Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Challenges in Sustainability |2019 |Volume 7 |Issue 1 |Pages 30–39
DOI: 10.12924/cis2019.07010030
ISSN: 2297–6477
Challenges in
Sustainability
Research Article
An Expert Elicitation of Public Acceptance of Renewable
Energy in Kenya
Bob van der Zwaan
1,2,3,4,
*, Francesco Dalla Longa
1
, Helena de Boer
1
, Francis Johnson
5
, Oliver Johnson
5
, Marieke van
Klaveren1, Jessanne Mastop1, Mbeo Ogeya5, Mari ¨
elle Rietkerk1, Koen Straver1, Hannah Wanjiru5
1Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN-TNO), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University , Bologna, Italy
3Van ’t Hoff Institute for Molecular Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
4Institute for Advanced Study (IAS), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
5Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Nairobi, Kenya
* Corresponding author: E-Mail: bob.vanderzwaan@tno.nl; Tel.: +31 88 866 2614;
Submitted: 13 February 2019 |In revised form: 25 May 2019 |Accepted: 06 July 2019 |
Published: 3 September 2019
Abstract:
This article reports evidence for substantial public support for the large-scale deployment of
three renewable energy options in Kenya: wind, solar PV, and geothermal energy. With these renewable
technologies, the government of Kenya could make a large contribution to reaching its national commitment
under the Paris Agreement. Prices, infrastructural needs, and land-use requirements importantly contribute
to shaping public opinion about these renewable energy alternatives, in different ways and directions for
wind, PV, and geothermal energy. While overall the evaluation of these technologies is positive, public
authorities should be wary of the possible inconveniences and drawbacks associated with them. Anticipating
and, where possible, mitigating these shortcomings in national climate and energy development plans
could preclude some of them becoming possible hindrances for broad-scale adoption of wind, PV, and
geothermal energy. Furthering quantitative public acceptance studies, like the one presented here based
on (semi-)expert elicitation and information-choice questionnaires, can assist in Kenya fully reaching its
national climate and energy ambitions. More generally, we argue that the establishment of affordable, clean,
and secure energy systems, as well as the mitigation of global climate change, can benefit from stakeholder
engagement and public survey analysis like the one performed in our study—in developing countries as
much as in the developed part of the world.
Keywords: Africa; climate change; expert elicitation; low-carbon energy; public opinion; renewables
1. Introduction
Climate change is one of the largest challenges facing
mankind this century, and transforming our global economy
according to universal principles of sustainable develop-
ment is top priority on the political agenda of the interna-
tional community [
1
]. Particularly important is supporting
countries in the world’s developing regions to combine per-
sistent economic growth with efforts to mitigate emissions
of gases that cause global warming. The establishment of
energy transition pathways, in which fossil fuels are grad-
ually replaced with low-carbon energy options, is assisted
c
2019 by the authors; licensee Librello, Switzerland. This open access article was published
under a Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
librello
by energy systems modelling exercises in which alternative
transformation scenarios are quantified, analysed, and com-
pared [
2
].While these modelling efforts have thus far mostly
focused on developed countries, a few similar studies have
been undertaken for developing countries recently (see e.g.
Altieri et al., 2016 [
3
]; Taliotis et al., 2016 [
4
]; Lucas et al.,
2017 [5]; van der Zwaan et al., 2018 [6]).
To advance studies in the field of energy transition path-
ways in the developing world, we focus in this paper on an
important African country, Kenya. Socio-scientific studies
on the deployment of low-carbon and/or renewable forms
of energy importantly complement energy and climate sce-
nario modelling work. A relatively large number of studies
have been performed that investigate the role of public or
expert opinions on energy system transformation pathways
or individual innovative energy technologies in developed
countries (see e.g. de Best-Waldhober et al., 2012 [
7
];
Baker et al., 2015 [
8
]).Only few studies have so far been
undertaken on public opinion with regards to energy and
climate change issues in Africa (a few examples are Cam-
blong et al., 2009 on Senegal [
9
]; Wetang’ula, 2010 on
Kenya [
10
]; Ondraczek, 2011 on Kenya and Tanzania [
11
];
Bouzidi, 2011 on Algeria [
12
]; and Hanger et al., 2016 on
Morocco [
13
]). We think that this paucity should urgently be
rectified, given the importance of swiftly deploying renew-
able energy technologies in Africa on a large scale and of
the role of public acceptance issues therein. The present
paper attempts to make a step in that direction by present-
ing a (semi-)expert elicitation based case study on public
attitudes towards renewable energy in Kenya.
Our approach aims to characterise attitudes of
participants towards three different renewable energy
technologies—wind, PV, and geothermal energy—based
on their responses to objective information we provided on
the possible impacts of these technologies. Participants are
informed that each of these three renewable energy tech-
nologies may be able to contribute to solving global climate
change. But participants are also provided with the possible
consequences associated with the use and/or deployment
of these energy options, on the basis of which they are
asked to express their reactions. Our study presents a
first application of this (semi-)expert public opinion survey
method to analyse the acceptance of renewable energy
technologies in Kenya, and to assess how objective infor-
mation can contribute to shaping public opinion among
Kenyans. Below, in section 2, we first review Kenya’s ambi-
tions under the Paris Agreement. In section 3 we describe
the survey method used for our research. In section 4 we
present our main results, while in section 5 we discuss
some of our main insights. In section 6 we formulate sev-
eral main conclusions and make a few recommendations for
policy makers and analysts active in the field of renewable
energy and climate change mitigation.
2. Economic development, climate change and
renewable energy in Kenya
Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Cli-
mate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement, concluded in
2015 and ratified a year later [
14
], the Kenyan Govern-
ment has obliged itself to a ‘nationally determined contribu-
tion’ (NDC) of reducing domestic greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions by 30% in 2030 in comparison to a business-
as-usual scenario [
15
,
16
]. Using the country’s renew-
able energy resources appears essential to meet this goal
[
17
,
18
].Whether indeed renewable forms of energy can play
a major role in achieving national climate change mitigation
targets critically depends on a large number of factors, in-
cluding technical, economic, institutional, regulatory, legal,
and especially also cultural and social. In this article we
focus on the last of these factors, by analyzing the extent to
which renewable energy technologies can broadly diffuse
in Kenya from a public acceptance point of view.
The government of Kenya has ambitious plans for eco-
nomic growth, and particularly also for energy development,
climate change mitigation, and adaptation to the impacts
of climate change [
19
,
20
]. Kenya’s NDC projects baseline
GHG emissions of 141 MtCO
2
e in 2030, which constitutes a
doubling of the 2010 emissions level [
16
]. Its target of a 30%
emissions reduction in 2030 implies a maximum allowed
GHG level of around 100 MtCO
2
e. Kenya’s official GHG
reduction strategy consists of exploiting its large national
renewable energy potential, notably in the power sector.
Its abundant resources of wind, solar, and geothermal
energy could be developed not only to expand electricity
production in a low-carbon fashion, but also to make the
electricity generation mix more diversified. Today, it relies
predominantly on geothermal, hydropower, and imported
oil products [
17
,
21
] Kenya’s ambitions with respect to re-
newable energy deployment have already been pursued
for some years now. While in 2016 hydropower and fossil
fuels still accounted for about 35% and 32%, respectively,
in an overall installed electricity capacity of 2.3 GW [
18
],
the share of geothermal power increased from 13% in 2011
to 27% in 2016 [
18
,
21
]. The remaining 6% was divided
between mostly wind power and cogeneration, with small
contributions of 0.03% from solar PV and 0.02% from
biogas. Meanwhile, Kenya’s energy system has further
developed in favour of renewables: for example, today wind
power contributes around 14% of the electricity mix since
the 310 MW Lake Turkana Wind Power project came online.
The deployment of renewable energy in the electricity
sector has been extensively described in reports by the
Kenyan government and studied in detail in the literature.
Kenya’s NEMA (National Environment Management Au-
thority) estimates that wind and solar energy could deliver
about 1.4 and 1.0 MtCO
2
e in emissions abatement respec-
tively [
20
].The exploitation of geothermal energy could even
lead to a GHG reduction of approximately 14 MtCO
2
e in
2030 [
20
]. The country’s substantial domestic wind energy
31
potential has been investigated since the 1980s (see e.g.
Ogana, 1987 [
22
]). Solar energy for decentralized electricity
production in rural areas has been studied for at least two
decades (see e.g., Acker and Kammen, 1996 [
23
]; Rabah,
2005 [
24
]). Given the geothermal resources proffered by
Kenya’s geography along the Rift Valley, geothermal power
has received dedicated attention since many years from
both public and private entities [
17
,
18
]. In addition, a num-
ber of publications have been dedicated to the benefits
that low-carbon energy technologies could yield in Kenya
for rural low-income populations [
25
,
26
]. Likewise, studies
have been made on their potential contribution to poverty
reduction [
26
,
27
] and on their overall affordability [
28
,
29
].
We have not been able to identify, however, peer-reviewed
studies dedicated to issues of public opinion in Kenya.
Dalla Longa and van der Zwaan (2017) [
30
] analyze
Kenya’s climate change mitigation ambitions from an en-
ergy system perspective with a focus on the potential contri-
bution from renewable energy technologies. They use the
TIAM-ECN model with its recently expanded and improved
disaggregation for Africa [
6
] to characterize possible path-
ways for the Kenyan energy mix until 2050 under different
climate change mitigation scenarios. Dalla Longa and van
der Zwaan (2017) [
30
] conclude that the power sector can
expand with mostly low-carbon energy options, even in the
absence of stringent climate change control measures. For
the demand side they find that a substantial deployment of
renewable energy is triggered when ambitious emission re-
duction objectives are in place. Their research supports the
feasibility of the climate management goals of the Kenyan
government, provided that sufficient investments in low-
carbon technologies are made available. They emphasize
the potential role in the power sector of especially wind, so-
lar PV, and geothermal energy options, which enable Kenya
meeting its NDC. Hence we focus in this paper on these
three renewable energy technologies.
This article builds on the work by SEI (2017) [
31
], whose
authors point out that concerted efforts are required to put
Kenya’s energy sector on a low-carbon trajectory and that,
whilst in principle many options exist for low-carbon en-
ergy development strategies in Kenya, all of them neces-
sitate both extensive financial investments and substantial
demands on governance. They recognize that important
strides are being made towards a low-carbon energy sys-
tem, but that conflicts and untapped synergies remain, es-
pecially in terms of perceived trade-offs between centralized
and decentralized energy solutions, particularly in relation
to renewable energy resources. SEI (2017) also observes
that increasing public and community resistance presents
additional obstacles to renewable energy projects, partic-
ularly at places where local participation in planning and
local benefit-sharing is limited, or is widely perceived to be
limited. Key strategies for renewable energy deployment
success in Kenya include engaging stakeholders early in
the development of projects; early public dialogue around
broader energy development pathways; and transparent
benefit-sharing mechanisms that are co-designed with af-
fected stakeholders [
31
]. Our present work and the sur-
vey we performed are meant to be a first starting point for
broader active stakeholder engagement.
3. Method
We employ for our study the Information-Choice Question-
naire (ICQ) method of surveying public opinion, which con-
sists of providing respondents with different options suit-
able to solve a certain problem, along with information
on the consequences associated with each option [
32
].
The ICQ method thus allows for both analysing and cre-
ating informed public opinions, since participants partly
base their preferences on the provided information. For
energy technology evaluations the ICQ method is partic-
ularly suitable, since the general public is often minimally
informed about the socio-economic and environmental con-
sequences, amongst others, of different energy options.
Providing public opinion survey participants with informa-
tion through ICQs enables obtaining higher quality mea-
surements. ICQ methods have been successfully applied
to measuring public opinion on low-carbon energy technolo-
gies and CO
2
mitigation options, particularly Carbon dioxide
Capture and Storage (CCS), in the Netherlands [
33
]. They
were found to produce higher quality results in comparison
to more commonly used conventional public opinion sur-
veys [
34
]. The opinions reported by uninformed participants
in these traditional surveys appeared more arbitrary and
more subject to variations, whereas those resulting from
ICQ based public opinion surveys were largely based on the
provided information. The ICQ method attempts to present
this information in an objective manner.
Traditional public opinion survey instruments have re-
ceived considerable criticism. Malone et al. (2010) [
35
]
similarly argue that the information provided in surveys is
never unbiased, and therefore the opinions somewhat artifi-
cially created and perhaps reflecting researchers’ bias. We
have tried to mitigate this drawback in a number of ways
(e.g. by mostly relying on opinions from Kenyan energy
experts, and by e.g. calibrating our statements on reviews
of the literature and expert judgement), but recognise that
these authors in principle make a valid point here. Con-
scious of the possible weaknesses of our ICQ method, we
have thus tried to minimize the reporting of pseudo-opinions
by a number of concrete means, like letting experts partic-
ipate and providing upfront neutral information preceding
the survey questions (see also Daamen et al., 2011 [
36
];
ter Mors et al., 2013 [37]).
Table 1 lists all the technology-specific questions asked
in our ICQ to a sample of about 100 interviewees (76 of
whom fully completed the survey) on three possible low-
carbon energy technologies in Kenya: wind, solar PV, and
geothermal energy. We chose for these three renewable
energy options, because they are among the most likely
techniques for large-scale deployment in the near term
future in Kenya. Before these questions, some general is-
sues were raised, and the ICQ ended with a few personal
32
questions about the respondents themselves. Nearly all
respondents were adults living in urban or suburban areas
(mainly in or around Nairobi). We could not have entirely
anticipated this a priori, but we ended up having a sample
of participants the majority of whom (72%) were men, and
most of whom were highly educated (92% having a bache-
lor degree). Also an outcome of our ICQ—rather than an
input that we introduced by design—was that many respon-
dents (64%) appeared to consider themselves a relative
expert in energy-related subjects. Each technology was
introduced by starting with a general description consisting
of a short explanation that outlined Kenya’s potential for
the specific technology together with an example project
that participants might be familiar with. Subsequently, par-
ticipants were presented various characteristics of each
technology, which they were asked to evaluate quantita-
tively. The quantitative ratings from 1 to 9 that respondents
could use to grade all issues correspond to the qualitative
notions of very small (1), small (2 or 3), limited (4), fair (5),
substantial (6), big (7 or 8) and very big (9). These ratings
could be applied both when the issue was considered an
advantage and when it was viewed a disadvantage. In the
next section these quantitative and qualitative ratings are
used consistently, with the ‘+’ sign used for advantages
and the ‘–’ sign for disadvantages. Participants were given
the opportunity to indicate that they consider a certain is-
sue unimportant by assigning it the number 0. Both before
and after reacting to all statements regarding the possible
consequences of the three energy options—the order of
the technologies being randomized for different participants
to try and minimize systematic errors—respondents were
asked about their overall view on each technology on a
scale from 1 (very bad) to 9 (very good).
It is not necessarily the case that all statements in Table
1 are entirely true under all circumstances or at every ge-
ographical location or point in time in Kenya. Yet they are
all approximately or in most cases correct, and analysing
the reactions to the issues they raise is always interest-
ing. Indeed, it is valuable to assess the responses to these
questions from interviewees despite the fact that, under
some circumstances, situations can be imagined under
which they do not necessarily precisely hold. For example,
while currently probably often true, the price of wind power
may in the future or under specific conditions no longer
remain somewhat higher than that of geothermal electricity
or a bit lower than that of solar PV electricity. Some of
the statements in our ICQ may likewise change dependent
on local circumstances. For instance, concerns about the
noise generated by wind turbines may be justified at loca-
tions with relatively moderate wind speeds like Ngong Hills,
while at Lake Turkana they may not be a real issue since
wind speeds there are so high that one cannot hear the
turbines over the noise of the wind. We did not investigate
necessarily all relevant issues. For example, noise pollu-
tion and nuisances from piping infrastructure associated
with geothermal power plants may be quite substantial, but
we did not subject these facets to public acceptance tests.
Responses to interview questions were assembled with
Qualtrics software, and the resulting database subjected to
statistical analysis with Excel and Python.
33
Table 1. Overview of the questions about wind, PV, and geothermal energy.
Wind (W)
W1 The level of greenhouse gas emissions associated with wind power is low.
W2 The level of greenhouse gas emissions associated with wind power is low.
W3 The (community) land area requirements of wind power preclude certain other land-use purposes.
W4 The price of wind power will be somewhat higher than that of geothermal electricity.
W5 The price of wind power will be somewhat lower than that of solar PV electricity.
W6 Wind power contributes to Kenya’s energy independence.
W7 Wind turbines are visible elements in the landscape (see picture).
W8 Wind turbines produce noise that can be heard in their immediate vicinity.
W9 Wind turbines cause shadow flicker in their immediate vicinity.
W10 Wind turbines can be built in community ownership, creating opportunity to participate in investments(with electricity and/or financial
benefits as returns).
W11 Both the construction of wind turbines and their maintenance create employment (engineers, electricians).
W12 Land used for wind energy can simultaneously serve agricultural purposes (livestock, crop cultivation)
Solar PV (S)
S1 Kenya has a suitable climate for solar energy, with infinite solar energy during daytime.
S2 The level of greenhouse gas emissions associated with solar PV energy is low.
S3 Solar PV modules are clearly visible objects on your property/house (see picture).
S4 Personal Solar PV system requires initial investment costs.
S5 Entrepreneurs offer the possibility to hire or lease a PV-panel (e.g. ‘Pay-as-you-go’) as an alternative to fully purchasing a PV system.
S6 Solar PV energy production can be incorporated with minimal land use involved as modules can be placed on roofs.
S7 Solar PV increases energy access in Kenya without requiring expansions of the energy infrastructure.
S8 Both the installation of solar PV modules and their operation create employment (entrepreneurs, electricians).
S9 Solar PV is an intermittent energy source
S10 As storage options for solar PV are expensive, electricity access in the evening and night can be unreliable when no other
energy sources are used.
S11 For personal PV-panel use there is no central electricity grid needed, which makes solar PV an option to improve electricity
access in remote areas.
S12 To ensure quality and durability of solar PV systems, training on maintenance for users and technicians is needed.
S13 In the case of individual ownership, the owner is responsible for the functioning and maintenance of the solar modules
(installing, cleaning, and repairs).
Geothermal (G)
G1 An increase in the use of geothermal electricity could create jobs at the power plants and through the installation of transmission lines.
G2 In contrast to off-grid options, an increase in geothermal energy production for electricity requires an expansion of the electricity grid.
G3 The level of greenhouse gas emissions associated with geothermal energy is low.
G4 Geothermal energy installations are visible in the landscape (see picture of Olkaria II plant in Naivasha).
G5 Compared to other renewable energy sources, geothermal energy plants require a relatively large amount of water resources
used for cooling purposes.
G6 The spatial usage of geothermal installations is relatively small, with current geothermal plants occupying ∼1 km2per plant
(equaling ∼150 football fields).
G7 In Kenya, geothermal technologies provide one of the cheapest options to produce energy. The costs are comparable
to electricity from hydro dams.
G8 Kenya provides a suitable environment for geothermal energy, possessing many potential geothermal energy sites.
G9 Installing geothermal energy plants might involve relocation of community land.
G10 Geothermal energy could provide for a large share of Kenya’s total electricity supply
G11 Examples are known of combining geothermal power production with touristic attractions such as hot springs.
G12 Geothermal power plants could potentially lead to fresh water reservoir contamination.
G13 Emissions of sulfur dioxide from geothermal energy production could potentially impact the surrounding environment.
G14 Seismological activity may occur in association with the use of geothermal energy.
34
4. Results
Figure 1 shows a summary of the public views of local
respondents (many of whom are educated male Kenyan
nationals who consider themselves relatively well informed
in the field of renewable energy) on wind energy in Kenya.
Indicated are the median, 1
st
and 3
rd
quartiles, and 5
th
and 95
th
percentiles of the replies to all wind energy related
questions in our ICQ. We see that respondents consider it a
big advantage that the land used for wind energy can simul-
taneously serve agricultural purposes, that the construction
of wind turbines and their maintenance create employment,
and that wind turbines can be built in community ownership
so that local residents get the opportunity to participate in
an investment, the returns from which can be in the form of
electricity and/or financial benefits. Likewise, interviewees
attach high value to the fact that wind power contributes to
Kenya’s energy independence, that the construction and
O & M of wind turbines require suitable road infrastructure
with new roads providing additional opportunities for the
area involved, and that the level of GHG emissions asso-
ciated with wind power is low. The fact that the price of
wind power may currently be somewhat lower than that of
solar PV electricity is considered a substantial advantage,
but responses yield a large range that includes those who
think it is only a small advantage. The possibility that wind
turbines may cause shadow flickering in their immediate
vicinity leaves around a quarter of respondents indifferent,
while most others consider it a small to fair disadvantage.
The fact that wind turbines are visible elements in the land-
scape yields a broad variety of opinions stretching from
the very negative to even the very positive, with as many
respondents thinking that it is an advantage as those con-
sidering it a disadvantage. Three statements interviewees
generally consider genuine disadvantages, but opinions
cover practically the entire spectrum of possibilities. The
fact that wind turbines produce noise that can be heard in
their immediate vicinity is by many respondents viewed as
a small to fair disadvantage. Likewise, respondents view
the land use requirements of wind power, which preclude
certain other land-use purposes, a small to fair disadvan-
tage. The statement that the price of wind power (per unit
of kWh generated) may be somewhat higher than that of
geothermal electricity is viewed as the most negative draw-
back among all issues raised, with respondents typically
finding it a limited to substantial disadvantage.
Across all technologies, no statement receives reactions
as positive as the fact that Kenya has a suitable climate
for solar energy, with infinite solar energy during daytime.
Half of the respondents qualify it as a very big advantage,
while many others consider it a substantial to large advan-
tage (see Figure 2). Considered big advantages are also
statements informing respondents about the fact that for
domestic solar PV use there is no central electricity grid
needed, which makes solar PV an option to improve electric-
ity access in remote areas, that solar PV increases energy
access in Kenya without requiring expansions of the en-
ergy infrastructure, and that solar PV energy production
can be incorporated with minimal land use involved since
modules can be placed on roofs. The observations that the
installation of solar PV modules and their operation create
employment, that entrepreneurs offer the possibility to hire
or lease a PV-panel as an alternative to fully purchasing a
PV system, and that the level of greenhouse gas emissions
associated with solar PV energy is low are viewed as big
advantages as well, but in these cases a minority of respon-
dents only consider these small advantages. To ensure
quality and durability of solar PV systems, training on main-
tenance for users and technicians is needed. On average
this is considered a fair advantage, but interviewees display
rather polarising reactions, from the very positive down to
the quite negative. Most people find it either unimportant or
consider it a small to substantial advantage that solar PV
modules are clearly visible objects on properties or houses.
Roughly equally split between (very or a little) positive and
negative are respondents with regards to the fact that, in
the case of individual ownership, the owner is responsible
for the functioning and maintenance of the solar modules,
which involves installing the device, regular cleaning, and
small repairs. It is viewed as a limited disadvantage that
solar PV is an intermittent energy source, meaning that stor-
age of energy and balancing power sources are required
in order to guarantee electricity availability at all times, and
that domestic solar PV systems require initial investment
costs, but there is very much variation in the responses
to these statements. All respondents express negative
thoughts about the fact that storage options for solar PV
are expensive, so that electricity access in the evening and
night can be unreliable when no other energy sources are
used. This is on average considered a substantial disadvan-
tage: among the thirteen statements on PV presented to
the people interrogated, this one raises the most negative
reactions.
For geothermal energy, Figure 3 illustrates that three
characteristics are generally considered big advantages.
First, geothermal energy could provide for a large share
of Kenya’s total electricity supply. Second, Kenya provides
a suitable environment for geothermal energy, as it pos-
sesses many potential geothermal energy sites. Third, in
Kenya geothermal technologies provide one of the cheap-
est options to produce energy, the running costs (but not
the investment costs) of which are perhaps comparable to
electricity generated with hydropower dams. Also, typically
big advantages are observations that examples are known
of combining geothermal power production with touristic
attractions such as hot springs. Likewise, that the level
of greenhouse gas emissions associated with geothermal
energy is rather low. And similarly that an increase in the
use of geothermal electricity could create jobs at the power
plants and through the installation of transmission lines, al-
though some view these as only small or limited advantages.
The fact that the spatial usage of geothermal installations
is relatively small, with current geothermal plants occupy-
ing approximately 1 km
2
per plant, is by most interviewees
35
considered a small to substantial advantage, but some
other view it as a drawback. Two issues that splits people
roughly equally between positive and negative reactions
are phrases stating that geothermal energy installations
are visible in the landscape, such as the Olkaria II plant
in Naivasha, and that in contrast to off-grid options, an
increase in geothermal electricity production requires an
expansion of the transmission network. The facts that seis-
mological activity may occur in association with the use of
geothermal energy, and that, in comparison to other renew-
able energy sources, geothermal energy plants require a
relatively large amount of water resources used for cooling
purposes, are on average considered substantial disad-
vantages. Big disadvantages are statements explaining
that emissions of sulphur dioxide from geothermal energy
production could potentially impact the surrounding envi-
ronment, that geothermal power plants could potentially
lead to fresh water reservoir contamination, and that in-
stalling geothermal energy plants might involve relocation
of community land. With regard to each of these three ob-
servations, however, some respondents only possess small
to limited negative thoughts.
From Figures 1, 2, and 3 some clear overall tenden-
cies can be observed. First, for some statements the
reactions are rather homogeneous, whether negative or
positive, with narrow uncertainty ranges around clear-cut
central values that leave little doubt with respect to what
most respondents typically think on the matter. Second,
for some other questions the views are quite heteroge-
neous with (nearly) any possible answer provided, down
from the clearly negative up to the positive. Third, for yet
some other observations—for instance on the likelihood that
wind turbines may generate inconveniences like noise and
shadows—a non-negligible number of interviewees surpris-
ingly respond with positive views, which begs the question
whether the statements regarding these negative impacts
were well expressed and/or understood.
We are well aware of the fact that the reaction distribu-
tions we retrieved could well have been different if other sets
of respondents had been chosen, for example with more
people from other parts of the country, with different educa-
tional backgrounds, or with different levels of pre-existing
knowledge about renewable energy technologies. Like-
wise, reactions may be subject to temporal developments
and change over time, either because facts-on-the-ground
change (such as the costs of technologies like PV modules,
or unexpected benefits or drawbacks that emerge from
the deployment of specific energy options) or because the
people using, operating, or experiencing renewable energy
technologies modify their attitudes towards them (e.g. when
accepting certain inconveniences of intermittent renewables
against growing local impacts from climate change). These
phenomena generate variations and uncertainties that are
inherent to our methodology. Their detailed assessment
falls beyond the scope of this study.
Figure 1.
Views on wind energy by Kenyan (semi-)experts.
In the boxplots the median is represented by a red line, the
first and third quartiles form the edges of the box and the
whiskers extend from the hinges of the box to the 5
th
and
95th percentiles.
Figure 2.
Views on PV by Kenyan (semi-)experts. In
the boxplots the median is represented by a red line, the
first and third quartiles form the edges of the box and the
whiskers extend from the hinges of the box to the 5
th
and
95th percentiles.
Figure 3.
Views on geothermal energy by Kenyan
(semi-)
experts. In the boxplots the median is represented
by a red line, the first and third quartiles form the edges of
the box and the whiskers extend from the hinges of the box
to the 5th and 95th percentiles.
36
5. Discussion
Several generic observations can be made with regards to
the results shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3 for wind, solar PV,
and geothermal energy, respectively. For wind energy, two
topics seem predominant in determining the public opinion
of local (semi-)experts: its price with regards to its (renew-
able) competitors and its land use implications. According
to respondents, it is clearly important whether or not wind
electricity is cheaper than that from PV or geothermal plants.
For the Kenyans in our sample it appears also very rele-
vant that wind turbine parks may exclude certain types of
land use, such as for residential or commercial purposes,
while permitting certain others like agricultural activity. Clear
benefits are attached to a variety of socio-economic and
environmental features of wind turbines, such as the cre-
ation of employment, infrastructure, energy independence,
and the preclusion of GHG emissions. Some of the incon-
veniences of wind turbines, including visibility, noise and
shadow effects, draw mixed reactions, as is the case in
those developed countries that at present deploy large wind
energy development programmes.
The largest perceived benefits of solar PV are resource
or infrastructure related: the fact that Kenya has an enor-
mous solar energy resource potential and that household
PV panel systems preclude the need for large power grid
expansions, while still permitting universal electricity ac-
cess, are clearly viewed as one of PV’s largest assets. Like
with wind power, predominant other factors relate to prices
and land-use. The fact that domestic PV panel usage re-
quires expensive storage devices to compensate for PV’s
intermittency is seen as one of this option’s main disad-
vantages, while among its great advantages is that PV (up
to a certain size) can be installed on roofs of houses and
private or public buildings, thereby not yielding competition
with other types of land-use (at a bigger scale, large ar-
rays of PV panels would need to be constructed on the
ground, but crops can sometimes be grown underneath
them). Socio-economic and environmental arguments re-
lated to employment generation and reduction of GHG emis-
sions also generally work much in favour of PV. Issues of
visibility of PV panels and needs for cleaning, maintenance,
repairs and associated training are received with mixed
reactions.
The fact that one could exploit Kenya’s unique geother-
mal energy resources and that these could provide for a
large share of the national power and heat requirements
draws universally favourable attitudes from the public. Sim-
ilarly to wind energy and solar PV, there are a few key
characteristics affecting the acceptance of geothermal en-
ergy, particularly costs and land-use requirements. The
geological conditions in Kenya yielding likely low energy
service costs is clearly viewed among geothermal energy’s
largest benefits. The same holds for the fact that geother-
mal energy plants occupy little land, but on the downside is
the possibility of some communities needing to be relocated,
which yields sizeable potential for public resistance. Socio-
economic and environmental benefits of geothermal energy
associated with job creation, development of tourism, and
mitigation of climate change clearly contribute to the positive
view that respondents hold on geothermal energy. Issues
of visibility of installations and need of grid expansion divide
people into roughly equal groups of supportive respectively
unfavourable attitudes. Awareness of fresh water usage
and/or contamination, as well as possibly other types of en-
vironmental pollution and seismic activity, provokes sizeable
criticism.
Figure 4 shows that overall all three renewable energy
technologies receive a positive rating, and that statisti-
cally one cannot distinguish or rank them. There is only a
hint towards PV being slightly preferable above wind and
geothermal energy. No firm conclusion can be drawn either
about the effect of informing the respondents with more
detail about the possible consequences of the deployment
of these technologies. The graph suggests a potential
tendency that the favourable opinions about wind energy
and solar PV become more assured once more information
is provided, given the narrowing of the 1
st
and 3
rd
quartile
ranges. Meanwhile, geothermal energy may be viewed
slightly less approvingly if some of its potential drawbacks
are revealed. Yet both these observations remain unproven
as a result of the statistical, and potentially also systematic,
uncertainty margins of our public opinion tests. One of
the drawbacks of our study is the relatively small size of
our sample of respondents. A larger sample would yield
statistically more meaningful results, which could confirm
or disprove the trends we observe here.
Figure 4.
Overall evaluation of wind, PV, and geothermal
energy in Kenya: uninformed versus informed (median –
round marker, 1
st
quartile – lower bar, and 3
rd
quartile –
upper bar).
6. Conclusions and policy recommendations
In this paper we have demonstrated that, for a group of
relatively expert Kenyan nationals consisting mostly of well-
educated men, public acceptance in Kenya of three renew-
able energy options—wind, PV, and geothermal—is gener-
ally high. Substantial resource potential exists for all these
37
renewable energy alternatives. Scenario analysis such as
by Dalla Longa and van der Zwaan (2017) [
30
] has pointed
out that from an economic point of view it appears sensi-
ble to employ these renewables in efforts by the Kenyan
government to reach its nationally determined commitment
under the Paris Agreement. Here we complement their cost-
optimality study with evidence that, from a public opinion
perspective, it also seems feasible, and even desirable, to
implement wind, solar PV, and geothermal technologies in
order to meet Kenya’s national contribution to limit global
climate change to 2◦C.
Clear appreciation exists among the respondents in our
study of Kenya’s large resource potentials for wind, PV and
geothermal energy. The price for the delivered energy ser-
vices is one of the main points of public concern, which
contributes to determining their relative ranking, as well as
their score with respect to other, notably fossil fuel-based,
energy options. Availability of cheap fossil fuels thus con-
stitutes a threat for the deployment of renewables. From a
cost perspective, geothermal power may currently be the
most attractive renewable energy alternative in Kenya, but if
the right locations are chosen with optimal wind conditions,
wind energy could be at the competitive edge. PV could de-
liver access to electricity in those regions with sub-optimal
wind or geothermal resources, notably when its impressive
cost reductions over the past years continue to yield price
decreases in the future. Land-use requirements constitute
another important factor in shaping people’s opinions about
renewable energy options. PV appears the forerunner in
this respect, readily followed by geothermal energy, while
wind power may be favourable in this regard if its areal
needs can be synergized with simultaneous land-use for
other purposes, such as agriculture.
Regarding the value interviewees associate with infras-
tructural prerequisites, PV appears preferential over wind
and geothermal energy because of the absence of elec-
tricity grid expansion for many PV applications, notably
those at individual homes. The infrastructure needs of wind
and geothermal energy—e.g. road construction around the
facilities—are often considered a public co-benefit that can
serve other purposes as well. The broader socio-economic
and environmental sustainability arguments in favour of
wind, PV, and geothermal energy clearly contribute to ex-
plaining their popularity as well.
Yet governments, when designing policies stimulating
the deployment and use of these promising renewable en-
ergy options, should be aware of a broad range of possible
inconveniences associated with them, for example in terms
of possible emissions of certain types of pollutants or other
forms of environmental degradation or personal nuisance.
Policy makers and stakeholders could try to better under-
stand and anticipate these potential negative impacts in
view of the importance of public acceptance for large-scale
renewable energy deployment. The Kenyan government
could address matters of local acceptance by engaging with
the public in early stages of renewable energy planning and
deployment, for instance through surveys like the one we
used for the present study. In this way, more robust design
of policies and institutions could help to overcome some of
the obstacles that have impeded rapid diffusion of specific
renewable energy options in other countries. With this pa-
per we have made a start with gauging the public opinion
regarding renewable energy deployment in Kenya. Further
work should certainly be undertaken in this respect, for ex-
ample in terms of the particular importance and sensitivity
of land use issues for human livelihoods in Kenya, as well
as the thus far poorly investigated impacts of renewable
energy technologies on natural habitats for various species
(e.g. birds, notably in relation to geothermal energy).
Acknowledgments
The research that allowed the publication of this paper has
been produced with the financial assistance of the Euro-
pean Commission in the context of the TRANSRISK project
(Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, grant
agreement No. 642260). The contents of this publication
are the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way
be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. The
authors would like to acknowledge the feedback received
from their TRANSRISK partners, as well as the valuable
suggestions by James Rawlins and the research support
from two SEI interns who helped during the TRANSRISK
expert meeting held in Nairobi in February 2017 that gen-
erated much of the information reported in this article. We
also thank the anonymous reviewers for their feedback that
substantially improved the quality of this paper.
References and Notes
[1]
UN. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development; 2015.
[2]
IPCC. Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report
(AR5), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2014.
[3]
Katye E A, Hilton T, Tara C, Alison H, Bruno M, Harald W.
Achieving Development and Mitigation Objectives through a Decar-
bonization Development Pathway in South Africa. Climate Policy.
2016;16(sup1):S78–S91. doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1150250.
[4]
Taliotis C, Shivakumar A, Ramos E, Howells M, Mentis D, Sridha-
ran V, et al. An Indicative Analysis of Investment Opportunities in
the African Electricity Supply Sector - Using TEMBA (The Electric-
ity Model Base for Africa). Energy for Sustainable Development.
2015;31. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2015.12.001.
[5]
Lucas PL, Dagnachew AG, Hof AF. Towards Universal Electricity
Access in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Quantitative Analysis of Technology
and Investment Requirements; 2017. 1952. Available from: https:
//www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2017-towards-
universal-electricity- access-in-sub-saharan-africa- 1952.pdf.
[6]
van der Zwaan B, Kober T, Longa FD, van der Laan A, Jan Kramer
G. An Integrated Assessment of Pathways for Low-carbon
38
Development in Africa. Energy Policy. 2018;117(C):387–395.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.03.0.
[7]
Best-Waldhober M, Daamen D, Faaij A. Informed and Uninformed
Public Opinions on CO2 Capture and Storage Technologies in the
Netherlands. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control.
2009;pp. 322–332. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.09.001.
[8]
Baker E, Bosetti V, Diaz Anadon L, Henrion M, Aleluia Reis L.
Future Costs of Key Low-Carbon Energy Technologies: Harmo-
nization and Aggregation of Energy Technology Exper t Elicitation
Data. Energy Policy. 2015;80(45):219–232. Available from: https:
//ssrn.com/abstract=2608004.
[9]
Camblong H, Sarr J, Niang AT, Curea O, Alzola JA, Sylla EH, et al.
Micro-grids Project, Part 1: Analysis of Rural Electrification with
High Content of Renewable Energy Sources in Senegal. Renewable
Energy. 2009;34:2141–2150. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2009.01.015.
[10]
Wetang’ula GN. Public Participation in Environmental and Socioe-
conomic Considerations for Proposed 2.5 MW Pilot Eburru Power
Project, Kenya. Paper presented at Proceedings World Geothermal
Congress. 2010;pp. 1–11. Available from: https://www.geothermal-
energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2010/0208.pdf.
[11]
Ondraczek J. The Sun Rises in the East (of Africa): A Com-
parison of the Development and Status of the Solar Energy Mar-
kets in Kenya and Tanzania. Energy Policy. 2013;56:407–417.
doi:10.2139/ssrn.2157494.
[12]
Bouzidi B. Viability of Solar or Wind for Water Pumping Systems
in the Algerian Sahara Regions - Case Study Adrar. Renewable &
Sustainable Energy Reviews - RENEW SUSTAIN ENERGY REV.
2011;15(9):4436–4442. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.108.
[13]
Hanger S, Komendantova N, Schinke B, Zejli D, Ihlal A, Patt A. Com-
munity Acceptance of Large-scale Solar Energy Installations in De-
veloping Countries: Evidence from Morocco. Energy Research &
Social Science. 2016;14:80–89. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2016.01.010.
[14]
COP-21. Paris Agreement, United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change. Conference of the Parties 21; 2015.
[15]
GoK. Kenya’s Intended Nationally Deter mined Contribution
(INDC). Government of Kenya; 2015a. Available from:
https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/
Kenya%20First/Kenya NDC 20150723.pdf.
[16]
GoK. Second National Communication to the United Nations Frame-
work Convention On Climate Change. Government of Kenya; 2015b.
Available from: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/kennc2.pdf.
[17]
GoK. Updated Least Cost Power Development Plan. Government of
Kenya; 2011.
[18]
KP. The Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited, Annual Report
and Financial Statements 2015/2016; 2016.
[19]
GoK. Kenya Vision 2030. Government of Kenya; 2007. Available
from: https://vision2030.go.ke/.
[20]
GoK. National Climate Change Action Plan. Government of Kenya;
2013.
[21]
IRENA. Kenya Country Profile. International Renewable Energy
Agency; 2016. Available from: http://resourceirena.irena.org/gateway/
countrySearch/?countryCode=KEN.
[22]
Ogana W. Wind Energy Development in Kenya – A review. So-
lar & Wind Technology. 1987;4(3):291–303. doi:10.1016/0741-
983X(87)90060-9.
[23]
Acker RH, Kammen DM. The Quiet (Energy) Revolution: Analysing
the Dissemination of Photovoltaic Power Systems in Kenya. Energy
Policy. 1996;24(1):81–111. doi:10.1016/0301-4215(95)00112-3.
[24]
Rabah K. Integrated Solar Energy System for Rural Elec-
trification in Kenya. Renewable Energy. 2005;30:23–42.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2004.04.011.
[25]
Mariita NO. The Impact of Large-scale Renewable Energy De-
velopment on the Poor: Environmental and Socio-Economic Im-
pact of a Geothermal Power Plant on a Poor Rural Community in
Kenya. Energy Policy. 2002;30(11):1119–1128. doi:10.1016/S0301-
4215(02)00063-0.
[26]
Sesan T. Navigating the Limitations of Energy Pover ty: Lessons from
the Promotion of Improved Cooking Technologies in Kenya. Energy
Policy. 2012;47:202–210. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.058.
[27]
Yadoo A, Cruickshank H. The Role for Low Carbon Electrifica-
tion Technologies in Poverty Reduction and Climate Change Strate-
gies: A Focus on Renewable Energy Mini-grids with Case Stud-
ies in Nepal, Peru and Kenya. Energy Policy. 2012;42:591–602.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.029.
[28]
Sanoh A, Kocaman A, Kocal S, Sherpa S, Modi V. The Eco-
nomics of Clean Energy Resource Development and Grid In-
terconnection in Africa. Renewable Energy. 2014;62:598–609.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.08.017.
[29]
Pueyo A, Bawakyillenuo S, Osiolo H. Cost and Returns of Re-
newable Energy in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Comparison of Kenya
and Ghana. IDS Evidence Report 190. 2016;Available from:
https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/cost-and-returns- of-renewable-
energy-in- sub-saharan-africa-a-comparison-of-kenya-and-ghana/.
[30]
Dalla Longa F, van der Zwaan B. Do Kenya’s Climate
Change Mitigation Ambitions Necessitate Large-Scale Renew-
able Energy Deployment? Renewable Energy. 2017;113.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.06.026.
[31]
SEI. Energy Pathways for Achieving Kenya’s Nationally Determined
Contribution to Global Efforts to Mitigate Climate Change. Discus-
sion Brief, Stockholm Environment Institute. 2017;Available from:
https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/public-energy/documents/energy-
pathways-achieving-kenyas-nationally- determined-contribution-
global-efforts.
[32]
Van der Salm AC, van Knippenberg D, D L Daamen D. A Criti-
cal Test of the Choice Questionnaire for Collecting Informed Public
Opinions. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology.
1997;31:193–197. doi:10.1023/A:1004214500745.
[33]
Best-Waldhober M, Daamen D, Ram
´
ırez A, Faaij A, Hendriks C,
Visser E. Informed Public Opinion in the Netherlands: Evaluation of
CO
2
Capture and Storage Technologies in Comparison with other
CO
2
Mitigation Options. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas
Control. 2012;10:169–180. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.05.023.
[34]
Best-Waldhober M, Daamen D, Faaij A. Informed and Uninformed
Public Opinions on CO
2
Capture and Storage Technologies in the
Netherlands. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control.
2009;pp. 322–332. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.09.001.
[35]
Malone E, Dooley J, Bradbury J. Moving from Misinformation
Derived from Public Attitude Surveys on Carbon Dioxide cap-
ture and Storage towards Realistic Stakeholder Involvement. In-
ternational Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. 2010;4:419–425.
doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.09.004.
[36]
Daamen DDL, Terwel BW, ter Mors E, Reiner DM, Schumann
D, Anghel S, et al. Scrutinizing the Impact of CCS Commu-
nication on Opinion Quality: Focus Group Discussions versus
Information-Choice Questionnaires: Results from Experimental Re-
search in Six Countries. Energy Procedia. 2011;4:6182–6187.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.629.
[37]
ter Mors E, Terwel B, D L Daamen D, Reiner D, Schumann D,
Anghel S, et al. A Comparison of Techniques Used to Collect In-
formed Public Opinions about CCS: Opinion Quality after Focus
Group Discussions versus Information-Choice Questionnaires. In-
ternational Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. 2013;18:256–263.
doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.07.015.
39