African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and

Development

ISSN: 2042-1338 (Print) 2042-1346 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rajs20

Analysing the diffusion and adoption of renewable

energy technologies in Africa: The functions of
innovation systems perspective

Aschalew Demeke Tigabu

To cite this article: Aschalew Demeke Tigabu (2018) Analysing the diffusion and adoption
of renewable energy technologies in Africa: The functions of innovation systems perspective,
African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 10:5, 615-624, DOI:
10.1080/20421338.2017.1366130

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2017.1366130

Published online: 14 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 406

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rajs20
African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 2018
Vol. 10, No. 5, 615–624, https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2017.1366130
© 2017 African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development

Analysing the diffusion and adoption of renewable energy technologies in Africa: The functions
of innovation systems perspective
Aschalew Demeke Tigabu*

African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Nairobi, Kenya

*Email: adt43@cornell.edu

Renewable energy technologies have increasingly been promoted to address energy poverty and environmental
sustainability challenges in Africa. Yet, their diffusion and uptake remain marginal. The focus of renewable energy
technology diffusion research in Africa has largely been on identifying technological, economical and social factors,
which determine adoption decision of end-users. In this paper, I argue that there is a need to systematically understand
the enabling institutional context of renewable energy technologies as well. I argue that the Technological Innovation
System (TIS) is a useful approach in this regard. In terms of policy, I argue that strengthening the functional build-up of
TISs is crucial to increase the diffusion of renewable energy technologies in Africa. This requires gaining insights into
the functioning of TISs. To this end, I provide a simplified framework for evaluating the functional performance of
renewable energy TISs in Africa.

Keywords: diffusion of renewable energy technologies, technological innovation systems, functions approach, Africa

Introduction
Lack of access to modern energy services is among the
daunting development challenges affecting a significant
proportion of the world’s population. Recent figures
show that 40% of the global population lack affordable
and reliable modern energy services (Kumar, Chalise,
and Yadama 2016). Over 1.6 billion people do not have
access to electricity; and 2.4 billion people exclusively
depend on traditional biomass energy sources (e.g.
animal dung and firewood) for cooking and lighting pur-
poses (Kaygusuz 2012). Across the sub-Saharan African
region, in particular, at least 585 million people do not
have access to electricity as of 2010 (OECD/IEA 2010).
Pertinent to estimated population growth and projected
rate of electrification from 2009 to 2030, the number of
people in sub-Saharan Africa without access to electricity
is expected to grow to 652 million (OECD/IEA 2010).
The cost of energy production and provision through
conventional energy systems (e.g. grid-based rural electri-
fication) is continuously increasing, and it remains costly
for many poor countries. Subsidizing fossil fuel, for
example, has often led to government budget deficit in
key public services, such as education, healthcare and
water supply (REN21 2010). This indicates that it is chal-
lenging to address the modern energy demands of the poor
through conventional energy systems alone. In this regard,
technologies, which (efficiently) convert renewable,
locally available and easily accessible resources to
thermal, mechanical and electrical energy, also called
renewable energy technologies, have widely been
regarded as potential solutions. Indeed, the role of renew-
able energy technologies as a source of decentralized
energy to the poor has historically won the approval and
support of many international development agencies
(Flavin and Aeck 2010).
Considerable effort has been made on promoting
renewable energy technologies in the sub-Saharan
African region (see Africa–EU Energy Partnership 2016
for a list of energy initiatives and programmes as
example). Despite the efforts and notable social and econ-
omic advantages of renewable energy technologies, there
are few examples of fully functioning, competitive and
mature renewable energy technology markets self-sus-
tained by local entrepreneurs and public agencies.
Indeed, the penetration rate of innovative small-scale
renewable energy technologies, such as domestic bio-
digesters, across the sub-Saharan African region is extre-
mely low (Mshandete and Parawira 2009). This low rate
is contrary to a large potential for bio-digestion present
in the region (Brown 2006). For instance, whereas there
is a technical potential for 1.2 million units of domestic
bio-digesters in Kenya (Heegde and Sonder 2007),
Mshandete and Parawira (2009) reported that as of 2007
there were only about 500 functional units, representing
a little over 0.04% of the country’s technical potential.
Insights from Ghana suggest that this is likely because
of, inter alia, the high initial cost of bio-digesters com-
pared with the income of most rural households, a lack
of awareness about the benefits of biogas technology,
limited technical capacity leading to poor design and con-
struction, and a lack of supportive policy (see Bensah and
Brew-Hammond 2010).
Due to increasing recognition of the potential role that
renewable energy technologies can play in meeting the
energy needs of the poor, and ensuring environmental sus-
tainability, there is a reviving interest, growing optimism
and increasing effort by many international agencies and
local governments to support the broader diffusion and
adoption of these technologies. A typical effort of this
kind is the Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) initiat-
ive, which aims to achieve universal access to electricity
and clean cooking solutions and double the share of the
world’s energy supplied by renewable sources from 18%
in 2010 to 36% by 2030.1 For these and future efforts to
succeed, it is crucial to understand the underlying mechan-
isms influencing the diffusion and adoption of renewable
energy technologies and design appropriate intervention
strategies.

African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development is co-published by NISC Pty (Ltd) and Informa Limited (trading as Taylor & Francis Group)
616 Tigabu
The purpose of this paper is three-fold. First, I will
argue that renewable energy promotion interventions in
Africa should follow a systematic approach that takes
into account not only technological factors and beneficiary
characteristics but also the institutional context in which
technologies, technology suppliers and adopters are
embedded. Second, I briefly review four case studies in
the East African context and show that institutional func-
tioning around new renewable energy technologies
explains the low level of diffusion of such technologies.
Finally, I will provide a simplified framework for evaluat-
ing the institutional context of renewable energy technol-
ogies Africa.
Analytical approaches for innovation and diffusion
Many previous studies on the diffusion and adoption of
small-scale renewable energy technologies, such as
improved cookstoves, in sub-Saharan African countries
have emphasized user or community characteristics and
technical attributes that determine adoption decisions.
The major focus has been on the adopter’s socioeconomic
and demographic profile, such as income, age, gender and
education, as well as on the failure of the technology to
meet the specific needs of households, cost aspects and
technical problems (see e.g. El Tayeb Muneer and
Mukhtar Mohamed 2003; Walekhwa, Mugisha, and
Drake 2009; Gebreegziabher et al. 2012). These studies
generally tend to explain low level of diffusion and adop-
tion of innovations focusing on market factors, i.e. price/
performance ratio of a new technology. However, due to
its inability to take into account all the key factors that
influence technology development, diffusion and utiliz-
ation, the neo-classical ‘market failure’ approach, having
a tendency of making policy prescriptions to individual
‘market failures’, has been criticized as insufficient or
too narrow for policy interventions (Carlsson and Jacobs-
son 1994; Bergek 2002; Bergek et al. 2008).
Historically, there were two major policy-oriented
reactions, which challenged the market failure approach
to the promotion of technologies in the context of develop-
ing countries (Kaplinsky 2011). The first was the Sussex
Manifesto (Singer et al. 1970) – a policy draft by a
group of social researchers at the Science Policy Research
Unit (SPRU) and the Institute of Development Studies at
Sussex University. This manifesto underscored the impor-
tance of ‘science and technology’ for innovation and long-
term economic development. It stressed the need for insti-
tutional changes while simultaneously enhancing research
and (experimental) development (R&D) capacity of devel-
oping countries. In this regard, it called for developing
countries to allocate about 0.5% of their GDP for R&D
and developed countries to direct their aid and some part
of their own research to the needs of developing countries
(Clark et al. 2009; Kaplinsky 2011). However, its increas-
ing influence led to emphasis on R&D without much focus
on building the requisite competence of users to apply
innovations and harness technological benefits (Clark
et al. 2009; Kaplinsky 2011).
The second was the ‘Appropriate Technology’ – a
movement, which argued that the characteristics and
appropriateness of a technology to the contexts of
developing countries determine success or failure of adop-
tion of new technologies (Kaplinsky 2011). Based on this,
appropriate technologies were assumed to have character-
istics of labor-intensiveness, simple to use and cheap to
buy, among others (Akubue 2000). The appropriate tech-
nology movement influenced donors and non-governmen-
tal organizations, leading them to adopt technology-
focused project planning and implementation approaches
since the 1970s (Kaplinsky 2011). However, the move-
ment failed to attain its desired goals; and it has recently
been declared ‘dead’2 by some technology activists (see
e.g. Polak 2010).
Contrary to the neo-classical and technology-focused
perspectives and the high degree of emphasis put on
R&D by the Sussex Manifesto, modern innovation
theory advocates a holistic and an evolutionary approach.3
This approach puts the importance of absorption capacity,
role of various interactive organizations, institutions and
socioeconomic, historical and political contexts and path
dependency among central determinants of the develop-
ment, diffusion and use of new technologies (see e.g.
Freeman 1987; Lundvall 1992; Edquist and Johnson
1997). It claims that the diffusion and adoption of technol-
ogies need to be seen as part of the innovation process, and
involve both individual and collective efforts (Jacobsson
and Johnson 2000; Jacobsson and Bergek 2004). This
implies that the diffusion process is not exclusively deter-
mined by firm or consumer level factors and/or techno-
logical attributes. It is also determined by the wider
socioeconomic and institutional environment in which
firms and consumers are embedded (Jacobsson and
Bergek 2004; Negro 2007). This includes the quality of
interaction and interactive learning among several knowl-
edge creating, diffusing, using and supporting agencies,
such as research institutes, government ministries, univer-
sities, industries and investment banks (Jacobsson and
Johnson 2000). Hence, introduction, diffusion and utiliz-
ation of a new technology or production process occurs
in a context of several interacting actors and institutions,
which can be best depicted as a ‘system’4 – the so-called
an ‘innovation system’ (Negro 2007). If we want to under-
stand the factors that induce or hamper the diffusion of
new technologies, ‘ … it is the character of this system
that we need to comprehend’ (Bergek 2002, 19). Policy
interventions to improve development and diffusion of
technologies, therefore, need to aim at addressing
‘system failures’ as opposed to addressing only ‘market
imperfections’ (Woolthuis, Lankhuizen, and Gilsing
2005).
Freeman (1987, 1) defined an innovation system as ‘
… network of institutions in the public and private
sector whose activities and interactions initiate, import
and diffuse new technologies.’ The innovation systems
framework (having roots in evolutionary, institutional
economic and interactive learning theories) recognizes
that a technology development, diffusion and adoption
process is determined by the nature of actors, their activi-
ties and interactions, as well as institutions (Jacobsson and
Johnson 2000; Negro, Hekkert, and Smits 2008). If one is
interested in designing an intervention instrument that can
accelerate the diffusion and adoption of a renewable
 African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 617
energy technology, it is important that the innovation
system associated with it is analyzed and an insight into
its performance is generated (Bergek 2002; Hekkert
et al. 2007).
The innovation system framework has emerged into
different branches that share a common ideological root
(i.e. the view of innovation having ‘systemic character-
istics’; Lundvall et al. 2002, 215) but take different
analytical units. A widely known model of innovation
system is a system delineated over a nation’s boundary
called national innovation system (NIS) (see e.g. Lund-
vall 1992). Another related approach, with a territorial
delineation, is regional innovation system framework
(RIS) (see Cooke, Gomez, and Etxebarria 1997;
Maskell and Malmberg 1999). A different framework
that does not take geographical delineation, but is
bounded around an industrial or economic sector, the
so-called sectoral innovation system (SIS), has been
added (see Breschi and Malerba 1997; Malerba 2005).
Finally, a rather narrow system delineation that is not
necessarily limited to a boundary of a particular
country, region or sector, also called a technological
innovation system (TIS) has also been introduced (see
Negro 2007; Hekkert et al. 2007; Bergek et al. 2008;
Jacobsson 2008; Suurs and Hekkert 2009).
A TIS is a system built around a particular technology.
Being a technology-specific innovation system implies
that it is less complex than national, regional or sectoral
innovation systems in terms of diversity of actors and
density of networks or institutions (Hekkert and Negro
2009). This is particularly true for an innovation system
corresponding to a specific technology being newly intro-
duced to a new setting (Negro 2007). This makes it prac-
tical and appropriate to examine characteristics,
performance and evolutionary transformation of a
system in detail (Jacobsson and Johnson 2000; Bergek
2002; Hekkert et al. 2007).
The TIS framework also puts an emphasis on systemic
determinants of a new technology diffusion (as opposed to
a new technology generation) arguing that ‘ … new tech-
nologies are significant only in so far as they carry econ-
omic weight, i.e. they diffuse extensively and, in this
process, displace inferior technologies’ (Carlsson and
Jacobsson 1994, 236). Carlsson et al. (2002, 237) have
also strengthened this view stating that
… the main focus [in applying the TIS approach] is on
how well the system can identify, absorb, and exploit
global technological opportunities. This means, e.g. that
it may be more important to raise absorptive capacity
than to create new technology.
The emphasis on the role of TIS on competence build-
ing, i.e. enabling firms and other actors to successfully
acquire and assimilate technologies, has been coupled
with a major theoretical development in which TISs are
related to ‘general systems theory’ (Hekkert and Negro
2009, 585). This is the claim that innovation systems
perform key activities and processes that contribute to
the overall performance of an innovation system, i.e. the
development, diffusion and adoption of a technology
(Jacobsson and Johnson 2000). These activities and
processes are labelled as ‘functions of innovation
systems’ (Hekkert et al. 2007; Bergek et al. 2008; Jacobs-
son 2008). Different scholars have proposed somewhat
varying types of system functions since the emergence
of the concept. Hekkert et al. (2007), for example, pro-
vided a detailed review on seven system functions that a
well-functioning TIS is likely to fulfil. This list includes
entrepreneurial activities, knowledge development, knowl-
edge diffusion, guidance of search, resource mobilization,
market formation and creation of legitimacy.
Existing literature also shows that these functions tend
to reinforce one another; i.e. fulfilment of one function
causes the fulfilment of other function/s, leading to ‘virtu-
ous cycles’ (Bergek 2002; Jacobsson and Bergek 2004;
Hekkert et al., 2007). The interaction can also be negative.
In this case, a negative function influences other functions
negatively, leading to a downward spiral of causations,
also called ‘vicious cycles’ (Negro 2007).
Researchers indicate that by mapping the functions
and their interactions over time, insights into the strengths
and weaknesses of TISs can be gleaned, and determinants
of technological change can be identified. This has created
a unique perspective to analyzing and describing TISs
through their achieved functional patterns, labelled as
the ‘functions of innovation systems’ approach (Hekkert
et al. 2007; Bergek et al. 2008).
The ‘functions of innovation systems’ approach has
extensively been applied for analyzing the dynamics of
TISs of sustainable energy technologies in European
countries5 (e.g. Hekkert, Harmsen, and De Jong 2007;
Negro and Hekkert 2008; Negro, Hekkert, and Smits
2008; Negro, Suurs, and Hekkert 2008b; Hekkert and
Negro 2009; Suurs and Hekkert 2009; Suurs, Hekkert,
and Smits 2009; Van Alphen, Hekkert, and Turkenburg
2009). The key insights from these studies are related to
the claim that seven functions and virtuous cycle of inter-
actions among them are important for the buildup of a
system as well as for a successful development and diffu-
sion of (sustainable) technologies.
Functioning of innovation systems and diffusion of
renewable energy technologies in developing
countries – a brief review of cases from Kenya and
Rwanda
Recently, some case studies have been conducted in devel-
oping countries that mapped the emergence and evolution
of TISs. In the following, I will briefly introduce the his-
torical case studies and subsequently highlight major
insights from the functional analyses of biogas and
improved cookstove TIS in Rwanda and Kenya (reported
in Tigabu, Berkhout, and van Beukering 2015a, 2015b,
2015c, 2017 for the details).
Biogas TIS in Rwanda emerged in the late 1990s when
bio-digestion was introduced to alleviate the human waste
challenge in Rwandan prisons. The early niche appli-
cations in prisons triggered feasibility assessments in
other sectors in mid-2000s.Positive feasibility assessments
triggered the emergence of diversified activities in 2008
that continued up to 2011.
Biogas TIS in Kenya emerged in late 1950s through
isolated experimentations of few entrepreneurs. The
618 Tigabu
range of actors and their activities increased in the late
1970s triggered by decreasing biomass resources in
Kenya. In the early 2000s, supportive policy directions
began to emerge with a corresponding increase in the
entry of diversified actors and provision of biogas activi-
ties up to 2010.
The Kenyan improved cookstove TIS emerged in the
late 1970s, following the recognition that wood biomass
supplies were associated with environmental concerns.
Up to 1983, major improved cookstove actors in Kenya
focused their activities on development and introduction
of charcoal burning stoves in urban areas. The subsequent
focus was on diversifying the introduction of improved
cookstoves to rural areas in which development of wood
burning stove models and training of rural stove producers
were emphasized. Finally, since the early 1990s to 2010,
the focus of actors shifted to strengthening the penetration
of improved rural cookstoves.
The Rwandan improved cookstove TIS emerged in the
early 1980s, following the looming household energy
crisis due to the rapid depletion of biomass resources in
the countryside. Emergent actors around improved cook-
stoves and conducted stove promotion and field-testing
activities and training of stove producers. However, insti-
tutional activities around improved cookstoves completely
collapsed and remained halted for the next several years
due to the political and economic discontinuity created
by the ethnicity-led genocide and civil war in 1994.
Stove activities re-emerged in the mid-2000s and contin-
ued to 2010 triggered by the rising fuelwood and charcoal
price in Rwanda.
A detailed functional analysis of the biogas innovation
system in Rwanda reveals that a range of actors, networks
and institutions have fulfilled a large number of activities
and processes that can be ascribed to existing system func-
tions proposed by Hekkert et al. (2007). The historical
evolution of Rwandan biogas events also shows a func-
tional pattern in which the guidance of search function
was relatively well fulfilled. Assessment of the perceived
functioning of the Rwandan biogas innovation system
through expert interviews confirms the event-based evalu-
ation, in which the guidance of search function is viewed
as well fulfilled. Observed weaknesses in the other func-
tions are explained by blockages found within the struc-
tural and contextual setting of the Rwandan biogas
innovation system. The study also showed that imbal-
anced and weak accumulation of system functions is
associated with a failure to meet diffusion targets, creating
a preliminary insight into the link between the functioning
of technological innovation systems and achieved diffu-
sion levels in developing countries. Furthermore, a com-
parative analysis of the Rwandan and Kenyan biogas
and improved cookstove innovation systems further con-
firmed that as more functions accumulate and positive
interaction among them materializes, a higher diffusion
rate of technologies is observed.
Comparison of the observed functional patterns among
the four TISs shows no similarity with functional patterns
along technological or institutional dimensions. The
Rwandan biogas innovation system shows relatively
rapid functional buildup, with the guidance of search
function playing a dominant role. In the same country,
the improved cookstove innovation system’s functional
evolution is slow and fragmented, with knowledge diffu-
sion function relatively well attended. In the Kenyan
cases, knowledge diffusion function is dominant.
However, the rate and specific patterns of functional devel-
opments are dissimilar. Although the observed patterns are
unique for each technological innovation system, detailed
examination of the functional evolution of the four techno-
logical innovation systems shows that contextual factors
(i.e. other actors and institutions which are not part of
the local TIS, such as development partners) are more
important drivers of functional accumulation than techno-
logical factors and internal dynamics (interaction of func-
tions). Indeed, the role of international development
assistance in the functioning of the four innovation
systems is evident. However, the relative importance of
the external context seems to decline over time as the tech-
nological innovation systems mature, balanced accumu-
lation of functions materializes and clear interactions
among increasingly institutionalized system functions
emerge. In such cases, local institutional arrangements
and actors increasingly provide key functions, increasing
the sustained diffusion and uptake of the renewable
energy technologies.
In general, the four case studies offer insights into the
applicability of the functions approach to innovation
systems to examine TISs in the African context. The
studies reveal that balanced accumulation of innovation
systems is key for sustained uptake and adoption of renew-
able energy technologies in developing countries. The fact
that TISs are unique in their functional evolution means
that ‘one-size fits all’ policy approach is unlikely to
work for interventions aiming to influence such systems.
Additionally, the observation that the early functional
development of TISs is susceptible to contextual factors
means that targeted external policy measures are important
in shaping the evolutionary growth of TISs. Therefore,
evaluation of TIS functionality and developing system-
specific intervention strategies are decisive to influence
the diffusion and adoption of renewable energy technol-
ogies in Africa.
Simplified TIS-functional diagnostic framework for
renewable energy technologies in Africa
I have suggested that facilitating the diffusion and uptake
of renewable energy technologies in developing countries
necessitates the buildup of TISs; and policy measures
should play this role. The relevant question is how?
A first step towards strengthening the functional
buildup of TISs is identifying the weaknesses of a TIS
by evaluating the extent to which a TIS has achieved func-
tional accumulation. However, there are no readily avail-
able and straightforward evaluation guidelines for
policymakers to help them assess the functional strengths
and weaknesses of TISs in Africa. Following the experi-
ences of mapping and analyzing the Rwandan and
Kenyan biogas and improved cookstove TISs, I will
suggest a highly simplified framework that analysts may
use to evaluate the functioning of TISs built around
specific renewable energy technologies in Africa.6
 African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 619
Guidelines for analyzing the functional dynamics of
TISs (suited to the western industrial context) have been
developed. For example, Bergek et al. (2008) have pro-
vided a scheme for analyzing TIS and Hekkert et al.
(2007) have expanded the theoretical basis of the ‘func-
tions approach’ to TIS, including a longitudinal method-
ology to analyze the dynamics of TIS called ‘process
analysis’. The tool of assessment I am proposing here
incorporates the key concepts and insights of Hekkert
et al. (2007), Bergek et al. (2008), Hekkert et al. (2011)
and van Alphen (2011). However, it is adapted and
(highly) simplified to meet the African small-scale renew-
able energy context based on empirical analyses of biogas
and improved cookstove TIS in Rwanda and Kenya (see
Tigabu, Berkhout, and van Beukering 2015a, 2015b,
2015c, 2017).
This framework is fundamentally based on the evi-
dence that higher functionality is associated with increased
diffusion of technologies (as stated in the previous
section). Thus, the starting point for evaluation is that all
the functions (or as many of them as possible) should be
sufficiently fulfilled to ensure the development of a TIS
and nurture the diffusion of sustainable technologies.7,8
Based on this, the aim of the assessment tool is to demon-
strate to what extent an emerging TIS has achieved func-
tional accumulation (i.e. skills, awareness, interactions,
resources, legitimacy, power, incentives, expectations,
entrepreneurial experiences, and so on), taking into
account past and ongoing activities and processes.9,10
However, it may be the case that some functions are
relatively more important than others, depending on the
level of maturity of the TIS (Tigabu, Berkhout, and van
Beukering 2015c). Tigabu, Berkhout, and van Beukering
(2015c) labelled TISs based on observations in the East
African context as weak, emerging and mature. Weak
TISs are characterized by the presence of only few weak
functions (majority missing), whereas emergent TISs are
typified by the presence of many of the functions while
only few are well addressed. On the other hand, mature
TISs are characterized by the presence of all seven func-
tions with sufficient intensity and interactions. The
authors further suggest that for weak TISs, where the tech-
nology is in its early stage of development, knowledge
development and knowledge diffusion functions are rela-
tively more important while other functions play a suppor-
tive role. For emergent TISs in which locally relevant
technology is in place but its market is not developed, gui-
dance of search, market creation, resource mobilization
and entrepreneurial activities functions are more important
than knowledge development and diffusion.11
The assessment has five steps (Figure 1). The firsts
step is mapping the historical activities and processes
around the specific technology using specific indicators.
The second step is weighing functional fulfilment
through expert evaluations. The third step is gaining
insights into the functional strengths and weaknesses of
the TIS by comparing results from the first and second
steps.
The fourth step is concerned with identifying func-
tional failures and corresponding ‘blocking mechanisms’.
Finally, the fifth step proposes policy measures that may
Figure 1: Proposed steps in evaluating the functioning of TISs in
the sub-Saharan context (see also Hekkert et al. (2011).
rectify the functional failures and strengthen the functional
successes.
I believe that functional evaluation is not necessarily a
one-time activity (Figure 1 shows that the steps are circu-
lar). Functional assessments need to be done repeatedly
since the development and diffusion of renewable
energy technologies (and, as such, building TISs) is essen-
tially a long-term endeavour. The assessment steps are
described in detail as follows.
Step 1: Map system functions served by the TIS using
indicators
The first step in evaluating an existing TIS is mapping the
functional evolution of the emerging TIS, including func-
tions emerging from its context.12This involves retrieving
major historical activities of actors and the influence of
institutions and interactions around the technology in
focus. These activities and processes are manifested as
‘events’. Data on the major events in the context of devel-
oping countries can be collected through archival investi-
gation and conducting interviews. Documents that can be
suitable are project reports, government policy documents,
newspapers, trade press, brochures, scientific articles, pub-
lished books, magazines, policy briefs and website infor-
mation. Potential sources of archival data can include
government ministries, non-governmental organizations
implementing projects, international organizations
funding projects, technology research institutes, think
tanks and experts working in technology in focus and so
on. For interviews, key informants who are knowledge-
able about the historical aspects of the development and
diffusion of the technology can be identified by using a
snowballing technique. These informants need to be repre-
sentative actors in the entire technology value chain who
are active around the technology. Experts and governmen-
tal and non-governmental officials can also be potential
sources of information.
While reviewing documents, emphasis should be
placed on the activities contributed by actors and the
620 Tigabu

direct or indirect influence of institutions around the
specific technology that are ‘reported at system level’
(Hekkert et al. 2007, 427). Likewise, during interviews,
it is wise to require participants to recall major events
related to the development and diffusion of the specific
technology in the focal country retrospectively. In both
strategies, acquiring details of events is important, by
tracing their sources, features and outcomes. Useful diag-
nostic questions may include: Who performed the
activity? Why was it performed? When? Up to what
time? Where? With whom? Who funded it? What did it
result in? What activity followed it? and so on.
Detailed information may not be collected through inter-
views or document reviews alone, since interviewees’ mem-
ories might be limited and biased, and past activities might
not be sufficiently documented. It may be useful to use infor-
mation from interviews to locate other data from documen-
ted sources, and vice versa. Through such iterations,
information will be triangulated and factuality and reason-
able detail will be ensured. This does not mean that every
event that happened around the technology in the selected
national context needs to be collected. That is practically
impossible and perhaps unnecessary. It is rather useful to
capture major events/activities that have directly or
indirectly contributed to or influenced the development
and diffusion of the technology in question (Hekkert et al.
2007). Data collection should continue until the major
event is exhausted and a complete picture of what has hap-
pened around the technology emerges (Bergek et al. 2008).
Once the longitudinal events are thoroughly collected,
they need to be organized, refined, coded and ascribed to
the system functions. This can be done by using the
specific indicators provided in Table 1. These indicators
are developed deductively based on observations of TISs
emerging in East Africa (see Tigabu, Berkhout, and van
Beukering 2015a, 323).
To illustrate how event data can be organized and
coded to the functions, examples of activity data, corre-
sponding indicators and ascribed functions are provided
in Table 2 by taking actual sample data from biogas diffu-
sion in Kenya.
Additionally, with the collected event data a historical
description can be produced that shows the dynamics of
the system in terms of its functional evolution as well as
the influences of internal and external factors. The histori-
cal narrative13can then be grouped into periods of

Table 1: Functions and their indicators for small-scale renewable energy TISs in East Africa

Function Indicator activities

Entrepreneurial activities
. Technology manufacturing and/or installing
. Entry of firms/producers
Knowledge development
. Conducting market surveys/feasibility studies/pilots
. Performance testing; developing promotional materials
. Developing new designs/prototypes
. Adapting or modifying new models
. Developing complementary technologies
. Assessing energy use trends
. Assessing the presence of resources for fuel
. Assessing availability of raw materials for technology production
. Conducting impact assessments
Knowledge diffusion
. Training (of technicians or constructors)
. Conducting awareness campaigns
. Organizing conferences/workshops/seminars/meetings
. Demonstrations and exhibitions
Guidance of the search
. Setting targets
. Designing favourable regulations and policies
. Setting expectations
. Providing awards
. Providing directions/showing interest
. Publicizing research outcomes
Market formation
. Subsidization (sharing the cost of investment)
. Standardization
. Setting tax incentives
. Public procurement
. Regulatory reform
Resource mobilization
. Providing financial incentives, grants (funding)
. Providing loans (credit)
. Mobilizing human resources, such as hiring consultants and technical staff
. Providing improved tools (equipment)
Creation of legitimacy
. Conducting advocacy activities (lobbying)
 African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 621

Table 2: An example of systematically organized data coded into activity types and functions.

Activity type/
Year Event data Source indicator Function
1983 The German Technical Cooperation Gichohi, P. (2009). Training Knowledge
organization (GTZ) officially started Analysis of the Market Potential for technicians diffusion
promoting biogas in Kenya by launching a Domestic Biogas in Rural Kenya
training programme for technicians in Supported by GTZ-PSDA. Ministry of
collaboration with the then Ministry of Agriculture, EU-GTZ Biogas promotion,
Energy and Regional Development under the Nairobi, Kenya.
Special Energy Program (GTZ-SEP).

1984 The Special Energy Program (SEP) of the KENDBIP (Kenya National Domestic Conducting Knowledge
Ministry of Energy conducted a biogas Biogas Program), (2011). Socio-economic survey development
survey in 1984 and found that of the 160 and Gender Baseline Survey for the Kenya
plants installed in the country, only 25% were National Domestic Biogas Program
operational. (KENDBIP). Final Baseline Survey Report,
Nairobi, Kenya.

relatively different functional patterns or episodes based
on major changes in the functional dynamics over time.
The pattern and past accumulation of functions would
then be identified; however, this will require some creativ-
ity to develop the functional map of the TIS based on func-
tions per year or per episode. In the analyses of the Kenyan
and the Rwandan improved cookstove and biogas TISs,
for example, circle diagrams were used to illustrate the
accumulation of functions over time. To do so, the
authors considered that as the functions emerge they
develop capability, which can be accumulated. This
allowed the authors to make a simplified assumption that
as an additional event corresponding to a particular func-
tion emerges, it will add some capability. Subsequently,
circle diagrams of cumulative functional accumulation
per episode are developed, in which the accumulated capa-
bility in an episode is the sum of corresponding events per
year in each category of functions. The cumulative
accumulation, at the last episode, provides insights into
the current functional strength and weaknesses of the TIS.
Step 2: Measure functionality of the TIS through
expert interviews
Above, I described an event-based assessment technique.
This conceptualization has several limitations. For
example, while the accumulated functions on the basis
of events per year calculation may give the sense of what
has happened quasi-quantitatively, their actual strength
may not be captured. This is because, in some cases, one
event may be stronger than several events; and too many
events may not have sufficient significance and vice
versa. This means that some augmenting insight into the
perceived strength of the functional accumulation may be
an additional asset. This can be done by evaluating the per-
ceived intensity of functional accumulation. This assess-
ment involves undertaking structured interviews with
experts. For each system function, a generalized and simpli-
fied measurement proxy is identified to easily communicate
the functions to interviewees (Table 3). For example, to
evaluate the intensity of the guidance of search function,
experts can be asked to rate their expectation of business
growth around the specified technology in the focal country.
The collected data would then allow for calculating the
mean of the perceived functionality score. Based on the
mean figures, a spider diagram can be drawn (see also
Hekkert et al. 2011). Figure 2, for example, shows an
example of a TIS with the entrepreneurial activities,
knowledge development, resource mobilization and
market formation functions perceived as sufficiently ful-
filled whereas the remaining functions are shown as
weakly served.

Table 3: Simplified scheme for perceived functionality assessment (see also Tigabu, Berkhout, and van Beukering 2015a, 325).

System functions General measurement proxya Measurement scale

Guidance of search Expectations on the business growth (around the technology) 0 = None at all, … , 4 = Very
good
Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial intensity (around the technology) 0 = None at all, … , 4 = Very
activities good
Knowledge diffusion Intensity of promotion or general awareness of the society about the benefits 0 = None at all, … , 4 = Very
of the (new) technology good
Knowledge Intensity of research and development (around the technology) 0 = No growth at all, … , 4 =
development Very good growth
Creation of legitimacy/ Intensity of advocacy activities (around the technology) 0 = Not sufficient at all, … ,
Advocacy 4 = Sufficient
Resource mobilization Availability of resources needed for the (new) technology promotion or 0 = Not sufficient at all, … ,
sufficiency of resources mobilized for the development/diffusion of the 4 = Sufficient
technology
Market formation Sufficiency of market forming incentives (around the technology) 0 = None at all, … , 4 = Very
high
a
These proxies are highly simplified and should not be considered as complete to provide a full measure of the fulfilment of each function. Nevertheless,
combined with the event-based assessment, they will provide insights into the perceived intensity of each function.
622 Tigabu
Figure 2: Spider diagram illustrating the functional fulfilment of
an example TIS
Step 3: Identify weaknesses by comparing results from
Step 1 and Step 2
Once the data from longitudinal and structured question-
naires are analyzed, the results from the two are compared
to identify weak functions. This will show current
strengths and weaknesses of the TIS in terms of its func-
tional performance. At this stage, it is useful to get insights
into the maturity of the system, as not all weak or missing
functions may be problematic. The subsequent step is to
identify the mechanisms contributing to the observed
weaknesses or blockages.
Step 4: Capture the blockages for the weak and highly
needed functions
While assessing the functional status quo of a TIS, it is
important to identify the mechanisms that block the develop-
ment of weak functions. These blockages are either internal
to the TIS (i.e. related to the actors, institutions, relationships
and markets specific to the technology) or external to the TIS
(emerging from the context, such as other innovation
systems). Table 4 provides brief example blockages for
two functions in the Rwandan bio-digestion TIS.
Step 5: propose systemic policy instruments
Once the underlying mechanisms for the absence or weak-
ness of functions are identified, the analyst can turn to pro-
posing policy measures that may rectify the obstacles. For
example, in the case of the limited knowledge diffusion
function of the Rwandan biogas TIS (provided in
Table 4), the analyst can propose (practical) measures
Table 4: Example of blockages to selected TIS functions
hindering bio-digestion diffusion in Rwanda (Tigabu, Berkhout,
and van Beukering 2015a).
Functions Blockages: why is a function weak?
Knowledge diffusion
. Lack of networking platforms
. Lack of communication and road
infrastructure
. Weak interactions amomg biogas
actors
Entrepreneurial
activities . Underdeveloped entrepreneurial spirit
. Lack of articulated demand for biogas
. Presence of other profitable industries
that can rectify the three identified obstacles. These
could include setting up a platform for biogas companies,
such as biogas associations, where they share information
and resources, strengthening communication facilities and
enhancing linkages and interactions among biogas
stakeholders.
Concluding remarks
Introduction of renewable energy technologies has long
been considered as a desirable alternative to address
energy poverty and environmental non-sustainability in
Africa. Despite several decades of development efforts,
diffusion of renewable energy technologies in Africa
remains marginal. Yet many international aid donors and
national governments have increasingly allocated funds
to promote renewable energy in Africa. For these and
other efforts to succeed, focused and efficient intervention
strategies are critical. Existing literature on the diffusion of
renewable energy technologies in Africa provides insights
into the technical, socioeconomic and demographic factors
that determine adoption decisions. However, it falls short
on the crucial role of the institutional context. As such,
enabling policies related to the institutional context have
not been sufficiently articulated.
In this paper, I have argued that the functions approach
to technological innovation systems is an important mechan-
ism to gain insights into the institutional context of the diffu-
sion and adoption of renewable energy technologies in
Africa. Indeed, earlier empirical studies have shown a
relationship between the functioning of innovation systems
and rate of technology diffusion and adoption in developing
countries. It is therefore vital that emerging and ongoing
initiatives, aiming at ensuring sustainable energy access
for all, consider employing such approaches in their policy
interventions if they wish to achieve their far-reaching goals.
Notes
1. See http://www.se4all.org/tracking-progress/ for more on
the SE4ALL initiative and its tracking framework.
2. According to Kaplinsky (2011, 200), the general reasons
attributable to the failure of Appropriate Technology are
… first, there was a shortage of entrepreneurship in
low-income countries. Second, the capabilities
required to develop new ideas for innovation were
thinly spread globally, overwhelmingly concentrated
in high-income countries. [And], third, the absence
of effective demand in low income countries in
general, and by poor consumers in particular.
3. Note that despite high attention to R&D, the ‘Sussex Mani-
festo’ is widely regarded as predecessor in highlighting
modern theory of innovation to policymakers in develop-
ing countries.
4. A system is a set of interrelated elements working toward a
common objective. The elements of an innovation system
are actors, networks and institutions, whose actions and
interactions contribute to the system’s ultimate objective,
i.e. the generation, dissemination and utilization of a new
technology (Carlsson and Stankiewicz 1991).
5. It is worth noting that in the ‘functions of innovation
systems’ approach, the TIS theoretical framework is
often employed as an analytical construct for the purpose
of research. That is, innovation systems are viewed as enti-
ties that may not exist as objective realities, but are heuris-
tic constructs that serve as a focusing device for research.
This has allowed creating insights into the dynamics and
 African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 623
building up of TISs at their early stage of emergence
through their functions (see Bergek et al. 2008 for more
elaboration on this notion).
6. Technology in the context of this framework represents a
particular product or group of highly related products, pro-
viding energy services. Examples of such technologies can
be solar PV panels, bio-digesters and improved cooking
technologies.
7. Determining the ‘sufficiency’ of a function served remains
normative and relative to each function. I have attempted to
address this by using mixed strategies of mapping of actual
events and perceived intensity of fulfilments by experts.
Indeed lack of precise determination of the optimal level
of functionality at different stages of TIS’s evolution that
results in greater innovative performance is one of the chal-
lenges that is yet to be dealt by empirical studies (Bergek
2008; Jacobsson and Bergek 2011; van Alphen 2011).
8. There may be exceptions. For example, if the technology is
imported, knowledge development activities might be
limited to adapting to local circumstances.
9. Note that what is intended is to capture the strength of the
fulfilment of each function. While the interactions of the
functions are important, some evidence suggests that
such dynamics is unlikely to significantly materialise at
early stage of TIS development in least-developed
countries (Tigabu, Berkhout, and van Beukering 2015c).
10. The activities and processes are fulfilled by the system.
However, practically, they are related to the structural com-
ponents of the TIS, i.e. actors (public or private, govern-
mental or non-governmental organizations and
individuals). They are also related to the interactions
among actors and institutions (policies, rules, regulations,
culture, beliefs, norms, routines and so on) for the develop-
ment and/or diffusion and adoption of the technology in
focus in the specified country (Jacobsson and Johnson
2000; Edquist 2001).
11. See also Hekkert et al. (2011) for more elaborate propositions
on stages and functional fulfilment requirements that may be
more relevant for western industrial contexts than small-scale
renewable energy sectors in developing countries.
12. Mapping the structural components (i.e. actors, linkages
and institutions and technological factors) are not included
in this evaluation. This is because different TISs with com-
pletely different structural components may function simi-
larly and vice versa. However, if one is still interested in
gaining insights into the types and arrangements of struc-
tural elements of TISs, structural analysis can also be
included (see Hekkert et al. 2011 for an evaluation frame-
work in which structural analysis is incorporated).
13. It may be useful to share the description with some of the
key informants and gain feedback on the overview of TIS
dynamics generated. This can be instrumental not only to
ensure that the TIS is fully and appropriately depicted
but also to establish communicative validity and reliability
of the mapping process undertaken (Negro 2007).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
References
Africa-EU Energy Partnership. 2016. “Mapping of Energy
Initiatives and Programs in Africa.” http://www.euei-pdf.
org/sites/default/files/field_publication_file/mapping_of_
initiatives_final_report_may_2016.pdf
Akubue, A. 2000. “Appropriate Technology for Socioeconomic
Development in Third World Countries.” The Journal of
Technology Studies 26 (1): 33–43.
Bensah, E. D., and A. Brew-Hammond. 2010. “Biogas
Technology Dissemination in Ghana: History.”
International Journal of Energy and Environment 1 (2):
277–294.
Bergek, A. 2002. “Shaping and Exploiting Technological
Opportunities: The Case of Renewable Energy Technology
in Sweden.” PhD Thesis, Department of Industrial
Dynamics Chalmers University of Technology: Göteborg,
Sweden.
Bergek, A., S. Jacobsson, B. Carlsson, S. Lindmark, and A.
Rickne. 2008. “Analysing the Functional Dynamics of
Technological Innovation Systems.” A Scheme of Analysis
Research Policy 37 (3): 407–429.
Breschi, S., and F. Malerba. 1997. “Sectoral Innovation Systems:
Technological Regimes, Schumpeterian Dynamics, and
Spatial Boundaries.” In Systems of Innovation:
Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, edited by C.
Edquist 130–156. London: Frances Pinter.
Brown, V. 2006. “Biogas: a Bright Idea for Africa.”
Environmental Health Perspectives 114 (5): A300–A303.
Carlsson, B., and S. Jacobsson. 1994. “Technological Systems
and Economic Policy: the Diffusion of Factory Automation
in Sweden.” Research Policy 23 (3): 235–248.
Carlsson, B., S. Jacobsson, M. Holmén, and A. Rickne. 2002.
“Innovation Systems: Analytical and Methodological
Issues.” Research Policy 31: 233–245.
Carlsson, B., and R. Stankiewicz. 1991. “On the Nature,
Function, and Composition of Technological Systems.”
Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1: 93–118.
Clark, N., J. Chataway, R. Hanlin, D. Kale, R. Kaplinsky, L.
Muraguri, T. Papaioannou, P. Robbins, and W. Wamae.
2009. Below the Radar: What Does Innovation in the
Asian Driver Economies Have to Offer Other low-Income
Economies. Economic and Social Research Council.
Accessed October 2013. http://oro.open.ac.uk/15241/1/
Cooke, P., U. M. Gomez, and G. Etxebarria. 1997. “Regional
Innovation Systems: Institutional and Organisational
Dimensions.” Research Policy 26 (4-5): 475–491.
Edquist, C. 2001. “The Systems of Innovation Approach and
Innovation Policy: An Account of the State of the Art.”
Lead paper presented at the DRUID Conference, Aalborg,
June 12-15.
Edquist, C., and B. Johnson. 1997. “Institutions and Organizations
in Systems of Innovation.” In Systems of Innovation –
Technologies, Institutions and Organizations edited by C.
Edquist 41–63. London: Frances Pinter.
El Tayeb Muneer, S., and E. W. Mukhtar Mohamed. 2003.
“Adoption of Biomass Improved Cookstoves in a
Patriarchal Society: an Example From Sudan.” The Science
of the Total Environment 307 (1-3): 259–266.
Flavin, C., and M. H. Aeck. 2010. Energy for Development: The
Potential Role of Renewable Energy in Meeting the
Millennium Development Goals. Worldwatch Institute.
Accessed July 20, 2013. http://www.ren21.net
Freeman, C. 1987. Technology Policy and Economic
Performance: Lessons From Japan. London: Pinter.
Gebreegziabher, Z., A. Mekonnen, M. Kassie, and G. Köhlin.
2012. “Urban Energy Transition and Technology
Adoption: The Case of Tigrai, Northern Ethiopia.” Energy
Economics 34 (2): 410–418.
Heegde, F., and K. Sonder. 2007. “Domestic Biogas in Africa: A
First Assessment of the Potential and Need.” (Draft/
Discussion Paper). Biogas for Better Life: An African
Initiative.
Hekkert, M. P., R. Harmsen, and A. De Jong. 2007. “Explaining
the Rapid Diffusion of Dutch Cogeneration by Innovation
System Functioning.” Energy Policy 35 (9): 4677–4687.
Hekkert, M. P., and S. O. Negro. 2009. “Functions of Innovation
Systems as a Framework to Understand Sustainable
Technological Change: Empirical Evidence for Earlier
Claims.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76
(4): 584–594.
Hekkert, M., S. Negro, G. Heimeriks, and R. Harmsen. 2011.
“Technological Innovation System Analysis: A Manual for
Analysts.” http://www.innovation-system.net/wp-content/
uploads/2013/03/UU_02rapport_Technological_Innovation_
System_Analysis.pdf.
624 Tigabu
Hekkert, M. P., R. A. A. Suurs, S. O. Negro, S. Kuhlmann, and
R. E. H. M. Smits. 2007. “Functions of Innovation Systems:
A New Approach for Analysing Technological Change.”
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74 (4):
413–432.
Jacobsson, S. 2008. “The Emergence and Troubled Growth of a
“Biopower” Innovation System in Sweden.” Energy Policy
36 (4): 1491–1508.
Jacobsson, S., and A. Bergek. 2004. “Transforming the Energy
Sector: the Evolution of Technological Systems in
Renewable Energy Technology.” Industrial and Corporate
Change 13 (5): 815–849.
Jacobsson, S., and A. Bergek. 2011. “Innovation System
Analyses and Sustainability Transitions: Contributions and
Suggestions for Research.” Environmental Innovation and
Societal Transitions 1 (1): 41–57.
Jacobsson, S., and A. Johnson. 2000. “The Diffusion of
Renewable Energy Technology: An Analytical Framework
and key Issues for Research.” Energy Policy 28 (9): 625–640.
Kaplinsky, R. 2011. “Schumacher Meets Schumpeter:
Appropriate Technology Below the Radar.” Research
Policy 40 (2): 193–203.
Kaygusuz, K. 2012. “Energy for Sustainable Development: A
Case of Developing Countries.” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (2): 1116–1126.
Kumar, P., N. Chalise, and G. N. Yadama. 2016. “Dynamics of
Sustained use and Abandonment of Clean Cooking
Systems: Study Protocol for Community-Based System
Dynamics Modeling.” International Journal Equity Health
2016: 1–8.
Lundvall, B.-A. 1992. “Introduction.” In National Systems of
Innovation – Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive
Learning, edited by B.-A. Lundvall. London: Pinter.
Lundvall, B.-Å., B. Johnson, E. S. Andersen, and B. Dalum.
2002. “National Systems of Production, Innovation and
Competence Building.” Research Policy 31 (2): 213–231.
Malerba, F. 2005. “Sectoral Systems of Innovation: a Framework
for Linking Innovation to the Knowledge Base, Structure
and Dynamics of Sectors.” Economics of Innovation and
New Technology 14 (1-2): 63–82.
Maskell, P., and A. Malmberg. 1999. “Localised Learning and
Industrial Competitiveness.” Cambridge Journal of
Economics 23: 167–185.
Mshandete, A., and W. Parawira. 2009. “Biogas Technology
Research in Selected sub-Saharan African Countries–A
Review.” African Journal of Biotechnology 8: 116–125.
Negro, S. O. 2007. “Dynamics of Technological Innovation
Systems: The Case of Biomass Energy.” PhD Thesis,
Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Negro, S. O., and M. P. Hekkert. 2008. “Explaining the Success of
Emerging Technologies by Innovation System Functioning:
the Case of Biomass Digestion in Germany.” Technology
Analysis Strategic Management 20 (4): 465–482.
Negro, S. O., M. P. Hekkert, and R. E. H. M. Smits. 2008.
“Stimulating Renewable Energy Technologies by Innovation
Policy.” Science and Public Policy 35 (6): 403–416.
Negro, S. O., R. A. A. Suurs, and M. P. Hekkert. 2008. “The
Bumpy Road of Biomass Gasification in the Netherlands:
Explaining the Rise and Fall of an Emerging Innovation
System.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75
(1): 57–77.
OECD/IEA. 2010. “World Energy Outlook.” http://www.
worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weo2010.pdf.
Polak, P. 2010. “The Death of Appropriarte Technology I: If You
Can’t Sell It, Don’t Do It.” Accessed April 26, 2013. http://
blog.paulpolak.com/?p=376.
REN21. 2010. Energy for Development: The Potential Role of
Renewable Energy in Meeting the Millennium
Development Goals.
Singer, H., C. Cooper, R. C. Desai, C. Freeman, O. Gish, S. Hill,
and G. Oldham. 1970. “The Sussex Manifesto: Science and
Technology to Developing Countries during the Second
Development Decade.” https://steps-centre.org/
anewmanifesto/manifesto_2010/clusters/cluster1/Sussex_
Manifesto_IDS.pdf.
Suurs, R. A. A., and M. P. Hekkert. 2009. “Cumulative Causation
in the Formation of a Technological Innovation System: The
Case of Biofuels in the Netherlands.” Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 76 (8): 1003–1020.
Suurs, R. A. A., M. P. Hekkert, and R. E. H. M. Smits. 2009.
“Understanding the Build-up of a Technological
Innovation System Around Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
34 (24): 9639–9654.
Tigabu, A. D., F. Berkhout, and P. van Beukering. 2015a.
“Technology Innovation Systems and Technology
Diffusion: Adoption of bio-Digestion in an Emerging
Innovation System in Rwanda.” Technological Forecasting
and Social Change 90 (Part A): 318–330.
Tigabu, A. D., F. Berkhout, and P. van Beukering. 2015b. “The
Diffusion of a Renewable Energy Technology and
Innovation System Functioning: Comparing bio-Digestion
in Kenya and Rwanda.” Technological Forecasting and
Social Change 90: 331–345.
Tigabu, A. D., F. Berkhout, and P. van Beukering. 2015c.
“Functional Evolution and Accumulation of Technological
Innovation Systems: The Case of Renewable Energy in
East Africa.” Science and Public Policy 42 (Part A):
614–631.
Tigabu, A., F. Berkhout, and P. van Beukering. 2017.
“Development aid and the Diffusion of Technology:
Improved Cookstoves in Kenya and Rwanda.” Energy
Policy 102 (January): 593–601.
van Alphen, K. 2011. “Accelerating the Development and
Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies–
An Innovation System Perspective.” PhD Thesis,
Innovation Studies Group, Copernicus Institute for
Sustainable Development and Innovation, Utrecht
University, the Netherlands.
Van Alphen, K., M. P. Hekkert, and W. C. Turkenburg. 2009.
“Comparing the Development and Deployment of Carbon
Capture and Storage Technologies in Norway, the
Netherlands, Australia, Canada and the United States–An
Innovation System Perspective.” Energy Procedia 1 (1):
4591–4599.
Walekhwa, P. N., J. Mugisha, and L. Drake. 2009. “Biogas
Energy From Family-Sized Digesters in Uganda: Critical
Factors and Policy Implications.” Energy Policy 37 (7):
2754–2762.
Woolthuis, K. R., M. Lankhuizen, and V. Gilsing. 2005. “A
System Failure Framework for Innovation Policy Design.”
Technovation 25 (6): 609–619.