IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v204y2024ics0040162524002373.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A generic technology assessment framework for sustainable energy transitions in African contexts

Author

Listed:
  • Musango, Josephine Kaviti
  • Ouma-Mugabe, John

Abstract

How African countries manage transitions to decarbonised, environmentally and socially acceptable energy systems is a topical issue in public policy, politics and academic spheres today. There is recognition that technology assessment plays a critical role in the choice of specific pathways to just clean energy transitions. Yet, there is limited energy technology assessment practice in Africa. In fact, technology assessment is not well understood and institutionalised. This, in part, is due to the absence of Africa context tailored technology assessment frameworks. This study used an integrated literature review to explore the state and forms of technology assessments and their relevance to energy technology assessment research. The review showed that diverse forms of technology assessments have evolved due to changing priorities in policy, methodological and practical aspects. We propose an action-oriented energy technology assessment that considers geographical contexts, sustainable development dimensions, and different energy systems as dynamic and fosters inclusive stakeholder engagement. The main output of our proposal is a 3-phased generic framework for conducting energy technology assessments. We conclude that the action-oriented perspective needs to consider a transdisciplinary approach to promote sustainable energy transition and evaluate the sustainability of different energy transition technologies in systemic socio-political and energy contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Musango, Josephine Kaviti & Ouma-Mugabe, John, 2024. "A generic technology assessment framework for sustainable energy transitions in African contexts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:204:y:2024:i:c:s0040162524002373
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123441
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162524002373
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123441?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. Daim, Tugrul & Yates, Diane & Peng, Yicheng & Jimenez, Bertha, 2009. "Technology assessment for clean energy technologies: The case of the Pacific Northwest," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 232-243.
    2. Snyder, Hannah, 2019. "Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 333-339.
    3. Jacquelin Burgess & Jason Chilvers, 2006. "Upping the ante: A conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(10), pages 713-728, December.
    4. Leonhard Hennen, 1999. "Participatory technology assessment: A response to technical modernity?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 303-312, October.
    5. Mainali, Brijesh & Silveira, Semida, 2015. "Using a sustainability index to assess energy technologies for rural electrification," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1351-1365.
    6. Hammond, Geoffrey P. & Hazeldine, Tom, 2015. "Indicative energy technology assessment of advanced rechargeable batteries," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 559-571.
    7. John Durant, 1999. "Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 313-319, October.
    8. Karunathilake, Hirushie & Hewage, Kasun & Mérida, Walter & Sadiq, Rehan, 2019. "Renewable energy selection for net-zero energy communities: Life cycle based decision making under uncertainty," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 558-573.
    9. Musango, Josephine K. & Brent, Alan C., 2011. "Assessing the sustainability of energy technological systems in Southern Africa: A review and way forward," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 145-155.
    10. Alan Colin Brent, 2012. "Technology Assessment In Developing Countries: Sustainable Energy Systems In The African Context," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(05), pages 1-29.
    11. Hammond, Geoffrey P. & O’Grady, Áine, 2017. "Indicative energy technology assessment of UK shale gas extraction," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(P2), pages 1907-1918.
    12. Gallego Carrera, Diana & Mack, Alexander, 2010. "Sustainability assessment of energy technologies via social indicators: Results of a survey among European energy experts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 1030-1039, February.
    13. Ely, Adrian & Van Zwanenberg, Patrick & Stirling, Andrew, 2014. "Broadening out and opening up technology assessment: Approaches to enhance international development, co-ordination and democratisation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 505-518.
    14. Jonathan Rutherford & Olivier Coutard, 2014. "Urban Energy Transitions: Places, Processes and Politics of Socio-technical Change," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(7), pages 1353-1377, May.
    15. Alan S. Manne, 1976. "ETA: A Model for Energy Technology Assessment," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 7(2), pages 379-406, Autumn.
    16. Truffer, Bernhard & Schippl, Jens & Fleischer, Torsten, 2017. "Decentering technology in technology assessment: prospects for socio-technical transitions in electric mobility in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 34-48.
    17. Greeley, Martin, 1986. "Rural energy technology assessment: A Sri Lankan case study," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 14(12), pages 1411-1421, December.
    18. Assefa, G. & Frostell, B., 2007. "Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 63-78.
    19. Julia Maria Wittmayer & Tessa de Geus & Bonno Pel & F. Avelino & Sabine Hielscher & Thomas Hoppe & Marie Susan Mühlemeier & Agata Stasik & Sem Oxenaar & Karoline K.S. Rogge & Vivian Visser & Esther Ma, 2020. "Beyond instrumentalism: Broadening the understanding of social innovation in socio-technical energy systems," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/312323, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    20. Versteeg, T. & Baumann, M.J. & Weil, M. & Moniz, A.B., 2017. "Exploring emerging battery technology for grid-connected energy storage with Constructive Technology Assessment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 99-110.
    21. Dyer, Caroline H. & Hammond, Geoffrey P. & Jones, Craig I. & McKenna, Russell C., 2008. "Enabling technologies for industrial energy demand management," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 4434-4443, December.
    22. Sokona, Youba & Mulugetta, Yacob & Gujba, Haruna, 2012. "Widening energy access in Africa: Towards energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(S1), pages 3-10.
    23. Hammond, Geoffrey P. & Owen, Rachel E. & Rathbone, Richard R., 2020. "Indicative energy technology assessment of hydrogen processing from biogenic municipal waste," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 274(C).
    24. Healy, Noel & Barry, John, 2017. "Politicizing energy justice and energy system transitions: Fossil fuel divestment and a “just transition”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 451-459.
    25. Simon Joss, 1998. "Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 2-22, February.
    26. Fox, Stephen & Griffy-Brown, Charla, 2023. "Technology assessment, evaluation, and forecasting in society: Technology in Society Briefing," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Tavella, Elena, 2016. "How to make Participatory Technology Assessment in agriculture more “participatory”: The case of genetically modified plants," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 119-126.
    2. Undheim, Trond Arne, 2024. "In search of better methods for the longitudinal assessment of tech-derived X-risks: How five leading scenario planning efforts can help," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    3. Mainali, Brijesh & Silveira, Semida, 2015. "Using a sustainability index to assess energy technologies for rural electrification," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1351-1365.
    4. Gavin Bridge & Ludger Gailing, 2020. "New energy spaces: Towards a geographical political economy of energy transition," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(6), pages 1037-1050, September.
    5. Fouladvand, Javanshir & Aranguren Rojas, Maria & Hoppe, Thomas & Ghorbani, Amineh, 2022. "Simulating thermal energy community formation: Institutional enablers outplaying technological choice," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 306(PA).
    6. Gregor Wolbring, 2022. "Auditing the ‘Social’ of Quantum Technologies: A Scoping Review," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-38, March.
    7. Baptista, Idalina & Plananska, Jana, 2017. "The landscape of energy initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa: Going for systemic change or reinforcing the status quo?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 1-8.
    8. Berjawi, A.E.H. & Walker, S.L. & Patsios, C. & Hosseini, S.H.R., 2021. "An evaluation framework for future integrated energy systems: A whole energy systems approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    9. Feng-Shang Wu & Hong-Ji Huang, 2024. "Why Do Some Countries Innovate Better than Others? A New Perspective of Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy Regimes and National Absorptive Capacity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-30, March.
    10. Nandal, Vinod & Kumar, Raj & Singh, S.K., 2019. "Barriers identification and analysis of solar power implementation in Indian thermal power plants: An Interpretative Structural Modeling approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Colla, Martin & Ioannou, Anastasia & Falcone, Gioia, 2020. "Critical review of competitiveness indicators for energy projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    12. Hammond, Geoffrey P. & O’Grady, Áine, 2017. "Indicative energy technology assessment of UK shale gas extraction," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(P2), pages 1907-1918.
    13. Jonathan Silver & Simon Marvin, 2017. "Powering sub-Saharan Africa’s urban revolution: An energy transitions approach," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(4), pages 847-861, March.
    14. Luis Bernardo López-Sosa & José Núñez-González & Alberto Beltrán & Mario Morales-Máximo & Mario Morales-Sánchez & Montserrat Serrano-Medrano & Carlos A. García, 2019. "A New Methodology for the Development of Appropriate Technology: A Case Study for the Development of a Wood Solar Dryer," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-20, October.
    15. van Oudheusden, Michiel & Charlier, Nathan & Rosskamp, Benedikt & Delvenne, Pierre, 2015. "Broadening, deepening, and governing innovation: Flemish technology assessment in historical and socio-political perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1877-1886.
    16. Rodrigo A. Estévez & Valeria Espinoza & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & Felipe Vásquez-Lavín & Stefan Gelcich, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Renewable Energies: Research Trends, Gaps and the Challenge of Improving Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, March.
    17. Rochelle Deloria & Gregor Wolbring, 2019. "Neuro-Advancements and the Role of Nurses as Stated in Academic Literature and Canadian Newspapers," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-32, August.
    18. Zhang, Hao & Daim, Tugrul & Zhang, Yunqiu (Peggy), 2021. "Integrating patent analysis into technology roadmapping: A latent dirichlet allocation based technology assessment and roadmapping in the field of Blockchain," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    19. Ribeiro, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena, 2011. "The inclusion of social aspects in power planning," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4361-4369.
    20. A. Russell & Frank Vanclay & Janet Salisbury & Heather Aslin, 2011. "Technology assessment in Australia: the case for a formal agency to improve advice to policy makers," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(2), pages 157-177, June.

    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:tefoso:v:204:y:2024:i:c:s0040162524002373. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.