1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

3. Results

3.2. Visualisations

3.2.1. Displaced Populations

The visualizations in this section are based on the data sets from [48] and [61] they capture the 30 countries of this study

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) with 6.1 million displaced persons emerges as the country with the highest number followed by Sudan with 4.7 million, while Ethiopia and Uganda host 4.2 million each. Together, these four countries host nearly half of the total number of displaced persons of all selected countries (49.4%). The countries with the smallest displaced populations are Zimbabwe with 23,063, Djibouti with 30,197 and Angola with 55,891 displaced persons. Figure 2 illustrates these facts by the total number of displaced persons in each of the countries. Large regional differences can be noted between East Africa, particularly in and around the horn of Africa, as the region with the highest number of displaced persons, compared to Western, North and South Africa in descending order. Djibouti is the single country hosting less than one million displaced persons. The Maghreb region and Southern African countries show smaller numbers, apart from Mozambique. In Western Africa, considerable differences are notable with the two extremes of Mauritania and Nigeria representing 106,000 and 3.4 million displaced persons respectively.

Figure 3 puts the data of Figure 2 in another perspective by showing the percentage of displaced persons compared to the total population of the host country. It can be observed that the share of displaced persons is highest in South Sudan with 19,9% followed by Somalia with 17,1% and Sudan with 10,0%. A particularly high share of displaced persons compared to the total population of the host country is discernible in the countries of the Eastern Sahel region as well as their bordering countries to the south. In this region, only Ethiopia shows a value less than 5%. Looking at the Western, Northern and Southern region of Africa, a different picture emerges as the percentages are relatively low with only Cameroon and Burkina Faso having a share of more than 5%. Overall, the shares in the selected countries differ considerably and they range from 0,1% in Zimbabwe to South Sudan, where every fifth individual is a displaced person.

Similar to the previous analyses, an examination of the country-specific shares for the years from 2020 to 2022 reveal twelve countries experiencing a decrease and nineteen witnessing an increase. DRC registered the most significant reduction, as the number of displaced persons reduced by nearly half with a decrease of 48.1%, followed by a reduction in South Africa of 39.7% and Libya by 36%. In contrast, Kenya nearly doubled its number of displaced persons with a rise of 96%, followed by Burkina Faso and Mozambique who show a notable increase of 75.1% and 52.5%. A closer look at the Sahel region reveals a substantial rise in each country with the lowest percentage change noted in Mauritania of 11.3%. Please refer to Figure 4 for insights across all 30 countries.

3.2.2. Regulatories and Policies – the Enabling Environment of the Country

This subchapter deals with the data of the Regulatory Indicators for Sustainable Energy (RISE) evaluation [59] and points out the state of regulations and policies regarding access to energy in the countries. The RISE score encompasses the multi-dimensional aspects of policies and regulations and allows to compare national policy and regulatory frameworks for sustainable energy implementations. It assesses countries’ policy and regulatory support for each of the four pillars of sustainable energy - access to electricity, access to clean cooking (for 54 access-deficit countries), energy efficiency, and renewable energy. The RISE dataset does not include the countries of Libya and Djibouti in general and it does not provide for data on electricity access and clean cooking for Algeria and Egypt.

Figure 5 presents these scores which encompass multi-dimensional aspects of policies and regulations supporting access to energy activities with 0 being the lowest and 100 the highest performance. RISE scores reflect a snapshot of a country’s policies and regulations in the energy sector, organized by the three pillars of sustainable energy: Energy Access, Energy Efficiency, and Renewable Energy. The overall scores are spread widely with South Sudan recording the lowest score of 8 whereas Rwanda emerges as the country with the highest score of 78. Regional patterns unveil relatively high values in the Maghreb region pointing out Algeria with 68 and Egypt with 76, South Africa with 64 and East Africa with countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, and Malawi with overall scores above 50. Conversely, the Sahel region reports mainly low overall scores, with only Nigeria surpassing a score of 50. It can further be noted that a limited number of countries report very low or very high scores as there is only one country with a score below 10 and three countries which achieved scores above 70.

Figure 5 shows the RISE overall scores while the following figures provide more detailed insights by looking into the various thematic pillars and associated scores of the RISE evaluation. Figure 6 illustrates the scoring in the pillar renewable energy in which Rwanda emerges as the country with the highest score of 91, followed by Egypt and South Africa with 85. Identically to the order of countries in the overall scores in Figure 5, South Sudan reports the lowest score of 8 while Burundi and Congo are the two other countries with scores below 20 in Figure 6. Regional patterns become apparent, with Southern Africa showcasing predominantly high scores, apart from Angola with 42. In Western Africa, low scores prevail since no country in the region surpasses a score of 50, except for Nigeria with a score of 65. Some countries show considerable differences compared to the overall score such as South Africa with 85 whereas its overall score is 64.

The pillars electricity access and clean cooking are presented in Figure 7 and Figure 8, and as mentioned previously they do not provide for scores for the countries of northern Africa, specifically Egypt and Algeria, which were however considered for the renewable energy pillar.

The analysis of electricity access regulations and policies results in the highest average score among all considered RISE pillars as average score of the selected countries is 56. Figure 7 reveals that Rwanda stands out with the highest score of 90, whereas South Sudan reports the lowest score at 8. Most countries in East Africa demonstrate high scores with values of at least 68 for Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Uganda. However, discrepancies are also visible in this region as Somalia with 31 and Burundi with 39 received comparably low scores. Noteworthy variations emerge within Western Africa, where Nigeria and Côte d’Ivoire exhibit scores above 60, whereas Mauritania and Mali show lower scores of 25 and 45, respectively.

Clean cooking scores in Figure 8 are visibly lower, with an average score of 37, compared to the average score of 48 for renewable energy in Figure 6 and of 56 for electricity access in Figure 7. Nevertheless, several countries in East Africa exhibit high numbers with a minimum of 50 in Tanzania and Kenya showcasing the highest score at 83. As shown in Figure 8, only Somalia stands out as an exception with a notably lower score of 10. Conversely, the Eastern Sahel region and their bordering countries to the south report low values with Chad of 17, Sudan of 20, the Central African Republic of 23 and South Sudan of 8. Southern Africa also reveals lower clean cooking scores, with South Africa at 27, Zimbabwe at 26, and Mozambique at 29. Particularly in the case of South Africa, this low score is surprising as the country exhibited high scores for the other pillars.

3.2.3. Access to Electricity

Host country population

For the visualizations of the electricity access on the country level, the data of the Energy Progress Report [55] was used. While this dataset covers all selected countries in its evaluation of the electricity access for the total population and the urban population, it does not include data for Angola, Burkina Faso, Libya and Mauritania when analyzing access to energy in rural areas.

Assessing the share of the total population with access to electricity reveals substantial disparities among the selected countries. Figure 9 illustrates these differences regarding electricity access and ranging from 8% in South Sudan to 100% in Algeria and Egypt. In contrast to the Maghreb region and South Africa where the access rate is at least 70%, the countries in Central Africa represent the lowest percentages that do not surpass 20%. These differences are even more visible when we look at the access to electricity in rural areas. As illustrated in Figure 11, only three countries have a rural electrification rate above 90%, namely Algeria, Egypt and South Africa. Furthermore, the previously mentioned disparity between the selected countries is now even further stretched as only 1% of the rural population of the Chad and the DRC have access to electricity. Another notable pattern emerges as eight countries exhibit rural electrification rates below 10%.

Figure 8. RISE score for the pillar clean cooking in 2021. Own compilation based on data in [59], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 8. RISE score for the pillar clean cooking in 2021. Own compilation based on data in [59], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 9. Share of the total population in the country with access to electricity in 2021, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [55], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 9. Share of the total population in the country with access to electricity in 2021, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [55], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 10. Share of the rural population in the country with access to electricity in 2021, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [55], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 10. Share of the rural population in the country with access to electricity in 2021, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [55], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 11. Share of population in the country with access to electricity in the urban area in 2021, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [55], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 11. Share of population in the country with access to electricity in the urban area in 2021, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [55], accessed in January 2024.

In contrast to the low access to electricity in rural areas, the urban electrification in most countries is well advanced as 13 out of the 30 countries have access rates higher than 90%. This can be further confirmed by the fact that only the four countries of the Central African Republic (CAR), the DRC, Chad and South Sudan have an urban electrification rate below 50%.

Displacement population

The data for the visualization in Figure 12 stems from the moving energy initiative [56] and covers all concerned countries of this study. The analysis of the access to the electricity grid for displaced persons reflects both similarities and divergences among the selected countries. While the highest shares of displaced persons with electricity grid access are observed in Egypt with 100%, Libya with 98% and South Africa with 85%, Sudan, Tanzania with both 2% and Malawi with 0% exhibit very low rates. The data reveals a prevailing trend of relatively low access in most countries, with 14 nations recording less than 30% grid connectivity for displaced persons. When we compare the results to Figure 9 on the share of the total population with access to electricity, we see a correlation that countries with a high share of the population with access to electricity also demonstrate a high share of displaced persons with grid access. This correlation is notably evident in Egypt with 100% in both cases, South Africa with 85% and 89%, Côte d’Ivoire with 67% and 71%, Nigeria with 65% and 60%, and Ethiopia with 50% and 54%. However, some countries, e.g. Algeria with 10% and 100% or Kenya with 10% and 77%, challenge this correlation. A look at the DQA further emphasizes the need for validation by more accurate and detailed analyses.

Camp and settlement level

The Humanitarian Energy Data Platform [54] is referred to for the electricity access on a displacement camp or settlement level. This source encompasses a total of 74 camps, situated across 16 out of the 30 selected countries. As illustrated in Figure 13 and Figure 14, there is a significant disparity in electricity access with a substantial majority of the camps and settlements of 70% that lack any form of access to electricity. In turn, 26% of the camps and settlements report partial access to electricity and a mere 4% have full access to electricity.

Looking at the same dataset but from a country perspective, the previous findings of considerable disparity can be further emphasized. Merely three camps that are located in Algeria, Congo and Sudan report full access to electricity whereas a complete lack of electricity access is revealed in all considered camps situated in Djibouti, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Rwanda, South Sudan and Tanzania.

It is crucial to point out that there is data available for the camps and settlements included into this study, however for various camps and settlements no data is available. A review of the data in [56,57] provides evidence on the fact that there exist approximately 219 camps and settlements and for two thirds of those no data is available. This share varies from country to country. For instance, in Sudan the combined sources indicate 62 different camps while data on the camp situation is only available for five camps.

Figure 12. Share of displaced persons with access to the national grid in 2018, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [56], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 12. Share of displaced persons with access to the national grid in 2018, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [56], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 13. Percentage of camps and settlements in which residents have access to electricity in 2022, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [54], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 13. Percentage of camps and settlements in which residents have access to electricity in 2022, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [54], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 14. Number of camps and access to electricity across countries. Own compilation based on data in [54], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 14. Number of camps and access to electricity across countries. Own compilation based on data in [54], accessed in January 2024.

3.2.4. Access to Cooking

Country population

Data in the Energy Progress Report [55] cover all considered countries, except for Libya, and we make us of those to provide visual insights into the cooking situations. Figure 15 reveals considerable differences regarding the access to clean cooking across the selected countries. Similar to the trends observed for the electricity access in Figure 9, countries within the Maghreb and South Africa exhibit high percentages of clean cooking access, with Algeria and Egypt achieving full coverage at 100%. Additionally, Angola, Sudan and Mauritania show a notable alignment between percentages of access to clean cooking and electricity. However, a considerable change in this pattern is visible in all the other regions, where the access to clean cooking lags significantly behind electricity access rates. This discrepancy is most prominent in East Africa, where electricity access levels were reaching at least 40%, all countries, except for Kenya and Sudan, report clean cooking access percentages of less than 10%.

The investigations into access to clean cooking in rural areas underscore the low development stage as Figure 16 showcases universally low values for the selected countries. Among the sampled countries, only the four countries Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, and South Africa report rural clean cooking access rates exceeding 50%. In contrast, 24 out of the 29 selected countries exhibit rural clean cooking access rates below 10%, signifying a widespread deficiency in rural areas. Moreover, 10 countries within the dataset report an absence of any clean cooking access in rural regions.

Similar to the total and rural population rates to clean cooking access, the examination of clean cooking access in urban areas reveals distinct patterns, with notable differences across regions. Urban areas in the Maghreb and South Africa again showcase high rates of access to clean cooking with at least 96%. The countries in the Sahel region display comparatively much higherrates for clean cooking access in urban environments. Specifically, only Mali reports a clean cooking access rate below 10% in this region. In contrast, five out of the seven Sahel countries considered in this analysis Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Chad, and Sudan exhibit clean cooking access rates above 30%, with Mauritania and Sudan surpassing 70%.

Displacement population

As illustrated in Figure 18, the use of biomass exhibits differences across the considered countries with Algeria showing the highest share of non-biomass usage with 99%, whereas South Sudan and Malawi do not have any displaced persons using a cooking fuel that differs from biomass. Overall, significant differences between countries persist, with the Sahel region notably presenting lower values, as all countries except Nigeria have a non-biomass usage rate below 25% for displaced populations. Furthermore, it can be noted that Maghreb and South Africa stand out with high shares of displaced persons not using biomass, with percentages above 90% and hence mirroring the host countries clean cooking access rates. Countries such as South Sudan, Uganda, the Central African Republic (CAR), Chad, and Mozambique exhibit relatively small shares of displaced persons not using biomass, also aligning with tendencies observed in the clean cooking access rate of their respective host populations.

Camp and settlement level

The data sources [54,56] were used for the analysis of the access to cooking in displacement contexts. The two sources cover 146 camps in 20 out of the 30 selected countries. According to Figure 19, firewood emerges as the predominant source of cooking fuel in refugee camps, constituting the majority at 61%. Approximately a third of the considered camps adopt a combination of firewood and fossil fuels leading to 22% for firewood or LPG, 13% for firewood, charcoal, gas or fuel. However, only 4% do not depend on firewood and employ alternative cooking fuels such as gas, biomass or briquettes.

A country-level examination of the type of cooking fuel used within refugee camps reveals that firewood emerges as an exclusive cooking fuel in several countries. Notably, the refugee camps in Cameroon, the Central African Republic (CAR), Djibouti, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Somalia depend solely on firewood for their cooking needs. There are however examples of countries with a relatively diverse use of cooking fuel. For example, Chad, Ethiopia, and Rwanda have at least four different types of cooking fuels used in refugee camps. The entire array of information can be seen in Figure 21.

Figure 15. Clean cooking access rate of the total population in the countries in 2021, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [55], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 15. Clean cooking access rate of the total population in the countries in 2021, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [55], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 16. Clean cooking access rate of the population in rural areas, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [55], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 16. Clean cooking access rate of the population in rural areas, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [55], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 17. Clean cooking access rate of the population in urban areas, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [55], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 17. Clean cooking access rate of the population in urban areas, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [55], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 18. Share of displaced persons in the countries that are not using biomass for cooking, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [56], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 18. Share of displaced persons in the countries that are not using biomass for cooking, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [56], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 19. Type of cooking fuel in displacement camps and settlements for considered countries, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [54,56], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 19. Type of cooking fuel in displacement camps and settlements for considered countries, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [54,56], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 20. Type of lighting in displacement camps and settlements for considered countries, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [54,56], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 20. Type of lighting in displacement camps and settlements for considered countries, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [54,56], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 21. Type of cooking fuel in displacement camps and settlements by country. Own compilation based on data in [54,56], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 21. Type of cooking fuel in displacement camps and settlements by country. Own compilation based on data in [54,56], accessed in January 2024.

Lighting access at the camp and settlement level

This paragraph describes the status quo of the access to lighting in the camp and settlement levels since it is part of the above shown cooking access data. Figure 20 is based on data from the moving energy initiative [56] which covers a total of 115 camps from 18 out of the 30 considered countries. Figure 20 illustrates the dominant case of torch usage for lighting purposes across camps and settlements. More than two thirds are torch dependent whereas only 23% use liquid fuel as source for lighting. Looking towards the use of renewable energy, we note that less than 10 % of the considered camps and settlements rely on solar dependent lighting.

An examination of the data from country-level perspective further indicates substantial disparities across the countries. 13 out of 18 countries only have torches as source of lighting in their refugee camps. The graph also reveals that Sudan is the only case within the dataset, which has camps that purely depend on liquid fuel and Ethiopia stands out as the only country among the considered nations with camps utilizing solar energy as a lighting source.

3.2.5. Livelihood Possibility - Right to Work and to Move in and out of the Camp/Settlement

The right to work as well as the possibility to move in and out of the camp or settlement are prerequisites and indicators for livelihood generating activities. Accordingly, and as it was available in the data sources, we include Figure 23 which points out the percentages across countries for having the right to work and freedom of movement as well as linked to the country having signed the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF). The objective of the CRRF is to coordinate programming between refugees and host communities, to share best practices and develop shared analyses, to discuss policy issues with a view to agreeing on common positions as a basis for dialogue with the respective government and further stakeholders, among others. The right to work exists in 55% to 57% of camps and settlements of the considered countries with only a slight variation depending on the country being a signatory to the CRRF. The freedom to move varies between 53% and 62% for countries having joined the CRRF versus not.

3.2.6. Project Activities on Access to Energy in Displacement Contexts

Figure 24 visualizes data from the Humanitarian Energy Data Platform which covers 27 out of the 30 countries selected, not considering Algeria, Egypt and the CAR. The number of projects on energy access in displacement contexts differs considerably across countries. East Sahel and East Africa, notably Ethiopia and Kenya with 136 projects each, represent the regions with the highest number of energy-related projects, whereas all the other considered countries show numbers below 20 except for Burkina Faso, Niger and Zimbabwe. This difference becomes even more visible when we look at the four countries with the highest number of projects. Ethiopia, Kenya, Chad, and Sudan collectively account for nearly half of all the projects with 49% of the 27 countries. Consequently, there are several countries which exhibit a very limited number with South Africa, Congo and Mali representing the lowest values at only one project each. Overall, it can be noted that the number of projects per country remains quite modest, with nine countries having fewer than 10 projects.

Figure 22. Type of lighting in displacement camps and settlements by country. Own compilation based on data in [56], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 22. Type of lighting in displacement camps and settlements by country. Own compilation based on data in [56], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 23. Right to work and right to move in/out of camps and settlements, as well as percentage of countries that are signatories of the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) across countries, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [56], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 23. Right to work and right to move in/out of camps and settlements, as well as percentage of countries that are signatories of the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) across countries, in percent. Own compilation based on data in [56], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 24. Number of energy-related projects in the displacement context per country in 2021. Own compilations based on data in [54], accessed in January 2024.

Figure 24. Number of energy-related projects in the displacement context per country in 2021. Own compilations based on data in [54], accessed in January 2024.

4. Discussion

5. Conclusions

References

1. Global Appeal 2024; UNHCR, 2024.
2. Glossary on Migration; IOM.
3. EMN Asylum and Migration Glossary. Available online: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/networks/european-migration-network-emn/emn-asylum-and-migration-glossary_en (accessed on 22 August 2023).
4. UNHCR Master Glossary of Terms | UNHCR. Available online: https://www.unhcr.org/glossary (accessed on 22 August 2023).
5. Global Appeal 2023; UNHCR, 2023.
6. Matthey-Junod, A. Leaving No Aspect of Sustainability behind: A Framework for Designing Sustainable Energy Interventions Applied to Refugee Camps. Social Science 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Bisaga, I.; To, L.S. Funding and Delivery Models for Modern Energy Cooking Services in Displacement Settings: A Review. Energies 2021, 14, 4176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Jacobsen, K. The Forgotten Solution: Local Integration for Refugees in Developing Countries; UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 2001; p. 43;
9. Brause, U. Analysis of Empowerment of Refugee Women in Camps and Settlements. The Journal Internal Displacement 2013. [Google Scholar]
10. Moore, B. Refugee Settlements and Sustainable Planning. 2017.
11. Damme, W.V. How Liberian and Sierra Leonean Refugees Settled in the Forest Region of Guinea (1990-96). Journal of Refugee Studies 1999, 12, 36–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Thomas, P.J.M.; Rosenberg-Jansen, S.; Jenks, A. Moving beyond Informal Action: Sustainable Energy and the Humanitarian Response System. Int J Humanitarian Action 2021, 6, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Rosenberg-Jansen, S. The Secret Life of Energy in Refugee Camps: Invisible Objects, Technologies, and Energy Systems in Humanitarianism. Journal of Refugee Studies 2022, 35, 1270–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Home | Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/ (accessed on 21 March 2024).
15. Accelerating SDG7 Achievement: Policy Briefs in Support of the First SDG7 Review at the UN High-Level Political Forum; United Nations, 2018.
16. Dr Sarah Rosenberg-Jansen and Dr Hajar Al-Kaddo.; Contributing authors: Joelle Hangi, Thomas Fohgrub, Elif Demir, Owen; Grafham, Eva Mach, Luc Severi, Mark Gibson, Mattia Vianello, Laura Clarke,; Cathleen Seeger, Aimee Jenks, Lama Gharaibeh, Cecilia Ragazzi, Iwona; Bisaga, Jonathan Archimi, Philip Sandwell, Stephen Gitonga, David Kinzuzi,; Arielle Ben-Hur, Vahid Jahangiri, Surabhi Rajagopal, Ziad Ayad, and Sadiq; Zafrullah. The State of the Humanitarian Energy Sector: Challenges, Progress and Issues in 2022; UNITAR Publishing: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022.
17. Barbieri, J.; Leonforte, F.; Colombo, E. Towards an Holistic Approach to Energy Access in Humanitarian Settings: The SET4food Project from Technology Transfer to Knowledge Sharing. Int J Humanitarian Action 2018, 3, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Rosenberg-Jansen, S. Inclusive Energy Solutions in Refugee Camps. Nature Energy 2019, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Thomas, P.J.M.; Sandwell, P.; Williamson, S.J.; Harper, P.W. A PESTLE Analysis of Solar Home Systems in Refugee Camps in Rwanda. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2021, 143, 110872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Robinson, B.L.; Halford, A.; Gaura, E. From Theory to Practice: A Review of Co-Design Methods for Humanitarian Energy Ecosystems. Energy Research & Social Science 2022, 89, 102545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Baldi, D.; Moner-Girona, M.; Fumagalli, E.; Fahl, F. Planning Sustainable Electricity Solutions for Refugee Settlements in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nat Energy 2022, 7, 369–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. How Night-Time Street Lighting Affects Refugee Communities; UNHCR, 2017.
23. Renewables for Refugee Settlements: Sustainable Energy Access in Humanitarian Situations.
24. Rosenberg-Jansen, S. The Emerging World of Humanitarian Energy: A Conceptual Research Review. Energy Research & Social Science 2022, 92, 102779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Bhatia, M., A., N. Beyond Connections: Energy Access Redefined; Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP): Washington, D.C., 2015.
26. Pelz, S.; Pachauri, S.; Groh, S. A Critical Review of Modern Approaches for Multidimensional Energy Poverty Measurement. WIREs Energy & Environment 2018, 7, e304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Abdelnour, S.; Pemberton-Pigott, C.; Deichmann, D. Clean Cooking Interventions: Towards User-Centred Contexts of Use Design. Energy Research & Social Science 2020, 70, 101758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Neves, D.; Baptista, P.; Pires, J.M. Sustainable and Inclusive Energy Solutions in Refugee Camps: Developing a Modelling Approach for Energy Demand and Alternative Renewable Power Supply. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021, 298, 126745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. Robinson, B.L.; Clifford, M.J.; Jewitt, S. TIME to Change: Rethinking Humanitarian Energy Access. Energy Research & Social Science 2022, 86, 102453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Bellanca, R. Sustainable Energy Provision Among Displaced Populations: Policy and Practice. Policy and Practice.
31. Baranda Alonso, J.; Sandwell, P.; Nelson, J. The Potential for Solar-Diesel Hybrid Mini-Grids in Refugee Camps: A Case Study of Nyabiheke Camp, Rwanda. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 2021, 44, 101095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Lehne, J.; Blyth, W.; Lahn, G.; Bazilian, M.; Grafham, O. Energy Services for Refugees and Displaced People. Energy Strategy Reviews 2016, 13–14, 134–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Fuentes, M.; Vivar, M.; Hosein, H.; Aguilera, J.; Muñoz-Cerón, E. Lessons Learned from the Field Analysis of PV Installations in the Saharawi Refugee Camps after 10 Years of Operation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018, 93, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34. Van Hove, E.; Johnson, N.G. Refugee Settlements in Transition: Energy Access and Development Challenges in Northern Uganda. Energy Research & Social Science 2021, 78, 102103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Maalim, S.A.; Adwek, G.; Arowo, M. Shared Energy Parks as a Solution to Energy Challenges for Dadaab Refugee Camps in Kenya. Scientific African 2021, 13, e00901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
36. Thomas, P.J.M.; Williamson, S.J.; Harper, P.W. The Diffusion of Solar Home Systems in Rwandan Refugee Camps. Energy for Sustainable Development 2021, 63, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
37. Rafa, N.; To, T.T.V.; Gupta, M.; Uddin, S.M.N. The Pursuit of Energy in Refugee Contexts: Discrimination, Displacement, and Humanitarian Energy Access for the Rohingya Refugees Displaced to Bangladesh. Energy Research & Social Science 2022, 83, 102334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
38. Owen Grafham Energy Access and Forced Migration; 2020.
39. Grafham, O.; Sandwell, P. Harness Better Data to Improve Provision of Humanitarian Energy. Nat Energy 2019, 4, 993–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
40. The Global Plan of Action for Sustainable Energy Solutions in Situations of Displacement: Framework for Action; UNITAR, 2019.
41. Frercksen, N. Inclusion of Displaced Persons in National Systems.
42. Yaron Cohen, L.P. Innovative Financing for Humanitarian Energy Interventions; Chatham House, 2019.
43. UNHCR Energy Information System. Available online: https://eis.unhcr.org/home (accessed on 22 March 2024).
44. READS Programme | Global Platform for Action. Available online: https://www.humanitarianenergy.org/thematic-working-areas/reads-programme/ (accessed on 22 March 2024).
45. Humanitarian Data Exchange. Available online: https://data.humdata.org/ (accessed on 22 March 2024).
46. Rosenberg-Jansen, D.S. Critical Concepts and Research Needs in Humanitarian Energy. 2021.
47. Halford, A.; Gaura, E.; Bhargava, K.; Verba, N.; Brusey, J.; Nixon, J. Off the Boil? The Challenges of Monitoring Cooking Behaviour in Refugee Settlements. Energy Research & Social Science 2022, 90, 102603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
48. UNHCR Refugee Data Finder 2023.
49. Cichy, C.; Rass, S. An Overview of Data Quality Frameworks. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 24634–24648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. World Health Organization Data Quality Review: Module 1: Framework and Metrics; World Health Organization: Geneva, 2017; ISBN 978-92-4-151272-5.
51. Mumbere, O.; Kopi, L. How to Conduct a Data Quality Assessment (DQA): An Aif Memoir for a COR/AOR; USAID, 2012.
52. Batini, C.; Cappiello, C.; Francalanci, C.; Maurino, A. Methodologies for Data Quality Assessment and Improvement. ACM Comput. Surv. 2009, 41, 1–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Cameron, Laurie Methodology for Evaluating Data Quality. Working Paper WP-07-02. 2005.
54. Introduction to Humanitarian Energy Data Platform 1.0 | Global Platform for Action. Available online: https://www.humanitarianenergy.org/news/latest/introduction-to-humanitarian-energy-data-platform-1.0 (accessed on 23 March 2024).
55. Tracking SDG 7 | Progress Towards Sustainable Energy. Available online: https://trackingsdg7.esmap.org/ (accessed on 23 March 2024).
56. Moving Energy Initiative - Humanitarian Data Exchange. Available online: https://data.humdata.org/organization/moving-energy-initiative (accessed on 23 March 2024).
57. Joint Research Centre Data Catalogue - Refugee Settlements Electricity Access (RSEA) - European Commission. Available online: https://data.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dataset/4261bf3c-7e8e-4b16-925b-68cfd4eade37 (accessed on 23 March 2024).
58. Grafham, O.; Lahn, G.; Haselip, J. Scaling Sustainable Energy Services for Displaced People and Their Hosts: How Policy and Governance Make a Difference; Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2022.
59. RISE. Available online: https://rise.esmap.org/ (accessed on 23 March 2024).
60. UNHCR Refugee Data Finder. Available online: https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/ (accessed on 22 March 2024).
61. World Population Prospects - Population Division - United Nations. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/ (accessed on 23 March 2024).
62. Gunning, R. The Current State of Sustainable Energy Provision for Displaced Populations: An Analysis.
63. Rosenberg-Jansen 1, S.; Barlow, M.; Peisch, S.; Ponnan, N.; Rathi 2, P. Sustainable Humanitarian Energy Services: Inclusive Participation, Lessons Learnt, and Paths Forward; Practical Action Publishing Ltd: The Schumacher Centre, Bourton on Dunsmore, Rugby, Warwickshire CV23 9QZ, UK, 2018; ISBN 978-1-85339-982-4. [Google Scholar]