Socio- technical transitions in humanitarian settings: Solar mini grids for energy- enabled growth in refugee hosting districts in Kenya

Socio- technical transitions in humanitarian settings: Solar mini grids for energy- enabled growth in refugee hosting districts in Kenya | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Socio- technical transitions in humanitarian settings: Solar mini grids for energy- enabled growth in refugee hosting districts in Kenya Smriti Jalihal, Tonny Kukeera, Alycia Leonard, Pu Yang, Lucille Akelo Onyango, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8437345/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The rapid growth of displaced populations has intensified the challenge of providing sustainable energy access in refugee-hosting districts. While solar mini grids have the potential to solve this challenge, they face roadblocks to deployment at scale. Drawing on 32 expert interviews with mini grid developers, investors and decision makers, and 199 surveys with business-owning refugees in Dadaab, Kenya, this paper examines why solar mini grids, despite their technical and financial viability, struggle to scale in humanitarian contexts. Using the Multi-Level Perspective framework as an interpretive lens, the analysis shows how mini grid developers in refugee camps operate within overlapping humanitarian and national energy regimes shaped by temporary relief logics and long-term infrastructural ambitions respectively. These institutional frictions limit coordination, financing, and policy integration, constraining market development. Yet, local entrepreneurship, flexible payment systems, and donor-developer partnerships provide pathways toward more durable energy access models for humanitarian settings. We identify both ways in which niche refugee mini grid developers can shape their business models to best navigate existing regimes, and ways that these regimes can be reformed to support inclusive humanitarian energy innovation at scale. While focusing on Kenya, these lessons can apply more broadly throughout refugee contexts in sub-Saharan Africa. solar mini grids refugees energy access Kenya electrification Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction The end of 2024 saw the number of displaced people worldwide reach 123.2 million, almost doubling during the last decade (UNHCR, 2025 ). This can be largely attributed to international wars, civil wars, natural disasters, land use changes, and climate change (Pelletier et al., 2024 ; van Hove & Johnson, 2021 ). Most displaced populations are found in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Asia and Africa. As of 2024, one of every five refugees worldwide was hosted in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (Casati et al., 2024 ), often in large, long-standing refugee camps or refugee hosting districts (RHDs) (Grafham et al., 2022 ). As these settlements expand, the demand for essential services such as energy, water, and sanitation often outpaces the available resources. Humanitarian budgets and national development plans typically prioritise immediate needs such as food, water, and shelter, leaving others critical services like energy access underdeveloped (Baldi et al., 2022 ). Energy access in RHDs is shaped by fragmented institutional arrangements and differentiated refugee livelihoods, producing structural inequalities that constrain sustainable energy provision. While the formal responsibility for energy infrastructure lies with the host government, in practice, energy services in RHDs are often coordinated and funded by UNHCR and similar humanitarian agencies. This duality of roles creates fragmented governance and unclear regulatory pathways, making it difficult to plan, finance, and implement sustainable energy solutions effectively (Casati et al., 2024 ). Furthermore, the economic lives of refugees vary across camps and are shaped by their identities, influencing their energy service needs, as well as their willingness and ability to pay for electricity (Betts et al., 2024). These dynamics result in RHD energy access levels far below national averages. As of 2022, approximately 80% of refugees globally lacked access to modern energy solutions (Grafham et al., 2022 ), with some reports estimating the lack of access to electricity in displacement settings at 94% (Rosenberg-Jansen, 2022 ). If unaddressed, these inequalities will continue to hinder progress toward SDG 7 and reinforce wider socio-economic exclusions within displacement contexts. Solar-powered mini grids (MGs) are increasingly presented as a promising solution to expand electricity access in underserved regions. Their quick deployment, modularity, and declining costs make them particularly suitable for nominally transient refugee settings. It has been argued that these systems have the potential to provide uninterrupted electricity to as many as half a billion people by 2030, closing the energy gap (ESMAP, 2023). This potential can be attributed to the rapidly decreasing cost of the energy they produce – from approximately $ 0.55/kWh in 2018 to $ 0.38/kWh in 2022 – and the widespread availability of solar panels and batteries. The number of solar-powered MGs in SSA has risen from approximately 500 in 2010 to more than 3000 in 2023 (ESMAP, 2023). Whereas previous studies (e.g., Pueyo & DeMartino, 2018 ; Baldi et al., 2022 ) have examined the importance of solar powered MGs in rural settings and planning for electricity solutions in refugee settlements in SSA, there remains a paucity of research exploring on-site experiences of MG developments in refugee camps and how they interact with external constraints (Lambe et al., 2024 ). Existing research on energy and displacement primarily focuses on household demand, community-based energy interventions, or the lived experience of energy scarcity (Nixon et al., 2021 ; Ray & Chakraborty, 2022 ; Rosenberg-Jansen, 2022 ). While a few studies that highlight the demand-side challenges or technical feasibility for energy interventions in humanitarian settings (e.g., Elasu et al., 2025 ; GPA, 2022), there remains limited understanding of the institutional and governance factors shaping supply-side dynamics in such contexts. This study addresses that gap by analysing the feasibility of deploying solar powered MGs in in RHDs in Kenya. We draw on 32 semi-structured interviews with MG developers, investors, and decision makers, along with descriptive analysis of 199 surveys administered to business owners in the Dadaab refugee settlement. To interpret these insights, we adopt the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) as an analytical lens. This offers a way to situate technological innovations within the social, institutional, and political systems that shape their development and diffusion. The MLP conceptualises socio-technical transitions as the outcome of interactions among niche innovations, established socio-technical regimes, and broader landscape pressures that influence or destabilise these regimes (Geels, 2002 ; 2011 ; 2020 ). This framework has increasingly been applied in LMICs contexts to analyse energy transitions under institutional complexity, resource constraints, and hybrid governance arrangements (Nuru et al., 2021 ; Rajagopalan & Breetz, 2022 ). Rather than treating solar MGs as technical artefacts or stand-alone business ventures, the MLP enables an examination of how innovations evolve within broader systems of rules, norms, and practices. This is particularly relevant in humanitarian contexts where energy provision is shaped by overlapping and often conflicting institutional logics - i.e., a humanitarian relief regime that prioritises short-term service delivery, and a national energy regime that emphasises regulatory stability, infrastructural planning, and economic viability. Landscaping pressures such as the protracted global refugee crisis, climate change, and international commitments to universal energy access place additional demands on both regimes (Sovacool & Griffiths, 2020 ). To present this study, the paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 provides a contextualising literature review about energy access and refugee settlements in Kenya, explaining the need for decentralised energy systems like solar-powered MGs, and introduces the MLP, which guides the analysis. Section 3 highlights the methods used in the study, followed by sections 4 and 5 where the challenges and opportunities of solar-powered energy access in Dadaab are explained through niche-regime-landscape interactions. Section 6 presents the limitations and further directions that the research can take, followed by conclusion summarising key learnings. 2. Literature review To contextualise the study, this section provides an overview of the status of refugees and energy access in Kenya, the importance of solar-powered MGs in energy access literature, and the study’s underpinning theoretical framework. 2.1. Refugees in Kenya Kenya hosts the third largest population of refugees and asylum seekers in Eastern Africa. As of December 2025, there are 635,036 refugees in Kenya (about 11.7% of the refugees in East and the Horn of Africa), mostly from Somalia and South Sudan, followed by the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, and Burundi. Fifty-one percent of these refugees live in Garissa County (UNHCR, 2025 ). Dadaab (Garissa County) and Kakuma (Turkana County) are among the world’s largest refugee camps (Wardeh & Marques, 2021 ). Kenya is known to be relatively advanced in its consideration of refugees. The Refugees Act (2021) allows refugees to gain employment, set up businesses, and practice trade. Refugees also have access to Universal Health Coverage and the right to documentation through the Refugee Identity Card or the Foreign National Registration Certificate. The government has designated parts of specific counties, including Turkana, Garissa, and Nairobi, to host refugees, referred to as Refugee Hosting Districts (RHDs) (Government of Kenya, 2021 ). In recent years, Kenya has made significant progress in reducing dependence on humanitarian interventions to meet refugee needs, instead aiming to integrate these efforts into government-led service delivery. As detailed in the Kenya Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) for 2019–2020 (2018), the country has been transitioning from a camp-based model of refugee management toward community integration and economic self-reliance. The CRRF further informed the development of the Refugees Act (2021) and the Shirika Plan (2025), which focuses on the socio-economic inclusion of refugees by transforming refugee camps into integrated municipalities. In line with these commitments, Kenya plans to provide refugees with access to national services such as health, education, and infrastructure, including shared facilities that benefit both refugees and host populations. Through the Shirika Plan, Dadaab and Kakuma camps have been reclassified as county-administered municipalities, marking a shift from a humanitarian to a government-led development approach (Government of Kenya, 2025 ). However, substantial challenges remain before these reforms are fully realised. 2.2. State of energy access within Kenyan refugee districts As of 2023, nearly 76% of Kenyans have access to electricity, though access remains unequal; around 90% of urban households are connected to the grid compared to about 70% in rural areas (World Bank, 2024 ). This number is even lower within refugee settlements (~ 15% in 2022) (UNHCR, 2023). For instance, in the Kakuma settlement, only 1% have access to electricity through the national grid (UNHCR, 2023). Refugees face several barriers in receiving access to the national grid: a national ID or tax document is needed to connect to the grid, which are often difficult for refugees to obtain (UNHCR, 2023). Energy access and planning in Kenya are guided by policies like the Kenya National Electrification Strategy (2018) and Vision 2030. In line with Sustainable Development Goal 7 which focuses on affordable, reliable, sustainable, modern energy for all, these policies aim for universal electricity access through a combination of grid expansion and decentralised renewable solutions throughout the country (UNHCR, 2025 .). Kenya Power, a national utility, supplies most grid-connected consumers, while the Rural Electrification and Renewable Energy Corporation focuses on extending access to underserved and off-grid regions. Energy governance in the country is fragmented and complex (Volkert & Klagge, 2022 ). There have been some efforts to promote RHD energy access in the country, though these are infrequent. One successful programme on this front, the Kenya Off-Grid Solar Access Project (KOSAP, 2024) funded by the World Bank, targets 14 marginalised communities, including the refugee-hosting Garissa and Turkana counties to implement MGs, solar home systems, and clean cooking through Public Private Partnership (PPP) models (Government of Kenya and World Bank, 2018). 2.3. Energy demand and mini-grid solutions in refugee settlements The substantial energy demand of RHDs in SSA is dominated by traditional energy sources such as firewood, charcoal, and kerosene, due to the ease of access and deployment and low upfront costs. Even humanitarian agencies have struggled to provide sustainable energy access and largely depend on fossil fuels for operations (Lehne et al., 2016 ; Weber et al., 2023 ). In Uganda, for example, wood shortages have led to an increase in household spending on firewood by up to 122% (Hove & Johnson, 2021 ). Surveys further reveal that household energy use among forcibly displaced people amounts to approximately 3.5 million tonnes of oil equivalent, typically in the form of firewood and charcoal, contributing to significant environmental degradation in the host community (Lahn and Grafham, 2015). However, since 2010, access to sustainable and reliable energy in RHDs is receiving increasing attention, both as a fundamental human need and as a catalyst for long-term development of refugees and host communities. Multiple case studies from rural settings Rwanda, Cameroon, Uganda, Djibouti, and other SSA countries demonstrate that solar and hybrid MGs can reliably supply power for essential services, reduce emissions, and lower operational costs compared to diesel generators (Bahaj et al., 2025 ; Beath et al., 2023 ). Moreover, clean energy provision is associated with improvements in health, water access, education, as well as improved security, safety and income, and a reduction in gender-based violence (Thomas et al., 2021 ). MGs have therefore emerged as a promising solution. Initially developed in 1980s as standalone diesel-powered systems, modern solar or hybrid MGs can be coupled with smart prepaid systems, remote monitoring, and advanced photovoltaic (PV) technologies (Lambe et al., 2024 ). A typical MG consists of an electricity generator and a low-voltage distribution network servicing communities in proximity, making them most viable in relatively dense settlements (Ogeya et al., 2025 ). Such systems are now being deployed in countries across SSA including Zambia, Uganda, Nigeria, and Ghana (Trotter & Brophy, 2022 ). Other notable examples include the refugee-operated solar network MG in Kakuma (Rosenberg-Jansen et al., n.d), the performance-based financed MG in Kalobeyei (UNHCR, 2025 ), and the blended financed MG in Mahama camp (Baranda Alonso & Sandwell, 2020 ). However, these examples are still limited, and the factors that led to their success (as well as the challenges they have faced) have been minimally researched, owing to the lack of documentation. Further, in Kenya alone, as of the beginning of 2025, there are at least 12 private-sector MG developers operating across 111 sites (Ogeya et al., 2025 ). Globally, solar-powered MGs have expanded the possibilities for reliable, cost-effective electricity provision (Rosenberg-Jansen et al., 2018 ). It has been shown that sustainable energy solutions in refugee settlements can improve living conditions while generating long-term financial and environmental benefits. In refugee settlements, such systems must be inclusively designed by engaging humanitarian organisations, governments, refugee communities, and the private sector (Rosenberg-Jansen et al., 2019 ; Alonso & Sandwell, 2020 ). Various techno-economic models have demonstrated the feasibility of renewable energy solutions, including MGs (Amin et al., 2022), hybrid energy systems (Baranda Alonso et al., 2021a ), and solar home systems (Thomas et al., 2021 ). Notably, Kenya possesses significant solar potential, with capacity estimates exceeding current national grid consumption (Fields et al., 2025 ; Mugisha et al., 2021 ; Mukoro et al., 2022 ). Yet, while technological feasibility and economic potential of MGs in refugee settings are increasingly recognised, far less is understood about how these energy solutions interact with the complex institutional, political, and social dynamics that shape humanitarian environments. As previously mentioned, much of the existing literature focuses on technical design, demand modelling, and household-level energy use, with limited attention to the governance systems. RHDs operate within complex institutional configurations involving humanitarian agencies, national authorities, private firms, and refugee communities. These actors often have different incentives and capacities among other things, which creates constraints for energy innovation. Understanding how MGs take root in such contexts therefore requires a framework that can capture both the technological dimensions of energy provision and the socio-institutional processes that condition their success or failure. The Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) framework provides such an analytical lens. 2.4. The Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) on socio-technical energy transitions The MLP provides a structured way to examine how technological, institutional, and social change processes unfold within complex socio-technical systems. Developed by Geels ( 2002 , 2011 ), the MLP conceptualises transitions as the result of interactions across three analytical levels: (a) niche innovations (i.e., experimental new ideas growing in protected systems); (b) socio-technical regimes (i.e., the dominant established systems) and; (c) landscape pressures (i.e., the broader contexts that create pressure on existing systems) (Geels, 2020 ); (Rip and Kemp, 1998 ). Within energy research, the MLP framework has been widely used to explain how renewable energy technologies diffuse, how socio-technical lock-ins resist change, and how transitions unfold through the co-evolution of technologies, markets, user practices, and institutions (Geels et al., 2017 ; Sovacool & Geels, 2016 ) Although early applications of the MLP focused on industrialised country settings, recent work demonstrates its relevance for LMICs. Studies of energy transitions in Kenya, Ghana, India, Rwanda, and other LMICs have used the MLP to analyse how decentralised renewable energy systems interact with regulatory fragmentation, donor involvement, infrastructural constraints, and uneven state capacity (Nuru et al., 2021 ; Pedersen & Nygaard, 2018 ; Rajagopalan & Breetz, 2022 ). Research on off-grid solar and MGs highlights how innovations often emerge in spaces underserved by national utilities, where their trajectories depend not only on technical performance but also on policy stability, financing mechanisms, and alignment with community practices (Moner-Girona et al., 2018 ). Applying the MLP to humanitarian settings builds on this emerging LMIC literature by examining transitions in governance environments characterised by institutional hybridity and overlapping mandates. RHDs sit at the intersection of a humanitarian relief regime shaped by short funding cycles, donor conditionalities, and a logic of temporariness (Betts et al., 2024b ; Rosenberg-Jansen, 2022 ) and a national energy regime guided by regulatory stability, infrastructural planning, and commercial investment considerations (Rose et al., 2016 ; Volkert & Klagge, 2022 ). Developers introducing solar MGs in such contexts must navigate these two partially incompatible sets of rules, norms, incentives, and expectations. Similar dual-regime challenges have been documented in other MLP studies where innovations intersect with fragmented governance arrangements (Haselip, 2022 ; Kern & Rogge, 2018 ). Landscape pressures further shape these interactions. The global refugee crisis, climate change, international commitments to universal energy access, declining solar photovoltaic costs, and donor preferences for renewable energy create opportunities for decentralised solutions in displacement settings but also reinforce tensions between humanitarian and national governance structures (IRENA, 2019 ; UNHCR, 2024 ; Sovacool & Griffiths, 2020 ). These landscape trends influence tariff approvals, investment decisions, and the longer-term credibility of private developers in refugee-hosting areas. Using the MLP in this study therefore enables a holistic understanding of how solar MGs emerge as niche innovations within refugee settlements, how they encounter and adapt to the constraints of humanitarian and national energy regimes, and how broader landscape trends shape their potential for scaling. It moves beyond technical feasibility to highlight the socio-institutional processes that condition the success or failure of energy innovations in displacement settings and guides the data analysis strategy to understand the interactions between niche innovations, regime structures, and landscape forces. 3. Methods This study employs a qualitative approach to assess the viability of MG investments in RHDs to transform energy access in humanitarian settings. The methodology consists of semi-structured interviews (SSIs) with 32 key stakeholders (i.e., MG developers, investors, and decision-makers) and a descriptive analysis of 199 surveys with business owning refugees in the Dadaab refugee settlement. Diverse data sources were used in this study because of the various stakeholders involved in the energy provision and consumption processes in refugee settlements, as well as the scarcity of data on this topic. 3.1. Study location This paper uses the case study of the Dadaab refugee settlement in Garissa County, Northeastern Kenya. Daadab is located approximately 90 kilometres from the Kenya-Somalia border in a semi-arid region (Department of Refugee Services, 2024 ). Garissa County’s solar potential is evidenced by the 55MW Garissa Solar Power Plant, commissioned in 2019 as East Africa’s largest grid-connected solar facility, which was specifically sited to leverage the region’s abundant solar resources (REREC,2021). The refugee complex, now comprising of three camps (i.e., Dagahaley, Hagadera and Ifo), was established in 1991 for refugees fleeing the civil war in Somalia (Chkam, 2016 ). A second wave of refugees arrived in 2011 owing to the drought and famine in Somalia. As of April 2025, Dadaab hosts 431,216 registered refugees and asylum seekers. At date of writing, Somalian nationals still represent over 96% of the refugee population (UNHCR, 2025 ). Dadaab is known to receive less funding than some other RHDs in Kenya, which contributes to its limited energy infrastructure (Maalim et al., 2021 ). However, some energy companies have been able to successfully install MGs in Dadaab, through which several households and businesses now 3.2. Key informant interviews A total of 32 semi-structured interviews (SSIs) were conducted between 2022 and 2024 with key informants including MG developers, investors, and decision-makers in East Africa and displacement contexts. These interviews provided in-depth perspectives on the policy environment, financial structures, market dynamics, and inclusion practices shaping MG development in RHDs. SSIs with nine MG developers and investors were conducted between November 2023 and January 2024. Participants were identified through snowball sampling within the network of the Danish Refugee Council (DRC), and the authors’ professional ecosystem. The discussions explored policies, financial mechanisms, and market perceptions regarding MGs in RHDs. Interviews lasted 45–60 minutes and were mostly conducted online (one participant provided written responses). Experts had an average of 17 years of experience in senior operational, management, engineering or financial roles. Two had direct experience working in RHDs, while others had indirectly worked with RHDs through their companies’ portfolios. The relatively small sample reflects the limited pool of functional MG operators and relevant project developers/investors in East Africa. In addition, 23 SSIs were conducted between 2022 and 2024 with key decision-makers in Kenya, including representatives from the private sector, national and county governments, and civil society organisations (see Table 1 ). They were selected through purposive sampling for their experience at the intersection of energy and Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) which included refugees as one of the groups considered. These interviews, lasting 40–120 minutes, were primarily conducted face-to face, with a few over Zoom. For this study, only insights related to refugee inclusion and their experiences were analysed. For the full findings of this study refer to Fuchs et al., 2025 . Table 1 List of key informant interviews Key informant interviewee categories Code for anonymisation Profession/ Reason for selection Solar powered MG developers MG1…MG9 Mini grid developers Decision makers NGE1 National Government, Ministry of Energy NGG1, NGG2 National Government, Gender Equality Commission NG01 National Government PS1, PS2 Private sector CG1…CG7 County government DN1 Donor ING01...ING04 International NGO 3.3. Survey of refugee business owners A structured survey was administered by the Danish Refugee Council (DRC) team using KoBo software to survey 199 refugee business owners in Dadaab in December 2023. The businesses comprised of grocery shops, livestock shops, kiosks, restaurants, pharmacies, schools, butcheries and smaller shops. The business owners (37% female, 63% male) were identified by the DRC team using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling. The survey aimed to capture insights into challenges, shocks, financing mechanisms, and regulatory changes experienced by refugee business owners. Each survey lasted approximately 20 minutes. All responses were anonymised, coded, and descriptively analysed to identify key trends and patterns affecting business operations, financial and socio-political challenges and opportunities within the refugee context. In this study, the survey results are descriptively used to contextualise the business environment in refugee settlements. 3.4. Ethics and Positionality The study received ethics approval form the Medical Sciences Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee at the University of Oxford (reference: R83092/RE001) and NASCOTI, Kenya. The project was part funded by DRC. The authors include university-educated individuals from the Global North and South, while interviews were administered by the DRC team located in Dadaab refugee settlement. We recognise that some of the inferences of this study might be influenced by our positionality. For instance, while some Global South authors have familiarity with settings with inconsistent energy access, none of the authors have lived experience of being a refugee or living in a concentrated RHD setting. This could affect our ability to understand the lived realities of refugees. Nevertheless, we have tried to be as unbiased as possible. 3.5. Analysis Following verbal consent, all interviews were recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were manually reviewed by the research team for accuracy. Transcripts were anonymised using coded identifiers (e.g., MG1 for Mini-Grid Developer 1) and manually coded and annotated through a mix of inductive and deductive coding. Interview data were coded for key themes including perceptions, business model, challenges, and energy demand (See Table 2 ). Further, the interview data was triangulated with policy documents, including Kenya's Energy Act (2019), the Shirika Plan (2025), KOSAP project documents, the Refugees Act (2021) and UNHCR Kenya operation reports to contextualise findings within the national and county energy governance frameworks. Table 2 Qualitative coding from MG developer and investor interviews Theme Second Order Code Business Models Anchor load Inevitability/Scalability Portfolio investment Self-sustaining business model Operational Risks & Barriers Risk guarantee Current challenges Political barriers Local Capacity & Engagement Local collaborators and partners Capacity building Stakeholder engagement Finance Creative financial products Upfront cost Tariff setting Subsidy Policy Environment Overregulation Temporary setting Policy misalignment Technical Planning Access Technology Lack of access to reliable data Impact Measurement Challenge in integration with existing diesel and solar equipment Data from the decision maker interviews followed a similar analytical approach, along with a review of relevant policy documents (see: Fuchs et al., 2025 ), however, as previously indicated, only the segments relevant to refugee contexts were utilised in this study. Survey responses were descriptively analysed to identify patterns and trends that support and complement the insights generated from the KIIs. Excerpts from both the interviews and survey responses are used throughout the text to illustrate and substantiate key arguments and analytical points, ensuring that findings are directly grounded in participants’ perspectives and experiences. 4. Results and Discussion This section presents the findings from the interviews and survey, focusing on situating solar-powered MGs as a means to affordable, community-centric energy access in refugee settlements, using the Dadaab refugee settlement as a case study. By applying the MLP to a humanitarian-development context, this study extends the socio-technical transitions theory beyond its traditional focus on industrialised settings. As illustrated in the next few sections, our findings reveal that MG developments in RHDs are shaped by the dynamic interaction between niche-level innovations in business models, fragmented and overlapping regime structures, and broader landscape pressures. In particular, the analysis highlights how MG developers often adapt their business models to navigate the dual logics of humanitarian and national energy regimes, offering insight into how niche innovations can incrementally influence institutional pathways for energy provision in complex governance environments. 4.1 Niche: The potential of MG innovations in refugee hosting districts Solar-powered MGs are a cost-effective, decentralised solution for expanding electricity access in remote and renewable-rich areas (Agyekum & Nutakor, 2020 ; Baranda Alonso et al., 2021; IRENA, 2019 ). SSA, often characterised by low electricity access and abundant solar potential, is increasingly receiving MG funding from governments, private investors, and development partners (Adamopoulou et al., 2024 ). The falling technology costs i.e., PV panels and battery storage, and digital innovations such as mobile money and smart meters play a huge role in the ease of management and the scaling of MGs in RHD settings. Despite this however, serving low-income segments has made it quite challenging to find the right operational measures that would ensure financial sustainability of MG systems. For instance, we note that some donor-backed MGs offer electricity at no cost to households. This shapes consumer expectations, leading to low willingness to pay for energy services. In our study, MG1 noted that many households perceive electricity as a public entitlement rather than a market-based commodity. This norm reduces tariff acceptance, making it difficult for commercial MG developers to recover costs and attract private capital. The result is a disincentive for market-driven MG developers, despite the strong technical potential. Although solar MGs are noted as a low-cost, reliable, decentralised, off grid energy solution to address energy access gaps and integrate into national electrification efforts, several interviewees found that MG deployment is more successful when positioned as a replacement for existing diesel-based systems because of their scalability, efficiency, modularity, productive user mechanisms and anchor clients. As MG4 explained, “if there are already businesses with diesel generators, it is easier to convince these customers to move to electricity,” indicating that pre-existing energy spending forms a natural anchor for the transition to cleaner systems. MG developers mentioned that businesses that use diesel generators are familiar with the logistics and costs of energy and would thus be happy to welcome a more efficient and cheaper source. The ease of setting up diesel-solar hybrid grids with existing infrastructure has also been highlighted in other studies (Baranda Alonso et al., 2021). In this case, MGs thrive when they align with existing user practices, like diesel generator use, rather than attempting to reshape household consumption norms shaped by long-term subsidies or other humanitarian provisions. Despite low household willingness to pay, developers noted that the overall theoretical energy demand remains high, particularly due to the electricity needs of various businesses and institutions (e.g., hair salons, repair shops, welding, cell towers, and offices of humanitarian agencies). Survey results showed that only ~ 66% of business owners interviewed in Dadaab operated in buildings that had access to electricity. This mismatch between the demand and supply was also highlighted by the interviewed developers. For instance, MG3 mentioned that they found over 150 businesses operating within the Dadaab refugee camp but were able to connect just 12 of them to solar powered MGs due to limited MG capacity. Further, MG2 highlighted that power consumption in the camp by businesses and other off-takers is higher than surrounding rural towns, making MG installation within the RHDs comparatively more lucrative. The general demand for electricity (from solar MGs and diesel sources) is higher in refugee settlements due to the remittances sent by their families from abroad, which allows them to buy more electricity in comparison to the surrounding rural towns (Misati et al., 2019 ). The dynamics of the niche success are also strengthened by business model innovation. All MG operators that were interviewed used mobile money and pre-paid smart meters, reducing the labour of door-to door payment collection. A small fee is charged for connecting people to the power lines, after which electricity is sold to them on a prepaid basis. Each customer has a smart meter connected to the internet, and payments are processed in a timely and automated manner. No monthly fees are charged for the provision. Another developer noted that in other models of electricity provision that involved door to door collection, money often went missing, paving avenues for corruption. Impact-oriented financing plays a key role in enabling this experimentation of business models and value capture mechanisms. As MG5 explained, developers depend on “investors who prioritise social impact,” since traditional debt remains largely inaccessible. Donor-linked result-based financing, used widely in distributed renewable energy (World Bank, 2020), is also critical, although its effectiveness depends on regulatory approvals that are not always forthcoming. Some challenges faced during typical rural MG development are reduced by the demographic makeup of refugees. In non-refugee rural settings, operators explained that it is difficult to hire local technical capacity, meaning that human resource must be instead brought-in (alongside materials), which is difficult given poor road infrastructure. However, this problem does not necessarily exist in refugee camps, where the developers can leverage the technical expertise of some refugees, as people of all classes and backgrounds can be displaced and may be seeking new employment. Highlighting this, a developer who had worked in RHDs explained “So far we've trained everybody and I really want to find some engineers this time….There must be well trained engineers in there, you know; maybe most engineers had enough money to flee conflict in a different direction or something, but there must be engineers in there. So if we can find them, I would love to hire them.” [MG3]. Despite this optimism from developers with RHD experience, developers who had not worked in an RHD context were not aware of the capacity the refugees possessed in being able to effectively run a community centred MG system. This speaks to a potential misconception around refugee skills and demographics. The UN-Habitat/Dadaab Socio-economic Survey (2021) also showed that RHD residents hold greater technical expertise as compared to the surrounding rural residents. Further, refugee settlements are extremely entrepreneurial, and therefore more likely to have enough people earning adequate income for the grid to be effectively utilized than other rural areas. This entrepreneurship was highlighted in the survey results, when 84.4% of business-owning refugees said that they were able to repay their loans and recover their money after shocks, like the sudden increase in prices, robberies, fires, insecurity or supply issues that might occur on monthly, seasonal or annual basis. 67.8% of them also mentioned that they are either using loans or credit to buy stock for their business and are usually able to pay it back. This bodes well for productive uptake of MG energy. Humanitarian organisations also serve as partial niche enablers in two ways. First by acting as demand: For instance, MG4 said solar MGs have also helped reduce energy costs for the organisations that operate in humanitarian settings - “For [UNHCR], it's a way of reducing their costs. Building a solar grid is cheaper than running those 600-kilowatt diesel generators. And also, much less hassle.” [MG4]. This decrease in cost is also supported in the literature, where (Levin & Thomas, 2016 ; Volkert & Klagge, 2022 ) have highlighted the reduction in cost of small renewable energy units, making them cheaper as compared to national grid extensions. And second, by providing access, facilitating engagement with refugee communities, and helping developers navigate camp structures in addition to providing affordable clean electricity. Several developers described positive experiences working with NGOs who acted as intermediaries. However, this support was inconsistent across settlements, and in some cases, NGOs created bottlenecks by being slow to make decisions or unclear about roles. Despite this variability, humanitarian actors remain central to niche formation because they influence trust, legitimacy, and access to refugee populations (Rosenberg-Jansen, 2022 ). Overall, niche dynamics in refugee hosting districts are strong. Demand is high, business models are adaptable, donor interest supports experimentation, and refugee communities themselves provide the entrepreneurial and human capital necessary for productive energy use. However, niche success ultimately depends on how these innovations interact with the humanitarian and national energy regimes that structure infrastructure planning and service delivery. 4.2 Humanitarian regime dynamics Despite humanitarian organisations being part of key users of the energy from MGs, the humanitarian regime also introduces institutional constraints that shape the viability of MG deployment. Humanitarian governance is characterised by short funding cycles, emergency-oriented planning horizons, and an organisational logic of temporariness (Betts et al., 2024; OCHA, 2020 ). Despite Dadaab’s 34-year history, developers reported that humanitarian actors still view energy infrastructure like MGs as inappropriate for spaces assumed to be temporary. As MG4 noted, humanitarian agencies often prefer diesel generators because they are “not permanent” and can be justified within emergency budgets. This tendency reflects broader patterns of diesel lock-in across humanitarian operations (Grafham and Lahn, 2018 ). The perception of camps as temporary also limits the willingness of agencies to commit to long-term energy projects. Developers expressed concern that MGs, with asset lifespans of 10 to 15 years, do not easily fit into humanitarian funding cycles that run annually or biannually. MG3 described this mismatch as a core challenge: “we have a 15-year asset, but the agencies only plan for one year.” This aligns with research documenting short-termism in humanitarian budgeting that inhibits infrastructure investments (Barbelet et al., 2021 ). Relatedly, developers highlighted that several stakeholders within RHDs financially benefit from the maintenance and fuel supply of existing diesel generators. Thus, switching to solar MG electricity could disrupt these local financial streams, leading to resistance as some people would lose one of their main sources of income. This could limit stakeholder buy-in. Humanitarian governance structures further complicate electricity provision. Developers must secure multiple layers of clearance from UNHCR, implementing partners, and camp leadership teams. MG5 captured this complexity, stating that while “it takes four weeks to deploy a MG, it takes one year to get every actor to align.” Such bureaucratic processes create delays that undermine financial planning and increase project risk. Humanitarian social norms also shape energy consumption patterns. Because refugees often receive subsidised services, expectations around free or low-cost energy can make tariff acceptance challenging. Several developers described difficulties in convincing refugees to pay for electricity when previous arrangements, particularly diesel-powered institutional systems, had been heavily subsidised. These findings reflect documented tensions around energy pricing and perceived entitlements in displacement settings (Rosenberg-Jansen, 2022 ; Mercy Corps, 2021 ). Finally, humanitarian agencies sometimes inadvertently reinforce existing informal energy markets. Developers noted that private diesel providers often hold significant influence in settlements and may resist MG entry. Some camp committees, influenced by these providers, initially opposed MG installations. Such dynamics mirror findings from other contexts where informal energy providers play key governance roles (Cross & Murray, 2018 ). In summary, the humanitarian regime constrains the integration of MGs by prioritising short-term, emergency responses over long-term infrastructure planning. Institutional norms, fragmented authority, and the perception of refugee settlements as temporary, limit the support for the long-term uptake of renewable energy systems. Although humanitarian agencies can enable niche experimentation through creating demand facilitating energy access, they also often resist the institutionalisation of renewable energy solutions. Our findings highlight how regime-level constraints create a set of institutional and cultural barriers, thus limiting the scaling of niche innovations. This reinforces the importance of aligning humanitarian and energy sector priorities to enable better, long-term transitions. 4.3 National energy regime dynamics Solar powered MG developers need to navigate Kenya’s national energy regime, which is structured by formal policies, regulatory processes, financing pathways, and political priorities. Although Kenya has made significant progress in expanding electricity access through the Kenya National Electrification Strategy (Ministry of Energy, 2018) and the Energy Act (2019), refugee settlements remain excluded from national planning frameworks. As NGE01 noted, “We do not have their energy needs integrated within the national energy plans per se…county governments develop their own county energy plans and then all these 47 energy plans are supposed to be integrated into the Kenya Integrated National Energy Plan…we see that as an opportunity for us to be able to bring of the needs of the refugees into county national energy planning. Although in practice this is quite difficult because of underlying factors [like] refugee affairs are largely a mandate of the national government […] at county level there is only so much that counties can do because they are not really obligated […]. I think [refugees] are currently not considered in energy access and should be included at the national level.” This institutional separation means that refugee settlements fall outside routine county infrastructure expansion, limiting formal support for mini-grid development. Existing energy policy not only excludes refugee settlements but actively presents barriers to refugee energy access through convoluted bureaucracy. Private sector engagement is sometimes challenging when bureaucracy is not easy to navigate. Currently, in Kenya, laws and regulations are important in the deployment of solar powered MGs—because refugee camps are perceived to be politically sensitive areas, developers need to seek the approval of the government and negotiate government regulations. However, this can be difficult to obtain, and governments may walk-back on verbal agreements. To prevent bureaucratic friction, MG4 recommended that for “[...] any projects are in refugee camps, I would start with an MoU (Memorandum of Understanding), signed by whoever [...] political representative of the country [...]” [MG4]. As a further mechanism to overcome these bureaucratic complexities, some MG models provide energy services to government entities without any direct charges as part of their concessions or agreements. Furthermore, obtaining licensing for MGs is challenging. Though bureaucratic processes are necessary to protect refugees who have experienced significant hardship from unscrupulous or exploitative energy developers, many developers said that the length of the bureaucratic process makes it difficult for even well-intentioned developers in the private sector to build MGs in camps. For instance, developers highlighted that coordinating tariff-setting with government bodies can be complicated, unreliable, and quite random; the uncertainty makes it difficult to build a strong business case. This creates barriers for business initiation, execution and governmental negotiation. As was illustrated by one of the developers, “So, the government sets [the tariff] and the government has a terrible process for setting and approving the prices of electricity. At some point, they hired a consultancy to make an Excel model and we MG developers are supposed to put all of our sort of cost inputs in and the assumptions about electricity usage and all of this, and then the model gives some result, which should be the tariff that we apply for. But the national government usually ignores that number and makes up their own random number that's just something completely different. So that's very difficult.” [MG3] The financial sector reflects similar constraints. The interviewed developers also mentioned some of the challenges in securing initial funding for MG construction while navigating the conditionalities of funding agencies. It was reported that investors require a construction permit before dispersing funding, but oftentimes, a government permit is only available once the construction commences, creating a catch-22. This leaves developers without a viable funding source, as traditional funding streams do not suffice, due to high initial capital and operational costs of these projects with slow returns. Developers mentioned difficulties in attracting private investment such as the absence of collateral or guarantees; high capital expenditure (CAPEX) with slow payback; and delayed disbursement in RBF schemes. Moreover, many financial institutions reportedly lack risk tolerance or sector-specific knowledge, further limiting developers’ access to debt and equity markets (Knuckles, 2016 ; Fajardo et al., 2025 ). MG5 observed that banks “think of lending only to businesses that can pay back in five years, with interest rates of 28 to 30 percent.” Such conditions are incompatible with renewable energy projects that require longer payback periods, reflecting broader challenges in financing distributed energy in Africa (IEA, 2022 ; World Bank, 2020). Infrastructure politics also influence the national regime. Government sensitivity around the permanence of refugee settlements affects decisions related to energy access. Developers reported that official endorsements, such as letters from County Governors, are necessary to avoid political resistance. This resonates with research showing that refugee policy in Kenya is shaped by concerns around sovereignty, border control, and local-level political narratives (Zetter & Ruaudel, 2018 ). In summary, national-level planning instruments, including county energy plans and rural electrification frameworks, do not provide specific guidance or adequate data for private-sector actors operating in refugee settlements. This institutional vacuum contributes to a lack of clarity around investment protection, service standards, and regulatory compliance pathways. 4.4 Landscape pressures Landscape pressures encompass broader structural forces that shape both humanitarian and national energy regimes. The most significant landscape pressure shaping the prospects for MG deployment in RHDs is the protracted nature of forced displacement. Global displacement has reached record levels, with more than 123 million people displaced by 2024 (UNHCR, 2024 ). Refugee settlements such as Dadaab have existed for over three decades, putting pressure on the humanitarian regime to shift from formal humanitarian narratives of temporariness and the reality of long-term settlement (Betts et al., 2024). Commitments under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 7 on universal energy access and SDG 13 on climate action, have driven a sustained global interest in renewable energy (World Bank et al., 2022). However, they have primarily targeted national energy regimes, with a limited impact on broader humanitarian planning. As a result, humanitarian actors remain institutionally and ideologically anchored in short-term, emergency-oriented responses. Despite rising diesel costs and declining solar prices (IRENA, 2019 ), these global trends have yet to produce meaningful shifts within the humanitarian regime, resulting in a misalignment that constrains the deployment of solar MGs in RHDs. Landscape-level policy frameworks further shape the governance environment. Kenya’s adoption of the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) and the development of the Shirika Plan (Government of Kenya, 2025 ) signal an emerging policy orientation toward refugee inclusion and long-term development planning. These frameworks create openings for integrating energy provision into broader development strategies, although implementation remains uneven. International humanitarian policy debates also influence energy provision. The localisation agenda encourages humanitarian agencies to partner with national and sub-national institutions and private-sector actors, potentially supporting MG development (ICVA, 2021 ). Similarly, the humanitarian-development-peace nexus encourages investment in durable infrastructure in protracted crises. Further, economic factors operate at the landscape level as well. Global fuel price fluctuations make diesel generation increasingly expensive, strengthening the case for solar MGs (IEA, 2022 ; Hassane et al., 2022 ). At the same time, global economic uncertainty affects donor commitments, which may influence the availability of grant-based financing for off-grid energy. Together, these landscape pressures create both opportunities and complications for mini-grid deployment, influencing how humanitarian and national regimes respond to niche innovations (as shown in Fig. 1 ). 5. Cross-regime synthesis: How niche–regime–landscape interactions shape MG viability The interaction of niche dynamics, humanitarian regime constraints, national regime barriers, and landscape pressures explains why technically viable MGs struggle to scale in RHDs. While niche conditions are favourable due to strong demand, entrepreneurial activity, innovation in payment systems, and impact-driven financing, these innovations are embedded within regimes that are structurally misaligned with long-term energy service provision. The humanitarian regime promotes short-term solutions, emergency responses and temporary infrastructures. This orientation discourages capital-intensive investments like solar MGs, which require longer planning horizons. Meanwhile, the national energy regime presents numerous regulatory and financial hurdles, particularly in areas where refugee settlements are not fully integrated into electrification or planning frameworks. This dual-regime context fragments authority, complicates project coordination, and prevents MG developers from achieving scale or operational continuity. Developers are thus required to continuously adapt their models, negotiate with multiple stakeholders, and absorb high transaction costs to operate within such fragmented governance environments. As previously explained, landscape-level forces such as global displacement, climate change, and the push for universal electricity access create momentum for sustainable energy solutions in RHDs. However, these pressures intersect with socio-technical regimes in ways that complicate implementation. For instance, solar MGs, though technically viable, face difficulties in integrating into either the national or humanitarian regime. National energy regimes are primarily focused on expanding grid access for citizens and oftentimes lack formal guidelines and regulations for refugee settlements. In parallel, the humanitarian regime remains oriented towards short-term emergency relief, and infrastructure projects like MGs are long-term in nature, quite different from their mandates. This duality prevents energy provision from being institutionalised in either regime. Moreover, energy investments in RHDs are often perceived to favour displaced populations, heightening host–refugee tensions. These unequal social dynamics, function as landscape-level pressures that destabilise niche innovations and further hinder cross-regime alignment. The multi-level interactions reveal that some of the challenges in deploying solar-powered MGs in RHDs is not the absence of the demand of the lack of technical feasibility, but the dual governance environment that creates misaligned incentives. Developers thus need to also therefore engage in continual negotiation with a variety of stakeholders, strategic adaptation of business models, and the dependence on impact-oriented capital to operate within this fragmented humanitarian space. In general, our results highlight that while solar MGs have the potential to contribute to energy provision in humanitarian settings, can only transition from localised experiments to systemic solutions if regime conditions evolve to better support niche development. This not only requires regulatory reform or stakeholder coordination, but also a deeper reconfiguration in the displacement-energy access conceptualisation by humanitarian and national actors. Humanitarian actors must shift towards multi-year planning cycles that accommodate infrastructure timelines, rather than the existing annualised emergency budgets that often perpetuate diesel dependence. Then, investing in electrifying refugee settlements can also adjacently benefit national electrification strategies, thus aligning the humanitarian regime with national energy regime Finally, energy planning must actively engage host communities to ensure equitable benefit-sharing and reduce local tensions, thereby strengthening the political viability of inclusive energy transitions. Ultimately, sustainable energy solutions like solar MGs will not scale through innovation alone. Their success depends on strategic alignment across governance levels, the redefinition of institutional roles, and intentional efforts to embed niche innovations within both humanitarian and national energy regimes under the broader pressures of the global landscape. 6. Limitations and further directions This study has examined the feasibility of solar powered MGs in RHDs by analysing the interactions between niche innovations, humanitarian governance regimes, national energy systems, and broader landscape pressures. While the findings provide insights into the institutional dynamics shaping energy provision in displacement settings, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study draws primarily on interviews with mini-grid developers, policymakers, and humanitarian actors, complemented by survey data from business-owning refugees in the Dadaab refugee settlement. Although these perspectives offer a rich view of supply-side and institutional dynamics, the analysis would benefit from a deeper examination of household-level energy practices, gendered energy needs, and variations across socio-economic groups within refugee communities. Future research could integrate ethnographic or longitudinal methods to capture how energy use evolves over time as MGs expand or as humanitarian policies shift. Second, the study focuses on a single refugee-hosting region in Kenya. Dadaab is a long-standing (since 1991) and politically sensitive settlement. While many of the institutional frictions identified here are characteristic of other displacement settings, the specific governance arrangements may differ in contexts where national refugee policies, political economies, or humanitarian coordination structures vary. Comparative studies across multiple refugee settlements or across different countries in East Africa could strengthen the generalisability of the findings. Third, the regulatory and financial conditions shaping MG deployment continue to evolve in Kenya, particularly with ongoing reforms related to the Energy Act (2019), county-level energy planning, and the implementation of the Shirika Plan (2025). As policy frameworks shift toward greater refugee inclusion, some of the regime-level constraints identified in this study may change. Tracking these reforms over time would help clarify how institutional alignment emerges and how developers adapt their business models in response to regime changes. Fourth, while the study draws on survey evidence from refugee entrepreneurs, the analysis remains limited by the lack of detailed financial records or long-term performance data from existing MG sites and communities who engaged (and have engaged) with the deployed MGs. Future work could incorporate operational data from installed systems, including load profiles, payment patterns, and maintenance challenges, to more precisely assess commercial viability and long-term sustainability. Finally, this study has not examined the environmental impacts, carbon reduction potential, or lifecycle costs of diesel-to-solar transitions in displacement settings. As humanitarian agencies increasingly integrate climate objectives into developmental and operational planning, understanding the climate mitigation and adaptation implications of MGs will become critical. Opportunities exist for interdisciplinary work that connects socio-technical transition analysis with environmental assessment and climate finance research. However, despite these limitations, the study contributes to an emerging body of work that examines energy transitions in humanitarian contexts through a socio-technical lens. It highlights the need for more coordinated governance frameworks, longer-term humanitarian financing mechanisms, and clear regulatory pathways that recognise refugee settlements as part of national development systems. Future research can build on these insights by exploring how institutional reforms, private-sector partnerships, and landscape-level commitments intersect to shape the sustainability and equity of MG deployment in protracted displacement settings. 7.Conclusion Using interview and survey data collected from solar powered MG developers, investors, decision makers and business-owing refugees, this study has examined the feasibility of solar powered MGs in RHDs in Kenya by analysing how niche innovations interact with humanitarian and national energy regimes within broader landscape pressures. As demonstrated through this example of the Dadaab refugee settlement in Garissa County, Kenya, solar powered MGs have significant potential to address long-standing energy deficits in displacement settings due to their modularity, cost-effectiveness, and ability to support productive uses of energy. The high demand for energy observed among refugee businesses, combined with entrepreneurial activity, digital payment systems, and impact-oriented financing, demonstrates that mini-grids can thrive as niche innovations in these contexts. However, the analysis also shows that the success of these systems is shaped less by their technical or commercial characteristics and more by the institutional environments in which they operate. The humanitarian regime remains oriented toward short-term planning and temporary service provision, creating uncertainty for long-term infrastructure investments. At the same time, the national energy regime presents regulatory, financial, and political barriers that hinder private-sector entry into refugee settlements. These dual and often conflicting governance structures create institutional frictions that slow or prevent the scaling of MG solutions. Landscape pressures, including the protracted nature of displacement, global commitments to universal energy access, climate change, and the falling costs of photovoltaic technologies, create both opportunities and tensions. They reinforce the need for durable energy solutions while interacting unevenly with humanitarian and national systems that have yet to fully adapt to the long-term realities of refugee settlement. The results point to several areas for policy action. Integrating refugee settlements into national electrification plans, clarifying regulatory pathways for private developers, and adopting longer-term humanitarian financing instruments would help reduce uncertainty and improve investment conditions. Strengthening partnerships between humanitarian agencies, county governments, and private-sector actors can also support more coordinated and inclusive approaches to energy provision. As global displacement continues to rise, and as humanitarian actors increasingly prioritise sustainability and resilience, understanding how socio-technical transitions unfold in these contexts will be essential for designing energy systems that meet the needs of both refugees and host communities. Overall, the study shows that solar powered MGs can contribute to inclusive and sustainable development in refugee hosting districts, but only when niche innovations are supported by institutional reforms at both humanitarian and national levels. Addressing these governance challenges will be critical for enabling energy transitions in displacement settings in Kenya and across sub-Saharan Africa. Declarations Data sharing The data used in this article is confidential Declaration of Statement of Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial or personal interests that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article. Funding sources: This work has been carried out with the support of the Climate Compatible Growth Programme (CCG), the Danish Refugee Council and the ECA Pilot Project Fund, Greenwich Business School. CCG is funded by the UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). The views expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the UK government's official policies. Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the 32 decision makers and solar MG developers, and the 199 survey participants for their time and valuable insights that helped inform the findings of this study. References Adamopoulou E, Sala I, Pilco A, Lewis C, Fluehr K (2024) State of the Global Mini-Grids Market Report 2024 . https://www.seforall.org/system/files/2024-08/SOTM%20Report%202024_EN_vFc.pdf Agyekum EB, Nutakor C (2020) Feasibility study and economic analysis of stand-alone hybrid energy system for southern Ghana. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 39:100695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100695 Alonso JB, Sandwell DP (2020) Sustainable mini-grid systems in refugee camps: A case study of Rwanda. Imperial College London Grantham Institute Amin SMM, Hasnat A, Hossain N (2023) Designing and Analysing a PV/Battery System via New Resilience Indicators. Sustainability 15(13). Article 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310328 Bahaj AS, Alam M, Blunden LS (2025) Management of environmental impacts of fossil fuel use in refugee camps through transition to renewable energy infrastructure: Case studies in Uganda and Bangladesh. J Environ Manage 374:124039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124039 Baldi D, Moner-Girona M, Fumagalli E, Fahl F (2022) Planning sustainable electricity solutions for refugee settlements in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat Energy 7(4):369–379. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01006-9 Baranda Alonso J, Sandwell P (2020) Sustainable mini-grid systems in refugee camps: A case study of Rwanda . https://doi.org/10.25561/77296 Baranda Alonso J, Sandwell P, Nelson J (2021a) The potential for solar-diesel hybrid mini-grids in refugee camps: A case study of Nyabiheke camp, Rwanda. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 44:101095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101095 Baranda Alonso J, Sandwell P, Nelson J (2021b) The potential for solar-diesel hybrid mini-grids in refugee camps: A case study of Nyabiheke camp, Rwanda. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 44:101095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101095 Barbelet V, Davies G, Flint J, Davey E (2021) Interrogating the evidence base on humanitarian localisation. HPC Literature Review. London: ODI. https://media.odi.org/documents/Localisation_lit_review_WEB.pdf Beath H, Alonso B, Mori J, Gambhir R, Nelson A, J., Sandwell P (2023) Maximising the benefits of renewable energy infrastructure in displacement settings: Optimising the operation of a solar-hybrid mini-grid for institutional and business users in Mahama Refugee Camp, Rwanda. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 176:113142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.113142 Betts A, Flinder Stierna M, Omata N, Sterck O (2024a) The economic lives of refugees. World Dev 182:106693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106693 Betts A, Flinder Stierna M, Omata N, Sterck O (2024b) The economic lives of refugees. World Dev 182:106693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106693 Boodhna A, Sissons C, Fullwood-Thomas J (2019) A systems thinking approach for energy markets in fragile places. Nat Energy 4(12):997–999. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0519-7 Casati P, Fumagalli E, Baldi D, 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 Social Sci 113:103546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103546 Chkam H (2016) Aid and the Perpetuation of Refugee Camps: The Case of Dadaab in Kenya 1991–2011. Refugee Surv Q 35(2):79–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdw005 Country—Kenya . (n.d.). Retrieved 22 November 2025, from https://data.unhcr.org/en/country/ken Cross J, Murray D (2018) The afterlives of solar power: Waste and repair off the grid in Kenya. Energy Res Social Sci 44:100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.034 Department of Refugee Services (2024) Homepage. Ministry of Interior and National Administration. Government of Kenya. https://refugee.go.ke/ Elasu J, Wabukala BM, Atuhaire R, Olupot C, Atukunda R, Ntayi JM, Orobia LA, Adaramola MS (2025) Sustainable humanitarian energy transitions: A review of interventions and challenges. SN Social Sci 5(5):59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-025-01091-z Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) (2021) Energy Sector Management Assistance Program Annual Report 2021 . World Bank, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1596/37888 Fajardo A, Baker LH, Sesan T, Bhattacharyya S, Kerr D, Katyega M, Barnett A (2025) Business models and access to finance for mini grid development in sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Sustain Dev 85:101666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2025.101666 Fields N, Millot A, Mutembei M, Nganga A, Lubello P, Hofbauer L, Howells M, Brown E (2025) Demand starter data kit: Selected socio-economic and technical energy system demand modelling data for all 47 counties in Kenya. Data Brief 60:111556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2025.111556 Fuchs JL, Onyango LA, Hirmer S, Tomei J (2025) Energy, equity and inclusion: Exploring gender equality and social inclusion in energy planning in Kenya. Energy Res Social Sci 130:104432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2025.104432 Geels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy 31(8):1257–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8 Geels FW (2011) The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environ Innov Societal Transitions 1(1):24–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002 Geels FW (2020) Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: Developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary economics and neo-institutional theory. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 152:119894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119894 Geels FW, Sovacool BK, Schwanen T, Sorrell S (2017) The Socio-Technical Dynamics of Low-Carbon Transitions. Joule 1(3):463–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2017.09.018 Government of Kenya & World Bank (2018) Kenya Off-Grid Solar Access Project for Underserved Counties. Ministry of Energy. World Bank funding: US $ 150 million, Nairobi Government of Kenya (2008) Vision 2030. https://vision2030.go.ke Government of Kenya (2018) Kenya Comprehensive Refugee Programme 2019–2020. Department of Refugee Services, Nairobi Government of Kenya (2018) Kenya National Electrification Strategy. Ministry of Energy. https://www.seta-kenya.org/images/2023/KenyaNationalElectrificationStrategyKNESKeyHighlights2018.pdf Government of Kenya (2019) Energy Act. Kenya Gazette Supplement No.29. https://www.kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/2019/EnergyAct__No.1of2019.PDF Government of Kenya (2021) Refugees Act. Kenya Gazette Supplement. https://refugee.go.ke/sites/default/files/downloads/Refugees-Act-2021.pdf Government of Kenya (2024) Kenya Off-Grid Solar Access Project (KOSAP). Kenya Power. https://www.energy.go.ke/sites/default/files/Updated%20Resettlement%20Policy%20Framework%20for%20KOSAP%20-%20September%202024.pdfGovernment of Kenya (2025) Shirika Plan. Department of Refugee Services, Nairobi GPA. (2022) The State of Energy in the Humanitarian Sector: Challenges, Progress and Issues in 2022. Global Platform for Action on Sustainable Energy in Displacement Settings. UNITAR Publishing. Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/leaflet_kenya.pdf Grafham O, Lahn G (2018) The Costs of Fuelling Humanitarian Aid. Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2018/12/costs-fuelling-humanitarian-aid Grafham O, Lahn G, Haselip J (2022) Scaling sustainable energy services for displaced people and their hosts. Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/2022-10-04-scaling-sustainable-energy-displaced-people-and-hosts-grafham-et-al.pdf Haselip J (2022) Scaling sustainable energy services for displaced people and their hosts: How policy and governance make a difference . https://doi.org/10.55317/9781784135249 Hassane AI, Didane DH, Tahir AM, Hauglustaine J-M, Manshoor B, Batcha MFM, Tamba J-G, Mouangue RM (2022) Techno-economic feasibility of a remote PV mini-grid electrification system for five localities in Chad. Int J Sustain Eng 15(1):177–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2022.2101707 Hove, Johnson NG (2021) Refugee settlements in transition: Energy access and development challenges in Northern Uganda. Energy Res Social Sci 78:102103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102103 ICVA (2021) Annual Conference Report. Climate, Environment and Humanitarian Action. https://www.icvanetwork.org/uploads/2021/09/AC-2021-Report_FINAL.pdf IEA (2022) Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme Annual Report 2022. https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/PVPS_Annual_Report_2022_v7-1.pdf IRENA (2019) Renewables for refugee settlements: Sustainable energy access in humanitarian situations. International Renewable Energy Agency Kern F, Rogge KS (2018) Harnessing theories of the policy process for analysing the politics of sustainability transitions: A critical survey. Environ Innov Societal Transitions 27:102–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.11.001 Knuckles J (2016) Business models for mini-grid electricity in base of the pyramid markets. Energy Sustain Dev 31:67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2015.12.002 Lahn G, Grafham O, Annan FK (2015) Heat, Light and Power for Refugees Lambe F, Mungo C, Ogeya M (2024) Grid expectations: How service design and business model innovation can support mini-grid development in Kenya. Energy Res Social Sci 118:103788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103788 Lehne J, Blyth W, Lahn G, Bazilian M, Grafham O (2016) Energy services for refugees and displaced people. Energy Strategy Reviews 13–14:134–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2016.08.008 Levin T, Thomas VM (2016) Can developing countries leapfrog the centralized electrification paradigm? Energy Sustain Dev 31:97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2015.12.005 Maalim SA, Adwek G, Arowo M (2021) Shared energy parks as a solution to energy challenges for Dadaab Refugee Camps in Kenya. Sci Afr 13:e00901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00901 Mercy Corps (2021) Global Compact on Refugees. https://globalcompactrefugees.org/good-practices/enter-energy-inclusive-energy-markets-humanitarian-communities Misati RN, Kamau A, Nassir H (2019) Do migrant remittances matter for financial development in Kenya? Financial Innov 5(1):31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-019-0142-4 Moner-Girona M, Solano-Peralta M, Lazopoulou M, Ackom EK, Vallve X, Szabó S (2018) Electrification of Sub-Saharan Africa through PV/hybrid mini-grids: Reducing the gap between current business models and on-site experience. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 91:1148–1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.018 Mugisha J, Ratemo MA, Keza B, B. C., Kahveci H (2021) Assessing the opportunities and challenges facing the development of off-grid solar systems in Eastern Africa: The cases of Kenya, Ethiopia, and Rwanda. Energy Policy 150:112131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112131 Mukoro V, Sharmina M, Gallego-Schmid A (2022) A framework for environmental evaluation of business models: A test case of solar energy in Kenya. Sustainable Prod Consum 34:202–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.09.007 Nixon JD, Bhargava K, Halford A, Gaura E (2021) The challenges of community-based solar energy interventions: Lessons from two Rwandan Refugee Camps. Energy Sustain Dev 65:175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2021.07.007 Nuru JT, Rhoades JL, Gruber JS (2021) The socio-technical barriers and strategies for overcoming the barriers to deploying solar mini-grids in rural islands: Evidence from Ghana. Technol Soc 65:101586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101586 OCHA (2020) Annual Report. https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/world/ocha-annual-report-2020 Ogeya M, Ogara S, Andersen MH (2025) Staying put or pulling out? How mini grid developers use business model innovation to overcome challenges and barriers in Kenya. Energy Res Social Sci 122:104005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2025.104005 Thomas PJM, Sandwell P, Williamson SJ, Harper PW (2021) A PESTLE analysis of solar home systems in refugee camps in Rwanda. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 143:110872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110872 Pedersen MB, Nygaard I (2018) System building in the Kenyan electrification regime: The case of private solar mini-grid development. Energy Res Social Sci 42:211–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.010 Pelletier A, Kaewkitipong L, Guitton MJ (2024) Using technology to study refugee, conflict-affected, and hard-to-reach populations: Methodological and ethical considerations. Comput Hum Behav 152:108053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108053 Pueyo A, DeMartino S (2018) The impact of solar mini-grids on Kenya’s rural enterprises. Energy Sustain Dev 45:28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2018.04.002 Rajagopalan S, Breetz HL (2022) Niches, narratives, and national policy: How India developed off-grid solar for rural electrification. Environ Innov Societal Transitions 43:41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.02.004 Ray M, Chakraborty B (2022) Impact of demand flexibility and tiered resilience on solar photovoltaic adoption in humanitarian settlements. Renewable Energy 193:895–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.091 REREC (2021) The Highlight: Garissa Solar Plant Leading the Green Drive. https://www.rerec.co.ke/assets/images/publications/Newsletters/Jan%20March%20newsletter%20Quater%203.pdf Rip A, Kemp R (1998) Technological Change. https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/250328400/Rip1998technological.pdf Rose A, Stoner R, Pérez-Arriaga I (2016) Prospects for grid-connected solar PV in Kenya: A systems approach. Appl Energy 161:583–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.07.052 Rosenberg-Jansen S (2022) The Secret Life of Energy in Refugee Camps: Invisible Objects, Technologies, and Energy Systems in Humanitarianism. J Refugee Stud 35(3):1270–1291. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feac026 Rosenberg-Jansen S, Njoki E, Okello A (2018) The Lived Experience of Energy and Forced Displacement: Kakuma Refugee Camp, Kenya . Working paper. https://kkcfke.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Energy_The-Lived-Experience-of-Energy-and-Forced-Displacement.pdf Rosenberg-Jansen S, Tunge T, Kayumba T (2019) Inclusive energy solutions in refugee camps. Nat Energy 4(12):990–992. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0516-x Sovacool BK, Geels FW (2016) Further reflections on the temporality of energy transitions: A response to critics. Energy Res Social Sci 22:232–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.013 Sovacool BK, Griffiths S (2020) Culture and low-carbon energy transitions. Nat Sustain 3(9):685–693. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0519-4 Thomas PJM, Williamson SJ, Harper PW (2021) The diffusion of solar home systems in Rwandan refugee camps. Energy Sustain Dev 63:119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2021.05.003 Trotter PA, Brophy A (2022) Policy mixes for business model innovation: The case of off-grid energy for sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa. Res Policy 51(6):104528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104528 UN Habitat (2021) UN-Habitat/Dadaab Socio-economic Survey (2021). https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2023/02/dadaab_survey_2021_10_february.pdfUNHCR . (2023). Access to clean energy in displacement settings, Kenya. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/leaflet_kenya.pdf UNHCR (2024) Global Trends report 2023. https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends-report-2023 UNHCR (2024) Global Trends. Data and Statistics. https://www.unhcr.org/uk/global-trends UNHCR (2025) Clean Power Generation: The Case of Renewvia Energy. The Global Compact on Refugees | UNHCR. http://globalcompactrefugees.org/good-practices/clean-power-generation-case-renewvia-energy UNHCR (2025) UNHCR Kenya: Dadaab Refugee Complex. Retrieved 22 November 2025, from https://www.unhcr.org/ke/about-us/where-we-work/dadaab-refugee-complex van Hove E, Johnson NG (2021) Refugee settlements in transition: Energy access and development challenges in Northern Uganda. Energy Res Social Sci 78:102103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102103 Volkert M, Klagge B (2022) Electrification and devolution in Kenya: Opportunities and challenges. Energy Sustain Dev 71:541–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2022.10.022 Wardeh M, Marques RC (2021) Sustainability in Refugee Camps: A Comparison of the Two Largest Refugee Camps in the World. J Refugee Stud 34(3):2740–2774. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feaa141 Weber A-L, Ruesink B, Gronau S (2023) Dynamics of refugee settlements and energy provision: The case of forest stocks in Zambia. J Econ Dev 25(3):266–283. https://doi.org/10.1108/JED-11-2022-0230 WEO-2017 Special Report: Energy Access Outlook – Analysis (2017), October 18 IEA. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-access-outlook-2017 World Bank Open Data (n.d.). World Bank Open Data. Retrieved 15 October 2025, from https://data.worldbank.org World Bank (2024) Access to Electricity- Kenya. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS?locations=KE Zetter R, Ruaudel H (2018) Refugees’ right to work and access to labour markets: Constraints, challenges and ways forward. Forced Migration Review , 58 . https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:91b46991-1546-45f8-a393-bce053842063 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8437345","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":564900913,"identity":"793da35f-644a-418b-944e-e2c7844f4bdd","order_by":0,"name":"Smriti Jalihal","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7268-737X","institution":"Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Smriti","middleName":"","lastName":"Jalihal","suffix":""},{"id":564900914,"identity":"5b258ce3-5b58-4263-9519-b49e71484e2a","order_by":1,"name":"Tonny Kukeera","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5811-675X","institution":"Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tonny","middleName":"","lastName":"Kukeera","suffix":""},{"id":564900915,"identity":"ce306c43-ec5a-4356-8bc4-1258ea20a103","order_by":2,"name":"Alycia Leonard","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7072-9150","institution":"Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alycia","middleName":"","lastName":"Leonard","suffix":""},{"id":564900916,"identity":"1e99e1ef-4827-40c6-8d9d-1a23448e061a","order_by":3,"name":"Pu Yang","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9902-4322","institution":"Bartlett School of Environment, Energy and Resources, University College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pu","middleName":"","lastName":"Yang","suffix":""},{"id":564900917,"identity":"21530450-f3a3-4de1-9645-ecca637ef9d5","order_by":4,"name":"Lucille Akelo Onyango","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5610-3904","institution":"Independent Gender and Social Inclusion Consultant","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lucille","middleName":"Akelo","lastName":"Onyango","suffix":""},{"id":564900918,"identity":"c12bdac3-9315-4881-8066-0bdea2e249ec","order_by":5,"name":"Yanga Wu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Greenwich Business School, University of Greenwich","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yanga","middleName":"","lastName":"Wu","suffix":""},{"id":564900919,"identity":"efb47a35-7fa6-46c1-98fe-7533767342d2","order_by":6,"name":"Stephanie Hirmer","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7628-9259","institution":"Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Stephanie","middleName":"","lastName":"Hirmer","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-23 22:38:03","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8437345/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8437345/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":99505494,"identity":"f0b8ed95-2a9f-446d-8213-2338a206a2a1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-05 08:37:59","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":326270,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"KenyaRHDEnergyFinal.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8437345/v1/a6bbdfc5da9cb19f09f29bd9.docx"},{"id":99505495,"identity":"3971aa36-bb82-4b86-94a2-ca2523710903","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-05 08:37:59","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs8437345.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8437345/v1/93541a9080c382cd467abd14.json"},{"id":99505496,"identity":"e43287ef-8882-4c54-9066-7ef86ea4a639","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-05 08:37:59","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":181503,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs84373450enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8437345/v1/ac95db4aee1d7948d5cf8952.xml"},{"id":99790344,"identity":"edb3d313-1465-45ff-9d29-bfb000fd7fa3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 12:57:51","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":214383,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8437345/v1/37842cc96c2887a0e9d14353.png"},{"id":99791171,"identity":"39e8a539-e5cc-417c-83ed-c5d44c97272b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 12:59:14","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":45756,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8437345/v1/9d0b4ca9e6da597e3bc7dea3.png"},{"id":99505498,"identity":"74c895e6-46a3-4b79-8ff5-4097f913874f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-05 08:37:59","extension":"xml","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":178699,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs84373450structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8437345/v1/f25cc2fb18e55029d55bb763.xml"},{"id":99790332,"identity":"e7f76a48-951f-49f8-aab0-1178ec567384","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 12:57:49","extension":"html","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":189892,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8437345/v1/53ae96f0077c9daa55ca8a1b.html"},{"id":99505492,"identity":"8ce6ea5b-bb63-4b56-807a-5554517a7d98","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-05 08:37:59","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":225067,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eIllustration of the MLP on socio-technical transitions of MG in RHDs. Source: created by authors\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8437345/v1/3626bf666b09b63a0b16e8a7.png"},{"id":99802831,"identity":"d840818d-42de-4678-b0a8-fe31210cb450","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 14:08:45","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1071240,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8437345/v1/98d3f95e-1c9c-4889-add6-c99433621021.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocio- technical transitions in humanitarian settings: Solar mini grids for energy- enabled growth in refugee hosting districts in Kenya\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe end of 2024 saw the number of displaced people worldwide reach 123.2\u0026nbsp;million, almost doubling during the last decade (UNHCR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This can be largely attributed to international wars, civil wars, natural disasters, land use changes, and climate change (Pelletier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; van Hove \u0026amp; Johnson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Most displaced populations are found in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Asia and Africa. As of 2024, one of every five refugees worldwide was hosted in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (Casati et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), often in large, long-standing refugee camps or refugee hosting districts (RHDs) (Grafham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). As these settlements expand, the demand for essential services such as energy, water, and sanitation often outpaces the available resources. Humanitarian budgets and national development plans typically prioritise immediate needs such as food, water, and shelter, leaving others critical services like energy access underdeveloped (Baldi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy access in RHDs is shaped by fragmented institutional arrangements and differentiated refugee livelihoods, producing structural inequalities that constrain sustainable energy provision. While the formal responsibility for energy infrastructure lies with the host government, in practice, energy services in RHDs are often coordinated and funded by UNHCR and similar humanitarian agencies. This duality of roles creates fragmented governance and unclear regulatory pathways, making it difficult to plan, finance, and implement sustainable energy solutions effectively (Casati et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the economic lives of refugees vary across camps and are shaped by their identities, influencing their energy service needs, as well as their willingness and ability to pay for electricity (Betts et al., 2024). These dynamics result in RHD energy access levels far below national averages. As of 2022, approximately 80% of refugees globally lacked access to modern energy solutions (Grafham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), with some reports estimating the lack of access to electricity in displacement settings at 94% (Rosenberg-Jansen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). If unaddressed, these inequalities will continue to hinder progress toward SDG 7 and reinforce wider socio-economic exclusions within displacement contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSolar-powered mini grids (MGs) are increasingly presented as a promising solution to expand electricity access in underserved regions. Their quick deployment, modularity, and declining costs make them particularly suitable for nominally transient refugee settings. It has been argued that these systems have the potential to provide uninterrupted electricity to as many as half a billion people by 2030, closing the energy gap (ESMAP, 2023). This potential can be attributed to the rapidly decreasing cost of the energy they produce \u0026ndash; from approximately \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e0.55/kWh in 2018 to \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e0.38/kWh in 2022 \u0026ndash; and the widespread availability of solar panels and batteries. The number of solar-powered MGs in SSA has risen from approximately 500 in 2010 to more than 3000 in 2023 (ESMAP, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhereas previous studies (e.g., Pueyo \u0026amp; DeMartino, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Baldi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) have examined the importance of solar powered MGs in rural settings and planning for electricity solutions in refugee settlements in SSA, there remains a paucity of research exploring on-site experiences of MG developments in refugee camps and how they interact with external constraints (Lambe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Existing research on energy and displacement primarily focuses on household demand, community-based energy interventions, or the lived experience of energy scarcity (Nixon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Ray \u0026amp; Chakraborty, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Rosenberg-Jansen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). While a few studies that highlight the demand-side challenges or technical feasibility for energy interventions in humanitarian settings (e.g., Elasu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; GPA, 2022), there remains limited understanding of the institutional and governance factors shaping supply-side dynamics in such contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study addresses that gap by analysing the feasibility of deploying solar powered MGs in in RHDs in Kenya. We draw on 32 semi-structured interviews with MG developers, investors, and decision makers, along with descriptive analysis of 199 surveys administered to business owners in the Dadaab refugee settlement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo interpret these insights, we adopt the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) as an analytical lens. This offers a way to situate technological innovations within the social, institutional, and political systems that shape their development and diffusion. The MLP conceptualises socio-technical transitions as the outcome of interactions among niche innovations, established socio-technical regimes, and broader landscape pressures that influence or destabilise these regimes (Geels, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This framework has increasingly been applied in LMICs contexts to analyse energy transitions under institutional complexity, resource constraints, and hybrid governance arrangements (Nuru et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Rajagopalan \u0026amp; Breetz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Rather than treating solar MGs as technical artefacts or stand-alone business ventures, the MLP enables an examination of how innovations evolve within broader systems of rules, norms, and practices. This is particularly relevant in humanitarian contexts where energy provision is shaped by overlapping and often conflicting institutional logics - i.e., a humanitarian relief regime that prioritises short-term service delivery, and a national energy regime that emphasises regulatory stability, infrastructural planning, and economic viability. Landscaping pressures such as the protracted global refugee crisis, climate change, and international commitments to universal energy access place additional demands on both regimes (Sovacool \u0026amp; Griffiths, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo present this study, the paper proceeds as follows. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e provides a contextualising literature review about energy access and refugee settlements in Kenya, explaining the need for decentralised energy systems like solar-powered MGs, and introduces the MLP, which guides the analysis. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e highlights the methods used in the study, followed by sections \u003cspan refid=\"Sec13\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Sec18\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e where the challenges and opportunities of solar-powered energy access in Dadaab are explained through niche-regime-landscape interactions. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec19\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e presents the limitations and further directions that the research can take, followed by conclusion summarising key learnings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature review","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo contextualise the study, this section provides an overview of the status of refugees and energy access in Kenya, the importance of solar-powered MGs in energy access literature, and the study\u0026rsquo;s underpinning theoretical framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Refugees in Kenya\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eKenya hosts the third largest population of refugees and asylum seekers in Eastern Africa. As of December 2025, there are 635,036 refugees in Kenya (about 11.7% of the refugees in East and the Horn of Africa), mostly from Somalia and South Sudan, followed by the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, and Burundi. Fifty-one percent of these refugees live in Garissa County (UNHCR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Dadaab (Garissa County) and Kakuma (Turkana County) are among the world\u0026rsquo;s largest refugee camps (Wardeh \u0026amp; Marques, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKenya is known to be relatively advanced in its consideration of refugees. The Refugees Act (2021) allows refugees to gain employment, set up businesses, and practice trade. Refugees also have access to Universal Health Coverage and the right to documentation through the Refugee Identity Card or the Foreign National Registration Certificate. The government has designated parts of specific counties, including Turkana, Garissa, and Nairobi, to host refugees, referred to as Refugee Hosting Districts (RHDs) (Government of Kenya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn recent years, Kenya has made significant progress in reducing dependence on humanitarian interventions to meet refugee needs, instead aiming to integrate these efforts into government-led service delivery. As detailed in the Kenya Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) for 2019\u0026ndash;2020 (2018), the country has been transitioning from a camp-based model of refugee management toward community integration and economic self-reliance. The CRRF further informed the development of the Refugees Act (2021) and the Shirika Plan (2025), which focuses on the socio-economic inclusion of refugees by transforming refugee camps into integrated municipalities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn line with these commitments, Kenya plans to provide refugees with access to national services such as health, education, and infrastructure, including shared facilities that benefit both refugees and host populations. Through the Shirika Plan, Dadaab and Kakuma camps have been reclassified as county-administered municipalities, marking a shift from a humanitarian to a government-led development approach (Government of Kenya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). However, substantial challenges remain before these reforms are fully realised.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. State of energy access within Kenyan refugee districts\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs of 2023, nearly 76% of Kenyans have access to electricity, though access remains unequal; around 90% of urban households are connected to the grid compared to about 70% in rural areas (World Bank, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This number is even lower within refugee settlements (~\u0026thinsp;15% in 2022) (UNHCR, 2023). For instance, in the Kakuma settlement, only 1% have access to electricity through the national grid (UNHCR, 2023). Refugees face several barriers in receiving access to the national grid: a national ID or tax document is needed to connect to the grid, which are often difficult for refugees to obtain (UNHCR, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy access and planning in Kenya are guided by policies like the Kenya National Electrification Strategy (2018) and Vision 2030. In line with Sustainable Development Goal 7 which focuses on affordable, reliable, sustainable, modern energy for all, these policies aim for universal electricity access through a combination of grid expansion and decentralised renewable solutions throughout the country (UNHCR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e.). Kenya Power, a national utility, supplies most grid-connected consumers, while the Rural Electrification and Renewable Energy Corporation focuses on extending access to underserved and off-grid regions. Energy governance in the country is fragmented and complex (Volkert \u0026amp; Klagge, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). There have been some efforts to promote RHD energy access in the country, though these are infrequent. One successful programme on this front, the Kenya Off-Grid Solar Access Project (KOSAP, 2024) funded by the World Bank, targets 14 marginalised communities, including the refugee-hosting Garissa and Turkana counties to implement MGs, solar home systems, and clean cooking through Public Private Partnership (PPP) models (Government of Kenya and World Bank, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Energy demand and mini-grid solutions in refugee settlements\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe substantial energy demand of RHDs in SSA is dominated by traditional energy sources such as firewood, charcoal, and kerosene, due to the ease of access and deployment and low upfront costs. Even humanitarian agencies have struggled to provide sustainable energy access and largely depend on fossil fuels for operations (Lehne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Weber et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In Uganda, for example, wood shortages have led to an increase in household spending on firewood by up to 122% (Hove \u0026amp; Johnson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Surveys further reveal that household energy use among forcibly displaced people amounts to approximately 3.5\u0026nbsp;million tonnes of oil equivalent, typically in the form of firewood and charcoal, contributing to significant environmental degradation in the host community (Lahn and Grafham, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, since 2010, access to sustainable and reliable energy in RHDs is receiving increasing attention, both as a fundamental human need and as a catalyst for long-term development of refugees and host communities. Multiple case studies from rural settings Rwanda, Cameroon, Uganda, Djibouti, and other SSA countries demonstrate that solar and hybrid MGs can reliably supply power for essential services, reduce emissions, and lower operational costs compared to diesel generators (Bahaj et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Beath et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, clean energy provision is associated with improvements in health, water access, education, as well as improved security, safety and income, and a reduction in gender-based violence (Thomas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMGs have therefore emerged as a promising solution. Initially developed in 1980s as standalone diesel-powered systems, modern solar or hybrid MGs can be coupled with smart prepaid systems, remote monitoring, and advanced photovoltaic (PV) technologies (Lambe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). A typical MG consists of an electricity generator and a low-voltage distribution network servicing communities in proximity, making them most viable in relatively dense settlements (Ogeya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Such systems are now being deployed in countries across SSA including Zambia, Uganda, Nigeria, and Ghana (Trotter \u0026amp; Brophy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Other notable examples include the refugee-operated solar network MG in Kakuma (Rosenberg-Jansen et al., n.d), the performance-based financed MG in Kalobeyei (UNHCR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), and the blended financed MG in Mahama camp (Baranda Alonso \u0026amp; Sandwell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, these examples are still limited, and the factors that led to their success (as well as the challenges they have faced) have been minimally researched, owing to the lack of documentation. Further, in Kenya alone, as of the beginning of 2025, there are at least 12 private-sector MG developers operating across 111 sites (Ogeya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Globally, solar-powered MGs have expanded the possibilities for reliable, cost-effective electricity provision (Rosenberg-Jansen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt has been shown that sustainable energy solutions in refugee settlements can improve living conditions while generating long-term financial and environmental benefits. In refugee settlements, such systems must be inclusively designed by engaging humanitarian organisations, governments, refugee communities, and the private sector (Rosenberg-Jansen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Alonso \u0026amp; Sandwell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Various techno-economic models have demonstrated the feasibility of renewable energy solutions, including MGs (Amin et al., 2022), hybrid energy systems (Baranda Alonso et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021a\u003c/span\u003e), and solar home systems (Thomas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, Kenya possesses significant solar potential, with capacity estimates exceeding current national grid consumption (Fields et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Mugisha et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Mukoro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, while technological feasibility and economic potential of MGs in refugee settings are increasingly recognised, far less is understood about how these energy solutions interact with the complex institutional, political, and social dynamics that shape humanitarian environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs previously mentioned, much of the existing literature focuses on technical design, demand modelling, and household-level energy use, with limited attention to the governance systems. RHDs operate within complex institutional configurations involving humanitarian agencies, national authorities, private firms, and refugee communities. These actors often have different incentives and capacities among other things, which creates constraints for energy innovation. Understanding how MGs take root in such contexts therefore requires a framework that can capture both the technological dimensions of energy provision and the socio-institutional processes that condition their success or failure. The Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) framework provides such an analytical lens.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. The Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) on socio-technical energy transitions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe MLP provides a structured way to examine how technological, institutional, and social change processes unfold within complex socio-technical systems. Developed by Geels (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), the MLP conceptualises transitions as the result of interactions across three analytical levels: (a) niche innovations (i.e., experimental new ideas growing in protected systems); (b) socio-technical regimes (i.e., the dominant established systems) and; (c) landscape pressures (i.e., the broader contexts that create pressure on existing systems) (Geels, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e); (Rip and Kemp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). Within energy research, the MLP framework has been widely used to explain how renewable energy technologies diffuse, how socio-technical lock-ins resist change, and how transitions unfold through the co-evolution of technologies, markets, user practices, and institutions (Geels et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Sovacool \u0026amp; Geels, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough early applications of the MLP focused on industrialised country settings, recent work demonstrates its relevance for LMICs. Studies of energy transitions in Kenya, Ghana, India, Rwanda, and other LMICs have used the MLP to analyse how decentralised renewable energy systems interact with regulatory fragmentation, donor involvement, infrastructural constraints, and uneven state capacity (Nuru et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Pedersen \u0026amp; Nygaard, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Rajagopalan \u0026amp; Breetz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Research on off-grid solar and MGs highlights how innovations often emerge in spaces underserved by national utilities, where their trajectories depend not only on technical performance but also on policy stability, financing mechanisms, and alignment with community practices (Moner-Girona et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplying the MLP to humanitarian settings builds on this emerging LMIC literature by examining transitions in governance environments characterised by institutional hybridity and overlapping mandates. RHDs sit at the intersection of a humanitarian relief regime shaped by short funding cycles, donor conditionalities, and a logic of temporariness (Betts et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e; Rosenberg-Jansen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and a national energy regime guided by regulatory stability, infrastructural planning, and commercial investment considerations (Rose et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Volkert \u0026amp; Klagge, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Developers introducing solar MGs in such contexts must navigate these two partially incompatible sets of rules, norms, incentives, and expectations. Similar dual-regime challenges have been documented in other MLP studies where innovations intersect with fragmented governance arrangements (Haselip, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Kern \u0026amp; Rogge, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLandscape pressures further shape these interactions. The global refugee crisis, climate change, international commitments to universal energy access, declining solar photovoltaic costs, and donor preferences for renewable energy create opportunities for decentralised solutions in displacement settings but also reinforce tensions between humanitarian and national governance structures (IRENA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; UNHCR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Sovacool \u0026amp; Griffiths, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These landscape trends influence tariff approvals, investment decisions, and the longer-term credibility of private developers in refugee-hosting areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing the MLP in this study therefore enables a holistic understanding of how solar MGs emerge as niche innovations within refugee settlements, how they encounter and adapt to the constraints of humanitarian and national energy regimes, and how broader landscape trends shape their potential for scaling. It moves beyond technical feasibility to highlight the socio-institutional processes that condition the success or failure of energy innovations in displacement settings and guides the data analysis strategy to understand the interactions between niche innovations, regime structures, and landscape forces.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employs a qualitative approach to assess the viability of MG investments in RHDs to transform energy access in humanitarian settings. The methodology consists of semi-structured interviews (SSIs) with 32 key stakeholders (i.e., MG developers, investors, and decision-makers) and a descriptive analysis of 199 surveys with business owning refugees in the Dadaab refugee settlement. Diverse data sources were used in this study because of the various stakeholders involved in the energy provision and consumption processes in refugee settlements, as well as the scarcity of data on this topic.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Study location\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper uses the case study of the Dadaab refugee settlement in Garissa County, Northeastern Kenya. Daadab is located approximately 90 kilometres from the Kenya-Somalia border in a semi-arid region (Department of Refugee Services, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Garissa County\u0026rsquo;s solar potential is evidenced by the 55MW Garissa Solar Power Plant, commissioned in 2019 as East Africa\u0026rsquo;s largest grid-connected solar facility, which was specifically sited to leverage the region\u0026rsquo;s abundant solar resources (REREC,2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe refugee complex, now comprising of three camps (i.e., Dagahaley, Hagadera and Ifo), was established in 1991 for refugees fleeing the civil war in Somalia (Chkam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). A second wave of refugees arrived in 2011 owing to the drought and famine in Somalia. As of April 2025, Dadaab hosts 431,216 registered refugees and asylum seekers. At date of writing, Somalian nationals still represent over 96% of the refugee population (UNHCR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Dadaab is known to receive less funding than some other RHDs in Kenya, which contributes to its limited energy infrastructure (Maalim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, some energy companies have been able to successfully install MGs in Dadaab, through which several households and businesses now\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Key informant interviews\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 32 semi-structured interviews (SSIs) were conducted between 2022 and 2024 with key informants including MG developers, investors, and decision-makers in East Africa and displacement contexts. These interviews provided in-depth perspectives on the policy environment, financial structures, market dynamics, and inclusion practices shaping MG development in RHDs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSSIs with nine MG developers and investors were conducted between November 2023 and January 2024. Participants were identified through snowball sampling within the network of the Danish Refugee Council (DRC), and the authors\u0026rsquo; professional ecosystem. The discussions explored policies, financial mechanisms, and market perceptions regarding MGs in RHDs. Interviews lasted 45\u0026ndash;60 minutes and were mostly conducted online (one participant provided written responses). Experts had an average of 17 years of experience in senior operational, management, engineering or financial roles. Two had direct experience working in RHDs, while others had indirectly worked with RHDs through their companies\u0026rsquo; portfolios. The relatively small sample reflects the limited pool of functional MG operators and relevant project developers/investors in East Africa.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, 23 SSIs were conducted between 2022 and 2024 with key decision-makers in Kenya, including representatives from the private sector, national and county governments, and civil society organisations (see Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). They were selected through purposive sampling for their experience at the intersection of energy and Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) which included refugees as one of the groups considered. These interviews, lasting 40\u0026ndash;120 minutes, were primarily conducted face-to face, with a few over Zoom. For this study, only insights related to refugee inclusion and their experiences were analysed. For the full findings of this study refer to Fuchs et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eList of key informant interviews\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey informant interviewee categories\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCode for anonymisation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProfession/ Reason for selection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSolar powered MG developers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMG1\u0026hellip;MG9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMini grid developers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDecision makers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNGE1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational Government, Ministry of Energy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNGG1, NGG2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational Government, Gender Equality Commission\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNG01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational Government\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePS1, PS2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrivate sector\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG1\u0026hellip;CG7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCounty government\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDN1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDonor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eING01...ING04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternational NGO\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Survey of refugee business owners\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA structured survey was administered by the Danish Refugee Council (DRC) team using KoBo software to survey 199 refugee business owners in Dadaab in December 2023. The businesses comprised of grocery shops, livestock shops, kiosks, restaurants, pharmacies, schools, butcheries and smaller shops. The business owners (37% female, 63% male) were identified by the DRC team using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling. The survey aimed to capture insights into challenges, shocks, financing mechanisms, and regulatory changes experienced by refugee business owners. Each survey lasted approximately 20 minutes. All responses were anonymised, coded, and descriptively analysed to identify key trends and patterns affecting business operations, financial and socio-political challenges and opportunities within the refugee context. In this study, the survey results are descriptively used to contextualise the business environment in refugee settlements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Ethics and Positionality\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e The study received ethics approval form the Medical Sciences Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee at the University of Oxford (reference: R83092/RE001) and NASCOTI, Kenya. The project was part funded by DRC. The authors include university-educated individuals from the Global North and South, while interviews were administered by the DRC team located in Dadaab refugee settlement. We recognise that some of the inferences of this study might be influenced by our positionality. For instance, while some Global South authors have familiarity with settings with inconsistent energy access, none of the authors have lived experience of being a refugee or living in a concentrated RHD setting. This could affect our ability to understand the lived realities of refugees. Nevertheless, we have tried to be as unbiased as possible.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5. Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e Following verbal consent, all interviews were recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were manually reviewed by the research team for accuracy. Transcripts were anonymised using coded identifiers (e.g., MG1 for Mini-Grid Developer 1) and manually coded and annotated through a mix of inductive and deductive coding. Interview data were coded for key themes including perceptions, business model, challenges, and energy demand (See Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Further, the interview data was triangulated with policy documents, including Kenya's Energy Act (2019), the Shirika Plan (2025), KOSAP project documents, the Refugees Act (2021) and UNHCR Kenya operation reports to contextualise findings within the national and county energy governance frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative coding from MG developer and investor interviews\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheme\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond Order Code\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBusiness Models\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnchor load\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInevitability/Scalability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePortfolio investment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-sustaining business model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOperational Risks \u0026amp; Barriers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRisk guarantee\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent challenges\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolitical barriers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal Capacity \u0026amp; Engagement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal collaborators and partners\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCapacity building\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStakeholder engagement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCreative financial products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUpfront cost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTariff setting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubsidy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy Environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverregulation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTemporary setting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy misalignment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnical Planning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccess Technology\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of access to reliable data\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImpact Measurement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChallenge in integration with existing diesel and solar equipment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData from the decision maker interviews followed a similar analytical approach, along with a review of relevant policy documents (see: Fuchs et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), however, as previously indicated, only the segments relevant to refugee contexts were utilised in this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurvey responses were descriptively analysed to identify patterns and trends that support and complement the insights generated from the KIIs. Excerpts from both the interviews and survey responses are used throughout the text to illustrate and substantiate key arguments and analytical points, ensuring that findings are directly grounded in participants\u0026rsquo; perspectives and experiences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section presents the findings from the interviews and survey, focusing on situating solar-powered MGs as a means to affordable, community-centric energy access in refugee settlements, using the Dadaab refugee settlement as a case study. By applying the MLP to a humanitarian-development context, this study extends the socio-technical transitions theory beyond its traditional focus on industrialised settings. As illustrated in the next few sections, our findings reveal that MG developments in RHDs are shaped by the dynamic interaction between niche-level innovations in business models, fragmented and overlapping regime structures, and broader landscape pressures. In particular, the analysis highlights how MG developers often adapt their business models to navigate the dual logics of humanitarian and national energy regimes, offering insight into how niche innovations can incrementally influence institutional pathways for energy provision in complex governance environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Niche: The potential of MG innovations in refugee hosting districts\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSolar-powered MGs are a cost-effective, decentralised solution for expanding electricity access in remote and renewable-rich areas (Agyekum \u0026amp; Nutakor, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Baranda Alonso et al., 2021; IRENA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). SSA, often characterised by low electricity access and abundant solar potential, is increasingly receiving MG funding from governments, private investors, and development partners (Adamopoulou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The falling technology costs i.e., PV panels and battery storage, and digital innovations such as mobile money and smart meters play a huge role in the ease of management and the scaling of MGs in RHD settings. Despite this however, serving low-income segments has made it quite challenging to find the right operational measures that would ensure financial sustainability of MG systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor instance, we note that some donor-backed MGs offer electricity at no cost to households. This shapes consumer expectations, leading to low willingness to pay for energy services. In our study, MG1 noted that many households perceive electricity as a public entitlement rather than a market-based commodity. This norm reduces tariff acceptance, making it difficult for commercial MG developers to recover costs and attract private capital. The result is a disincentive for market-driven MG developers, despite the strong technical potential.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough solar MGs are noted as a low-cost, reliable, decentralised, off grid energy solution to address energy access gaps and integrate into national electrification efforts, several interviewees found that MG deployment is more successful when positioned as a replacement for existing diesel-based systems because of their scalability, efficiency, modularity, productive user mechanisms and anchor clients. As MG4 explained, \u0026ldquo;if there are already businesses with diesel generators, it is easier to convince these customers to move to electricity,\u0026rdquo; indicating that pre-existing energy spending forms a natural anchor for the transition to cleaner systems. MG developers mentioned that businesses that use diesel generators are familiar with the logistics and costs of energy and would thus be happy to welcome a more efficient and cheaper source. The ease of setting up diesel-solar hybrid grids with existing infrastructure has also been highlighted in other studies (Baranda Alonso et al., 2021). In this case, MGs thrive when they align with existing user practices, like diesel generator use, rather than attempting to reshape household consumption norms shaped by long-term subsidies or other humanitarian provisions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite low household willingness to pay, developers noted that the overall theoretical energy demand remains high, particularly due to the electricity needs of various businesses and institutions (e.g., hair salons, repair shops, welding, cell towers, and offices of humanitarian agencies). Survey results showed that only\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;66% of business owners interviewed in Dadaab operated in buildings that had access to electricity. This mismatch between the demand and supply was also highlighted by the interviewed developers. For instance, MG3 mentioned that they found over 150 businesses operating within the Dadaab refugee camp but were able to connect just 12 of them to solar powered MGs due to limited MG capacity. Further, MG2 highlighted that power consumption in the camp by businesses and other off-takers is higher than surrounding rural towns, making MG installation within the RHDs comparatively more lucrative. The general demand for electricity (from solar MGs and diesel sources) is higher in refugee settlements due to the remittances sent by their families from abroad, which allows them to buy more electricity in comparison to the surrounding rural towns (Misati et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe dynamics of the niche success are also strengthened by business model innovation. All MG operators that were interviewed used mobile money and pre-paid smart meters, reducing the labour of door-to door payment collection. A small fee is charged for connecting people to the power lines, after which electricity is sold to them on a prepaid basis. Each customer has a smart meter connected to the internet, and payments are processed in a timely and automated manner. No monthly fees are charged for the provision. Another developer noted that in other models of electricity provision that involved door to door collection, money often went missing, paving avenues for corruption. Impact-oriented financing plays a key role in enabling this experimentation of business models and value capture mechanisms. As MG5 explained, developers depend on \u0026ldquo;investors who prioritise social impact,\u0026rdquo; since traditional debt remains largely inaccessible. Donor-linked result-based financing, used widely in distributed renewable energy (World Bank, 2020), is also critical, although its effectiveness depends on regulatory approvals that are not always forthcoming.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome challenges faced during typical rural MG development are reduced by the demographic makeup of refugees. In non-refugee rural settings, operators explained that it is difficult to hire local technical capacity, meaning that human resource must be instead brought-in (alongside materials), which is difficult given poor road infrastructure. However, this problem does not necessarily exist in refugee camps, where the developers can leverage the technical expertise of some refugees, as people of all classes and backgrounds can be displaced and may be seeking new employment. Highlighting this, a developer who had worked in RHDs explained \u0026ldquo;So far we've trained everybody and I really want to find some engineers this time\u0026hellip;.There must be well trained engineers in there, you know; maybe most engineers had enough money to flee conflict in a different direction or something, but there must be engineers in there. So if we can find them, I would love to hire them.\u0026rdquo; [MG3]. Despite this optimism from developers with RHD experience, developers who had not worked in an RHD context were not aware of the capacity the refugees possessed in being able to effectively run a community centred MG system. This speaks to a potential misconception around refugee skills and demographics. The UN-Habitat/Dadaab Socio-economic Survey (2021) also showed that RHD residents hold greater technical expertise as compared to the surrounding rural residents.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther, refugee settlements are extremely entrepreneurial, and therefore more likely to have enough people earning adequate income for the grid to be effectively utilized than other rural areas. This entrepreneurship was highlighted in the survey results, when 84.4% of business-owning refugees said that they were able to repay their loans and recover their money after shocks, like the sudden increase in prices, robberies, fires, insecurity or supply issues that might occur on monthly, seasonal or annual basis. 67.8% of them also mentioned that they are either using loans or credit to buy stock for their business and are usually able to pay it back. This bodes well for productive uptake of MG energy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHumanitarian organisations also serve as partial niche enablers in two ways. First by acting as demand: For instance, MG4 said solar MGs have also helped reduce energy costs for the organisations that operate in humanitarian settings - \u0026ldquo;For [UNHCR], it's a way of reducing their costs. Building a solar grid is cheaper than running those 600-kilowatt diesel generators. And also, much less hassle.\u0026rdquo; [MG4]. This decrease in cost is also supported in the literature, where (Levin \u0026amp; Thomas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Volkert \u0026amp; Klagge, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) have highlighted the reduction in cost of small renewable energy units, making them cheaper as compared to national grid extensions. And second, by providing access, facilitating engagement with refugee communities, and helping developers navigate camp structures in addition to providing affordable clean electricity. Several developers described positive experiences working with NGOs who acted as intermediaries. However, this support was inconsistent across settlements, and in some cases, NGOs created bottlenecks by being slow to make decisions or unclear about roles. Despite this variability, humanitarian actors remain central to niche formation because they influence trust, legitimacy, and access to refugee populations (Rosenberg-Jansen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, niche dynamics in refugee hosting districts are strong. Demand is high, business models are adaptable, donor interest supports experimentation, and refugee communities themselves provide the entrepreneurial and human capital necessary for productive energy use. However, niche success ultimately depends on how these innovations interact with the humanitarian and national energy regimes that structure infrastructure planning and service delivery.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Humanitarian regime dynamics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite humanitarian organisations being part of key users of the energy from MGs, the humanitarian regime also introduces institutional constraints that shape the viability of MG deployment. Humanitarian governance is characterised by short funding cycles, emergency-oriented planning horizons, and an organisational logic of temporariness (Betts et al., 2024; OCHA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Despite Dadaab\u0026rsquo;s 34-year history, developers reported that humanitarian actors still view energy infrastructure like MGs as inappropriate for spaces assumed to be temporary. As MG4 noted, humanitarian agencies often prefer diesel generators because they are \u0026ldquo;not permanent\u0026rdquo; and can be justified within emergency budgets. This tendency reflects broader patterns of diesel lock-in across humanitarian operations (Grafham and Lahn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe perception of camps as temporary also limits the willingness of agencies to commit to long-term energy projects. Developers expressed concern that MGs, with asset lifespans of 10 to 15 years, do not easily fit into humanitarian funding cycles that run annually or biannually. MG3 described this mismatch as a core challenge: \u0026ldquo;we have a 15-year asset, but the agencies only plan for one year.\u0026rdquo; This aligns with research documenting short-termism in humanitarian budgeting that inhibits infrastructure investments (Barbelet et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Relatedly, developers highlighted that several stakeholders within RHDs financially benefit from the maintenance and fuel supply of existing diesel generators. Thus, switching to solar MG electricity could disrupt these local financial streams, leading to resistance as some people would lose one of their main sources of income. This could limit stakeholder buy-in.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHumanitarian governance structures further complicate electricity provision. Developers must secure multiple layers of clearance from UNHCR, implementing partners, and camp leadership teams. MG5 captured this complexity, stating that while \u0026ldquo;it takes four weeks to deploy a MG, it takes one year to get every actor to align.\u0026rdquo; Such bureaucratic processes create delays that undermine financial planning and increase project risk.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHumanitarian social norms also shape energy consumption patterns. Because refugees often receive subsidised services, expectations around free or low-cost energy can make tariff acceptance challenging. Several developers described difficulties in convincing refugees to pay for electricity when previous arrangements, particularly diesel-powered institutional systems, had been heavily subsidised. These findings reflect documented tensions around energy pricing and perceived entitlements in displacement settings (Rosenberg-Jansen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Mercy Corps, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, humanitarian agencies sometimes inadvertently reinforce existing informal energy markets. Developers noted that private diesel providers often hold significant influence in settlements and may resist MG entry. Some camp committees, influenced by these providers, initially opposed MG installations. Such dynamics mirror findings from other contexts where informal energy providers play key governance roles (Cross \u0026amp; Murray, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, the humanitarian regime constrains the integration of MGs by prioritising short-term, emergency responses over long-term infrastructure planning. Institutional norms, fragmented authority, and the perception of refugee settlements as temporary, limit the support for the long-term uptake of renewable energy systems. Although humanitarian agencies can enable niche experimentation through creating demand facilitating energy access, they also often resist the institutionalisation of renewable energy solutions. Our findings highlight how regime-level constraints create a set of institutional and cultural barriers, thus limiting the scaling of niche innovations. This reinforces the importance of aligning humanitarian and energy sector priorities to enable better, long-term transitions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 National energy regime dynamics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSolar powered MG developers need to navigate Kenya\u0026rsquo;s national energy regime, which is structured by formal policies, regulatory processes, financing pathways, and political priorities. Although Kenya has made significant progress in expanding electricity access through the Kenya National Electrification Strategy (Ministry of Energy, 2018) and the Energy Act (2019), refugee settlements remain excluded from national planning frameworks. As NGE01 noted, \u0026ldquo;We do not have their energy needs integrated within the national energy plans per se\u0026hellip;county governments develop their own county energy plans and then all these 47 energy plans are supposed to be integrated into the Kenya Integrated National Energy Plan\u0026hellip;we see that as an opportunity for us to be able to bring of the needs of the refugees into county national energy planning. Although in practice this is quite difficult because of underlying factors [like] refugee affairs are largely a mandate of the national government [\u0026hellip;] at county level there is only so much that counties can do because they are not really obligated [\u0026hellip;]. I think [refugees] are currently not considered in energy access and should be included at the national level.\u0026rdquo; This institutional separation means that refugee settlements fall outside routine county infrastructure expansion, limiting formal support for mini-grid development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExisting energy policy not only excludes refugee settlements but actively presents barriers to refugee energy access through convoluted bureaucracy. Private sector engagement is sometimes challenging when bureaucracy is not easy to navigate. Currently, in Kenya, laws and regulations are important in the deployment of solar powered MGs\u0026mdash;because refugee camps are perceived to be politically sensitive areas, developers need to seek the approval of the government and negotiate government regulations. However, this can be difficult to obtain, and governments may walk-back on verbal agreements. To prevent bureaucratic friction, MG4 recommended that for \u0026ldquo;[...] any projects are in refugee camps, I would start with an MoU (Memorandum of Understanding), signed by whoever [...] political representative of the country [...]\u0026rdquo; [MG4]. As a further mechanism to overcome these bureaucratic complexities, some MG models provide energy services to government entities without any direct charges as part of their concessions or agreements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, obtaining licensing for MGs is challenging. Though bureaucratic processes are necessary to protect refugees who have experienced significant hardship from unscrupulous or exploitative energy developers, many developers said that the length of the bureaucratic process makes it difficult for even well-intentioned developers in the private sector to build MGs in camps. For instance, developers highlighted that coordinating tariff-setting with government bodies can be complicated, unreliable, and quite random; the uncertainty makes it difficult to build a strong business case. This creates barriers for business initiation, execution and governmental negotiation. As was illustrated by one of the developers, \u0026ldquo;So, the government sets [the tariff] and the government has a terrible process for setting and approving the prices of electricity. At some point, they hired a consultancy to make an Excel model and we MG developers are supposed to put all of our sort of cost inputs in and the assumptions about electricity usage and all of this, and then the model gives some result, which should be the tariff that we apply for. But the national government usually ignores that number and makes up their own random number that's just something completely different. So that's very difficult.\u0026rdquo; [MG3]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe financial sector reflects similar constraints. The interviewed developers also mentioned some of the challenges in securing initial funding for MG construction while navigating the conditionalities of funding agencies. It was reported that investors require a construction permit before dispersing funding, but oftentimes, a government permit is only available once the construction commences, creating a catch-22. This leaves developers without a viable funding source, as traditional funding streams do not suffice, due to high initial capital and operational costs of these projects with slow returns. Developers mentioned difficulties in attracting private investment such as the absence of collateral or guarantees; high capital expenditure (CAPEX) with slow payback; and delayed disbursement in RBF schemes. Moreover, many financial institutions reportedly lack risk tolerance or sector-specific knowledge, further limiting developers\u0026rsquo; access to debt and equity markets (Knuckles, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Fajardo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). MG5 observed that banks \u0026ldquo;think of lending only to businesses that can pay back in five years, with interest rates of 28 to 30 percent.\u0026rdquo; Such conditions are incompatible with renewable energy projects that require longer payback periods, reflecting broader challenges in financing distributed energy in Africa (IEA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; World Bank, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInfrastructure politics also influence the national regime. Government sensitivity around the permanence of refugee settlements affects decisions related to energy access. Developers reported that official endorsements, such as letters from County Governors, are necessary to avoid political resistance. This resonates with research showing that refugee policy in Kenya is shaped by concerns around sovereignty, border control, and local-level political narratives (Zetter \u0026amp; Ruaudel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, national-level planning instruments, including county energy plans and rural electrification frameworks, do not provide specific guidance or adequate data for private-sector actors operating in refugee settlements. This institutional vacuum contributes to a lack of clarity around investment protection, service standards, and regulatory compliance pathways.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Landscape pressures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLandscape pressures encompass broader structural forces that shape both humanitarian and national energy regimes. The most significant landscape pressure shaping the prospects for MG deployment in RHDs is the protracted nature of forced displacement. Global displacement has reached record levels, with more than 123\u0026nbsp;million people displaced by 2024 (UNHCR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Refugee settlements such as Dadaab have existed for over three decades, putting pressure on the humanitarian regime to shift from formal humanitarian narratives of temporariness and the reality of long-term settlement (Betts et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommitments under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 7 on universal energy access and SDG 13 on climate action, have driven a sustained global interest in renewable energy (World Bank et al., 2022). However, they have primarily targeted national energy regimes, with a limited impact on broader humanitarian planning. As a result, humanitarian actors remain institutionally and ideologically anchored in short-term, emergency-oriented responses. Despite rising diesel costs and declining solar prices (IRENA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), these global trends have yet to produce meaningful shifts within the humanitarian regime, resulting in a misalignment that constrains the deployment of solar MGs in RHDs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLandscape-level policy frameworks further shape the governance environment. Kenya\u0026rsquo;s adoption of the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) and the development of the Shirika Plan (Government of Kenya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) signal an emerging policy orientation toward refugee inclusion and long-term development planning. These frameworks create openings for integrating energy provision into broader development strategies, although implementation remains uneven.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternational humanitarian policy debates also influence energy provision. The localisation agenda encourages humanitarian agencies to partner with national and sub-national institutions and private-sector actors, potentially supporting MG development (ICVA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, the humanitarian-development-peace nexus encourages investment in durable infrastructure in protracted crises.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther, economic factors operate at the landscape level as well. Global fuel price fluctuations make diesel generation increasingly expensive, strengthening the case for solar MGs (IEA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Hassane et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). At the same time, global economic uncertainty affects donor commitments, which may influence the availability of grant-based financing for off-grid energy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTogether, these landscape pressures create both opportunities and complications for mini-grid deployment, influencing how humanitarian and national regimes respond to niche innovations (as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Cross-regime synthesis: How niche–regime–landscape interactions shape MG viability","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe interaction of niche dynamics, humanitarian regime constraints, national regime barriers, and landscape pressures explains why technically viable MGs struggle to scale in RHDs. While niche conditions are favourable due to strong demand, entrepreneurial activity, innovation in payment systems, and impact-driven financing, these innovations are embedded within regimes that are structurally misaligned with long-term energy service provision.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe humanitarian regime promotes short-term solutions, emergency responses and temporary infrastructures. This orientation discourages capital-intensive investments like solar MGs, which require longer planning horizons. Meanwhile, the national energy regime presents numerous regulatory and financial hurdles, particularly in areas where refugee settlements are not fully integrated into electrification or planning frameworks. This dual-regime context fragments authority, complicates project coordination, and prevents MG developers from achieving scale or operational continuity. Developers are thus required to continuously adapt their models, negotiate with multiple stakeholders, and absorb high transaction costs to operate within such fragmented governance environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs previously explained, landscape-level forces such as global displacement, climate change, and the push for universal electricity access create momentum for sustainable energy solutions in RHDs. However, these pressures intersect with socio-technical regimes in ways that complicate implementation. For instance, solar MGs, though technically viable, face difficulties in integrating into either the national or humanitarian regime. National energy regimes are primarily focused on expanding grid access for citizens and oftentimes lack formal guidelines and regulations for refugee settlements. In parallel, the humanitarian regime remains oriented towards short-term emergency relief, and infrastructure projects like MGs are long-term in nature, quite different from their mandates. This duality prevents energy provision from being institutionalised in either regime. Moreover, energy investments in RHDs are often perceived to favour displaced populations, heightening host\u0026ndash;refugee tensions. These unequal social dynamics, function as landscape-level pressures that destabilise niche innovations and further hinder cross-regime alignment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe multi-level interactions reveal that some of the challenges in deploying solar-powered MGs in RHDs is not the absence of the demand of the lack of technical feasibility, but the dual governance environment that creates misaligned incentives. Developers thus need to also therefore engage in continual negotiation with a variety of stakeholders, strategic adaptation of business models, and the dependence on impact-oriented capital to operate within this fragmented humanitarian space.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn general, our results highlight that while solar MGs have the potential to contribute to energy provision in humanitarian settings, can only transition from localised experiments to systemic solutions if regime conditions evolve to better support niche development. This not only requires regulatory reform or stakeholder coordination, but also a deeper reconfiguration in the displacement-energy access conceptualisation by humanitarian and national actors. Humanitarian actors must shift towards multi-year planning cycles that accommodate infrastructure timelines, rather than the existing annualised emergency budgets that often perpetuate diesel dependence. Then, investing in electrifying refugee settlements can also adjacently benefit national electrification strategies, thus aligning the humanitarian regime with national energy regime Finally, energy planning must actively engage host communities to ensure equitable benefit-sharing and reduce local tensions, thereby strengthening the political viability of inclusive energy transitions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUltimately, sustainable energy solutions like solar MGs will not scale through innovation alone. Their success depends on strategic alignment across governance levels, the redefinition of institutional roles, and intentional efforts to embed niche innovations within both humanitarian and national energy regimes under the broader pressures of the global landscape.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Limitations and further directions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study has examined the feasibility of solar powered MGs in RHDs by analysing the interactions between niche innovations, humanitarian governance regimes, national energy systems, and broader landscape pressures. While the findings provide insights into the institutional dynamics shaping energy provision in displacement settings, several limitations should be acknowledged.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, the study draws primarily on interviews with mini-grid developers, policymakers, and humanitarian actors, complemented by survey data from business-owning refugees in the Dadaab refugee settlement. Although these perspectives offer a rich view of supply-side and institutional dynamics, the analysis would benefit from a deeper examination of household-level energy practices, gendered energy needs, and variations across socio-economic groups within refugee communities. Future research could integrate ethnographic or longitudinal methods to capture how energy use evolves over time as MGs expand or as humanitarian policies shift.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the study focuses on a single refugee-hosting region in Kenya. Dadaab is a long-standing (since 1991) and politically sensitive settlement. While many of the institutional frictions identified here are characteristic of other displacement settings, the specific governance arrangements may differ in contexts where national refugee policies, political economies, or humanitarian coordination structures vary. Comparative studies across multiple refugee settlements or across different countries in East Africa could strengthen the generalisability of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, the regulatory and financial conditions shaping MG deployment continue to evolve in Kenya, particularly with ongoing reforms related to the Energy Act (2019), county-level energy planning, and the implementation of the Shirika Plan (2025). As policy frameworks shift toward greater refugee inclusion, some of the regime-level constraints identified in this study may change. Tracking these reforms over time would help clarify how institutional alignment emerges and how developers adapt their business models in response to regime changes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFourth, while the study draws on survey evidence from refugee entrepreneurs, the analysis remains limited by the lack of detailed financial records or long-term performance data from existing MG sites and communities who engaged (and have engaged) with the deployed MGs. Future work could incorporate operational data from installed systems, including load profiles, payment patterns, and maintenance challenges, to more precisely assess commercial viability and long-term sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, this study has not examined the environmental impacts, carbon reduction potential, or lifecycle costs of diesel-to-solar transitions in displacement settings. As humanitarian agencies increasingly integrate climate objectives into developmental and operational planning, understanding the climate mitigation and adaptation implications of MGs will become critical. Opportunities exist for interdisciplinary work that connects socio-technical transition analysis with environmental assessment and climate finance research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, despite these limitations, the study contributes to an emerging body of work that examines energy transitions in humanitarian contexts through a socio-technical lens. It highlights the need for more coordinated governance frameworks, longer-term humanitarian financing mechanisms, and clear regulatory pathways that recognise refugee settlements as part of national development systems. Future research can build on these insights by exploring how institutional reforms, private-sector partnerships, and landscape-level commitments intersect to shape the sustainability and equity of MG deployment in protracted displacement settings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7.Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eUsing interview and survey data collected from solar powered MG developers, investors, decision makers and business-owing refugees, this study has examined the feasibility of solar powered MGs in RHDs in Kenya by analysing how niche innovations interact with humanitarian and national energy regimes within broader landscape pressures. As demonstrated through this example of the Dadaab refugee settlement in Garissa County, Kenya, solar powered MGs have significant potential to address long-standing energy deficits in displacement settings due to their modularity, cost-effectiveness, and ability to support productive uses of energy. The high demand for energy observed among refugee businesses, combined with entrepreneurial activity, digital payment systems, and impact-oriented financing, demonstrates that mini-grids can thrive as niche innovations in these contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the analysis also shows that the success of these systems is shaped less by their technical or commercial characteristics and more by the institutional environments in which they operate. The humanitarian regime remains oriented toward short-term planning and temporary service provision, creating uncertainty for long-term infrastructure investments. At the same time, the national energy regime presents regulatory, financial, and political barriers that hinder private-sector entry into refugee settlements. These dual and often conflicting governance structures create institutional frictions that slow or prevent the scaling of MG solutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLandscape pressures, including the protracted nature of displacement, global commitments to universal energy access, climate change, and the falling costs of photovoltaic technologies, create both opportunities and tensions. They reinforce the need for durable energy solutions while interacting unevenly with humanitarian and national systems that have yet to fully adapt to the long-term realities of refugee settlement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results point to several areas for policy action. Integrating refugee settlements into national electrification plans, clarifying regulatory pathways for private developers, and adopting longer-term humanitarian financing instruments would help reduce uncertainty and improve investment conditions. Strengthening partnerships between humanitarian agencies, county governments, and private-sector actors can also support more coordinated and inclusive approaches to energy provision. As global displacement continues to rise, and as humanitarian actors increasingly prioritise sustainability and resilience, understanding how socio-technical transitions unfold in these contexts will be essential for designing energy systems that meet the needs of both refugees and host communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the study shows that solar powered MGs can contribute to inclusive and sustainable development in refugee hosting districts, but only when niche innovations are supported by institutional reforms at both humanitarian and national levels. Addressing these governance challenges will be critical for enabling energy transitions in displacement settings in Kenya and across sub-Saharan Africa.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData sharing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data used in this article is confidential\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of Statement of Interest\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial or personal interests that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding sources:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis work has been carried out with the support of the Climate Compatible Growth Programme (CCG), the Danish Refugee Council and the ECA Pilot Project Fund, Greenwich Business School. CCG is funded by the UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). The views expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the UK government's official policies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe would like to thank the 32 decision makers and solar MG developers, and the 199 survey participants for their time and valuable insights that helped inform the findings of this study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdamopoulou E, Sala I, Pilco A, Lewis C, Fluehr K (2024) \u003cem\u003eState of the Global Mini-Grids Market Report 2024\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.seforall.org/system/files/2024-08/SOTM%20Report%202024_EN_vFc.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.seforall.org/system/files/2024-08/SOTM%20Report%202024_EN_vFc.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAgyekum EB, Nutakor C (2020) Feasibility study and economic analysis of stand-alone hybrid energy system for southern Ghana. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 39:100695. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100695\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.seta.2020.100695\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlonso JB, Sandwell DP (2020) Sustainable mini-grid systems in refugee camps: A case study of Rwanda. Imperial College London Grantham Institute\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmin SMM, Hasnat A, Hossain N (2023) Designing and Analysing a PV/Battery System via New Resilience Indicators. Sustainability 15(13). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eArticle 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310328\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"Article 13. 10.3390/su151310328\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBahaj AS, Alam M, Blunden LS (2025) Management of environmental impacts of fossil fuel use in refugee camps through transition to renewable energy infrastructure: Case studies in Uganda and Bangladesh. J Environ Manage 374:124039. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124039\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124039\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaldi D, Moner-Girona M, Fumagalli E, Fahl F (2022) Planning sustainable electricity solutions for refugee settlements in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat Energy 7(4):369\u0026ndash;379. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01006-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41560-022-01006-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaranda Alonso J, Sandwell P (2020) \u003cem\u003eSustainable mini-grid systems in refugee camps: A case study of Rwanda\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.25561/77296\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.25561/77296\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaranda Alonso J, Sandwell P, Nelson J (2021a) The potential for solar-diesel hybrid mini-grids in refugee camps: A case study of Nyabiheke camp, Rwanda. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 44:101095. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101095\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.seta.2021.101095\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaranda Alonso J, Sandwell P, Nelson J (2021b) The potential for solar-diesel hybrid mini-grids in refugee camps: A case study of Nyabiheke camp, Rwanda. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 44:101095. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101095\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.seta.2021.101095\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarbelet V, Davies G, Flint J, Davey E (2021) Interrogating the evidence base on humanitarian localisation. HPC Literature Review. London: ODI. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://media.odi.org/documents/Localisation_lit_review_WEB.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://media.odi.org/documents/Localisation_lit_review_WEB.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeath H, Alonso B, Mori J, Gambhir R, Nelson A, J., Sandwell P (2023) Maximising the benefits of renewable energy infrastructure in displacement settings: Optimising the operation of a solar-hybrid mini-grid for institutional and business users in Mahama Refugee Camp, Rwanda. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 176:113142. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.113142\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.rser.2022.113142\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBetts A, Flinder Stierna M, Omata N, Sterck O (2024a) The economic lives of refugees. World Dev 182:106693. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106693\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106693\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBetts A, Flinder Stierna M, Omata N, Sterck O (2024b) The economic lives of refugees. World Dev 182:106693. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106693\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106693\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoodhna A, Sissons C, Fullwood-Thomas J (2019) A systems thinking approach for energy markets in fragile places. Nat Energy 4(12):997\u0026ndash;999. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0519-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41560-019-0519-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCasati P, Fumagalli E, Baldi D, 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 Social Sci 113:103546. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103546\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.erss.2024.103546\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChkam H (2016) Aid and the Perpetuation of Refugee Camps: The Case of Dadaab in Kenya 1991\u0026ndash;2011. Refugee Surv Q 35(2):79\u0026ndash;97. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdw005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/rsq/hdw005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eCountry\u0026mdash;Kenya\u003c/em\u003e. (n.d.). Retrieved 22 November 2025, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://data.unhcr.org/en/country/ken\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://data.unhcr.org/en/country/ken\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCross J, Murray D (2018) The afterlives of solar power: Waste and repair off the grid in Kenya. Energy Res Social Sci 44:100\u0026ndash;109. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.034\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.034\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDepartment of Refugee Services (2024) Homepage. Ministry of Interior and National Administration. Government of Kenya. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://refugee.go.ke/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://refugee.go.ke/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElasu J, Wabukala BM, Atuhaire R, Olupot C, Atukunda R, Ntayi JM, Orobia LA, Adaramola MS (2025) Sustainable humanitarian energy transitions: A review of interventions and challenges. SN Social Sci 5(5):59. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-025-01091-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s43545-025-01091-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEnergy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) (2021) \u003cem\u003eEnergy Sector Management Assistance Program Annual Report 2021\u003c/em\u003e. World Bank, Washington, DC. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1596/37888\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1596/37888\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFajardo A, Baker LH, Sesan T, Bhattacharyya S, Kerr D, Katyega M, Barnett A (2025) Business models and access to finance for mini grid development in sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Sustain Dev 85:101666. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2025.101666\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.esd.2025.101666\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFields N, Millot A, Mutembei M, Nganga A, Lubello P, Hofbauer L, Howells M, Brown E (2025) Demand starter data kit: Selected socio-economic and technical energy system demand modelling data for all 47 counties in Kenya. Data Brief 60:111556. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2025.111556\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.dib.2025.111556\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFuchs JL, Onyango LA, Hirmer S, Tomei J (2025) Energy, equity and inclusion: Exploring gender equality and social inclusion in energy planning in Kenya. Energy Res Social Sci 130:104432. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2025.104432\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.erss.2025.104432\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy 31(8):1257\u0026ndash;1274. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeels FW (2011) The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environ Innov Societal Transitions 1(1):24\u0026ndash;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeels FW (2020) Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: Developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary economics and neo-institutional theory. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 152:119894. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119894\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119894\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeels FW, Sovacool BK, Schwanen T, Sorrell S (2017) The Socio-Technical Dynamics of Low-Carbon Transitions. Joule 1(3):463\u0026ndash;479. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2017.09.018\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.joule.2017.09.018\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGovernment of Kenya \u0026amp; World Bank (2018) Kenya Off-Grid Solar Access Project for Underserved Counties. Ministry of Energy. World Bank funding: US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e150 million, Nairobi\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGovernment of Kenya (2008) Vision 2030. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://vision2030.go.ke\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://vision2030.go.ke\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGovernment of Kenya (2018) Kenya Comprehensive Refugee Programme 2019\u0026ndash;2020. Department of Refugee Services, Nairobi\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGovernment of Kenya (2018) Kenya National Electrification Strategy. Ministry of Energy. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.seta-kenya.org/images/2023/KenyaNationalElectrificationStrategyKNESKeyHighlights2018.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.seta-kenya.org/images/2023/KenyaNationalElectrificationStrategyKNESKeyHighlights2018.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGovernment of Kenya (2019) Energy Act. Kenya Gazette Supplement No.29. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/2019/EnergyAct__No.1of2019.PDF\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/2019/EnergyAct__No.1of2019.PDF\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGovernment of Kenya (2021) Refugees Act. Kenya Gazette Supplement. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://refugee.go.ke/sites/default/files/downloads/Refugees-Act-2021.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://refugee.go.ke/sites/default/files/downloads/Refugees-Act-2021.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGovernment of Kenya (2024) Kenya Off-Grid Solar Access Project (KOSAP). Kenya Power. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.energy.go.ke/sites/default/files/Updated%20Resettlement%20Policy%20Framework%20for%20KOSAP%20-%20September%202024.pdfGovernment\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.energy.go.ke/sites/default/files/Updated%20Resettlement%20Policy%20Framework%20for%20KOSAP%20-%20September%202024.pdfGovernment\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e of\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKenya (2025) Shirika Plan. Department of Refugee Services, Nairobi\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGPA. (2022) The State of Energy in the Humanitarian Sector: Challenges, Progress and Issues in 2022. Global Platform for Action on Sustainable Energy in Displacement Settings. UNITAR Publishing. Geneva, Switzerland. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/leaflet_kenya.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/leaflet_kenya.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrafham O, Lahn G (2018) The Costs of Fuelling Humanitarian Aid. Chatham House. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.chathamhouse.org/2018/12/costs-fuelling-humanitarian-aid\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.chathamhouse.org/2018/12/costs-fuelling-humanitarian-aid\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrafham O, Lahn G, Haselip J (2022) Scaling sustainable energy services for displaced people and their hosts. Chatham House. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/2022-10-04-scaling-sustainable-energy-displaced-people-and-hosts-grafham-et-al.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/2022-10-04-scaling-sustainable-energy-displaced-people-and-hosts-grafham-et-al.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaselip J (2022) \u003cem\u003eScaling sustainable energy services for displaced people and their hosts: How policy and governance make a difference\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.55317/9781784135249\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.55317/9781784135249\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHassane AI, Didane DH, Tahir AM, Hauglustaine J-M, Manshoor B, Batcha MFM, Tamba J-G, Mouangue RM (2022) Techno-economic feasibility of a remote PV mini-grid electrification system for five localities in Chad. Int J Sustain Eng 15(1):177\u0026ndash;191. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2022.2101707\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/19397038.2022.2101707\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHove, Johnson NG (2021) Refugee settlements in transition: Energy access and development challenges in Northern Uganda. Energy Res Social Sci 78:102103. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102103\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.erss.2021.102103\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eICVA (2021) Annual Conference Report. Climate, Environment and Humanitarian Action. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.icvanetwork.org/uploads/2021/09/AC-2021-Report_FINAL.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.icvanetwork.org/uploads/2021/09/AC-2021-Report_FINAL.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIEA (2022) Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme Annual Report 2022. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/PVPS_Annual_Report_2022_v7-1.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/PVPS_Annual_Report_2022_v7-1.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIRENA (2019) Renewables for refugee settlements: Sustainable energy access in humanitarian situations. International Renewable Energy Agency\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKern F, Rogge KS (2018) Harnessing theories of the policy process for analysing the politics of sustainability transitions: A critical survey. Environ Innov Societal Transitions 27:102\u0026ndash;117. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.11.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eist.2017.11.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKnuckles J (2016) Business models for mini-grid electricity in base of the pyramid markets. Energy Sustain Dev 31:67\u0026ndash;82. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2015.12.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.esd.2015.12.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLahn G, Grafham O, Annan FK (2015) \u003cem\u003eHeat, Light and Power for Refugees\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLambe F, Mungo C, Ogeya M (2024) Grid expectations: How service design and business model innovation can support mini-grid development in Kenya. Energy Res Social Sci 118:103788. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103788\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.erss.2024.103788\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLehne J, Blyth W, Lahn G, Bazilian M, Grafham O (2016) Energy services for refugees and displaced people. Energy Strategy Reviews 13\u0026ndash;14:134\u0026ndash;146. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2016.08.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.esr.2016.08.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLevin T, Thomas VM (2016) Can developing countries leapfrog the centralized electrification paradigm? Energy Sustain Dev 31:97\u0026ndash;107. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2015.12.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.esd.2015.12.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaalim SA, Adwek G, Arowo M (2021) Shared energy parks as a solution to energy challenges for Dadaab Refugee Camps in Kenya. Sci Afr 13:e00901. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00901\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00901\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMercy Corps (2021) Global Compact on Refugees. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://globalcompactrefugees.org/good-practices/enter-energy-inclusive-energy-markets-humanitarian-communities\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://globalcompactrefugees.org/good-practices/enter-energy-inclusive-energy-markets-humanitarian-communities\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMisati RN, Kamau A, Nassir H (2019) Do migrant remittances matter for financial development in Kenya? Financial Innov 5(1):31. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-019-0142-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40854-019-0142-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoner-Girona M, Solano-Peralta M, Lazopoulou M, Ackom EK, Vallve X, Szab\u0026oacute; S (2018) Electrification of Sub-Saharan Africa through PV/hybrid mini-grids: Reducing the gap between current business models and on-site experience. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 91:1148\u0026ndash;1161. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.018\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.018\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMugisha J, Ratemo MA, Keza B, B. C., Kahveci H (2021) Assessing the opportunities and challenges facing the development of off-grid solar systems in Eastern Africa: The cases of Kenya, Ethiopia, and Rwanda. Energy Policy 150:112131. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112131\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112131\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMukoro V, Sharmina M, Gallego-Schmid A (2022) A framework for environmental evaluation of business models: A test case of solar energy in Kenya. Sustainable Prod Consum 34:202\u0026ndash;218. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.09.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.spc.2022.09.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNixon JD, Bhargava K, Halford A, Gaura E (2021) The challenges of community-based solar energy interventions: Lessons from two Rwandan Refugee Camps. Energy Sustain Dev 65:175\u0026ndash;184. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2021.07.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.esd.2021.07.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNuru JT, Rhoades JL, Gruber JS (2021) The socio-technical barriers and strategies for overcoming the barriers to deploying solar mini-grids in rural islands: Evidence from Ghana. Technol Soc 65:101586. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101586\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101586\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOCHA (2020) Annual Report. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.unocha.org/publications/report/world/ocha-annual-report-2020\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/world/ocha-annual-report-2020\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOgeya M, Ogara S, Andersen MH (2025) Staying put or pulling out? How mini grid developers use business model innovation to overcome challenges and barriers in Kenya. Energy Res Social Sci 122:104005. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2025.104005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.erss.2025.104005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThomas PJM, Sandwell P, Williamson SJ, Harper PW (2021) A PESTLE analysis of solar home systems in refugee camps in Rwanda. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 143:110872. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110872\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.rser.2021.110872\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePedersen MB, Nygaard I (2018) System building in the Kenyan electrification regime: The case of private solar mini-grid development. Energy Res Social Sci 42:211\u0026ndash;223. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.010\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.010\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePelletier A, Kaewkitipong L, Guitton MJ (2024) Using technology to study refugee, conflict-affected, and hard-to-reach populations: Methodological and ethical considerations. Comput Hum Behav 152:108053. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108053\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.chb.2023.108053\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePueyo A, DeMartino S (2018) The impact of solar mini-grids on Kenya\u0026rsquo;s rural enterprises. Energy Sustain Dev 45:28\u0026ndash;37. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2018.04.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.esd.2018.04.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRajagopalan S, Breetz HL (2022) Niches, narratives, and national policy: How India developed off-grid solar for rural electrification. Environ Innov Societal Transitions 43:41\u0026ndash;54. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.02.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eist.2022.02.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRay M, Chakraborty B (2022) Impact of demand flexibility and tiered resilience on solar photovoltaic adoption in humanitarian settlements. Renewable Energy 193:895\u0026ndash;912. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.091\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.091\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eREREC (2021) The Highlight: Garissa Solar Plant Leading the Green Drive. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.rerec.co.ke/assets/images/publications/Newsletters/Jan%20March%20newsletter%20Quater%203.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.rerec.co.ke/assets/images/publications/Newsletters/Jan%20March%20newsletter%20Quater%203.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRip A, Kemp R (1998) Technological Change. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/250328400/Rip1998technological.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/250328400/Rip1998technological.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRose A, Stoner R, P\u0026eacute;rez-Arriaga I (2016) Prospects for grid-connected solar PV in Kenya: A systems approach. Appl Energy 161:583\u0026ndash;590. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.07.052\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.07.052\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRosenberg-Jansen S (2022) The Secret Life of Energy in Refugee Camps: Invisible Objects, Technologies, and Energy Systems in Humanitarianism. J Refugee Stud 35(3):1270\u0026ndash;1291. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feac026\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/jrs/feac026\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRosenberg-Jansen S, Njoki E, Okello A (2018) \u003cem\u003eThe Lived Experience of Energy and Forced Displacement: Kakuma Refugee Camp, Kenya\u003c/em\u003e. Working paper. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://kkcfke.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Energy_The-Lived-Experience-of-Energy-and-Forced-Displacement.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://kkcfke.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Energy_The-Lived-Experience-of-Energy-and-Forced-Displacement.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRosenberg-Jansen S, Tunge T, Kayumba T (2019) Inclusive energy solutions in refugee camps. Nat Energy 4(12):990\u0026ndash;992. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0516-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41560-019-0516-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSovacool BK, Geels FW (2016) Further reflections on the temporality of energy transitions: A response to critics. Energy Res Social Sci 22:232\u0026ndash;237. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.013\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.013\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSovacool BK, Griffiths S (2020) Culture and low-carbon energy transitions. Nat Sustain 3(9):685\u0026ndash;693. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0519-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41893-020-0519-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThomas PJM, Williamson SJ, Harper PW (2021) The diffusion of solar home systems in Rwandan refugee camps. Energy Sustain Dev 63:119\u0026ndash;132. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2021.05.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.esd.2021.05.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrotter PA, Brophy A (2022) Policy mixes for business model innovation: The case of off-grid energy for sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa. Res Policy 51(6):104528. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104528\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.respol.2022.104528\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUN Habitat (2021) UN-Habitat/Dadaab Socio-economic Survey (2021). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2023/02/dadaab_survey_2021_10_february.pdfUNHCR\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2023/02/dadaab_survey_2021_10_february.pdfUNHCR\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. (2023). Access to clean energy in displacement settings, Kenya. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/leaflet_kenya.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNHCR (2024) Global Trends report 2023. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.unhcr.org/global-trends-report-2023\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends-report-2023\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNHCR (2024) Global Trends. Data and Statistics. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.unhcr.org/uk/global-trends\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.unhcr.org/uk/global-trends\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNHCR (2025) Clean Power Generation: The Case of Renewvia Energy. The Global Compact on Refugees | UNHCR. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://globalcompactrefugees.org/good-practices/clean-power-generation-case-renewvia-energy\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://globalcompactrefugees.org/good-practices/clean-power-generation-case-renewvia-energy\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNHCR (2025) UNHCR Kenya: Dadaab Refugee Complex. Retrieved 22 November 2025, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.unhcr.org/ke/about-us/where-we-work/dadaab-refugee-complex\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.unhcr.org/ke/about-us/where-we-work/dadaab-refugee-complex\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan Hove E, Johnson NG (2021) Refugee settlements in transition: Energy access and development challenges in Northern Uganda. Energy Res Social Sci 78:102103. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102103\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.erss.2021.102103\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVolkert M, Klagge B (2022) Electrification and devolution in Kenya: Opportunities and challenges. Energy Sustain Dev 71:541\u0026ndash;553. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2022.10.022\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.esd.2022.10.022\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWardeh M, Marques RC (2021) Sustainability in Refugee Camps: A Comparison of the Two Largest Refugee Camps in the World. J Refugee Stud 34(3):2740\u0026ndash;2774. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feaa141\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/jrs/feaa141\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeber A-L, Ruesink B, Gronau S (2023) Dynamics of refugee settlements and energy provision: The case of forest stocks in Zambia. J Econ Dev 25(3):266\u0026ndash;283. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JED-11-2022-0230\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JED-11-2022-0230\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWEO-2017 Special Report: Energy Access Outlook \u0026ndash; Analysis (2017), October 18 IEA. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.iea.org/reports/energy-access-outlook-2017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-access-outlook-2017\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Bank Open Data (n.d.). World Bank Open Data. Retrieved 15 October 2025, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://data.worldbank.org\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://data.worldbank.org\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Bank (2024) Access to Electricity- Kenya. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS?locations=KE\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS?locations=KE\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZetter R, Ruaudel H (2018) Refugees\u0026rsquo; right to work and access to labour markets: Constraints, challenges and ways forward. \u003cem\u003eForced Migration Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:91b46991-1546-45f8-a393-bce053842063\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:91b46991-1546-45f8-a393-bce053842063\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"solar mini grids, refugees, energy access, Kenya, electrification","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8437345/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8437345/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe rapid growth of displaced populations has intensified the challenge of providing sustainable energy access in refugee-hosting districts. While solar mini grids have the potential to solve this challenge, they face roadblocks to deployment at scale. Drawing on 32 expert interviews with mini grid developers, investors and decision makers, and 199 surveys with business-owning refugees in Dadaab, Kenya, this paper examines why solar mini grids, despite their technical and financial viability, struggle to scale in humanitarian contexts. Using the Multi-Level Perspective framework as an interpretive lens, the analysis shows how mini grid developers in refugee camps operate within overlapping humanitarian and national energy regimes shaped by temporary relief logics and long-term infrastructural ambitions respectively. These institutional frictions limit coordination, financing, and policy integration, constraining market development. Yet, local entrepreneurship, flexible payment systems, and donor-developer partnerships provide pathways toward more durable energy access models for humanitarian settings. We identify both ways in which niche refugee mini grid developers can shape their business models to best navigate existing regimes, and ways that these regimes can be reformed to support inclusive humanitarian energy innovation at scale. While focusing on Kenya, these lessons can apply more broadly throughout refugee contexts in sub-Saharan Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Socio- technical transitions in humanitarian settings: Solar mini grids for energy- enabled growth in refugee hosting districts in Kenya","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-05 08:37:54","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8437345/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"c5e61c42-2d20-4d68-a1dd-a2cb09c3c233","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 5th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-05T08:37:54+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-05 08:37:54","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8437345","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8437345","identity":"rs-8437345","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}