mini-grid projects, affordability of electricity still presents a barrier to access. In Eswatini, spending on extending grid infrastructure has been a governmental priority, which has largely been financed through international institutions, including loans from the World Bank. Despite the subsidized connection costs of €400/$480 (2023 prices), facilitated through a World Bank Loan and “lifeline” tariffs (Eswatini Electricity Company, 2024), households in both rural and urban areas find electricity challenging to afford, leading to continued use of firewood as a fuel source for cooking in the rural areas, propane in the urban areas, with a growing use of small home solar for lighting and phone charging in all settings (Hastie, 2024b).

Similar to remote or rural areas, informal settlements in many cities present a significant challenge for electrification which requires alternatives to the grid. It further requires interrogating perceptions about suitability and adequacy of off-grid alternatives and reconceptualising paradigms of infrastructure provision in the “off-grid city” (Caprotti et al., 2022). Although many urban or peri-urban informal settlements are usually near centralized grid infrastructure, households and businesses located in these settlements continue to be precluded from accessing key basic infrastructure services including electricity (de Groot and Lemanski, 2021; Kovacic et al., 2019). In Cape Town, South Africa, for example, systemic inequalities permeate the fabric of the city and are evident through the present and legacy “architecture” of city planning, disparities in access to economic opportunities and mobility, the lack of adequate housing and the location of growing informal settlements on the periphery and closer to the city center (Smit et al., 2019). For example, Qandu-Qandu, an informal settlement in Cape Town, is unlikely to be formally connected to the grid due to several “encumbrances,” preventing grid electrification under existing policy and regulatory frameworks. These includes the being partially located on a wetland and under a transmission line (Department of Energy, 2015; Bobbins et al., 2023; Yaguma et al., 2025), as well as a range of financial and urban governance considerations and contestations, despite being located directly “under the grid.” In these instances, residents have had to rely on a combination of options like paraffin, “informal” connections, LPG, and have recently (since 2020) gained access to solar electricity through the implementation of solar tower-based microgrid pilots through the British Academy-funded Energy for Wellbeing project, and the UK Newton Fund-financed UMBANE project (which focused on solar microgrid-enabled refrigeration; Bobbins et al., 2023). This was also complemented by initiatives like asolar public lighting project in Qandu Qandu (Caprotti et al., 2025). This responded to a need for public lighting for improved safety in informal settlements in Khayelitsha (Briers, 2021). The lighting projct contributed positively toward community perceptions of improved safety and requires tailored and well-targeted finance for wider communal infrastructure beyond household applications and productive uses. Importantly, although informal settlements include many infrastructure deprivations, they are also sites of innovation and resilience with respect to the approaches communities use to navigate a myriad of infrastructure challenges and daily socio-economic deprivations. As highlighted in Caprotti et al. (2022, p. 1218), when engaging with discourses on the “off-grid city” it is necessary to “engage more critically with narratives of imperfection and inadequacy.” This is echoed in recent scholarship on peripheries that highlight that peripheries do not equate to “failure” or the inability to innovate (Pugh and Dubois, 2021; Glückler et al., 2023).

In informal settlements in Kampala, Uganda many settlements have formally metered grid connections closer to the entrance of the settlements, but “informal” connections are more prevalent deeper in the settlement (Yaguma et al., 2022). Accessing informal settlements to install or extend grid infrastructure can be challenging, due to restricted or non-existent access roads, and dense housing structures built on highly fragmented land parcels. From a practical implementation perspective there is a lack of safe household wiring (which has been previously addressed through subsidized “plug and play” distribution boards called ready boards), which makes it difficult for households to get connected even if distribution network infrastructure is nearby. Therefore, while informal settlements may be within “reach” of the grid, parts of the settlements are hard to reach both physically and systemically. At a broader scale and from a systemic perspective, informal settlements are also “hard to reach” given the power asymmetry between the settlements, residents' energy strategies, and energy providers' strategic priorities (Yaguma et al., 2024), and historical trajectories in the production of infrastructural inequalities (Essex and de Groot, 2019).

In many instances there are ineffective communication channels between energy service providers and informal settlement communities they are serving, leading to distrust, especially if compounded by a track record of non-service delivery or a sense of disengagement (Smit et al., 2019). The cases of urban informality in Kampala and Qandu-Qandu (Cape Town) provide an interesting contrast, where the former has a greater national utility “presence,” whereas the latter case effectivity has no utility presence (other than maintenance of transmission infrastructure within the wider area). The urban governance disconnect, further distances settlements from the electricity provision ecosystem, which also raises issues of procedural justice (Jenkins et al., 2016). The abovementioned barriers create and exacerbate spatial disparities in grid electricity access within the informal settlements themselves, and within the broader city context.

In addition to urban informality and geographic remoteness, contexts of displacement like refugee settlements or urban centers housing displaced populations, form part of the “hardest to reach” populations. The West Nile region in Uganda, for example, comprises rapidly urbanizing centers which house a growing population that include more than 800,000 refugees and displaced people from South Sudan and the DR Congo (Ahimbisibwe, 2018). However, the entire West Nile region is not connected to the national grid network and rather operates on a mini-grid powered by diesel generators. Given that Uganda as a host country still faces energy access challenges at national level, and the refugee settlements are considered “temporary,” the upfront costs of energy access are a barrier. Further, refugee settlements are not always given priority from a national electrification planning perspective (Casati et al., 2024), notwithstanding the emergence of humanitarian energy access initiatives and programmes particularly targeted at displaced populations. As with informal settlements, there is often a disjuncture between perceptions of how long settlements will be in existence vs. the realities, which also relates to governance and notions of legitimacy (Smit et al., 2019). As a result, only a few business centers and administration buildings within some of the refugee settlements are electrified leaving many households unconnected. Nevertheless, there is a significant need for a range of energy services for mobile phone charging, to power lights, key appliances and for productive uses. Thus, many refugee households rely on solar lanterns, battery powered torches and depend on local shops and kiosks to charge their mobile phones (Sandwell et al., 2023).

3 A typology of the “hardest to reach”

The discussion above shows how the “hardest to reach” can be characterized in multiple ways, and beyond often-used geospatial notions that link the “hardest to reach” to territorial difficulties while potentially obscuring governance, political, financial and other factors. In the following, and based on our discussion of these multiple factors, we present an emerging and evolving typology of the “hardest to reach” (see Table 1). This typology draws on the nuances and characteristics of the collective projects conducted in the case study regions presented above. The typology is based on the authors' collective experience delivering off-grid energy access research projects and innovation pilots in South Africa, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, South Africa, Eswatini and Madagascar carried out between 2019 and 2025. These include the solar microgrid and refrigeration projects mentioned above, a Newton International Fellowship on integrated models for energy access at the grid's edge in Cape Town and Uganda, a British Academy sustainable refrigeration-focused project in Uganda, and doctoral research carried out in Kenya, Rwanda, Madagascar and Eswatini. The typology developed draws on these collective insights, including findings from academic articles published from these projects as well as other relevant literature and case studies.

Table 1

Table 1. Emerging typology of the “hardest to reach.”

An initial typology outline was developed and iteratively reviewed by the authors in relation to the literature and conceptual grounding provided through the off-grid innovation pilot case studies and country contexts in which these pilots and associated financing models were deployed.

While it is acknowledged that there may be categories that do not fully fit the typology or cover all the possible examples of hardest to reach contexts within the selected countries, we have elected to drill down into the selected cases and regional examples in more depth to offer overarching findings within and across these contexts.

Type 1-1—remote rural

The first type is characterized by remoteness or distance from main centralized national grid infrastructure or cities and major economic centers. It often includes less densely populated and more dispersed settlements which presents a barrier for electrification and grid extension. Within this categorization it is important to note that rural areas are not necessarily remote, or isolated and many rural and peri-urban areas can be close to cities and centralized grid infrastructure. Commonly cited barriers include a lack of techno-economic viability or not meeting least cost electrification principles pertaining to the cost of grid extension. In addition, settlement characteristics like low population density and low energy consumption are cited as barriers for grid extension. In certain instances, poor road infrastructure impacts both grid extension and maintenance. For off-grid models barriers include the viability gap resulting in limited viability on a purely commercial basis. Both grid and off-grid modalities need subsidies.

Type 1-2—remote island

As a variation of the remote rural type highlighted above, this category presents additional barriers of physical remoteness or isolation, i.e., in the case of Madagascar. In Madagascar, isolation from the East African mainland presents considerable challenges for electrification, with attendant negative impacts for end-users (e.g., regarding affordability and reliability of supply). Energy access is characterized by a mix of off-grid technologies and fuels. Moreover, expensive and complicated supply chains mean that end-users struggle to access high quality electrical appliances. In addition to physical or geographical isolation, small landlocked countries like Eswatini could be seen as effectively functioning as “remote islands” and are also dependent on imports of electricity (from e.g., South Africa), while deploying utility scale solar and off-grid pilots. Reliance on imports increases energy vulnerability at a national scale, which also has knock on impacts for reaching hardest to reach communities.

Type 1-3 rural peripheral—under the grid

This category represents rural or peri-urban areas that are “under the grid” or close to national/centralized grid infrastructure, but not necessarily connected to the main grid. These areas are also categorized by a mix of off-grid technologies. In some instances, electrification modes like mini-grids can be seen to be in “competition” with the grid or pose regulatory challenges of grid encroachment, which can lead to the need for a redeployment of infrastructure assets to other regions. Questions around differential tariffs between neighboring regions of grid connected and off-grid customers can also pose a challenge from an equity and energy justice perspective.

Type 2-1—urban informal “under the grid” not formally electrified

Urban informality under the grid is characterized by proximity to centralized grid infrastructure, yet there is lack of formal grid access (formally metered connections). Heterogenous infrastructure e.g., “informal” grid connections, paraffin, LPG, off-grid solar (mini-grids/stand-alone systems) is emblematic of infrastructure provision in these types of informal settlements. Despite proximity to centralized grid infrastructure, households, businesses, and entire communities are still precluded from electricity access through the centralized grid. This creates a niche market opportunity for private sector-led off-grid innovations. However, these market opportunities are largely dependent on existing income and expenditure patterns of households and homebased micro-enterprises. Off-grid solar innovation models in these contexts necessitates reduced end-user fees for energy service payments through subsidies and other innovative finance and business models. It further requires a thorough market analysis on willingness and ability to pay. In the absence thereof, the market opportunity to effectively serve these communities could be limited. This is an important consideration to avoid the unintentional or further marginalization or exclusion of residents who are not able to afford higher fees associated with private sector led models, where appropriately designed subsidies are not in place.

Type 2-2—urban informal “under the grid”—partially grid connected

As a variation of Type 2-1, this category is characterized by urban informal settlements that have grid access or partial grid access but is also characterized by heterogeneity of energy infrastructure. This also creates discrepancies and disparities between the “landscape” of access throughout the settlement and could widen inequalities between formally connected and “informally” connected households. This contributes to the presence of heterogenous energy infrastructure and the use of multiple energy sources. Part of settlements have grid access through formal metered connections while other parts (e.g., deeper into the settlement) are without access.

Type 3—urban displacement—partially grid connected

Urban displacement is characterized by urban centers housing displaced/refugee communities. This includes urban and peri-urban settlements. These settlements are characterized by heterogeneous infrastructure, including grid and off-grid technologies. Drawing from the example of the West Nile region in Uganda, this typology represents scenarios where growing urban centers are grid connected, but adjacent regions are not and depend on, amongst others, diesel generators, off-grid solar and pico-solar technologies for mobile phone charging, lighting etc. These settings also present unique challenges for the types of finance approaches that can be used to fund energy access initiatives and address the viability gap. This is also impacted by risk perception or profile of refugee settlements.

From the typology of the “hardest to reach” presented above, salient features across the case studies include heterogeneous infrastructure, a multiplicity of electrification modes as well as increased private sector involvement and international development finance. Building on the typology above, the next section unpacks key challenges contributing to the production and re-production of the “hardest to reach.”

3.1 Production and re-production of the “hardest to reach”—cross-cutting issues

The emerging typology above presents a tapestry of the “hardest to reach” drawing from experiences in Southern and East Africa. While these categories by no means present an exhaustive or all-encompassing view of the hardest to reach, it illuminates salient aspects of the case studies emerging across urban and rural geographies. It moves past urban—rural binaries, showcasing nuanced commonalities between and across categories. The question of why “hardest to reach” geographies and communities have not been adequately reached or reached at all, is multi-faceted; it depends on energy access governance regimes, financial resources, institutional priorities, political will and electrification planning practices, where “cherry picking” is practiced both by national utilities and public sector actors, and where the viability gap is persistent. Viewed simplistically, the decision to electrify certain regions of a country, through grid extension or off-grid alternatives, could be considered as policy and institutional decisions. This pertains to the technology mix (grid and off-grid), which areas are prioritized in electrification planning, and the level or modalities of private sector involvement. These choices are bounded by a range of pragmatic constraints with respect to the viability gap, affordability, coordination between electrification modes, “cherry picking” and policy narratives, which will be discussed in this section (Rahnama, 2018; Pérez-Arriaga et al., 2020; Jacquot, 2021).

The viability gap: It is necessary to consider the viability gap, as this is intrinsically linked to how energy access services are delivered within and across varying spatial and socio-economic contexts. The drivers of the viability gap within and across the typology geographies and contexts presented above are multi-faceted and impact the types of emerging models used to address this gap. Through research on off-grid solar mini-grids and stand-alone systems in Kenya and Rwanda, Pailman (2024) showed that the viability gap is influenced by the complex interrelation between financing, affordability, regulatory and geographic considerations. The viability gap is shaped by many contextual factors which are often enmeshed with structural, spatial and socio-economic inequalities. It is influenced by the broader governance of electrification (Haque et al., 2021), the electrification vision espoused by countries (Pérez-Arriaga et al., 2020), and the financial resources made available to reach un-or underserved populations. This further links to approaches to address the viability gap through financial instruments and incentives.

Affordability: This is often a key factor affecting and constraining the viability and feasibility of different electrification approaches, across geographies and contexts highlighted in the emerging typology. Within each of the contexts and categories (ranging from Type 1-1 Remote Rural to Type 3 Urban displacement) affordability remains critical to the delivery of energy access and attendant financing models. In Rwanda, for example, affordability continues to be a key constraint for households accessing off-grid technologies and off-grid solar companies selling solar home systems find it increasingly challenging to penetrate markets beyond the “low-hanging” fruit of serving customers where ability to pay is relatively higher (Pailman, 2024). This requires dedicated financing mechanisms to address the affordability gap. Other countries like Uganda, whose electricity provision is private sector-led, have one of the highest tariffs on the continent, which has priced informal settlement dwellers (Type 2-2 Urban Informal Partially Grid Connected) out of grid electricity given their low and precarious incomes (Yaguma et al., 2022). High grid connection costs and auxiliary costs such as house wiring and obtaining the necessary permits and approvals can also be prohibitive (Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), 2020, p. 48), particularly in informal settlements. Nationally, there have been attempts to address the cost barrier for low-income households through pro-poor policy and technical solutions such as the full connection subsidy offered through the Free Electricity Connections Policy (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2017) and the partial subsidy and “Ready Boards”³ considered in the Uganda Grid Based Output-Based Aid Project (GPOBA) funded through a public-private partnership between the government of Uganda, the World Bank, European Union and other development partners (The Global Partnership on Output Based Aid (GPOBA), 2017).

In the Qandu-Qandu informal settlement in Cape Town (which could be classified as Type 2-1: Urban Informal “Under the grid” not formally electrified), affordability remains a key consideration and constraint for paying for off-grid energy solar alternatives, and needs to account for varying, cyclical or infrequent incomes, which is a key consideration in many other informal settlements in Global South cities (Bobbins et al., 2023; Caprotti et al., 2024). It also requires consideration to the wider context in which off-grid innovations are rooted including, the entrepreneurial context. In Qandu-Qandu, entrepreneurship and micro-businesses have become an integral part of the economic and livelihood landscape in the informal settlement. Understanding the dynamism and intricacies of micro-entrepreneurship and solar refrigeration in the Umbane project, in Qandu-Qandu for example, was integral to developing a sustainable business and financing model around solar innovation and addressing affordability (Pailman et al., 2024).

Coordination between grid and off-grid models: From an electrification planning perspective, a key challenge leading to large “pockets” of unelectrified households and communities is insufficient coordination between grid and off-grid modalities and within the off-grid sector itself (Lepicard et al., 2017; Pérez-Arriaga et al., 2019). An important aspect of ensuring that all households, businesses, social institutions within a region gain access to electricity is inclusivity in geographic reach or service territories through mechanisms which mandate utilities and off-grid service providers to service a particular geographic region e.g., through territorial concessions (Hosier et al., 2007; Pérez-Arriaga et al., 2020; Jacquot, 2021) but also recognizing the need for more flexibility in the design of concessions and partnership models and a greater emphasis on affordability (Rahnama, 2018; Pailman et al., 2024). Importantly, as argued above, energy access is not only a function of gaining access to a grid connection or off-grid system but being able to afford it on a longer-term sustainable basis.

Cherry-picking: Closely linked to electrification planning and institutional integration and coordination, is the practice of “cherry-picking.” In the context of this paper, we define “cherry-picking” as the intentional selection of areas to electrify or provide energy infrastructure to more-broadly, which usually entails regions or market segments where ability to pay is higher and grid extension or off-grid provision is considered viable from a techno-economic perspective. Cherry-picking occurs across urban, rural and peri-urban geographies alike (Type 1–Type 3) and is intricately linked to the affordability and viability gap, within varying geographic and socio-economic contexts. Public sector utilities and private sector providers both engage in this practice due to practical, financial and economic considerations, which is once more bounded by institutional priorities, and depends on countries' electrification approaches and mandates. As countries exhaust the “low-hanging fruits” of regions that are “easy” to electrify, energy providers have found it increasingly challenging to make a business case in hard-to-reach regions (Lepicard et al., 2017; Pailman, 2024).

For the case of off-grid solar products in East Africa, Lepicard et al. (2017) found that beyond serving more well-off market segments with solar in Nairobi (Kenya's capital), Arusha (one of Tanzania's major diplomatic hubs) and the Lake Zone in Tanzania, off-grid solar companies are struggling to venture out into the more “challenging” regions. While Lepicard et al.'s (2017) study considers the East African cities as customer bases that are generally easier to electrify through off-grid stand-alone solar alternatives, recent studies on solar micro-grids in informal settlements (see. e.g., Bobbins et al., 2023; Pailman et al., 2024) have highlighted the nuanced complexities of energy provision within contexts of urban off-grid city contexts. Similarly for Rwanda, Pailman (2024) found that for off-grid solar companies, the low hanging fruits are being exhausted, and off-grid solar companies are challenged with branching out into segments where household affordability is especially low. This has resulted in an increase in customer non-payment rates and in some instances repossessions of solar home systems. In Madagascar, for instance, the practice of “cherry picking” communities by the private sector is a consequence of the extremely low rural electricity access rate (12%) coupled with the high investment costs and risks associated with the implementation of mini-grid projects (World Bank, 2022). As a result, mini-grid companies with territorially-based concessions are focusing on the implementation of projects in the capitals of each commune, which typically fulfills the conditions needed to make mini-grid projects economically viable.

4 Emerging directions for financing the “hardest to reach”: incentive-based financing

Considering the characterization of the “hardest to reach” and aspects of the viability gap detailed above, combinations of innovative and well-established financing mechanisms are needed to address it. The focus on financing is key to addressing some of the issues pertaining to “hardest to reach” communities identified in the earlier sections of the paper, particularly around viability and affordability as well as addressing remoteness.

To address the interrelated challenges of affordability (for consumers) and viability (for providers), as well as cherry-picking, to move to more coordinated paradigms and approaches for energy provision, targeted financing is needed which considers the complexities of “hardest to reach” communities in the typology and examples presented above. Viability gap finance includes a range of financing instruments including different blends of grants, such as Results-Based Finance (RBF), equity and debt (BloombergNEF and SEforAll, 2020; Falchetta et al., 2022). In addition to RBF, patient capital and impact-focused equity finance, including forms of philanthropic capital are needed to enable reaching hard-to-reach communities (see Table 2). According to Acumen (2022) more philanthropic capital (equity and debt) is needed, with more favorable funding terms and higher risk thresholds, considering the perceived and real risk profiles for developing financially viable business models and the time needed to prove business models and business cases in more challenging markets and contexts.

Table 2

Table 2. financing approaches for the “hardest to reach.”

In addition, RBF approaches combined with other blends of finance could be considered as part of an emerging suite of incentive-based financing and energy delivery approaches, which are often coupled with or contained within Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) and variations of concessions (Phillips et al., 2020a). RBF can be considered a financing partnership, usually between international development partners, public sector actors and private companies (Stritzke et al., 2021; Pailman, 2024) and ordinarily involves a contractual agreement between public sector entities and implementing agencies (Stritzke et al., 2021). While these financing instruments and mechanisms have not been used exclusively in “hardest to reach” contexts, many of these are increasingly being used and considered for providing energy access in hardest to reach communities.

4.1 Results-based and blended finance: balancing reach and risk

The typology of the “hardest to reach” illuminated complexities surrounding geographic remoteness coupled with techno-economic viability constraints, as a commonly cited barrier for serving hard to reach communities, as well as socio-economic and socio-political infrastructure delivery challenges in “under the grid” communities. In recent years, RBF has been used as an approach to address the viability gap and extend access to end-users in remote and geographically marginalized contexts and could be considered as an example of geographically targeted finance (Nagpal and Pérez-arriaga, 2021; Stritzke et al., 2021; Phillips et al., 2020b; Pailman, 2024). Increasingly, RBF has been used as a model to incentivise electrification in the “last mile” in historically marginalized regions. It has witnessed increasing proliferation particularly in East Africa but is expanding across the continent with the emergence of Pan African RBFs like the Universal Energy Facility (UEF). RBF has been used within various typology categories presented in this paper including Remote Rural and Remote Peripheral categories as well as Urban Displacement.

RBF approaches can be coupled with blended finance facilities to incentivise the electrification of off-grid technologies. In the KOSAP project, Pailman (2024) explored how RBF is used to incentivise off-grid companies to go beyond the “low hanging fruit” through grant incentives for companies operating in historically marginalized counties selling stand-alone solar systems or clean cookstoves. KOSAP, initiated in 2017, specifically targets geographically and historically marginalized regions in Kenya and is aimed at providing off-grid access through stand-alone solar systems, clean cooking and mini-grids in 14 counties including rural regions (Energy Sector Magagment Assistance Programme, 2017). KOSAP focusses on off-grid technologies and business models and includes financing incentives for off-grid companies to reach the “underserved,” through for example, RBF, debt and working capital facilities for off-grid providers. This is further supported through a World Bank loan to the Kenyan Government. KOSAP provides an example of “geographically targeted” finance with incentives coupled to specific geographies (i.e., rural and peri-urban areas in the north and northwestern parts of the country). In KOSAP example is a mix of remote rural (Type 1-1) and rural peripheral (Type 1-3) communities, where from a geographic and socio-economic perspective underserved regions have been shifted from the “periphery” of energy provision and have been prioritized in energy policy and planning by being embedded in a large flagship off-grid electrification programme.

Similarly in Rwanda a “Pro-Poor RBF” for stand-alone solar products has been piloted in five rural districts in Rwanda's Southern province, to address the affordability gap for households (i.e., Type 1-1 Remote Rural and Type 1-3 Rural Peripheral). This was extended to a national facility under the Rwanda Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Window 5, still with a focus on rural customers (Pailman, 2024). The rural focus can further be attributed to differential access rates in urban and rural areas. While 82% of households in Kigali City are electrified, the Southern province has the lowest electrification rate of approximately 30%, with Northern and Western provinces under 40% (Rwanda Energy Group, 2024). This subsidy enables households with the lowest levels of affordability to receive a proportionally higher subsidy to acquire and pay for stand-alone solar home systems. For mini-grids in Kenya and Rwanda, RBF has been used to provide a CapEx subsidy ranging between 50 and 70% of the CapEx of the mini-grid projects to improve the viability of the projects presented for finance (Pailman, 2024). Thus, RBF instruments in these contexts served both to incentivise expansion into underserved regions of the country and to address elements of the affordability and viability gap. In the West Nile region of Uganda (Type 3 Urban Displacement), RBF has been used as a tool for derisking companies operating within this region and to improve the affordability of the solar systems being sold (Sandwell et al., 2023). This pertains to financially incentivising companies/energy providers to develop projects in geographical regions that they would ordinarily not venture into in the absence of an incentive or CapEx subsidy. However, considering that RBF programmes are designed to shift the risk to private sector actors/project implementers, as payments are only made upon achievement of agreed milestones, companies/off-grid providers still need to take on a considerable degree of risk, even though a financial “incentive” may be in place to establish a footprint in the more “challenging” and geographically dispersed or “remote” markets (Stritzke et al., 2021).

While RBF has been used in Kenya, Rwanda and the West Nile region in Uganda both to incentive serving the hardest to reach, in Madagascar the mechanisms have primarily been used to improve the viability of mini-grid projects. In Madagascar (Type 1-2 Remote Island), RBF is offered by international and bilateral financing partners, such as Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL) and KfW Development Bank, to accelerate rural electrification initiatives at large. In the absence of state subsidies, these RBF mechanisms allow mini-grid companies to significantly improve the viability of their business models, for instance by reducing the project's CapEx or by ensuring a steady consumption through subsidizing the productive use of electricity (PUE). The extent to which RBF achieves its desired impact, however, depends on a range of factors. Experiences⁴ in Madagascar have highlighted the importance of adapting the financing tool to fit the local context whilst building the capacities of local authorities. Moreover, more research is needed on what indicators are most suitable to measure the desired “results” whilst allowing for a degree of flexibility in recognition of the sector's unpredictability and risks. Important to consider regarding the above is that viability and geographic inclusivity are both key aspects of reaching harder to reach communities. Viability and inclusivity objectives need to be balanced and improving the viability of off-grid projects in the “hardest to reach” communities is part enabling off-grid private sector actors to maintain their operations in pursuit of sustainable models. The above examples demonstrate how RBF has been used as a tool across multiple geographic contexts ranging from remote rural communities to settings of displacement to address the viability gap but also to incentivise off-grid energy providers to reach and effectively serve hardest to reach communities.

4.2 Public private partnerships and concessions

Public private partnerships, including territorial concessions, have been used to finance energy access projects, both for grid-based and off-grid technologies (Jacquot et al., 2019; Pérez-Arriaga et al., 2019; Jacquot, 2021; Phillips et al., 2020b). As previously highlighted, the challenges of delivering energy access in “last mile” or “hardest to reach” contexts move beyond geospatial characterization and constraints despite being directly impacted by these. Thus, solutions to the complex, multi-dimensional challenges presented in hard-to-reach contexts need to move beyond territorially based solutions, notwithstanding the need and value of electrification approaches that are territorially based.

Territorial concessions, where utilities or energy companies are mandated to service particular geographic territories, could be an approach for addressing the challenge and practice of “cherry-picking” highlighted above (Jacquot et al., 2019; Pérez-Arriaga et al., 2019; Jacquot, 2021). However, territorial concessions have proven limited in effectively reaching and serving hard to reach communities (ibid). In Madagascar, off-grid providers can access electrification concessions in several ways, including through spontaneous applications or tender applications (World Bank, 2015). The country's rural electrification agency, Agence de Developpment de l'Electrification Rurale (ADER) promotes a tender-based approach, through which private-sector actor(s) are selected to fulfill the electrification mandate for a whole region. However, such territorial concessions are not without challenges. Whilst from a regulatory standpoint, private-sector concession holders are obliged to electrify all settlements within the region, obstacles such as a lack of financial support means that small, remote, and non-profitable localities are being left behind. In response, several mini-grid companies (like Africa GreenTec and ANKA) are developing alternative supply models, such as nano grids, to serve these “harder to reach” communities. Moreover, Madagascar's 2015 “New Electrification Plan,” prompted international funding bodies to provide subsidies for the electrification of Madagascar's South, where many off-grid projects were previously considered economically unfeasible (Cholibois, 2020; Ministere de l'Energie et des Hydrocarbures, 2015). Thus, concessions that are effectively designed, with the necessary flexibility and context specific grounding have the potential to address aspects of “cherry-picking” (Jacquot, 2021; Pailman, 2024).

Within the contexts of the case studies presented, territorial concessions, combined with RBF are used to extend energy access. In Uganda, for example, output-based aid subsidy schemes (a variation of RBF) are not exclusively targeted at the urban poor living in informal settlements, but they offer a useful lens through which to consider different financing mechanisms which have been deployed to reach low-income households. With one of the most liberalized electricity sectors in sub-Saharan Africa following the neo-liberal sector reforms of the late 1990s (Godinho and Eberhard, 2019), Uganda employs limited time concessions to utilities and Independent Power Producers (IPPs) as well as structured Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) to finance many of its electrification programmes. The private distribution utility Umeme operates with the backing of conditions that guarantee at least cost-reflective tariffs, a condition that would not be met by serving low-income communities. Furthermore, many of these efforts remain focused on generation, rural electrification, or first-time electrification for the conventional “hard to reach” areas in remote rural locations or peri-urban areas, overlooking poor urban communities like informal settlements. This, alongside the utility's disincentive to serve these communities renders them hard to reach by these measures. Therefore, expanding the definition of “hardest to reach” beyond geography as offered in this paper brings to light such crucial but overlooked domains of hard to reach, energy-deprived populations.

5 Discussion

The sections above highlighted emerging financing and concession approaches for delivering off-grid energy in hardest to reach contexts across the examples and hardest to reach typology presented. It further demonstrated the nuances of remoteness and peripherality, and how these transcend a purely geospatial characterization, but can refer to isolation from a policy making and governance perspective, even in instances where proximity to energy infrastructure does not pose a barrier. These points are elaborated below.

5.1 Heterogenous infrastructure and the need for targeted funding

Across the examples presented, heterogenous infrastructure, including a mix of grid and off-grid as well as fossil-fuel based, and renewable energy is a common feature. In some instances, heterogeneity is a response of communities who have had to navigate their own infrastructure provision, in lieu of “formal” or any grid access, as seen particularly through energy provision in certain informal settlements and under the grid unelectrified communities (see e.g., Munro, 2020; Caprotti et al., 2022; Bobbins et al., 2023). In other instances, heterogeneous infrastructure is a response from the state or spheres of international development and donor finance, who direct funding to off-grid technologies where the grid has failed to reach or in weak grid settings (Pérez-Arriaga et al., 2020; Borofsky and Caprotti, 2025). This is often coupled with institutional priorities and directives for off-grid funding, which may favor or prioritize particular technologies (e.g., an RBF facility for stand-alone solar and clean cooking technologies in Kenya via the KOSAP project or a tiered RBF subsidy directed toward low-income households acquiring stand-alone solar systems in Rwanda). In either of the above instances, it is indicative that a one-size-fits-all approach or singular mode of electrification is not well suited to the diverse contexts and energy needs of hard-to-reach communities. In many of the case study contexts presented above, a national grid centric paradigm is not conducive for reaching a diversity of hard-to-reach communities.

As emphasized in Caprotti et al. (2022), it is important to recognize the dynamism of infrastructure provision in the off-grid city, and how alternatives to the centralized national grid (that are needs-focused) continue to serve as important sources for energy provision. This can further be extended beyond the off-grid city, to wider contexts of the hardest to reach explored in this paper. This further relates to the concept of “infrastructural citizenship” in relation to the disjuncture between state and society (Lemanski, 2020), where in the context of the “hardest to reach,” off-grid alternatives can provide residents avenues to “enact their citizenship,” particularly in contexts where delegitimisation of “informal” urban or displacement contexts could be accompanied by a sense of disenfranchisement. However, these options or alternatives can only become a legitimate lasting feature of the infrastructural landscape if the viability gap (including the affordability gap) is addressed, with sustainable business models that are sufficiently grounded in the local contexts (Pailman et al., 2024) and become embedded in national or local energy planning and delivery.

5.2 Constructions of “remoteness” and “policy peripherality”

The sections above have highlighted that, even when entire communities are proximate to centralized infrastructure, they can be isolated from national or city level energy policy planning and left on the periphery or fringes of energy and wider infrastructure provision. In the Qandu-Qandu informal settlement (Cape Town), despite being directly “under the grid,” there is a policy and governance disconnect coupled with several “encumbrances” that have left the informal community on the periphery of infrastructure provision and prioritization. This has several knock-on impacts with respect to wellbeing, health and safety, impacts, economic mobility and education opportunities (Caprotti et al., 2024). As argued by Tsiotas and Tselios (2023, p. 1426) “peripheral spaces are not solely defined by natural factors, but can also be shaped by functional processes, inadequate institutional and political structures, relational patterns, and social norms, alongside uneven allocation of economic resources and production coefficients.” The lacuna created in lieu of formal state/city led infrastructure provision leads to niches for private sector and international development funding to step into the gap, through private sector led and international development finance models that depend on a combination of market mechanisms and subsidies. Conversely, as exemplified through the case of Rwanda, governments and public sector actors can take a more hands-on and proactive stance in negotiating the “landscape” for energy access technologies and international donor and private sector investment into a country to guide both grid and off-grid activities and initiatives. The example of the KOSAP project in Kenya also shows how regions that were previously marginalized from electrification (and other infrastructure perspectives) have become a central focus for national policy, driven by the Kenyan government in partnership with international development actors, like the World Bank, who have increasingly focused on funding off-grid programmes and initiatives. Here historically remote or peripheral regions have been “centralized” in national policies and emerging international development discourses.

This demonstrates the role of policy in shaping energy programmes and finance that is specifically targeted at “hard to reach” communities. Where in the example of KOSAP, this has been at a national level and shaped by international funding and development imperatives, depending on the country context, local/municipal scales of governance can also play a role in developing and directing appropriate financing mechanisms to address the affordability and viability gap present in a myriad of “hardest to reach” contexts. This would be particularly relevant for urban informal settlement contexts like Qandu-Qandu (Type 2-1 Urban Informal), where the local government is a key actor responsible for infrastructure and the delivery of basic services, like access to electricity. This speaks to the need for intentionality in the design of financing instruments and programmes that are well targeted. This is required not only with respect to incentivising off-grid providers and utilities to service “hardest to reach communities” who are geographically remote but for targeted financing for “under the grid” and peripheral urban and peri-urban informal settlement communities who often fall within in the cracks of national grid electrification projects, and where complex socio-economic conditions and structures make it challenging to bridge the affordability gap.

5.3 Connectedness, isolation and interdependence

The examples presented in the typology of the hardest to reach further relate to relative degrees of interconnectedness and interdependence with respect to energy resources and energy security. Madagascar, an island country, and Eswatini, which can be considered to function as an “island” (despite being landlocked) are both dependent on fossil fuel imports for their electricity supply, which as previously highlighted, have impacts on energy security and energy vulnerability, as well as the cost of electricity. The UN (2022) reports that island nations and land-locked states are particularly off-track with achieving the targets of SDG7, especially as regards energy access. Eswatini has historically relied on neighboring South Africa and Mozambique for its electricity supply, but with the price increasing and supply under threat by challenges with South Africa's generation capacity, it is now turning to renewables to secure its own energy future (Hastie, 2024a). Without having to tackle the incumbency of fossil fuel production, Eswatini can move straight into generation from solar and hydro power (Hastie, 2024a). This is primarily grid-level infrastructure, but the country is also piloting village level mini-grids in some of the hardest-to-reach rural locations (Eswatini Electricity Company, 2024; Eswatini Observer, 2024).

While these countries can, respectively, be regarded as “energy islands,” with respect to physical geography or national state independence, there is still a degree of interconnectedness with other regions or states for energy supply. In the context of Qandu-Qandu, while located in a city, the policy and planning isolation from neighboring suburbs and other parts of the city, in essence also creates an “energy island” which is not marked by geographic isolation but rather a policy and governance isolation. This results in the residents needing to navigate their own infrastructural landscape, in the absence of formal city or state led provision, with a lacuna created for international development, donor finance and private sector provision. Thus, while communities can be “isolated” from, or less than optimally incorporated into municipal or national energy planning and service delivery, international research, innovation and international development actors can “intervene” in un or under-electrified spaces, creating transregional or transnational “communities of practice” who are able to co-create alternative and off-grid infrastructure solutions with communities. However, for off-grid “solutions” and financing models to be sustainable they need to be embedded within national or local infrastructure governance and included within national and/or city level planning and provision. The above highlights the nuances in conceptualisations of isolation, remoteness or energy islands and what interconnectedness or independence might mean in different contexts.

5.4 Restrictive policy narratives

Crucially it is also key to critically engage with discourses and policies that effectively justify minimal engagement and low to no levels of infrastructural service to “hardest to reach” communities, broadly understood. Our focus on the “hardest to reach” can be contextualized within the global development of neoliberal economic policies that are “free market” focused, and which inject a bottom-line economic rationality into policymaking, centered on economic self-sufficiency and financial “sustainability,” and making sure that any policies aimed at inclusion of the least wealthy into the market is done on the market's terms (Peck, 2001). The impact of such policies on “hardest to reach” communities has been examined in multiple contexts across the Global North and South, in rural (Shucksmith and Rønningen, 2011; Bateman, 2012) as well as urban communities (Carmody and Owusu, 2016). A key theme that cuts across analyses of neoliberal economic development is their production and performance of the poor as economic problems (Mackenzie and Louth, 2019), and their integration into market mechanisms as the envelope within which “solutions” can be found. There is a broad range of research at multiple scales, on this theme: at the community scale (see e.g., Wheeler-Jones et al., 2015), while at the global policymaking scale there have been multiple analyses of the ways in which the poor are produced and performed (often using “participatory” approaches promising to “give a voice” to specific communities) in a specific politics of knowledge production involving the state and national and international development agencies (Cornwall and Fujita, 2012). Our approach to “hardest to reach” communities is therefore rooted in understanding how these communities, and their “remoteness,” are produced discursively, and through policy and practice mechanisms rooted in discursive production of the hardest to reach as remote. In turn, we approach remoteness as a concept and strategy that is complex and that can be, and indeed is used to classify hardest to reach communities as unreachable and/or characterized by a lack of desire to engage with (usually neoliberal) forms of regional, infrastructural and other forms of economic development.

6 Conclusion and recommendations

This paper has moved beyond a geospatial characterization of the “hardest to reach” and has highlighted the multifaceted contexts in which “hardest to reach” communities are produced and reproduced. It has shown how the confluence of spatial, socio-economic and socio-political barriers and considerations shape the viability gap and models for addressing “hardest to reach” communities. A key question then remains about how to create a paradigm shift that centralizes the energy needs, practices and lived experiences of “hardest to reach” communities, who largely remain on the “peripheries” (not just spatially, but socio-economically and regarding infrastructure policy and planning). This includes consideration of the wider socio-economic milieu and systemic inequalities that perpetuate the preclusion of energy access at household and community scales. Through our “hardest to reach” typology, this paper has provided a key conceptual contribution on the topic of energy peripheries. It considers the wider socio-spatial, socio-economic and socio-political dimensions that encompass a wide range of off-grid and weak-grid communities, across urban, peri-urban and rural contexts. Importantly the paper has highlighted the crucial role of policy willingness and strong governance. It highlights how “policy peripherality” can indeed shape energy peripheries, by perpetuating historical patterns of uneven geographic development or conversely can create new paradigms for more responsive governance. Crucially, as highlighted in Golubchikov and O'Sullivan (2020), clean energy transitions and technologies do not automatically translate into more equitable development for energy peripheries. Careful attention should be paid to the multi-faceted contexts that produce and reproduce energy peripheries, including shifts in paradigms of governance and prioritizing peripheral communities and settlements in energy provision and integrated infrastructure planning. Importantly there is a need to look beyond simplistic urban-rural binaries to account for vast and nuanced geospatial, socio-spatial, and socio-economic contexts.

Within the context of energy provision in “hardest to reach” communities, there is also a noticeable shift to private sector modalities of electrification. With this comes a tension between respective public and private sector mandates and the nature of financing and capital flows in the approaches and financing modalities needed to reach the “hardest to reach” communities. This has a bearing on the “hybrid” nature of subsidies from combinations of public sector finance, but also increasingly drawing on “market mechanisms” through market-based finance or co-finance for energy access projects. The emerging categorization and characterization of the “hardest to reach” also presents key considerations for the governance of un-and under electrified geographies and communities. To effectively address the energy access gap in “hardest to reach” communities and geographies, nuanced, ethical and data-sensitive engagement with the granular context is needed (Borofsky et al., 2025). This necessitates user-centric business models and more engagement with—and sensitivity to—the local context (Castán Broto et al., 2017; Caprotti et al., 2022). In conjunction with more market-led approaches, it is necessary to understand mechanisms through which affordability of key energy services can be improved and made more accessible. Understanding the complexities and opportunities for off-grid energy provision for these communities including improving affordability and ability to pay is necessary.

To reach and serve “hardest to reach” communities, geographic reach should be coupled with an acute sensitivity to the vast socio-economic contexts of these communities. Approaches like territorial concessions and PPPs highlighted earlier have historically focused on geographically targeting or ringfencing certain regions or territories, with public and private sector mandates to service particular territories. However, as earlier argued, conventional concession approaches are limited in their geographic reach of hard-to-reach communities, and often the affordability gap militates against geographic and financial inclusivity and the sustainability of electrification approaches. This call for more flexibility in the design of concessions or partnership approaches needs to account for variability and heterogeneity of incomes within service territories. The applicability of lessons across wider geographic contexts depends on several unique country specific factors, contextual challenges, electrification models and paradigms of infrastructure provision, regulatory regimes and financing approaches used. Through the typology-based conceptual contribution, this paper offers conceptual insights on energy peripheries and “hard to reach” communities. While this paper has focused on examples from Sub-Saharan Africa, the complexities of serving “hardest to reach communities” are not limited to Global South contexts, as there are many hard-to-reach communities in the Global North and Global East, who may face comparable challenges, although grounded in a unique set of contextual factors.

Based on the analysis provided above, this paper makes the following recommendations. Firstly, awareness-raising of the complexity of hardest to reach communities is needed, over and above simple geographical definitions that unwittingly risk overlooking the complexities of serving hardest to reach communities, beyond geographic constraints. While this is something that policymakers may implicitly be aware of, it needs to be foregrounded to enact effective policies. Secondly, policy innovations should integrate private sector and market-led approaches, while also being cognisant of the need for public sector support for these approaches to enable sustainability and longevity. Thirdly it is imperative to embed a “hardest to reach” community focus in infrastructural planning across multiple municipal and government departments, to move away from infrastructural silos and enable a more holistic strategy focused on sustainable infrastructure financing. Finally, we argue that geographic and financial inclusivity should be considered as key principles for sustainable financing for tackling “hardest to reach” infrastructural challenges. While beyond the scope of this paper, end-user finance is a key aspect of sustainable models that can effectively reach hard to reach communities and requires appropriately designed and well-targeted subsidies for a range of contexts. This is important for addressing both the affordability and viability gap and is a useful avenue for further research.

Author contributions

WP: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. FC: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. PY: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. HH: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KO: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. IO: Writing – original draft. DS: Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the British Academy Newton International Fellowship (NIF22\220448), the British Academy (UWB190088 and IOCRG\100212), the Newton Fund (NP2020PB), and the Royal Society (AA21\100136).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

1. ^In the context of this paper, we define “low hanging fruit” as the areas that are relatively easier to connect from a techno-economic perspective with grid or off-grid technologies, but also from a socio-economic and affordability perspective.

2. ^Ubudehe is a socio- economic classification system in Rwanda consisting of 6 categories including household income, consumption, household assets, tenure etc. Ubudehe 1 are generally considered less well off than Ubedehe 2 and 3, etc.

3. ^“Ready Board” is a small, pre-wired power distribution unit that comes with 2–3 sockets, a switch, and lamp holders, all ready to use. In Uganda, Ready Boards are most suited for use in one to two-bedroom houses or huts and they only require earthing to protect the premises.

4. ^This was found during primary research conducted in Madagascar from February to August 2024.

References

Acumen (2022). Bridging the Gap: What We Learned from Pioneering the Next Wave of Energy Access. Available online at: https://acumen.org/reports/bridging-the-gap-report/ (Accessed January 7, 2025).

Google Scholar

Ahimbisibwe, F. (2018). Uganda and the Refugee Problem: Challenges and Opportunities. Working Papers. Antwerp: University of Antwerp. Institute of Development Policy and Management; Université d'Anvers. Institut de politique et de gestion du développement.-Antwerp.

Google Scholar

Baker, L. (2023). New frontiers of electricity capital: energy access in sub-Saharan Africa. New Polit. Econ. 28, 206–222. doi: 10.1080/13563467.2022.2084524

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bateman, M. (2012). The role of microfinance in contemporary rural development finance policy and practice: imposing neoliberalism as ‘best practice'. J. Agrarian Change 12, 587–600. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0366.2012.00376.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bisaga, I. (2018). Scaling up off-grid solar energy access through improved understanding of customers' needs, aspirations and energy use of decentralised (SMART) Solar Home Systems – a case study of BBOXX customers in Rwanda (PhD thesis). University College London. Available online at: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10069395/13/Bisaga_10069395_thesis_redacted_id_removed.pdf (accessed April 22, 2022).

Google Scholar

BloombergNEF and SEforAll (2020). State of the Global Mini-grids Market Report 2020. BloomBergNEF. Available online at: http://dergipark.gov.tr/cumusosbil/issue/4345/59412 (accessed June 20, 2023).

Google Scholar

Bobbins, K., Caprotti, F., de Groot, J., Pailman, W., Moorlach, M., Schloemann, H., et al. (2023). Beyond the grid: the micropolitics of off-grid energy in QanduQandu, South Africa. Antipode 56, 49–71. doi: 10.1111/anti.12963

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Borofsky, Y., and Caprotti, F. (2025). Who powers the off-grid city? Non-state actors, ethics, and the politics of solar infrastructure in Cape Town's informal settlements. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 121:104299. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2025.104299

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Borofsky, Y., Kersey, J., Caprotti, F., Guenther, I., Harttgen, K., Kagho, G., et al. (2025). An agenda for data-rich, action-oriented, ethical research on infrastructure in informal settlements. Nat. Cities.

Google Scholar

Briers, S. (2021). Infrastructures of freedom: public light and every night life in ‘informal settlements' (Doctoral dissertation). ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Google Scholar

Cantoni, R., Caprotti, F., and de Groot, J. (2022). Solar energy at the peri-urban frontier: an energy justice study of urban peripheries from Burkina Faso and South Africa. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 94:102884. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102884

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Caprotti, F., de Groot, J., Bobbins, K., Mathebula, N., Butler, C., Moorlach, M., et al. (2022). Rethinking the off-grid city. Urban Geogr. 43, 1217–1230. doi: 10.1080/02723638.2022.2036928

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Caprotti, F., de Groot, J., Butler, C., Pailman, W., Mathebula, N., Schloemann, H., et al. (2025). Urban innovation in the informal city: overlapping infrastructures, co-production and sector coupling in a South African informal settlement. Front. Sustain. Cities 7:1654705. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2025.1654705

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Caprotti, F., de Groot, J., Mathebula, N., Butler, C., and Moorlach, M. (2024). Wellbeing, infrastructures, and energy insecurity in informal settlements. Front. Sustain. Cities 6:1388389. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2024.1388389

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carmody, P., and Owusu, F. (2016). Neoliberalism, urbanization and change in Africa: the political economy of heterotopias. J. Afr. Dev. 18, 61–73. doi: 10.5325/jafrideve.18.1.0061

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Casati, P., Fumagalli, E., Baldi, D., and Moner-Girona, M. (2024). Understanding the drivers of electricity access and willingness to pay for reliable electricity in African refugee settlements: Evidence from Zambia, Malawi, and Uganda. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 113:103546. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2024.103546

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Castán Broto, V., Stevens, L., Ackom, E., Tomei, J., Parikh, P., Bisaga, I., et al. (2017). A research agenda for a people-centred approach to energy access in the urbanizing Global South. Nat. Energy 2, 776–779. doi: 10.1038/s41560-017-0007-x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cholibois, T. (2020). Electrifying the “eighth continent”: exploring the role of climate finance and its impact on energy justice and equality in madagascar's planned energy transition. Clim. Change 161, 345–364. doi: 10.1007/s10584-019-02644-x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cornwall, A., and Fujita, M. (2012). Ventriloquising ‘the Poor'? Of voices, choices and the politics of ‘participatory' knowledge production. Third World Q. 33, 1751–1765. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2012.721274

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

de Groot, J., and Lemanski, C. (2021). COVID-19 responses: infrastructure inequality and privileged capacity to transform everyday life in South Africa. Environ. Urban. 33, 255–272. doi: 10.1177/0956247820970094

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Department of Energy (2015). Policy Guidelines for the Electrification of Unproclaimed Areas. Department of EnergySouth Africa. Available online at: https://www.energy.gov.za/files/policies/Policy-Guidelines-for-the-Electrification-of-Unproclaimed-Areas~-2015.pdf

Google Scholar

Dugoua, E., Liu, R., and Urpelainen, J. (2017). Geographic and socio-economic barriers to rural electrification: new evidence from Indian villages. Energy Policy 106, 278–287. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.048

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Energy Sector Magagment Assistance Programme (2017). Mini Grids in Kenya: A Case Study of a Market at a Turning Point. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available online at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/792001512392701402/pdf/ESM-cKenyaMiniGridsCaseStudyConfEd-PUBLIC.pdf (accessed June 20, 2019).

Google Scholar

Essex, S., and de Groot, J. (2019). Understanding energy transitions: the changing versions of the modern infrastructure ideal and the ‘energy underclass' in South Africa, 1860–2019. Energy Policy 133:110937. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110937

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Eswatini Electricity Company (2022). EEC Integrated Annual Report 2022 [Provided as Part of Data Collection]. Eswatini: Eswatini Electricity Company.

Google Scholar

Eswatini Electricity Company (2024). Rural Electrification. Available online at: https://www.eec.co.sz/electricity/projects/rural/ (accessed May 24, 2024).

Google Scholar

Eswatini Observer (2024). Eswatini Launches Tender for Solar Mini-Grid Project.

Google Scholar

Falchetta, G., Michoud, B., Hafner, M., and Rother, M. (2022). Harnessing finance for a new era of decentralised electricity access : a review of private investment patterns and emerging business models. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 90. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102587

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Garces, E., Tomei, J., Franco, C. J., and Dyner, I. (2021). Lessons from last mile electrification in Colombia: examining the policy framework and outcomes for sustainability. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 79:102156. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102156

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Glückler, J., Shearmur, R., and Martinus, K. (2023). Liability or opportunity? Reconceptualizing the periphery and its role in innovation. J. Econ. Geogr. 23, 231–256. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbac028

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Godinho, C., and Eberhard, A. (2019). Learning from Power Sector Reform The Case of Kenya. (Policy Research Working Paper 8819). Washington DC: World Bank. doi: 10.1596/1813-9450-8819

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Golubchikov, O., and O'Sullivan, K. (2020). Energy periphery: uneven development and the precarious geographies of low-carbon transition. Energy Build. 211:109818. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.109818

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Haque, A. N., Lemanski, C., and de Groot, J. (2021). Is (in)access to infrastructure driven by physical delivery or weak governance? Power and knowledge asymmetries in Cape Town, South Africa. Geoforum 126, 48–58. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.07.013

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Harrington, E. S. (2020). Intermediaries and electrification: dimensions of trust and consumer education in Kenya's off-grid solar market (PhD thesis). MIT. Available online at: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/127615 (accessed August 20, 2022).

Google Scholar

Hastie, H. (2024a). Independence through leapfrogging: energy transitions in Eswatini. Geo Geogr. Environ. 11:e00136. doi: 10.1002/geo2.136

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hastie, H. (2024b). Energy transitions and development: electricity access at the global, national and household scales in Eswatini (PhD thesis). University of Exeter.

Google Scholar

Hosier, R., Bazilian, M., Lemondzhava, T., Malik, K., Motohashi, M., and de Vilar Ferrenbach, D. (2007). Rural Electrification Concessions in Africa: What Does Experience Tell Us? Washington, DC: World Bank.

Google Scholar

Jacquot, G. (2021). Implementation, guiding principles for universal energy access: integrated distribution frameworks and their implementation (Masters thesis). Massachusets Institute of Technology. Available online at: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/139488 (accessed July 20, 2022).

Google Scholar

Jacquot, G., Pérez-Arriaga, I., Stoner, R. J., and Nagpal, D. (2019). Assessing the Potential of Electrification Concessions for Universal Energy Access: An MIT Energy Initiative Working Paper Towards Integrated Distribution Frameworks. Cambridge: MIT Energy Initiative. Available online at: https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/MITEI-WP-2019-01.pdf (accessed July 20, 2022).

Google Scholar

Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H., and Rehner, R. (2016). Energy justice: a conceptual review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11, 174–182. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2015.10.004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kovacic, Z., Musango, J. K., Ambole, L. A., Buyana, K., Smit, S., Anditi, C., Mwau, B., Ogot, M., Lwasa, S., Brent, A. C., and Nsangi, G. (2019). Interrogating differences: a comparative analysis of Africa's informal settlements. World Dev. 122, 614–627. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.026

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Leduchowicz-Municio, A., López-Gozález, A., Domenech, B., Ferrer-Martí, L., Udaeta, M. E. M., and Gimenes, A. L. V. (2022). Last-mile rural electrification: lessons learned from universalization programs in Brazil and Venezuela. Energy Policy. 167, 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113080

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lemanski, C. (2020). Infrastructural citizenship: the everyday citizenships of adapting and/or destroying public infrastructure in Cape Town, South Africa. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 45, 589–605. doi: 10.1111/tran.12370

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lepicard, F., Kayser, O., Graf, J., Brossard, S., de Tailly, A. D., and McGrath, L. K. (2017). Reaching Scale in Access to Energy: Lessons from Practitioners. Paris: Hybrid Strategies Consulting.

Google Scholar

Mackenzie and Louth (2019). The neoliberal production of deserving and undeserving poor: a critique of the australian experience of microfinance. Soc. Policy Soc. 19, 19–35. doi: 10.1017/S1474746419000125

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ministere de l'Energie et des Hydrocarbures (2015). Lettre de politique de L'énergie de Madagascar 2015-2030. Office de Regulation de l'Electricite (ORE). Available online at: http://www.ore.mg/Publication/Rapports/LettreDePolitique.pdf (Accessed November 14, 2025).

Google Scholar

Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (2017). Electricity Connections Policy: Financing and Implementation for Connections - Period 2018 - 2027. Available online at: https://www.era.or.ug/index.php/resource-centre/regulatory-instruments/policies/318-electricity-connections-policy/download (Accessed November 14, 2025).

Google Scholar

Munro, P. (2020). On, off, below and beyond the urban electrical grid the energy bricoleurs of Gulu Town. Urban Geogr. 41, 428–447. doi: 10.1080/02723638.2019.1698867

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nagpal, D., and Pérez-arriaga, I. J. (2021). Integrating Isolated Mini-Grids With an IDF-Compliant Regulated Distribution Sector: A Long-Term Perspective Towards Universal Electricity Access. Available online at: https://repositorio.comillas.edu/xmlui/handle/11531/56153%0Ahttps://repositorio.comillas.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11531/56153/IIT-20-171A.pdf?sequence=-1 (Accessed November 17, 2025).

Google Scholar

O'Sullivan, K., Golubchikov, O., and Mehmood, A. (2020). Uneven energy transitions: understanding continued energy peripheralization in rural communities. Energy Policy 138:111288. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111288

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pailman, W., Caprotti, F., Bobbins, K., and de Groot, J. (2024). The informality-energy innovation-finance nexus: sustainable business models for microgrid-based off-grid urban energy access. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 118:103749. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2024.103749

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pailman, W. L. (2024). Towards Integrated Business and Partnership Models for Universal Energy Access in Kenya and Rwanda. University of Cape Town, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Cape Town. Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/11427/41233

Google Scholar

Pailman, W. L., Kruger, W., and Prasad, G. (2015). “Mobile payment innovation for sustainable energy access,” in Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on the Domestic Use of Energy, DUE 2015 (Cape Town: Cape Peninsula University of Technology). doi: 10.1109/DUE.2015.7102961

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Peck, J. (2001). Neoliberalizing states: thin policies/hard outcomes. Progress Human Geogr. 25, 445–455. doi: 10.1191/030913201680191772

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pérez-Arriaga, I., Stoner, R., Nagpal, D., and Jacquot, G. (2020). 2020 Report: Electricity Access Summary for Decison Makers. Available online at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d371cb401986300013881d3/t/5fd2da665cb14268c384c788/1607654000062/GCEEP-ALLReports-Full-2020-3.pdf (accessed September 20, 2023).

Google Scholar

Pérez-Arriaga, I. J., Stoner, R., Nagpal, D., and Jacquot, G. (2019). Global Commission Inception Report to End End Energy Poverty. Cambridge: MIT Energy Initiative.

Google Scholar

Pérez-Arriaga, I. J., Stoner, R., Rahnama, R., Lee, S. J., Jacquot, G., González-garcía, A., et al. (2018). A utility approach to accelerate universal electricity access in less developed countries: a regulatory proposal. Energy Environ. Policy 8, 33–50. doi: 10.5547/2160-5890.8.1.iper

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Phillips, J., Attia, B., Plutshack, V., Davies, G., Rysankova, D., Singer, C. E., et al. (2020b). Policy Brief Lessons for Modernizing Energy Access Finance, Part 2 Balancing Competition and Subsidy: Assessing Mini-Grid Incentive Programs in Sub-Saharan Africa. Durham, NC: Duke Nicholas Institute; Duke University.

Google Scholar

Phillips, J., Plutshack, V., and Yeazel, S. (2020a). Lessons for Modernizing Energy Access Finance, Part 1: What the Electrification Experiences of Seven Countries Tell Us about the Future of Connection Costs, Subsidies, and Integrated Planning. Durham: Duke Nicholas Institute, Duke University.

Google Scholar

Pollio, A., Cirolia, L. R., and Ong'iro Odeo, J. (2023). Algorithmic suturing: platforms, motorcycles and the ‘last mile' in Urban Africa. Int. J. Urban Regional Res. 47, 957–974. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.13200

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pugh, R., and Dubois, A. (2021). Peripheries within economic geography: four “problems” and the road ahead of us. J. Rural Stud. 88, 471–478. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.09.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rahnama, R. (2018). Essays on the attitudes, behavior, and decision-making of income constrained electricity consumers: implications for integrative grid and off-grid business model planning (Masters Thesis). MIT. Available online at: https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/117795/1051222914-MIT.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed October 20, 2023).

Google Scholar

Rai, A., Shrivastava, A., Jana, K. C., and Jayalakshmi, N. S. (2021). Techno-economic-environmental and sociological study of a microgrid for the electrification of difficult un-electrified isolated villages. Sustain. Energy Grids Netw. 28:100548. doi: 10.1016/j.segan.2021.100548

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rwanda Energy Group (2024). Electricity Access. Available online at: https://www.reg.rw/what-we-do/access/#:~:text=Electricity%20access,grid%20systems%20(mainly%20solar) (accessed October 20, 2024).

Google Scholar

Sandwell, P., Täuber, M., and Chuol, N. D. (2023). A Roadmap for Energy Access in Displacement Settings: Kenya. Geneva: UNITAR Global Platform for Action on Sustainable Energy in Displacement Settings (GPA). Available online at: https://www.humanitarianenergy.org/assets/resources/READS_Kenya_.pdf (Accessed November 17, 2025).

Google Scholar

SE4ALL (2014). Kingdom of Swaziland Country Action Plan. Available online at: https://www.seforall.org/sites/default/files/Swaziland_RAGA_EN_Released.pdf (accessed May 16, 2024).

Google Scholar

Shucksmith, M., and Rønningen, K. (2011). The Uplands after neoliberalism? – The role of the small farm in rural sustainability. J. Rural Stud. 27, 275–287. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.03.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Siciliano, G., Cantoni, R., Lonn, P., Por, N., Kry, S., Morn, C., et al. (2025). “Leave no one behind”. A power-capabilities-energy justice perspective on energy transition in remote rural communities in Cambodia. World Dev. 185:106793. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106793

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Smit, S., Musango, J. K., and Brent, A. C. (2019). Understanding electricity legitimacy dynamics in an urban informal settlement in South Africa: a community based system dynamics approach. Energy Sustain. Dev. 49, 39–52. doi: 10.1016/j.esd.2019.01.004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stritzke, S., Sakyi-Nyarko, C., Bisaga, I., Bricknell, M., Leary, J., and Brown, E. (2021). Results-based financing (RBF) for modern energy cooking solutions: an effective driver for innovation and scale? Energies 14:4559. doi: 10.3390/en14154559

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

The Global Partnership on Output Based Aid (GPOBA) (2017). Uganda grid based Output Based Aid project: Lessons learned. OBA Lessons Learned Series, Note 14. World Bank/GPOBA.

Google Scholar

Tsiotas, D., and Tselios, V. (2023). Understanding peripherality in a multidimensional geographical, socioeconomic, and institutional context: evidence from Greece. Regional Sci. Policy Prac. 15, 1424–1458. doi: 10.1111/rsp3.12712

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) (2020). National Electrification Report for Energy for Rural Transformation - ERT III Baseline Survey, 2018. Kampala: UBOS.

Google Scholar

UN (2022). Progress Review. Available online at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/ (accessed May 18, 2023).

Google Scholar

Wheeler-Jones, C., Howlett, C., Seini, M., and Burns, G. L. (2015). Media constructions of Aboriginality: implications for engagement with coal seam gas development in Australia. Aust. Gogr. 46, 165–181. doi: 10.1080/00049182.2015.1020599

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

World Bank (2015). Evaluation of Rural Electrification Concessions in sub-Saharan Africa Detailed Case Study: Madagascar. World Bank. Available online at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/781221498152348689/pdf/116643-WP-PUBLIC-P150241-52p-Detailed-Case-Study-Madagascar.pdf (Accessed November 14, 2025).

Google Scholar

World Bank (2022). Access to Electricity, Rural (% of Rural Population) – Madagascar. World BankGroup Data. Available online at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.RU.ZS?locations=MG (Accessed September 18, 2024).

Google Scholar

Yaguma, P., Caprotti, F., Jazuli, M. R., Parikh, P., and Mulugetta, Y. (2024). “Don't cook or iron with it”: heterogeneities and coping strategies for accessing and using electricity in the informal settlements of Kampala, Uganda. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 108:103395. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2023.103395

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yaguma, P., Caprotti, F., and Parikh, P. (2025). Service-based off-grid solar for productive use in poor urban settings: insights from an informal settlement in Cape Town, South Africa. Environ. Res. Energy 1, 1–16. doi: 10.1088/2753-3751/ad94f7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yaguma, P., Parikh, P., and Mulugetta, Y. (2022). Electricity access in Uganda's slums: multi-stakeholder perspectives from Kampala. Environ. Res. Commun. 4:125008. doi: 10.1088/2515-7620/aca9ad

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar