IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v69y2014icp154-164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do African and European energy stakeholders agree on key energy drivers in Africa? Using Q methodology to understand perceptions on energy access debates

Author

Listed:
  • Matinga, Margaret N.
  • Pinedo-Pascua, Irene
  • Vervaeke, Jonathan
  • Monforti-Ferrario, Fabio
  • Szabó, Sándor

Abstract

This paper uses Q methodology to reveal stakeholder perceptions on how best to address energy issues in Africa. We sampled a group of stakeholders involved in various energy sub-sectors to uncover perspectives on how to achieve and promote access to modern energy, energy efficiency and renewable energy in Africa, whether the perceptions could be correlated to educational or geographical background and implications such patterns could have on policies and current dialogues.

Suggested Citation

  • Matinga, Margaret N. & Pinedo-Pascua, Irene & Vervaeke, Jonathan & Monforti-Ferrario, Fabio & Szabó, Sándor, 2014. "Do African and European energy stakeholders agree on key energy drivers in Africa? Using Q methodology to understand perceptions on energy access debates," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 154-164.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:69:y:2014:i:c:p:154-164
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.12.041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513013050
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.12.041?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Komendantova, Nadejda & Patt, Anthony & Barras, Lucile & Battaglini, Antonella, 2012. "Perception of risks in renewable energy projects: The case of concentrated solar power in North Africa," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 103-109.
    2. Ahmed, Shenaz & Bryant, Louise D. & Tizro, Zahra & Shickle, Darren, 2012. "Interpretations of informed choice in antenatal screening: A cross-cultural, Q-methodology study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(7), pages 997-1004.
    3. Ben B. Davies & Ian D. Hodge, 2006. "Farmers’ Preferences for New Environmental Policy Instruments: Determining the Acceptability of Cross Compliance for Biodiversity Benefits," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 393-414, September.
    4. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    5. Matinga, Margaret Njirambo & Annegarn, Harold J., 2013. "Paradoxical impacts of electricity on life in a rural South African village," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 295-302.
    6. Maarten Wolsink & Sylvia Breukers, 2010. "Contrasting the core beliefs regarding the effective implementation of wind power. An international study of stakeholder perspectives," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(5), pages 535-558.
    7. Geraint Ellis & John Barry & Clive Robinson, 2007. "Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 517-551.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    2. Ullah, Kafait & Raza, Muhammad Shabbar & Mirza, Faisal Mehmood, 2019. "Barriers to hydro-power resource utilization in Pakistan: A mixed approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 723-735.
    3. León-Vielma, J.E. & Ramos-Real, F.J. & Hernández Hernández, J.F. & Rodríguez-Brito, María Gracia, 2023. "An integrative strategy for Venezuela's electricity sector (VES), from an analysis of stakeholder perspectives," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    4. Ali, Muhammad Rizwan & Shafiq, Muhammad, 2021. "Revealing expert perspectives on challenges to electricity Demand-Side Management in Pakistan: An application of Q-Methodology," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Jan, Muhammad Zain & Ullah, Kafait & Abbas, Faisal & Khalid, Hassan Abdullah & Bajwa, Tariq M., 2023. "Barriers to the adoption of social welfare measures in the electricity tariff structure of developing countries: A case of Pakistan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    6. Cláudio Albuquerque Frate & Christian Brannstrom, 2019. "How Do Stakeholders Perceive Barriers to Large-Scale Wind Power Diffusion? A Q-Method Case Study from Ceará State, Brazil," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, May.
    7. Amollo Ambole & Kweku Koranteng & Peris Njoroge & Douglas Logedi Luhangala, 2021. "A Review of Energy Communities in Sub-Saharan Africa as a Transition Pathway to Energy Democracy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    8. Maczka, Krzysztof & Matczak, Piotr & Mielewczyk, Marcin & Przewoźna, Patrycja & Inglot, Adam & Wężyk, Piotr & Zięba-Kulawik, Karolina & Hawryło, Paweł, 2023. "Narratives on cutting down trees on private land. A comparison of urban and rural municipalities in Poland using the Q-deliberation method," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    9. Meiying Xie & Xiang Cai & Zhengli Xu & Nan Zhou & Dongqing Yan, 2022. "Factors contributing to abandonment of household biogas digesters in rural China: a study of stakeholder perspectives using Q-methodology," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 7698-7724, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    2. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    3. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    4. Ali, Muhammad Rizwan & Shafiq, Muhammad, 2021. "Revealing expert perspectives on challenges to electricity Demand-Side Management in Pakistan: An application of Q-Methodology," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Venus, Terese E. & Hinzmann, Mandy & Bakken, Tor Haakon & Gerdes, Holger & Godinho, Francisco Nunes & Hansen, Bendik & Pinheiro, António & Sauer, Johannes, 2020. "The public's perception of run-of-the-river hydropower across Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    6. Cláudio Albuquerque Frate & Christian Brannstrom, 2019. "How Do Stakeholders Perceive Barriers to Large-Scale Wind Power Diffusion? A Q-Method Case Study from Ceará State, Brazil," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, May.
    7. Lombard, Andrea & Ferreira, Sanette, 2014. "Residents' attitudes to proposed wind farms in the West Coast region of South Africa: A social perspective from the South," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 390-399.
    8. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    9. McNicholas, Grace & Cotton, Matthew, 2019. "Stakeholder perceptions of marine plastic waste management in the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 77-87.
    10. León-Vielma, J.E. & Ramos-Real, F.J. & Hernández Hernández, J.F. & Rodríguez-Brito, María Gracia, 2023. "An integrative strategy for Venezuela's electricity sector (VES), from an analysis of stakeholder perspectives," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    11. Christine Corlet Walker & Angela Druckman & Claudio Cattaneo, 2020. "Understanding the (non-)Use of Societal Wellbeing Indicators in National Policy Development: What Can We Learn from Civil Servants? A UK Case Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 911-953, August.
    12. Díaz, Paula & Adler, Carolina & Patt, Anthony, 2017. "Do stakeholders’ perspectives on renewable energy infrastructure pose a risk to energy policy implementation? A case of a hydropower plant in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 21-28.
    13. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Späth, Leonhard, 2018. "Large-scale photovoltaics? Yes please, but not like this! Insights on different perspectives underlying the trade-off between land use and renewable electricity development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 429-437.
    15. Stewart Fast, 2015. "Qualified, absolute, idealistic, impatient: dimensions of host community responses to wind energy projects," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(7), pages 1540-1557, July.
    16. George A. Gonzalez, 2016. "Transforming Energy: Solving Climate Change with Technology Policy . New York : Cambridge University Press . 360 pages. ISBN 9781107614970, $29.99 paperback. Anthony Patt , 2015 ," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 33(1), pages 111-113, January.
    17. Chang, Ruidong & Cao, Yuan & Lu, Yujie & Shabunko, Veronika, 2019. "Should BIPV technologies be empowered by innovation policy mix to facilitate energy transitions? - Revealing stakeholders' different perspectives using Q methodology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 307-318.
    18. Eefje Cuppen & Suzanne Brunsting & Udo Pesch & Ynke Feenstra, 2015. "How stakeholder interactions can reduce space for moral considerations in decision making: A contested CCS project in the Netherlands," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(9), pages 1963-1978, September.
    19. Buckley, Cathal, 2012. "Implementation of the EU Nitrates Directive in the Republic of Ireland — A view from the farm," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 29-36.
    20. Cuppen, Eefje, 2012. "A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 624-637.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:69:y:2014:i:c:p:154-164. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.