Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Publics' knowledge, attitudes and behavioral toward the use of solar

energy in Yemen power sector
Dhyia Aidroos Baharoon a,b, Hasimah Abdul Rahman a,b,n, Saeed Obaid Fadhl c
a
Centre of Electrical Energy Systems, Institute of Future Energy, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Johor, 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia
b
Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Johor, 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia
c
Public Electricity Corporation, Aden branch, Republic of Yemen

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the information of the public's views on the solar energy use in Yemen. It examines
Received 12 March 2015 the public knowledge of, attitudes and behavioral intentions that include the variables “willingness to
Received in revised form pay, “willingness to change” and “willingness to invest”, and then compare them. A personal interview
17 August 2015
with 348 urban household and 258 rural household was performed. The descriptive statistics, Chi-square
Accepted 17 December 2015
for independence, odds ratios, Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests were the statistical tools
employed in the analysis. The results showed that, the citizens in both areas have a moderate level of
Keywords: knowledge about renewable energy resources, the benefits and drawbacks of solar energy use in the
Knowledge power sector, and the solar power technologies. Despite that, they have highly positive attitudes towards
Attitudes
the use of renewable energy, particularly solar energy and its technologies. They also accept to engage in
Behavioral intentions
the renewable energy activities, which aim to improve the quality of the electrical service provided in the
Solar energy
Willingness to pay (WTP) country. The findings also indicate 66%, 55.7% and 78.4% of urban citizens are willing to pay, to change
Willingness to invest (WTI) and to invest compared to 70%, 55.4% and 75.6% of rural citizens. The “place of residence” factor affected
Feed-in-tariff scheme (FiT) significantly the citizens’ knowledge level about renewable energy; wind, biomass and geothermal
Willingness to change (WTC) energy; renewable energy resources; the drawbacks of solar energy use in the power sector; and the
Southern Yemen solar power technologies. It also affected significantly the citizens' attitudes towards the use of solar
power technologies at home. The implications for the policymakers are that elevating the knowledge and
awareness of the citizens by formal and informal education, and enacting effective supportive policies
assists in encouraging the citizens to use renewable energies in their daily lives would lead to achieve the
country’s renewable energy targets for 2025.
& 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
2. Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
3. Research methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501
3.1. Community and sample of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501
3.1.1. Area of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
3.1.2. Sample of the study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
3.2. Designing of the questionnaire and evaluating it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
3.2.1. Questionnaire design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
3.2.2. Evaluation of the questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
3.3. Data collection and analyzing it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
4. Results and discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
4.1. Individual characteristics of the sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
4.2. Public's knowledge of solar energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504

n
Corresponding author at: Centre of Electrical Energy Systems, Institute of Future Energy, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Johor, 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
Tel.: þ 601 97200459.
E-mail address: hasimah@fke.utm.my (H.A. Rahman).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.110
1364-0321/& 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515 499

4.2.1. General knowledge about RE and its resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504

4.2.2. Knowledge about the benefits of using solar energy in the power sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506
4.2.3. Knowledge about the drawbacks of using solar energy in the power sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
4.2.4. Knowledge about the solar energy technologies used in the power sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508
4.3. Personal observation and experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
4.4. Public's attitudes towards the solar energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
4.5. Public's behavioral intentions towards the solar energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510
4.5.1. Willingness to pay more (WTP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510
4.5.2. Willingness to change the currently used electricity source (WTC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511
4.5.3. Willingness to invest in the FiT scheme (WTI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
5. Conclusion and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514

1. Introduction [11,12]. In 2012 the government set a RE target and some RE

policies [5]. The RE target is that 15% of the total generation by
Today, we find ourselves totally dependent on an abundant and 2025 must be generated by RERs.
uninterrupted supply of electrical energy for living and working. It Frankly, the use of renewable energy resources in the power
is no doubt it is the key ingredient in all sectors of modern sector in the country can play a significant role either in mitigating
economies, but generating it by the traditional ways faces two the people's suffering from the energy shortage or in the future
main problems. These two problems are the continuous increase
sustainable development [5,13–14]. It can help in:
in the global temperature (Global Warming) [1] and the depletion
of fossil fuels that are expected to run out by 2050 [2,3]. The use of
(1) keeping the fossil fuel reserves that are expected to run out in
renewable energy that includes hydropower, biomass, solar ther-
2040 (cited in [67]);
mal (CSP) and electric (PV), wind, geothermal, marine energy in
(2) reducing the power shortage in the country. This is due to the
the power sector can provide a solution for those problems [1].
total electricity production of the country meets the needs of
In fact, the use of renewable energy resources in the power
only 40% of the total population with rolling blackout sche-
sector around the world is growing rapidly. It reached in the global
dules maintained in all areas that are connected to the
energy mix to 20.8% in 2012, compared to 19.9% in 2001 and 18.3%
national grid [5];
in 2002 [4]. This rapid growth led to enhance energy security,
(3) reducing the dependence on the fossil fuels that are not suf-
mitigate climate change and grow of the economy. In the Middle
ficiently available in the local markets. This will increase the
East and North Africa (MENA) region, the use of renewable energy
burden on the citizens in obtaining the required fuels to run
resources (hydropower, wind power, biomass, solar thermal (CSP)
the individual generators that are installed in their homes/
and electric (PV), and geothermal energy) in the power sector is
shops to meet their local needs during power outage. Also
also growing rapidly as a result of population growth, urbanization,
increase the misery of the citizens by stopping of some gen-
economic expansion and water scarcity. In 2011 the electricity
erating units in the power plants.
production from non-hydro renewable energy resources in the
(4) providing the electricity to the isolated remote areas from the
region increased by 20% compared to 2008 [5]. It reached in 2012 to
national grid. In most cases the population density of the areas
19,383.16 MW that represents about 1% of the world's cumulative is low hence this will lead to higher cost of transporting
installed renewable energy capacity [5]. This renewable electricity
electricity from the national grid.
production growth is expected to continue in the near future. (5) reducing the rate of poverty in the country. The use of renew-
Whereby, there are 106 under-development renewable energy able energy in the energy sector can improve the country's
projects in the region. These projects are 44 solar energy project economy through providing jobs and investments [5].
(2346.75 MW); 45 wind power project (4736.62 MW); 12 biomass
and waste project (222.7 MW); 2 geothermal energy project
(105 MW); 1 small hydro project (32 MW) and 2 marine energy Table 1
project (60 MW) [5]. Currently, all the countries in the MENA region Renewable energy potentials in Yemen and its targets by 2025 [10,5].
have renewable energy targets compared to 5 countries in 2007,
Renewable Theoretical Gross tech- Practical Targets
and 18 of them have set some renewable energy (RE) policies to
resource potential nical poten- technical by 2025
achieve those targets. However, the fossil fuels remain the main (MW) tial (MW) potential (MW)
source for electricity production in the MENA countries. (MW)
Regarding Yemen and the RE use, the country has mis-
cellaneous but disproportionate renewable energy resources Wind 308,722 123,429 34,286 400
Solar electric (PV 2,446,000 1,426,000 18,600 4
(RERs). The potential of using those renewable energy resources in
technology)
the power sector was proven [6–10] (refer Table 1). The Yemeni Solar thermal(CSP 3014 278 278 100
government since 2003 has provided fund for supporting the use technologies)
of small scale technologies, especially solar electric (PV) technol- Geothermal 304,000 29,000 2900 200
Biomass-landfills 10 8 6 6
ogies in the isolated remote areas from the national grid [5,9]. This
Hydropower- 12–31 11–30 – –
is because the cost of transferring of electricity from the national Major Wadies
grid to those areas that live in it 75% of the total population and
only 23.1% of them have access to electricity is too high. In 2008, Note:
the government approved the Rural Electrification Policy State- Theoretical potential refers to the physical, meteorological or biochemical energy
available in a certain region and at a certain time.
ment (REPS), and in 2009, they approved the National Strategy for Gross technical potential means the achievable potential by using known tech-
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency that targets to increase nologies taking into account technical factors and land-use.
the share of renewable energy in the national generation mix Practical technical potential takes into account electricity grid accessibility.
500 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515
Therefore, development the use of RE in the power sector is a
crucial issue and an urgent need to mitigate the electricity crisis in
the country.
Currently, the solar energy (solar electric) is the only renewable
energy used in the country, and the total generated electricity
from it reached to 1.5 MW in 2012 [5,10]. It constitutes 0.09% in
the national generation mix, but since 2012 no new solar energy
(PV) projects have been implemented in the country [5,10,12].
Although PV technology has great potential markets in the coun-
try, especially in the residential sector for the following reasons:
(i) the urban and rural residents who have been connected to the
national grid suffer from the power cuts reach to more than 8 h/
day in main cities and days in villages (the percentage of the
population with electricity is 85 in urban areas and 23.1 in rural
areas [5]); (ii) there is a perfect match between the demands and
the potential of solar energy use, particularly in rural areas where
most citizens in those areas need the electricity during the day-
time for several purposes such as the agriculture; (iii) the sky
throughout the year is clear in the most parts of the country in
which the annual average of daily sunshine hours is between 7.3
and 9.1 h/day, and the average solar radiations is between 450 and
550 cal/cm2/day) [9,10,12]; and (iv) lack of diesel/petrol fuel that is
being used by the citizens for running their individual small
generators in the local markets. This slow growth of PV markets
may be due to lack of the public acceptance of the use of the solar
technologies and/or the government did not enact effective poli-
cies and schemes that lead to support the development and
deployment of the use of the solar energy technologies. Whereby,
success of particular policies in a certain country does not mean
necessarily that those policies will succeed when they are being
applied in another country.
In fact, until now there are no exact trajectories of renewable
energy development. There are many constraints that constrain
the successful development of RE (e.g. technological development,
economic, policy drivers, etc.) one of which is public acceptance.
There is a common conviction that the public's views and attitudes
towards the use of renewable energy and its technologies have a
great impact on the successful transition to green energy futures
(Refer Section 2).
The several studies that were conducted in different countries
such as [15–49,55,57–61,63–66,68,69] reached to the conclusion
that, the local social acceptance plays an important role in the
successful implementation and sustainable development of
renewable energy projects, and it can significantly effect on energy
political decision-making process in any country. This is due to
that the public’s opinions on the use of renewable energy and its
technologies may differ from one country to another and within
the same country [15,16,39–41,44], and also it may differ from the
governmental decisions [15,16,64]. It is affected by a number of
psychological, contextual and personal factors [24,25,29,35].
Therefore, to achieve the successful implementation, develop-
ment and deployment of the use of renewable energy, particularly
solar energy and hence mitigate the electricity crisis and meet the
country’s RE targets for 2025 (refer Table 1), the Yemeni govern-
ment should improve the current institutional frameworks and
enact a number of RE policies and incentives. Those policies and
incentives should be effective (i.e. it can help in increasing the
renewable energy use continuously and positively when it is
applied). In which Timilsina et al. [41] stated that no RE develop-
ment can be achieved without supportive policies. But before that,
the public opinions on this issue should be known by the policy-
makers to take them into consideration during the decision mak-
ing process. This is to minimize the possibility of failed govern-
mental plans and maximize the expected results from the gov-
ernment decisions [15].
To date, no studies have been conducted for the country to
provide such important information that is considered according
to [68] a significant tool for planning energy policies and insti-
tuting effective measures for the promotion of renewable energy
resources. This paper aims to provide information on the public’s
opinions on the use of renewable energy, particularly solar energy
in the power sector in Yemen. It measures the public’s knowledge
of, attitudes and the behavioral intentions towards the use of solar
energy in the power sector in urban and rural areas, and then
determines if there are significant differences in those opinions
between the two areas. Unlike all the previous studies, the beha-
vioral intentions in this study were measured by three variables,
which are willingness to pay more (WTP); to invest in Feed-in-
Tariff (FiT) scheme (WTI) and to change the currently used elec-
tricity source during power cuts with a solar system generates
1 kW (WTC).
The findings of this study could help the decision-makers in the
country in (i) taking appropriate political decisions that will lead
to achieve the planned RE targets, especially the solar energy
targets; (ii) further developing the renewable energy strategies;
(iii) setting the necessary legal/regulatory supportive policies that
will help in promoting renewable electricity both in urban and
rural areas; and (iv) achieving the rapid diffusion of the solar
technologies, especially the small scale solar technology in the
country.
2. Literature review
There is a common conviction that, the knowledge and
awareness of community members affects positively and sig-
nificantly the social acceptance, which affects significantly the
governmental plans and decisions that are required for supporting
the renewable energy markets. The information from public opi-
nion surveys is considered according to Kontogianni et al. [68] an
imperative tool to enact the effective supportive policies. In this
context several studies have been conducted in different countries
and within different areas in the same country since 1980s [25] for
providing this tool. Some of those studies went to examine the
public’s knowledge, preferences, attitudes towards renewable
energy and willingness to pay. For example, the study that was
conducted by Eurobarometer [42] in the UK and across Europe
that showed that, there was great support for renewable energy
technologies, and the solar electric technology was the most
favorable technology, but most of the respondents were not will-
ing to pay for producing electricity from renewable energy
resources. Whereas, the study that was conducted by [46] in India
that is considered a significant energy consumer, and people suffer
from power cuts showed that the Indians supported the RE use.
They preferred the wind power because they considered it non-
polluting and potentially profitable nature of RE, and they were
willing to pay more for supporting the use of RE. The findings of
[42,46] demonstrated that the public’s preferences, attitudes and
willingness to pay differed from one country to another.
Other studies went to determine the public’s knowledge of,
attitudes towards RE or/and a specific type of renewable energy
and then examine the relationship between the knowledge and
attitudes. Such as, the studies that were conducted in Europe by
[44,45] and in China by [32] that showed that the young citizens'
attitudes towards RE were affected by knowledge level about RERs.
They reported that, the young citizens showed generally positive
attitudes towards solar energy and wind power because they were
aware about them, but they showed negative attitudes towards
forest bio-energy because they were unaware about it. By contrast,
the study that was conducted by [31] in the USA reported that the
citizens' attitudes were not affected by knowledge level. They
 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515
reported that the citizens showed very positive attitudes towards
wind power, although their understanding of this form of energy
was relatively poor. They attributed the result to that the citizens'
attitudes might be affected by other factors such as the personal
factors. The findings of [31,32,44,45] demonstrated that the pub-
lic's opinions on the RE use were affected by different factors that
differed from one country to another.
Besides those studies, there are studies went to examine the
public’s behavioral intentions towards the use of RE and its local
scale technologies, particularly solar energy technology (PV). For
example, the studies that were conducted in Malaysia by [51,64]
that aim to examine the public’s willingness to pay and to invest in
the residential PV FiT scheme. These studies showed that, the
Malaysians were not willing to pay more or to invest in the FiT
scheme for supporting the solar energy use in the country. They
also were not willing to pay for any RE project [16]. Whereas, the
study that was conducted in Greece by [55] to examine the pub-
lic's willingness to pay and to invest in the residential PV system
showed that, the Greek citizens were willing to pay more and to
invest in the residential PV system. The findings of [51,55,64]
demonstrated that the public’s behavioral intentions towards the
same technology (PV) differed from one country to another.
Additionally, the findings of [51,55,64] provided empirical evi-
dence on that the public's views about the use of PV technology
and its supportive policies may agree or may not agree with the
governmental decisions, and this has a significant effect on the
growth of the technology markets. In details, in case of Malaysia,
the Malaysian government has set since a long time ago numerous
policies, incentives and programs such as Malaysian Building
Integrated Photovoltaic Program (MBIPV) for deployment the use
of RE especially PV technology in the country [47–52,64]. The
MBIPV aims to increase the use of PV technology in the residential
sector [47–52,64]. Despite that, the growth of the PV markets in all
sectors in the country is very slow. According to the findings of
[16,51,64], the reasons of this slow growth can be attributed to
that the public's views about the use of PV technology and its
supportive policies and incentives did not agree with the gov-
ernmental decisions that had been enacted since a long time ago
(i.e. the citizens have not accepted the policies that had been
enacted by country’s policy-makers). While, in the case of Greece
from the findings of [55] we can conclude that the citizens' views
on the use of PV technology and its supportive policies and
incentives agreed with the governmental decisions that were
enacted in 2006 (i.e. the citizens have accepted the policies that
had been enacted by country’s policy-makers). In which since that
time the use of this technology in Greece has grown very rapidly. It
exceeded the country's national goals for 2020 in 2011 [55]. Other
empirical evidences were given in the studies that were conducted
by Sardianou et al. [70] in Greece to determine the factors affect
the willingness of consumers to adopt RE in the residential sector,
and by Eltham et al. [43] in the UK to investigate the public sup-
port for wind power through the period 1991–2006. The study
that was conducted by [70] reported that the most effective
financial policy in encouraging the adoption of renewable energies
in the residential sector would be “tax deduction” policy. This is
because the Greek citizens had preferred it more than “doubling of
energy price” policy and “energy subsidy” policy. The study that
was conducted by [43] found that the attitudes towards wind
energy slightly declined as a result of lack of public involvement in
the initial planning process.
The presented studies in this section showed that the attitudes,
willingness, and views about the supportive policies all these are
affected by different factors. Those factors differ from one country
to another. They also provided empirical evidence about how the
public's opinions can effect significantly on the implementation,
501
development and deployment of the RE use and on the energy
political decisions.
In Arab countries, according to [5], the RE targets were set,
some RE policies were drawn and some RE projects were imple-
mented. All these happened without taking the public's views
(attitudes towards RE use and willingness to pay more and/ or
invest in RE projects) into consideration during the initial planning
process. Whereby, according to the authors no previous studies
have been conducted in this context in all Arab countries. Except,
two studies were conducted in Jordan by Zyadin et al. [59,65].
These two studies aimed to examine the knowledge level, atti-
tudes and perception regarding renewable energy of the ninth
level school students and secondary school teachers. They pro-
vided good information on knowledge, attitudes and perception of
RE. They highlighted the role of RE education in the development
of RE use. But they targeted specific categories of people, which
are young students (in the first study) and secondary school tea-
chers (in the second study).
On the Arab world level, the present study aims to complement
what Zyadin et al. began. It will provide more information on the
public’s views on the RE use, particularly solar energy use in the
power sector. It will target all categories of community, and it will
measure more variables (such as knowledge of the benefits and
drawbacks of solar energy use, understanding of the solar energy
technologies, personal observation and experience, WTP, WTC,
WTI etc.). On the national level, this study is considered the first of
its kind in Yemen. It will provide essential information for policy-
makers, and it will help in bridging the understanding gap
between policy-makers and public in Yemen as well as in the other
Arab countries. In which all the previous studies were conducted
in non-Arab countries that have different cultures and concepts. It
will add a new addition to the national, Arab and international
library.
3. Research methodology
In this section the steps that were followed to achieve the
objectives of the study were discussed. These steps include iden-
tifying the area and sample of study, designing and evaluating of
the questionnaire, and analyzing the data using SPSS version 21
software.
3.1. Community and sample of the study
The community “population” and study sample were identified
according to the objectives of the study. There are many methods
that can be used to choose a sample. In this study a cluster sample
method was used to choose the study areas (geographical areas)
because this method saves a lot of time, effort and cost. Then a
simple random sampling method was used to choose the member
in the targeted sample. The simple random sampling method was
used because (i) it requires the least possible knowledge of the
population, compared to any other method; and (ii) it is con-
sidered the simplest and purest form of probability sampling in
which each member in the sample has an equal and known chance
of being chosen [53]. After that, to ensure the validity of the study
the sample size was identified. There are various formulas that can
be used to calculate the sample size. In this study, the formula
used by Krejcie and Morgan [54] was used to determine the
required sample size. The formula was presented in Eq. (1).
X 2  N  P  ð1  PÞ
n¼ ð1Þ
ððME  ðN  1ÞÞ þ ðX 2  P  ð1  PÞÞ
2
where n ¼sample size, X2 ¼Chi-square for the specified confidence
502 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515
level at 1 degree of freedom (3.841), P ¼population proportion
(0.5), ME ¼desired Margin of error that expressed as a proportion
(5%), N ¼entire population. In this study, the “entire population”
was considered the total number of households in the study areas
because it is more convenient and less costly [55]. The selection of
member from the randomly selected household was selected
randomly (i-e same member in the family was not always the
interviewee).
3.1.1. Area of the study
This study was conducted in two Yemeni governorates sepa-
rately. The first governorate is Aden governorate that is considered
an urban area where the rate of urbanization in the governorate
reached 100% [13]. It is located on the Gulf of Aden coast, and it is
away from the capital Sanaa a distance of 363 km. It is located at
longitude 45° 02’E and latitudes 12° 46’ N of the equator. It is the
most important governorate in the country, and it has gained its
importance from being an important commercial port and a free
trade zone. It is the capital of the south part of Yemen, and it has
various types of economic activities. Its population constitutes
about 3.0% of the total population of the Republic of Yemen, and it
has a land area of approximately 750 km2 divided into eight dis-
tricts [13]. Its climate is relatively hot throughout the year, with an
average temperature reaches to 29 °C [9]. Based on the rule of
cluster sample method, Al-Mansoura district was selected ran-
domly (main group). Then the lottery method was used again to
select sub-cluster.
The second governorate is Lahj governorate. It is located
between longitudes (46–43°)E, and between latitudes (14–12°)N
of the equator. It is considered the largest rural governorate in the
country. It has 4158 village and nine small towns that have a very
low rate of urbanization [13]. The governorate is located to the
southeast of the capital Sanaa at a distance of 337 km. Its popu-
lation constitutes 3.7% of the total population of the Republic of
Yemen. It has a land area of approximately 12,648 km2 divided
into fifteen districts. Its capital is Al-Huta district, and its largest
district is Tor-Al-Bahh district [13]. The governorate is located on
“Tuban valley”. It is characterized by agriculture that is considered
the main activity of the population in this governorate. It produces
3.7% of the total agricultural production in the Republic. Its climate
is mild in the winter and hot in the summer [7].
According to the type of electricity service provided to Lahj
governorate, its districts can be divided into two groups. In which
some districts have been connected to the national grid while the
others have not been connected. The isolated districts from the
national grid are supplied with electricity daily for 6 h only (from
18:00 to 24:00) from small grid networks (off-grid) belonging to
the ministry of electricity or small investors, with continuous
power cuts due to (i) lack of fossil fuels in the local markets or/and
(ii) frequent technical failures [10]. Based on the rule of cluster
sample method, Tuban and Tor-Al-Bahh districts were selected
randomly (main two groups). Then, the lottery method was used
again to select sub-group in each district.
3.1.2. Sample of the study
According to the administrative division of Al-Mansoura, Tuban
and Tor-Al-Bahh districts, Al-Mansoura district has three residen-
tial neighborhoods, Tuban district has111 village, and Tor Al-Bahh
district has 363 village [13]. This administrative division of those
areas was used to select the sub-cluster in each district using the
lottery method. It should be noted that, Tuban district has been
connected to the national grid, while Tor Al-Bahh district has not
been connected yet. The chosen sub-groups are: (1) Tilal Shamsan
neighborhood-Al-Mansoura district that has 3636 household;
(2) Kadamat Awad Ali village-Tuban district that has 169 house-
hold; and (3) Almchaabab village-Tor-Al-Bahh district that has 219
Table 2
The study area and required sample size in urban and rural areas.
Chosen study area Area Number of Sample size
households
Tilal Shamsan- Mansoura- Aden Urban 3636 348
gov.
Kadamat Awad Ali- Tuban- Lahj Rural 169 118
gov.
Almchaabab- Tor Al-Bahh- Lahj Rural 219 140
gov.
household [13]. Then, the sample size was determined using
Eq. (1). The required sample size for each area is presented in
Table 2. Finally, the simple random sampling method was used to
select the member in the targeted samples and households.
3.2. Designing of the questionnaire and evaluating it
Before identifying the study objectives and designing the tool
that will be used for collecting the required data for achieving
those objectives, several topics related to the study's subject were
read. The topics are: (1) the situation of electricity in the country
and its infrastructures; (2) the fossil fuels used in the power sector
and its reserves in the ground; (3) the environmental issues;
(4) the country's energy targets and energy policies; (5) the
potential of using RE in the country; (6) RE and its technologies;
(7) barriers impeding the RE diffusion; (8) RE policies that have
been used by other countries to support the development of RE
markets; (9) the situation of RE and especially solar energy around
the world; (10) previous studies that were conducted in the var-
ious countries to measure the opinions of different community
slides (general public, students and teachers at different educa-
tional levels, and policy-makers) toward the use of RE in their
countries; (11) the parametric and nonparametric tests and its
assumption; and (12) science books that are taught to the students
in various levels in the public and private schools. Besides that,
informal interviews were conducted with general public, students
in universities and secondary school, investors in the field of PV
technology, technicians in installing and repairing of PV panels,
and teachers in primary school and universities. Based on the
collected information, the study's objectives were identified and a
structured questionnaire was designed. It aims to investigate the
public knowledge of, attitudes, behavioral intentions towards the
use of solar energy in the power sector.
3.2.1. Questionnaire design
Open-ended and closed-ended questions were used to design
the structured questionnaire. In this study, the data that were
collected from five sections was used to achieve the study's
objectives. The types of closed-ended questions that were used are
dichotomous, Likert scale type, and multiple choice questions. The
first section of the questionnaire that was used in this study is the
section that was designed to collect the social, economic and
demographic data of the participants, which are gender, age,
educational level, monthly income, occupation, marital status and
type of house.
The second section that was used in this study is the section
that was designed to measure the respondents' knowledge level
about RE and its resources; the benefits and drawbacks of solar
energy use in the power sector; and the solar energy technologies
(PV and CSP). At the beginning of this section, dichotomous
question (Yes/No) was used to determine if the respondents are
interested in the environmental issues or not. Then, the knowl-
edge level about RE and its resources was investigated by asking
the respondents two dichotomous questions (Yes/ No). Next, the
 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515
respondent's knowledge of the benefits and drawbacks of using
solar energy for producing electricity was measured by two sub-
scales using 3-Likert scale (1 ¼ disagree to 3 ¼ agree). The first
subscale is the benefits subscale. It includes eight statements; its
range is 8–24. The second subscale is the drawbacks subscale. It
includes six statements; its range is 6–18. The last question in this
section is “please rate your understanding level of PV and CSP
technologies on 5-Likert scale of 1 to 5 (1 ¼very weak to 5 ¼very
good)?”.
The third section that was used is the section that was designed
to measure the respondents’ personal observation and experience
in the use of solar energy in the power sector. It consists of two
dichotomous questions (Yes/No). The fourth section that was used
is the section that was created to investigate the respondent's
attitudes towards the use of renewable energy, particularly solar
energy in the power sector. It consists of two 5-Likert scale
questions. The first question is designed to examine the public
belief in the use of solar energy for producing electricity on the
scale of 1 to 5 (1 ¼ very bad to 5 ¼ very good), and the second
question is designed to measure the respondents’ attitudes
towards the use of RE and solar energy and its technologies on the
scale of 1 to 5 (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼strongly agree). It
includes three attitudes items.
The fifth section that was used is the section that was designed
to examine the respondents' behavioral intentions towards the use
of solar energy in the power sector. In this section multiple choice
and dichotomous questions were used to measure six variables.
The behavioral intentions variables are: willingness to pay extra
money for electricity bills (WTP); willingness to change the cur-
rently used electricity source during power outages (WTC); and
willingness to invest in the FiT scheme if the government enacts it
(WTI). The respondents’ willingness to pay more was examined by
asking the respondent to select one of these choices (1 ¼not
willing, 2¼ willing to pay 5–10% more, 3 ¼willing to pay 11–20%
more, 4 ¼willing to pay 21–30% more, 5 ¼ willing to pay 31–40%
more and 6 ¼willing to pay 41–50% more). The respondents’
willingness to change currently used electricity source was
examined by asking them to select one option from the following
(1 ¼not willing, 2 ¼ willing to change if cost me (300–450) 
103YR, 3 ¼willing to change if cost me (451–600)  103YR,
4 ¼willing to change if cost me (601–750)  103YR, 5 ¼ willing to
change if cost me (751–900)  103YR)). The respondents' will-
ingness to invest in the FiT scheme was measured using dichot-
omous question (Yes/No). Besides these three questions, the
respondents' priority in the quality of electricity service provided
was examined using dichotomous question (continuous electricity
without cuts/cheaper electricity with cuts). Also the respondents
were asked to choose from a given list the electricity source that
they use currently during the power outage.
3.2.2. Evaluation of the questionnaire
The designed structured questionnaire was originally for-
mulated in English. Then it was translated into Arabic. The ques-
tionnaires in its primary form were tested in order to ensure that
(i) it can achieve the study's objectives; (ii) it can measure all the
required variables in a way allow us to use the available statistical
tests; and (iii) it is simple, clear and understandable by the tar-
geted samples. The drafts of the questionnaires (Arabic and Eng-
lish form) were sent to experts in the field. Then, the ques-
tionnaires were improved according to their comments.
After that, a pilot test was conducted through distributing the
improved questionnaire in Arabic form randomly to a small sam-
ple. This sample included 19 respondents from Al-Mualla district,
Aden gov. and 16 respondent from the Al-Hota district, Lahj gov-
ernorate. Only 30 questionnaire were returned (17 from Al-Mualla
and 13 from Al-Hota), and any accompanying note from the
503
respondents was taken into account. The reliability of the 5-Likert
scale questions in the questionnaire (benefits subscale and draw-
backs subscale) were tested by using the Cronbach’s alpha test in
order to measure internal consistency. The results showed that,
Cronbach alpha coefficients were .792 for the benefit subscale and.
761 for the drawbacks subscale, which mean that these subscales
have good internal consistency. In which the Cronbach alpha
coefficient in the two cases were higher than .7 [53]. So these
subscales can be considered reliable with our sample.
3.3. Data collection and analyzing it
The data collection process is a phase of the survey process
phases. It is a vital phase, and it needs careful planning and
monitoring to get data of a good quality. There are many methods
that can be used for collecting the required data such as face to
face interviews, telephone interviews, mail/self-completion,
internet collection, and hand by hand method [56]. Some of these
methods are not suitable for using in Yemen. This is because either
the needed service for a specific method is not available or the
respondent will not interact with the researcher. However, based
on the characteristics of the population in Yemen face to face
interview method is considered the suitable method to get a good
data. Although, this method needs money(budget), time and effort
higher than the other methods. The formal interviews were star-
ted in the beginning of September 2014 and they took four
months. The process of collecting the data was as follows: after
determining the households randomly, an advance letter was
given to each household.
This letter included the title and purpose of the survey,
researchers personal information (such as name, current situation,
university name, email address and hand phone) and two state-
ments. The first statement tells them that, No wrong or correct
answer the important thing is your opinions, and the second
statement tells them that all collected data from this survey will be
confidential, and it will be used only for the purposes of this
survey. Then after getting a permission from the family to enter
their house to conduct the interview, one member is selected
randomly using the lottery method.
During the interview, the interviewer gives to interviewee a
brief discussion about some topics according to the question nat-
ure. After collecting the data, the codebook of the questionnaire
was prepared, and SPSS 21.0 was employed for analyzing the data.
It was used to conduct the following tests: Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient, general descriptive statistics, frequencies, Chi-square
for independence (cross tabulation), odds ratios and the non-
parametric tests, which are Mann–Whitney test (U-test) and
Kruskal–Wallis H test.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Individual characteristics of the sample
With a total of 348 in urban area and 258 in rural area valid
responses collected, the researcher observed that, the number of
female respondents in urban area was approximately equal to the
number of male respondents. While in rural area the number of
females constituted 36.8% of the total rural respondents. This is
because in some cases the female respondent who was selected by
the lottery method did not accept to conduct the interview. This
situation forced the researcher to repeat the lottery process to
select another member from the same household. The respon-
dents' ages were distributed over all age groups. Most of the
respondents in both areas were from middle age groups, which are
(21–30) and (31–40) years old, followed by the (41–50) years old.
504 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515

With 28.7% vs. 32.2% of the respondents in urban and rural areas Finally, it was found that 56.6% of the total urban respondents had
respectively were between the ages of 21 and 30 years. 25.3% vs. lived at flats, while all the rural respondents had lived at "detached
35.2% of the respondents in urban and rural areas respectively houses", which means that the “type of house” factor is constant
were between the ages of 31 and 40 years. 23.6% vs. 15.9% of the (in rural area sample).
respondents in urban and rural areas respectively were between
the ages of 41 and 50 years. Only 5.5% vs. 5% of the total urban and 4.2. Public's knowledge of solar energy
rural respondents respectively had a very low educational level
and more than half of the total urban and rural respondents had This section includes four subsections. The first subsection
graduated from universities. This may explain why the monthly investigates the respondents’ general knowledge about RE and its
income of more than half of urban and rural respondents was resources. The second and third subsections measure the respon-
more than 50 thousand YR. The monthly income of 44.3% of urban dents' knowledge about the benefits and drawbacks of using solar
respondents and 50.8% of rural respondents was more than 50 but energy in the power sector. The last subsection examines the
less than 91 thousand YR. Only 18.1% vs. 15.1% of the total urban respondents’ understanding level of the solar technologies that are
and rural respondents respectively had monthly income of 91 used for generating the clean electricity.
thousand YR and above. The majority of the respondents were
employees with about 45% vs. 41% of the total urban and rural 4.2.1. General knowledge about RE and its resources
respondents respectively were employees in the public sector, and Before investigating the respondents' knowledge level about RE
about 22% vs. 23% of the total urban and rural respondents and its resources, the participants were asked “Are you interested
respectively were employees in the private sector. Whereas, 11% in the environment issues?”, and the results revealed that, about
vs. 18% of the total urban and rural respondents respectively were half of the respondents in both areas were interested in the
self-employed (freelancers), and about 2.3% vs. 5.4% of the total environment issues (refer Fig. 1). To examine if there is a sig-
urban and rural respondents respectively were unemployed (refer nificant difference in the public’s interest in the environment
Table 3). About 51% vs. 61% of the total urban and rural respon- issues between urban and rural areas the Chi square test were
dents respectively had a relationship. The number of respondents used and the odds ratios were calculated. The result showed that,
who have a relationship in rural areas was higher than those in
there was no significant difference in this variable between urban
urban areas because the people who live in rural areas marry at an
and rural areas. However, the citizens in rural areas were more
early age, as compared with people who live in urban areas.
interested in the environment issues than those in urban areas.
This finding agreed with the finding of Bergmann et al. [57] who
Table 3
The socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the urban and rural
found that the participants in rural areas were more interested in
samples. the reduction of air pollution than those in urban areas. It also
agreed with the studies that were conducted in China by Wenling
variables Options Place of residence et al. [58]) and in Malaysia by Solangi et al. [36] who reported that,
Urban Rural
77.4% of Chinese in rural areas and 58% of Malaysians in urban
areas were concerned about the environment.
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Next, the respondents' knowledge of RE and its resources was
measured. The respondents were asked if they know what
Gender Male 171 49.1 163 63.2
Female 177 50.9 95 36.8
renewable energy is. The frequency test showed that, more than
Age (13–20) Yr 11 3.2 23 8.9 half of the respondents knew what is RE, and the people in urban
(21–30) Yr 100 28.7 83 32.2 areas were more aware than the people in rural areas (refer Fig. 2),
(31–40) Yr 88 25.3 92 35.7 although the people in rural areas were slightly more interested in
(41–50) Yr 82 23.6 41 15.9
51 Yr þ 67 19.3 19 7.4
the environment issues than those in urban areas. This may
Educational Illiterate and 19 5.5 13 5 because of the term “renewable energy” is unknown to some of
level pry school the respondents in rural areas [24]. To examine if there is a sig-
Secondary 59 17 57 22.1 nificant difference in the knowledge about renewable energy
school
Diploma 48 13.8 47 18.2
between urban and rural areas the Chi square test were used and
Bachelor 179 51.4 126 48.8 the odds ratios were calculated. The findings revealed that there
Above bachelor 43 12.4 15 5.8 was a significant difference in the knowledge about RE between
Monthly Less than 30 25 7.2 20 7.8 urban and rural areas (Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) continuity
income (30–50) 106 30.5 68 26.4
(103 YR) (51–70) 81 23.3 72 27.9
correction ¼0.000). The odds of knowledge about RE for people
(71–90) 73 21 59 22.9 who live in urban areas were about 2 times the odds for people
91þ 63 18.1 39 15.1 who live in rural areas. These findings agreed with the findings of
Current Unemployed 8 2.3 14 5.4 the study that was conducted in Jordan by Zyadin et al. [59] who
occupation Housewife 4 1.1 7 2.7
Student 26 7.5 13 5
Retired 37 10.6 12 4.7 54
52.6 53.1
Self-employed 41 11.8 47 18.2
52
Employee-pri- 75 21.6 59 22.9
vate sector 50
Percent

Employee- 157 45.1 106 41.1

public sector 48 47.4 Urban
46.9
Marital status Not in a 170 48.9 100 38.8 Rural
relationship 46
iIn a 178 51.1 158 61.2
44
relationship
Type of house Flat 197 56.6 0 0 42
Detached 151 43.3 258 100 No Yes
house
Fig. 1. Are you interested in the environment issues?.
 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515 505

80 76.1 finding also agreed with the finding of Mei Qu et al. [32] who
reported that the university students from rural areas were more
70 60.1 aware about biomass energy than university students from
60
urban areas.
50 To examine if there is a statistically significant difference in the
Percent

40
30 23.9
20
10
0 public’s knowledge about solar energy. This is because the
Yes
Fig. 2. Do you know what RE is?.
Biomass Energy(rural) 41.5
Biomass Energy (urban) 32.8
Geothermal Energy(rural) 19.8
Geothermal Energy (urban) 31
hydropower Energy(rural) 34.5
hydropower Energy (urban) 41.4
Wind Energy(rural) 55.4
Wind Energy (urban) 73.3
Solar Energy(rural)
Solar Energy (urban)
0% 20% 40%
Yes
Fig. 3. Knowledge about RE resources.
stated that the students in urban areas were more aware about RE
than those in rural areas.
Regarding RE resources, the public's knowledge of five types of
renewable energy was measured through asking the respondents
“have you heard or read about solar energy, wind power, hydro-
power, geothermal energy and biomass energy?”. The study
included these five types of RE because the potential of using these
resources for generating electricity in Yemen according to [10] is
proven. The results revealed that, the most known renewable
energy resources were solar and wind energy. In which about 95%
vs. 98% of the respondents in urban and rural areas respectively
had read or heard about solar energy; and about 73% vs 55% of the
respondents in urban and rural areas respectively knew about
wind energy. The geothermal energy was the least known
resources both in urban and rural areas. In which only 31.0% of the
respondents in urban area compared to 19.8% in rural area had
read/heard about this form of energy (refer Fig. 3). These results
agreed with the findings of several studies that were conducted in
different countries such as [32,42,45,46,60,61]. It was also found
that, the respondents in both areas had a low level of knowledge
about hydropower and biomass energy. Whereby, only 41.4% of the
respondents in urban areas vs 34.5% in rural areas had heard/read
about hydropower energy; and about 33% vs 42% of urban and
rural respondents respectively knew about biomass energy.
These figures showed that, the respondents in rural areas were
more aware about solar and biomass energy than the respondents
in urban areas. This may be due to that, there are a number of
small PV projects in the country belonging to the ministry of
electricity or telecommunication or someone. The number of these
projects in rural areas is higher than those in urban areas.
Regarding biomass energy, people in rural areas have been
accustomed to use wood and the paper waste for cooking in a tool
called "Mofaa" since a long time ago. This tool is similar to gas
oven, but it made of clay, and it is used for preparing foods. This
39.9 Urban
public’s knowledge about each of RE resources included in the
Rural questionnaire between urban and rural areas the Chi square test
and odds ratios were used. The test findings showed that, the
“place of residence” factor did not significantly influence the
respondents in both areas were highly aware about this form of
No
energy as a result of using PV technology in some locations in the
country. For wind energy, the Chi square test showed that the
“place of residence” factor influenced significantly the public’s
knowledge about wind energy on a statistically significant level of
1%. With the respondents in urban area were more aware about it
than those in rural area. This is due to the availability of the var-
ious mass media in urban areas. Those media had helped urban
people to gain information about this form of energy. In which no
wind power project has been installed in the country. The calcu-
lation of the odds ratios showed that, the odds of knowledge about
wind energy for the people who live in urban areas were about
2.2 times the odds for the people who live in rural areas. Regarding
hydropower energy, the “place of residence” factor did not sig-
nificantly influence the public’s knowledge about it, but for geo-
97.7
thermal energy there was a statistically significant difference in
94.8
the public’s knowledge about this form of energy between urban
60% 80% 100% and rural areas (Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) continuity
No correction ¼0.002). The odds of knowledge of geothermal energy
for the people who live in urban areas were about 2.2 times the
odds for the people who live in rural areas. For the last form of
renewable energy, there was a statistically significant difference in
the public’s knowledge about biomass energy between urban and
rural areas (Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) continuity correction ¼0.034). It
was found that, the people in rural areas were about 1.5 times
more likely to know about biomass energy than those in
urban areas.
Next, to determine the respondent’s level of knowledge about
renewable energy resources a new variable was created. It was
named “Total knowledge about renewable energy resources”, and
its score was given according to how many types of RE resources
the respondent knows about. The descriptive test was used to
calculate the mean value of this new variable in each area, and the
results showed that the respondents in both areas had a moderate
level of knowledge about the given five renewable energy
resources. These findings agreed with Zyadin et al. [65] findings
who found the level of knowledge of secondary school teachers in
both areas were modest. Also the rural areas finding agreed with
Wenling et al. [58] finding who reported that the level of knowl-
edge of Chinese about renewable energy resources in rural areas
was moderate.
The findings also revealed that, only 4.6% vs 1.9% of the
respondents in urban and rural areas respectively were unaware
about any type of RE resources included in the questionnaire. Only
12% vs 6% of urban and rural respondents knew about the five
types of RERs. At least 20.1% vs 27.9% of the respondents in urban
and rural areas respectively were aware about two types of
renewable energy resources (refer Fig. 4). Then, the dependent
variable “Total knowledge about renewable energy resources” was
compared between urban and rural areas to examine if the “place
of residence” factor influences it significantly. Mann–Whitney U
test was used, and the findings showed that there was a significant
difference in the total knowledge about RERs between the two
areas (z¼  2.446, p ¼0.014). With the respondents in urban areas
were more aware about RERs included in the questionnaire than
the respondents in rural areas.
506 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515

4.2.2. Knowledge about the benefits of using solar energy in the respondents in urban areas agreed that, the use of solar energy in
power sector the power sector contributes in reducing the power shortage in
The public's knowledge about the benefits of using solar energy the country (Adv7), vs. 39% of the respondents in rural areas
for generating electricity was investigated by asking the respon- answered “agree” and 35% answered “don’t know”. For (Adv3)
dents to answer eight related statements on 3-likert scale which is it creates local investments and jobs, the respondents’
(1 ¼disagree to 3 ¼agree) (refer Fig. 5). The presented results in
answers were distributed over the three categories, and the “don’t
Fig. 5 showed that about 64% vs 68% of the respondents in urban
know” category had the highest scoring. This means that there is a
and rural areas respectively agreed that, the use of solar energy for
lack of knowledge about this major advantage of using solar
generating electricity reduces the fossil fuel dependence (Adv1).
43.4% vs. 56.6% of the respondents in urban and rural areas energy for producing electricity, and this justifies the results of
respectively agreed that, it provides a secure and reliable local Adv8 which is it contributes in reducing the rate of poverty in the
source of energy (Adv2). 60.6% vs. 73.6% of the respondents in country. Whereby, 39% vs. 42% of the respondents in urban and
urban and rural areas respectively agreed that, it reduces the
dependence on the public electricity utilities (Adv5). 59.5% 29.1 24 46.1

vs. 64.7% of the respondents in urban and rural areas respectively 23.6 17.2 59.2
agreed that, it helps in generating clean electricity at home/shop
41.1 29.5 29.1
for meeting own local load demands (Adv6). More than 70% of the
respondents in both areas agreed that the use of solar energy for 18.7 49.4 30.5

generating electricity contributes in protecting the environment 15.9 49.6 32.2

and reducing the climate change (Adv4). About half of the
19 45.1 32.2

30 10.5 49.6 38
27.9 26.7
25.6
25 22.9 9.8 60.9 29
20.1
Urban
19.3 (mean=
20 17.5 18.6 44.2 36.4
15.5 2.74)
Percent

15 24.4 34.2 40.8

11.8

10 Rural 27.9 25.2 46.1

6.2 (mean=
4.6 26.7 11.8 60.6
5 2.48)
1.9

0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Neutral Agree
Total knowledge about renewable energy resources
Fig. 6. Public's knowledge about the drawbacks of using solar energy in the power
Fig. 4. People's knowledge about the different RERs included in the questionnaire. sector.

Rural(Adv8) 30.2 41.5 25.6

Urban(Adv8) 30.2 39.1 26.4

Rural(Adv7) 24.4 34.9 38.8

Urban(Adv7) 21.6 25.6 51.1

Rural(Adv6) 15.9 16.3 64.7

Urban(Adv6) 11.5 28.2 59.5

Rural(Adv5) 10.5 14 73.6

Urban(Adv5) 22.4 15.5 60.6

Rural(Adv4) 6.6 20.2 70.9

Urban(Adv4) 10.6 15.8 72.1

Rural(Adv3) 23.3 48.8 24

Urban(Adv3) 28.4 38.2 31.3

Rural(Adv2) 16.3 23.3 56.6

Urban(Adv2) 23.9 30.5 43.4

Rural(Adv1) 10.5 20.2 67.8

Urban (Adv1) 13.2 20.4 63.5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Disagree Neutral Agree

Fig. 5. Public's knowledge about the benefits of using solar energy in the power sector.
 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515 507

rural areas respectively preferred to answer for adv8 "don't know" 25.0 23.6
(refer Fig. 5). These figures revealed that, most of the respondents
in both areas had realized the benefits of using solar energy in the 20.0 19.0
power sector on the environment and energy security, but they 17.5 17.5
16.1 16.1
had not realized the economic benefits of its use. It also showed 14.7 Urban
15.0
that the residents' awareness about most items of the benefits (6.06)

Percent
subscale in rural areas was higher than those in urban areas. This 10.9 Rural
9.3 9.7
10.0 8.3 (5.58)
is because the number of the residents who have seen or existed in 8.0
any building used the PV system to meet its local needs in rural 6.0 6.0
5.4 4.7
areas was higher than those in urban areas (refer Fig. 9). In other 5.0 4.0
2.7
words, the rural residents have their own personal observation
and experience in the use of the solar technology in the power 0.0
sector. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
score ofunderstanding level of thesolar technologies used in the power sector
To examine if there is a significant difference in knowledge about
each benefits item between urban and rural areas the Mann–Whitney Fig. 8. Total understanding level of the solar technologies used in the power sector
U test was used. The findings showed that, there was a statistically variable.

significant difference in knowledge about Adv2, Adv5 and Adv7

between urban and rural areas (z¼  3.413, p¼0.001), (z¼  3.366, Have you existed in any
38.8 61.2
p¼0.001) and (z¼ 2.488, p¼0.013) respectively. Where, the building used PV?(rural)

respondents' knowledge about Adv2 and Adv5 in rural areas were

Have you existed in any
higher, and the respondents' knowledge about Adv7 in urban areas building used PV?(urban)
27 73

were higher.
Next, to determine the respondent’s level of knowledge about Have you seen any
65.9 34.1
building used PV?(rural)
the benefits of using solar energy in the power sector a new
variable was created, and its score was computed by summing the Have you seen any
46.6 53.4
eight related statements (Adv1–Adv8). The variable was named building used PV?(urban)
“Total knowledge of solar energy benefits”, and its range 8–24.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Then to determine the level of knowledge about the benefits the
Yes No
continuous scale (8–24) was divided into three categories. The first
category was named “low level of knowledge” and its interval Fig. 9. The respondents “personal observation” and “personal experience”
variables.
value “8–13.3”. The second category was named “medium level of
knowledge” and its interval value “13.31–18.6”. The third category
4.2.3. Knowledge about the drawbacks of using solar energy in the
was named “high level of knowledge” and its interval value power sector
“18.61–24”. The descriptive test was used to calculate the mean Next, the public's knowledge about the drawbacks of using
value in both areas. The results showed that the respondents’ solar energy for generating electricity was measured by asking the
knowledge level about the benefits of using solar energy for pro- respondents to answer six related statements on 3-likert scale
ducing electricity was medium in urban areas (18.09), and in rural (1 ¼disagree to 3¼ agree). The results of the frequency test are
areas (18.43) (refer Table 4). These two figures showed that, the shown in Fig. 6. It showed that, the respondents' answers for most
level of knowledge about the benefits of using solar energy of rural statements were distributed over the three categories, and “don’t
respondents was slightly higher than the level of knowledge of know” category had the highest scoring.
urban respondents. The finding of rural areas agreed with the Whereby, about 60% vs 50% of the respondents in urban and
finding of Wenling et al. [58] who reported that, Chinese in rural rural areas respectively preferred to say “do know” for (Disadvg3)
areas had a moderate level of knowledge about the benefits of which is the efficiency of the solar energy technologies is lower than
using RE in the power sector. To examine if there is a statistically the efficiency of the conventional generators. About 45% vs 50% of
significant difference in the respondents’ knowledge level about the respondents in urban and rural areas respectively answered “do
the benefits between urban and rural areas the Mann–Whitney U know” for (Disadvg4) which is the initial cost of the solar technol-
test was used. The results showed that, the respondents' knowl- ogies are higher than the initial cost of the conventional generators.
edge about the benefits of the solar energy use in rural areas was About 44% of the respondents in rural areas said “don’t know” for
higher than urban areas, but it did not differ significantly. (Disadvg2) which is the solar energy technologies require the use of
storage units (such as batteries, etc.). About 49% of the respondents
rural(CSP)(2.21) 42.6 24.4 8.9 17.4 6.6 in urban areas said “don’t know” for (Disadvg5) which is the solar
technologies require large spaces for installing them. Only for Dis-
urban(CSP)(2.76) 28.4 21.8 10.6 23.6 15.5 advg1and Disadvg6 about 61% vs 59% in urban areas and 46% in
rural areas agreed that, electricity generated from solar energy is
rural(PV)(3.37) 7.0 19.8 17.1 41.5 14.7 intermittent and unstable (Disadvg1), and the solar technologies
require a safe area for installing them (Disadvg6). About 41% of the
urban(PV)(3.3) 8.6 19.8 20.1 35.3 15.8 respondents in rural areas said “disagree” for (Disadvg5). The results
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 revealed that the respondents in urban and rural areas had not been
Percent well aware about the drawbacks of using solar energy for producing
very weak weak neither good nor weak good very good electricity especially (Disadvg3) and (Disadvg4), and this would lead
Fig. 7. Respondents' understanding level of the solar technologies used in the to not understanding the consequences of the solar energy use such
power sector. as increase of the production costs.
508 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515

Table 4
The mean, median and mode of the respondent’s level of knowledge about the benefits variable.

Variable name Urban area Rural area

mean median mode Miss case mean median mode Miss case

Adv1 2.52 3 Agree 10 2.58 3 Agree 4

Adv2 2.2 2 Agree 8 2.42 3 Agree 10
Adv3 2.03 2 Neutral or do not know 7 2.01 2 Neutral or do not know 10
Adv4 2.62 3 Agree 5 2.66 3 Agree 6
Adv5 2.39 3 Agree 5 2.61 3 Agree 0
Adv6 2.48 3 Agree 3 2.5 3 Agree 8
Adv7 2.3 3 Agree 6 2.15 2 Neutral or do not know 5
Adv8 1.96 2 Neutral or do not know 15 1.95 2 neutral or do not know 7

Urban area Total mean of the knowledge of the benefits variable 18.09 8–13.3 Low level of knowledge
13.31–18.6 Medium level of kn
Rural area 18.43 18.61–24 High level of kn

Table 5
The mean, median and mode of the respondent's level of knowledge about the drawbacks variable.

Variable name Urban area Rural area

Mean Median Mode Miss case Mean Median Mode Miss case

Diaadvg1 2.34 3 Agree 9 2.18 2 Agree 2

Diaadvg2 2.16 2 Agree 2 2.18 2 Neutral or do not know 2
Diaadvg3 2.19 2 Neutral or do not know 1 2.28 2 Neutral or do not know 5
Diaadvg4 2.14 2 Neutral or do not know 13 2.17 2 Neutral or do not know 6
Diaadvg5 2.12 2 Neutral or do not know 5 1.88 2 Disagree 1
Diaadvg6 2.36 3 Agree 0 2.17 2 Agree 2

Urban area Total mean of the knowledge of the drawbacks 13.17 6.0–10 Low level of knowledge 10.1–14.0 Medium level of kn 14.1–18 high
Rural area variable 12.71 level of kn

To examine if there is a significant difference in knowledge about
each item of the drawbacks subscale between urban and rural areas
the Mann–Whitney U test was used. The findings showed that, there
was a statistically significant difference in knowledge about Disadvg1,
Disadvg5 and Disadvg6 between urban and rural areas (z¼  2.607,
p¼ 0.009), (z¼  3.759, p¼0.000) and (z¼  2.801, p¼0.005) respec-
tively. Whereby, the respondents’ knowledge about Disadvg1, Dis-
advg5 and Disadvg6 in urban areas were higher.
Same as previous to determine the level of knowledge about
the drawbacks of using solar energy in the power sector a new
variable was created, and its score was computed by summing the
six related statements (Disadv1–Disadv6). The variable was named
“Total knowledge of solar energy drawbacks”, and its range 6–18.
Then to determine the level of knowledge about the drawbacks
the continuous scale (6–18) was divided into three categories. The
first category was named “low level of knowledge” and its interval
value “6–10”. The second category was named “medium level of
knowledge” and its interval value “10.1–14”. The third category
was named “high level of knowledge” and its interval value “14.1–
18” (refer Table 5). The descriptive test was used to calculate the
mean value in urban and rural areas. The results showed that the
respondents' knowledge level about the drawbacks of using solar
energy for producing electricity was medium in urban (13.17), and
in rural areas (12.71), but it was lower in rural areas. To examine if
there is a statistically significant difference in the respondents’
knowledge level about the drawbacks between urban and rural
areas the Mann–Whitney U test was used. The results showed
that, there was a significant difference in the respondents'
knowledge about the drawbacks of the solar energy use between
urban and rural areas (z¼  2.619, p¼ 0.009), with the respondents
in urban areas had higher scoring.
In this study, we found the level of knowledge of rural
respondents about the benefits of using solar energy in the power
sector was higher than their level of knowledge about the
drawbacks. These findings agreed with the findings of the study
that was conducted by Wenling et al. [58] who found that, the
level of knowledge of Chinese in rural areas about the benefits of
the renewable energy use in the power sector was higher than
their level of knowledge about the drawbacks of using it.
4.2.4. Knowledge about the solar energy technologies used in the
power sector
The solar technologies used in the power sector are photo-
voltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP) technologies. PV
technology is one of the small scale technologies that generate few
kilowatts to meet the local needs. It can also use for generating
electricity in MWs. CSP technologies are large scale technologies in
which the levelised cost of energy (LCOE) decreases with
increasing the amount of generating MWe [62]. To determine the
level of understanding of these technologies the respondents were
asked to rate their understanding level of PV and CSP technologies
on 5-likert scale of (1 ¼very weak to 5¼ very good). The frequency
and descriptive tests were used, and the results are presented in
Fig. 7. The frequency test showed that the understanding level of
PV technology of 28.4% and 26.8% of the respondents in urban and
rural areas respectively was very weak or weak. The under-
standing level of PV technology of 20.1% of the respondents in
urban areas and 17.1% of the respondents in rural areas was nei-
ther good nor weak. The understanding level of PV technology of
about 51% of urban respondents and 56% of rural respondents was
good or very good. The descriptive test showed that, the respon-
dents’ understanding level of PV technology in rural areas (3.37)
was higher than urban areas (3.3). To examine if there is a sta-
tistically significant difference in the respondents’ understanding
level of PV technology between urban and rural areas the Mann–
Whitney U test was used. The test findings showed that the
respondents' understanding level of PV technology in rural areas
was higher, but it did not significantly differ from urban areas. The
 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515
researchers think that, the respondents' answers of this question
were affected by the number of local installations and usage level
in their surroundings. Whereby, the number of rural respondents
who have seen or existed in any building used the PV system to
meet its local needs was more than urban respondents (refer
Fig. 9).
Regarding the respondents' understanding level of CSP tech-
nologies, 50.2% vs 67% of the respondents in urban and rural areas
respectively stated that their understanding level of CSP technol-
ogies is weak or very weak (refer Fig. 7). 10.6% vs 8.9% of the
respondents in urban and rural areas respectively stated that their
understanding level of CSP technologies is neither good nor weak.
Only about 39% vs 24% of the respondents in urban and rural areas
respectively stated that their understanding level of CSP technol-
ogies is good or very good. The descriptive test revealed that, the
level of understanding of CSP technologies of urban respondents
(2.76) was higher than rural respondents (2.21). This may be due
to the availability of advanced mass media (such as the internet,
magazines) in urban areas. In which the internet service has not
been provided yet in most of rural areas. To examine if there is a
statistically significant difference in the respondents’ under-
standing level of CSP technologies between urban and rural areas
the Mann–Whitney U test was used. The test findings showed that
the factor “place of residence” influenced significantly the
respondents’ understanding level of CSP technologies (z ¼  4.621,
p ¼0.000), with the respondents in urban areas had a higher
scoring. The figures that are presented in Fig. 7 showed that, the
respondents' understanding level of PV technology in both areas
was higher than the respondents' understanding level of CSP
technologies in both areas, and this demonstrated that the local
installations and usage levels in the country had a significant effect
on the respondents' understanding level of the solar technologies.
In which, PV technology has been used in domestic sector in
Yemen since 2003 [9], while CSP technologies have not been used
in the country yet [62].
Next, to determine the understanding level of the solar tech-
nologies used in the power sector a new variable was created, and
its score was computed by summing the two related statements.
The variable was named “Total understanding level of the solar
technologies used in the power sector”, and its range 2–10 (refer
Fig. 8). As shown in Fig. 8 only 6.0% vs 2.7% of the respondents in
urban and rural areas respectively got the full marks. Then, the
continuous scale (2–10) was divided into three categories. The first
category was named “low understanding level” and its interval
value “2–4.67”. The second category was named “medium
understanding level” and its interval value “4.68–7.34”. The third
category was named “high understanding level” and its interval
value “7.35–10” (refer Table 6). The descriptive test was used to
calculate the mean value in urban and rural areas. The results
showed that the respondents' understanding level about the solar
technologies that are used for producing electricity in urban areas
(6.06) was higher than rural areas (5.58), but in both areas was
modest.
Table 6
The mean, median and mode of the respondent's level of understanding about the solar technologies used in the power sector variable.
Variable name Urban area
Mean Median Mode
understPVtec 3.3 4 Good
understCSPtec 2.76 2 Very weak
Urban area Total mean of the total understanding of the solar energy technologies used in the power 6.06
Rural area sector variable
509
Then, the Mann–Whitney U was used to determine if there is a
significant difference in the respondents' total understanding level
of the solar technologies between urban and rural areas. The test
revealed that there was a significant difference in the respondents'
total understanding level of the solar technologies between the
two areas (z¼  2.620, p ¼0.009), with the respondents in urban
areas had higher scoring.
4.3. Personal observation and experience
In this study the respondents' personal observation and
experience in the use of solar energy in the power sector were
examined by the variables “personal observation” and “personal
experience” that were evaluated by asking the respondents two
questions. The first question is “Have you seen any building used
solar panels to meet its local electrical needs?”, and the second
question is “Have you existed in any building used solar panels to
meet its local electrical needs?”. About 47% vs 66% of the
respondents in urban and rural areas said “Yes” we had seen a
building used solar panels to meet its local needs, and about 27%
vs 39% of the respondents in urban and rural areas respectively
said “Yes” we had existed in building used solar panels to meet its
local needs (Fig. 9). It is very clear that there is a difference in the
respondents’ answers of the two questions between urban and
rural areas. To determine if there is a significant difference in the
answers of each question between urban and rural areas the Chi
square test for independence and the odds ratios were used. The
results showed that, there were significant differences in the
personal observation variable (Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) continuity
correction ¼0.000) and personal experience variable (Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided) continuity correction¼ 0.003) between urban and rural
areas. The predicated odds for the people in rural areas who have
seen any building used solar panels to meet its local needs were
2.22 times the odds for the people in urban areas. While, the
predicated odds for the people in rural areas who have existed in
any building used solar panels to meet its local needs were 1.71
times the odds for the people in urban areas.
4.4. Public's attitudes towards the solar energy use
To measure the public belief in the use of solar energy in the
power sector, the respondents were asked to use a given 5-likert
scale to complete the following sentence “producing electricity
from solar energy is a (1 ¼ very bad idea to 5¼ very good idea)”.
The frequency test was used. It was found that, in urban areas
64.1% of the respondents believed that, the use of solar energy for
generating electricity is a very good idea, and 29.6% of the
respondents believed that it is a good idea. A 4.9% of the respon-
dent answered that it is neither good nor bad idea. Only a few
respondents felt that it is a bad idea (1.4%). While, in rural areas
the results revealed that, no respondents believed that the pro-
ducing electricity from solar energy is a bad idea. In which 71.3% of
the respondents said that it is a very good idea and 25.6% of the
respondents said that it is a good idea. Only 3.1% of the
Rural area
Miss case Mean Median Mode Miss case
1 3.37 4 Good 0
0 2.21 2 Very weak 0
2.0–4.67 low understanding level
5.58 4.68–7.34 medium underst. level
7.35–10 high underst. level
510 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515
Fig. 10. The respondents' attitudes towards the use of solar energy in the power
sector.
respondents answered that it is neither good nor bad idea. The
results of the Mann–Whitney U test showed that, there was a
statistically significant difference in the public belief between
urban and rural areas (z ¼ 2.046, p ¼0.041), with people in rural
areas had a higher mean rank than those in urban areas. This is
because the respondents in rural areas have their own personal
observation and/or experience in the use of the PV system (refer
Fig. 9). These findings confirm that, the public belief in the use of
solar energy for producing electricity is affected by objective
information, and this agreed with what Farhar, B.C. [63] stated.
Next, to measure the public's attitudes towards the use of
renewable energy and especially solar energy and its technologies
in the power sector the respondents were asked to rate their level
of agreement with three items on 5-likert scale of 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The frequency test was used to
analysis the data. It was found that; for the first item (Att1), 45.7%
of the respondents in urban areas strongly agreed and 35.6%
agreed to use all types of renewable energy for producing elec-
tricity. Whereas, in rural areas it was found that 46.9% of the
respondents strongly agreed and 37.6% agreed (refer Fig. 10). These
figures showed that the people's support of using all types of
renewable energy for producing electricity in rural areas was
slightly higher than urban areas. These findings did not agree with
Zyadin et al. [59] findings who found that the students in urban
areas were more supportive of the use of RE for producing elec-
tricity than those in rural areas.
For the second item (Att2), it was found that 49.7% of the
respondents in urban areas strongly agreed and 40.2% agreed to
use of solar energy for producing electricity. While in rural areas
49.2% of the respondents strongly agreed and 43.0% agreed. These
figures showed that there is a great support for using solar energy
in the power sector in both areas, and this confirms the findings of
the previous question (public belief variable). It also showed that
the support of using solar energy in both areas was slightly higher
than the support of using renewable energy. In which, the mean
values for item2 in urban and rural areas were 4.34 and 4.39
respectively, and for item1 4.13 and 4.21 respectively. These find-
ings agreed with the findings of Fernando et al. [37], who found
that the Portuguese had more positive attitudes towards the solar
energy use compared to the other renewable energy types.
For the third attitudes item (Att3), 32.5% of the respondents in
urban areas strongly agreed and 48% agreed to use of solar tech-
nologies for producing electricity at home for the daily uses. While
in rural areas 39.1% of the respondents strongly agreed and 48.1%
agreed. These findings showed that, the people's attitudes towards
the use of solar appliance at home in both areas were slightly
lower than their attitudes towards the use of solar energy for
producing electricity in the country. This may be due to many
reasons such as the high initial cost of the PV system in the local
markets, lack of appropriate supportive policies and lack of
knowledge about the local scale solar technologies (refer Fig. 7).
However, the respondents in rural areas had more positive
attitudes towards the use of the solar appliances at home than
those in urban areas. These findings did not agree with the find-
ings of Zyadin et al. [59] who stated that the attitudes of students
in urban areas towards the use of solar panels at home were
higher than those in rural areas.
The findings of these three attitudes items revealed that, the
attitudes of people in rural areas toward the use of RE and solar
energy and its technologies in the power sector were more posi-
tive than those in urban areas. These findings are significant for
policy-makers because those areas are considered the proposed
locations for installing any new RE project. After that, to examine if
there is a significant difference in the attitudes items between
urban and rural areas the Mann–Whitney U test was used. The test
results showed that there was no significant difference in the
attitudes towards the use of renewable energy (item1) or solar
energy (item2) between urban and rural areas. But the respon-
dents' attitudes in rural areas towards the use of solar appliances
at home significantly differed from urban areas (z¼  2.574,
p¼ 0.010).
Next, to examine if there is a significant difference between the
attitudes items both in urban and rural areas the Chi-square test
was used, and to confirm the results of the Chi-square test the
Kruskal–Wallis H test was used. The findings of the Chi-square test
showed that, there was a statistically significant difference in
attitudes between item1 and item2 both in urban areas (p ¼0.000)
and rural areas (p ¼0.023). These findings agreed with the results
of the Kruskal–Wallis H test in urban areas (χ2(4) ¼83.526,
p¼ 0.000) and in rural areas χ2 (4) ¼23.484, p ¼0.000). For item1
and item3, the Chi-square test showed that, there was a significant
difference in attitudes between these two items both in urban
areas (p ¼0.000) and rural areas (p¼ 0.016), and Kruskal–Wallis H
test confirmed these findings both in urban areas (χ2(4) ¼ 61.23,
p¼ 0.000) and in rural areas (χ2 (4) ¼23.659, p ¼0.000). Finally, the
Chi-square test showed that, there was a significant difference in
attitudes between item 2 and item 3 both in urban areas
(p ¼0.000) and in rural areas (p ¼0.000), and Kruskal–Wallis H test
confirmed the findings both in urban areas (χ2(4) ¼128.10,
p¼ 0.000) and in rural areas (χ2 (4)¼ 45.701, p ¼0.000).
4.5. Public's behavioral intentions towards the solar energy use
Bang et al. [66] stated that the actual behavior of the individual
cannot be predicted or tested, but it can be evaluated by mea-
suring their intention to engage in the certain behavior such as
paying extra monies to support the use of REs and its technologies.
In this study the individual behavioral intentions were evaluated
by measuring the respondents' willingness to pay more for elec-
tricity bills, willingness to change the currently used electricity
source during the power cuts' hours and willingness to invest in
the FiT scheme.
4.5.1. Willingness to pay more (WTP)
Firstly, the respondents' priority in the quality of electricity
service provided was measured by asking the respondents “what
is more important to you continuous electricity without cuts or
cheaper electricity with cuts”. In a surprising finding, almost 78.4%
of the respondents in urban areas and 65.2% of the respondents in
rural areas answered that electricity without cuts is more impor-
tant for us than price (refer Fig. 11). Then, the Chi-square test and
odds ratios were used to examine if there is a significant difference
in this variable between the two areas. The results showed that,
there was a statistically significant difference in the priority of the
quality of electricity service provided between urban and rural
areas (Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) continuity correction ¼0.002), with
the respondents in urban areas were 1.92 times more likely to get
continuous electricity without cuts than those in rural areas. This
 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515
may be due to that about 50% of the total respondents in urban
sample were females, and most of them were either students or
employees. Usually this slide of the community has several com-
mitments towards the house, husband, children, work and others.
Accordingly, they prefer continuous electricity to be able to meet
their commitments on time. However, the findings of this question
give us an indication about that the people may be willing to
engage in the activities that aim to improve the quality of the
electricity service provided, which can be improved through
increasing the penetration of renewable energy use in the country.
Next, the respondents were asked if they would be willing to
pay an additional amount for electricity bills to support the use of
solar energy in the country. It was found that about 66% of the
respondents in urban areas compared to 70% of the respondents in
rural areas were willing to pay extra money for supporting the use
of solar energy in the power sector. These findings agreed with the
findings of Bergmann et al. [57]; Zyadin et al. [59]; Wenling et al.
[58] and Georgios et al. [55] who found that the respondents were
willing to pay more to support RE projects, but it disagreed with
the study that was conducted by Xin-Le Lim et al. [16] that stated
that the Malaysians were not willing to pay more for supporting
RE projects in the country.
For more details, about 44% vs 56% of urban and rural
respondents respectively accepted to pay (5–10) % more. About
10% vs 8% of urban and rural respondents respectively accepted to
pay (11–20) % more (refer Fig. 12). Then, the Chi-square and
Mann–Whitney U tests were used to examine if there is a sig-
nificant difference in the respondents’ willingness to pay more
between urban and rural areas. It should be noted that the Chi
square test was used to analysis the data of the variable WTP that
has two categories (Yes/No).The findings showed that the factor
“place of residence” did not influence significantly the respon-
dents’ willingness to pay more. This finding disagreed with Zyadin
et al. [59] who found that there was a significant difference in the
students’ willingness to pay extra money in the future between
urban and rural areas, with the students in urban areas were more
willing to pay. It also disagreed with Bergmann et al. [57] who
90
78.4
80
70 65.2
60
Percent
50
40 34.8
30 21.6
20
10
0 use the PV system (2–3 300 Wp) to meet part of their local needs
continous electricity Cheaper electricity with
without cuts cuts
Fig. 11. What is more important to you?.
rural 30.2 55.8
Urban 33.9 43.7 10.3
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
not willing (5%-10%) more (11%-20%) more
(21%-30%) more (31%-40%) more (41%-50%) more
Fig. 12. The respondents' willingness to pay more (WTP).
511
found people in rural areas were highly willing to pay extra money
than those in urban areas.
The findings of this question and the previous question showed
that, the answers of some people in the previous question did not
match with their answers to this question, especially in urban
areas. Whereby, when the respondents in both areas were asked to
determine their priorities in the quality of electrical service pro-
vided, about 78% of urban respondents and 65% of rural respon-
dents stated that continuous electricity without cuts is more
important than price. Whereas, when they were asked to deter-
mine the additional amount that they are willing to pay for getting
the continuous electricity using solar energy, only 66% of urban
respondents and about 70% of rural respondents accepted to pay
extra money for electricity bills. This may be due to the following
reasons: (1) there are in urban areas a few respondents believed
that the use of solar energy in the power sector is a bad idea (refer
(Section 4.4); 2) the respondents' attitudes toward the use of solar
energy in the power sector in urban areas are lower than those in
rural areas (refer Fig. 10); (3) the expenses of life in urban areas are
higher than those in rural areas; and (4) the citizens in rural areas
suffer from power cuts more than citizens in urban areas. In which
in rural areas the electricity service is provided for 6 h/day for off-
grid consumers and 10–14 h/day for on-grid consumers (i.e. the
consumers that have been connected to the national grid). This
situation pushed most citizens in rural areas to be willing to pay
extra money for improving the quality of electricity service pro-
vided to their areas more than citizens in urban areas.
4.5.2. Willingness to change the currently used electricity source
(WTC)
Before measuring the respondents' willingness to change their
current electricity source, the respondents were asked to mention
the name of power source that they have used to meet their needs
when the power cuts. The results are presented in Fig. 13. It was
found that, 29% vs 49.2% of the respondents in urban and rural
areas respectively had used diesel or petrol generator. About 26%
vs 5.4% of the respondents in urban and rural areas respectively
had used inverter/charger with batteries. 20.2% vs 2.6% of the
respondents in rural and urban areas respectively had used gas or
petrol lamps. It is very clear that most respondents (about 70%) in
rural areas had used harmful electricity production methods for
the environment (individual diesel/petrol generator and gas
Urban lamps) to meet their local needs.
Whereas, in urban areas due to the availability of electricity
Rural service better than rural areas (refer Section 1) only about 32% of
respondents had used those methods. We found also that in rural
areas there are a very few respondents (1.2%) took the initiative to
during power cuts (Fig.13).
Next, a brief description about the cost of the 1 kWp PV system
in the local market was given to the respondents. This is in order
to measure their willingness to support the solar energy use in the
power sector in the country through using it at home. They were
0.8 asked if they would be willing to change their currently used
8.1 3.9 1.2
5.4
rural 49.2 24 20.2 1.2
1.1
2.6
8.3 2.6 urban 29 25.6 42.8 0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
100% Diesel or petrol Gen Inverter/charger with battery
Rechargeable Appliances Gas or petrol lamp
other (solar panels)
Fig.13. The respondents' currently used electricity source during power outage.
512 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515
rural 44.6 37.6 10.5
urban 44.3 34.8 11.5
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
not willing (300-450) thousand YR (451-600) thousand YR
(601-750) thousand YR (751-900) thousand YR
Fig. 14. The respondents' willingness to change currently used electricity source.
rural 4.7 28.3 67
urban 4.9 23.9 71.2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
No don’t know/neutral Yes
Fig. 15. The respondents' opinions about the FiT scheme.
electricity source during the power cuts hours with a solar system
generates 1 kW, even if this will cost them additional monies. The
frequency test showed that, about 55.7% vs 55.4% of respondents
in urban and rural areas respectively were willing to change their
currently used electricity source with solar panels (refer Fig. 14).
As shown in Fig. 14 about 35% of urban respondents vs 38% of rural
respondents accepted to change their currently used electricity
source with the PV system if the system will cost them (300–450)
thousand YR. 11.5% of urban respondents vs 10.5% of rural
respondents accepted to change if the system will cost them (451–
600) thousand YR.
It should be noted that, during the period of conducting the
survey, the initial cost of the 1 kWp PV system in the local market
reached to (900,000–1,000,000) YR. Therefore, in order to
encourage the people to switch to solar energy use the govern-
ment should intervene to reduce the initial cost of the local scale
solar systems. They can reduce the initial cost of those systems by
reducing the customs duties and taxes, and providing subsidies
and soft loans. Then, the Chi square and Mann–Whitney U tests
were used to examine if there is a significant difference in
respondents' willingness to change the currently used electricity
source during the power cuts to meet their local needs with a solar
system between urban and rural areas. The findings showed that
the willingness to change did not differ significantly between the
two areas.
4.5.3. Willingness to invest in the FiT scheme (WTI)
The public willingness to invest in the "Feed-In Tariff (FiT)"
scheme through installing PV panels on the roof of their house/
shop was investigated. A brief description about the FiT scheme
was given to all respondents before asking them two questions.
The first question is in your opinion, if the FiT scheme is set by the
government, it will contribute in spreading of PV technology in the
residential sector. About 71% of the respondents in urban areas vs
67% of the respondents in rural areas said “Yes”; and about 28% vs
24% in urban and rural areas respectively preferred to say don’t
know or neutral (refer Fig. 15).
The second question is if the government enacts the FiT policy,
will you be willing to invest in this scheme through installing PV
panels on the roof of your house/shop? About 78% of the
respondents in urban areas vs 75.6% of the respondents in rural
7.4 0 rural 24.4 75.6
8.6 .9
urban 21.6 78.4
100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
No Yes
Fig. 16. The respondents’ willingness to invest in the FiT scheme.
areas said “Yes” (refer Fig. 16). These findings disagreed with [64],
who found about 81% of Malaysians were not willing to invest in
the FiT scheme. But it agreed with [55], who reported that about
half of the Greek citizens were willing to invest in the residential
PV system.
After that, to examine if there is a significant difference in the
answers of these two questions between urban and rural areas the
Chi square test was used, and the results showed that there was no
100%
significant difference in the respondents' opinions about the role
that the FiT scheme will play in spreading of PV technology in the
residential sector between urban and rural areas. Also the
respondents’ willingness to invest under the FiT scheme was not
influenced by place of residence.
It is very clear that, the respondents’ willingness to support the
use of solar energy in the power sector in the country through
paying more for electricity bills and investing in the FiT scheme
was higher than their willingness to support the use of solar
energy in the power through changing their currently used elec-
tricity source during the power outage. This may be due to (i) the
high initial cost of the PV system in the local markets; (ii) lack of
effective supportive policies that aim to encourage people to use
solar energy at home/shop; and (iii) the absence of the spirit of
personal initiative to protect the environment through using solar
energy to meet the daily electrical loads whereby only half of
respondents are concerned about the environment issues. More-
over, some of the respondents felt that there is an economic
interest from supporting the use of solar energy in the power
sector through these two activities (WTI and WTP).
5. Conclusion and recommendations
This study aimed to provide information about the public's
views on the use of renewable energy, particularly solar energy in
the power sector in Yemen. That information is considered an
imperative tool for enacting the policies that aim to push the
renewable energy use forward. It was conducted to measure the
public's knowledge of, attitudes and behavioral intentions toward
the use of solar energy in urban and rural areas, and then compare
them. The citizens’ behavioral intentions were evaluated by
investigating the respondent's willingness to pay more, will-
ingness to change their currently used electricity source during the
power outage for meeting local needs and willingness to invest in
the FiT scheme. It was carried out through conducting face-to-face
interviews with 348 and 258 household in urban and rural areas
respectively using self-structured questionnaire. To analysis the
collected data the descriptive statistics, Chi-square for indepen-
dence, odds ratios, Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests
were used.
The results of this study are summarized in Table 7. It showed
that, 76% vs 60.1% of citizens in urban and rural areas respectively
knew what renewable energy is. Solar and wind energy were the
most known renewable energy resources, while geothermal energy
 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515 513

Table 7
Summary of the study results: citizens' knowledge of, attitudes and behavioral intentions towards the use of renewable energy, particularly solar energy in the power sector
in Yemen.

Dependent variable Place of residence Is it affected by residence place factor?

Urban residents Rural residents

Interest in the environment issues 52.6% (Yes) 53.1% (Yes) No

Knowledge about renewable energy (RE) 76.1% (Yes) 60.1% (Yes) Yes; the urban residents are about 2 times more
likely to know
Knowledge about solar energy 94.8% (Yes) 97.7% (Yes) No
Knowledge about wind power 73.3% (Yes) 55.4% (Yes) Yes; the urban residents are about 2.2 times more
likely to know
Knowledge about hydropower 41.4% (Yes) 34.5% (Yes) No
Knowledge about geothermal energy 31.0% (Yes) 19.8% (Yes) Yes; the urban residents are about 2.2 times more
likely to know
Knowledge about biomass energy 32.8% (Yes) 41.5% (Yes) Yes; the rural residents are about 1.5 times more
likely to know
Understanding level of PV technology 51% (good or v. good) 56% (good or v. good) No
3.3 (mean) 3.37 (mean)
Understanding level of CSP technologies 39% (good or v. good) 24% (good or v. good) Yes; the urban residents had a higher under-
2.76 (mean) 2.21 (mean) standing level
Level of knowledge about renewable energy resources (RERs) moderate moderate Yes; the urban residents had a higher knowledge
level
Level of knowledge about the benefits of the solar energy use moderate moderate No
in the power sector
Level of knowledge about the drawbacks of the solar energy moderate moderate Yes; the urban residents had a higher knowledge
use in the power sector level
Level of knowledge about the solar power technologies used in moderate moderate Yes; the urban residents had a higher knowledge
the power sector level
Attitudes towards the renewable energy use 81.3% (S. agree or 84.5% (S. agree or agree) No
agree)
Attitudes towards the solar energy use 89.9% (S. agree or 92.2% (S. agree or agree) No
agree)
Attitudes towards the use of solar power technologies at home 80.5% (S. agree or 87.2% (S. agree or agree) Yes; the rural residents had higher attitudes
agree)
Willingness to pay 66.0% (Yes) 70.0% (Yes) No
Willingness to change 55.7% (Yes) 55.4% (Yes) No
Willingness to invest in the FiT 78.4% (Yes) 75.6% (Yes) No

was the least known resource. The citizens' knowledge level about
renewable energy resources, the benefits and drawbacks of solar
energy use in the power sector, and the solar power technologies in
both areas were moderate. Despite that, the citizens in both areas
showed high positive attitudes towards the use of renewable
energy, solar energy and solar power technologies. This may be due
to that the people in Yemen especially in the south where the cli-
mate is hot throughout the year suffer from a power outage for
several hours per day. However, these attitudes, particularly the
attitudes towards solar energy and its technologies in rural areas
were higher than those in urban areas. This can be attributed to that
the attitudes of citizens in rural areas were affected by factual
information. Whereby, the number of local installations and usage
level of PV technology in rural areas is higher than those in urban
areas. These key findings are important for policy-makers in the
country in which rural areas are considered the appropriate loca-
tions to implement renewable energy projects that need large
spaces. Besides that, the citizens in both areas accepted to engage in
the activities that aim to improve the quality of electricity service
provided through increasing the penetration of the solar energy use
in the power sector in the country. In which they were highly
willing to pay more and to invest in the FiT scheme, and they were
moderately willing to change their currently used electricity source
with a solar system. It is believed that the reason that made the
citizens are willing to engage in the activities “willingness to pay”
and “willingness to invest” more than “willingness to change” is
they felt that there is an economic interest from supporting the use
of solar energy by these two activities.
Regarding the “place of residence” factor, it significantly influ-
enced the citizens' knowledge level about renewable energy, wind
and geothermal energy, renewable energy resources, the drawbacks
of using solar energy in the power sector, and the solar power
technologies. With urban citizens were 2 times more likely to know
about renewable energy, wind power and geothermal energy than
rural citizens. Besides that, they had a higher knowledge level about
the drawbacks of using solar energy and the solar power technol-
ogies. It also influenced significantly the citizens’ knowledge level
about biomass energy, and the attitudes towards the use of solar
power technologies at home. With rural citizens were 1.5 times
more likely to know about biomass energy than urban citizens, and
they had higher positive attitudes towards the solar power tech-
nologies. It did not influence significantly the respondents’ beha-
vioral intentions.
According to the results of this study, in order to increase the
penetration of renewable energy use in the country and hence
mitigate the electricity crisis and achieve the country RE target by
2025. The country’s policy-makers should
1. Elevate the students' knowledge level of the renewable energy
topics through educating its concepts and benefits on the
environment, energy security and economy at different educa-
tional stages.
2. Enhance the general public's awareness towards the environ-
ment issues and renewable energy topics through using the
various mass media.
3. Provide the renewable energy products and especially the solar
products, appliances, equipment, and systems in the local
markets.
4. Cancel or reduce the customs duties and tax on the renewable
energy technologies and especially the solar energy technolo-
gies in order to contribute in reducing its initial cost and sup-
porting its markets.
514 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515
5. Provide the conducive environment for attracting a lot of For-
eign and Domestic Direct Investments (FDIs and DDIs) to invest
in renewable energy and manufacture its technologies in the
country.
6. Encourage the people to invest in solar energy through pro-
viding the subsidies such as investment grants and soft loans.
7. Set the Feed-in-tariff (FiT) scheme and the other policy instru-
ments that support the development of solar energy and other
renewable energy.
8. Enhance the culture of research and development (R&D)
through expansion of research institutes and institutions of
higher education.
9. Develop an efficient mechanism to train an adequate number of
technicians for repairing the solar appliances.
References
[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2013: The
physical science basis [Summary for Policymakers]. Fifth Assessment Report
(AR5); 11 November 2013.
[2] Robert L, Hirsch R, Bezdek R and Wedling R. Peaking of world oil production:
impacts, mitigation, and risk management; 2005.
[3] Dorian J, Franssenb H, Simbeck D. Global challenges in energy. Energy Policy
2006;34:1084–991.
[4] Observ’ER. Worldwide electricity production from renewable energy sources.
Fifteenth Inventory-Edition; 2013.
[5] Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Directorate of Energy & Climate Change (DECC),
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Renewable Energy Policy
Network for the 21st Century (REN21). MEAN Renewables Status Report; 2013.
[6] Jamil Abdul-Aziz, A-Nagit Abdo, Zumailan Abubaker AR. Global solar radiation
estimation from relative sunshine hours in Yemen. Renew Energy 1993;3(6/
7):645–53.
[7] Bin Gadhi Salem M, Mnkbel Mohammed A. A review of renewable energy
activities in Yemen. Renew Energy 1998;14(1–4):459–65.
[8] Almakaleh Abdo A. Monthly design values for solar energy collectors and
concentrators systems in Yemen. J Sci Technol 1999;4(2):27–44.
[9] Ali M. Al-Ashwal. All renewable energy applications in Yemen are best prac-
tice. Science and Technology Vision (ISESCO); May 2005. Vol. 1. p.45–50.
[10] United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)-Yemen. Policy note: pro-
spects of solar energy in Yemen; 2014.
[11] International Energy Agency (IEA). World energy outlook: 2012. Available
from: (〈https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications /publication/Eng
lish.pdf〉); 2012.
[12] Regional Center for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (RCREEE).
Country profile-renewable energy-Yemen 2012.pdf. 2013.
[13] Government of Yemen, Central Statistical Agency (YCSA) (2009). Population
census 2004. Available from: (〈http://www.cso-yemen.org/content.php?
lng¼ arabic&id ¼293〉).
[14] World Bank, United Nations, European Union, Islamic Development Bank and
Minister of Planning, International Cooperation (WUEIMPIC). Joint social and
economic assessment for the Republic of Yemen; 2012.
[15] Tampakis S, Tsantopoulos G, Arabatzis G, Rerras I. Citizens' views on various
forms of energy and their contribution to the environment. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2013;20:473–82.
[16] Lim Xin-Le, Lam Wei-Haur. Public acceptance of marine renewable energy in
Malaysia. Energy Policy 2014;65:16–26.
[17] Sayigh A. Renewable energy: the way forward. Appl Energy 1999;64:15–30.
[18] Jacobsson S, Johnson A. The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical
framework and key issues for research. Energy Policy 2000;28:625–40.
[19] Dincer I. Renewable energy and sustainable development: a crucial review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2000;4:157–75.
[20] Painuly JP. Barriers to renewable energy penetration; a frame work for ana-
lysis. Renew Energy 2001;24:73–89.
[21] Reddy S, Painuly J. Diffusion of renewable energy technologies: barriers and
stakeholders' perspectives. Renew Energy 2004;29:1431–47.
[22] Brunk, Conrad. Public knowledge, public trust: understanding the ‘knowledge
deficit’. Public Health Genomics; 2006. 9(3). p.178–183.
[23] Prasertsan S, Sajjakulnukit B. Biomass and biogas energy in Thailand: poten-
tial, opportunity and barriers. Renew Energy 2006;31:599–610.
[24] Devine-Wright P. Reconsidering public attitudes and public acceptance of
renewable energy technologies: a critical review. Manchester: School of
Environment and Development, University of Manchester; 2007.
[25] Wustenhagen R, Wolsink M, Burer MJ. Social acceptance of renewable energy
innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007;35:2683–91.
[26] Agterbosch S, Glasbergen P, Vermeulen WJV. Social barriers in wind power
implementation in The Netherlands: perceptions of wind power entrepre-
neurs and local civil servants of institutional and social conditions in realizing
wind power projects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11:1025–55.
[27] Upham P, Shackley S. Local public opinion of a proposed 21.5 MW(e) biomass
gasifier in Devon: questionnaire survey results. Biomass Bioenergy
2007;31:433–41.
[28] Devine-Wright, Patrick. Reconsidering public acceptance of renewable energy
technologies: a critical review. In Delivering a Low Carbon Electricity
System; 2008a.
[29] Devine-Wright, Patrick. Reconsidering public acceptance of renewable energy
technologies: a critical review. In Delivering a Low Carbon Electricity
System; 2008b.
[30] Zografakis N, Sifaki E, Pagalou M, Nikitaki G, Psarakis V, Tsagarakis KP.
Assessment of public acceptance and willingness to pay for renewable energy
sources in Crete. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:1088–95.
[31] Klick H, Smith E. Public understanding of and support for wind power in the
United States. Renew Energy 2010;35:1585–91.
[32] Qu Mei, Ahponen Pirkkoliisa, Tahvanainen Liisa, Grittene David, Blas Mola-
Yudego, Pelkonen Paavo. Chinese university students' knowledge and
attitudes regarding forest bio-energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2011;15:3649–57.
[33] Vie Ola Edvin. The need for knowledge integration in renewable energy
innovation projects. Energy Procedia 2012;20:364–76.
[34] Sovacool BK, Lakshmi Ratan P. Conceptualizing the acceptance of wind and
solar electricity. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(7):5268–79.
[35] Poortinga, Wouter, Spence, Alexa, Demski, Christina, Pidgeon, NickF. Indivi-
dual- motivational factors in the acceptability of demand-side and supply-side
measures to reduce carbon emissions. Energy Policy 2012;48:812–9.
[36] Solangi KH, A Badarudin, SN Kazi, TNW Lwin, MM Aman. Public acceptance of
solar energy: The case of Peninsular Malaysia IEEE 2013.Tencon-Spring Dol.
978-1-4673-6349-5/13/.
[37] Ribeiro Fernando, Ferreira Paula, Araújo Madalena, Braga Ana Cristina. Public
opinion on renewable energy technologies in Portugal. Energy 2014;69:39–50.
[38] Karlstrøm Henrik, Ryghaug Marianne. Public attitudes towards renewable
energy technologies in Norway. The role of party preferences. Energy Policy
2014;67:656–63.
[39] Amita Ummadisingu, Soni MS. Concentrating solar power—technology,
potential and policy in India. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:5169–75.
[40] Solangi KH, Islam MR, Saidura R, Rahimb NA, Fayaz H. A review on global solar
energy policy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:2149–63.
[41] Timilsina Govinda R, Kurdgelashvili Lado, Narbel Patrick A. Solar energy:
markets, economics and policies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:449–65.
[42] Eurobarometer. Energy attitudes towards energy. Brussels: European
Commission; 2006.
[43] Eltham DC, Harrison GP, Allen SJ. Change in public attitudes toward a Cornish
wind farm: implications for planning. Energy Policy 2008;36:23–33.
[44] Halder P, Prokop P, Chang CY, Usak M, Pietarinen, Havu-Nuutinen S, et al.
International survey on bioenergy knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes
among young citizens. Bioenergy Res 2012;5(1):247–61.
[45] Adelle C, Withana S. EU and US public perceptions of environmental, climate
change and energy issues. UK: Institute for European Environmental Policies,
http://ieep.org.uk/Publications/pdfs/t_page/eu_us_public_perceptions.pdf;
2008. [accessed 7.10.14].
[46] Khambalkar VP, Katkhede SS, Dahatonde S, Korpef ND, Nage SM. Renewable
energy: an assessment of public awareness. Int J Ambient Energy 2010;31
(3):133–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2010.9675112.
[47] Zainal Abidin Ab Kadir Mohd, Rafeeu Yaaseen, Nor Mariah Adam. Prospective
scenarios for the full solar energy development in Malaysia. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2010;14:3023–31.
[48] Chua SC, Oh TH. Review on Malaysia's national energy developments: Key
policies, agencies, programmes and international involvements. Renew Sus-
tain Energy Rev 2010;14(9):2916–25.
[49] Chua SC, Oh TH, Goh WW. Feed-in tariff outlook in Malaysia. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2011;15(1):705–12.
[50] Ahmad S, Kadir MZ, Shafie S. Current perspective of the renewable energy
development in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15(2):897–904.
[51] Lim Chin Haw, Kamaruzzaman Sopian, Yusof Sulaiman. Public response to
residential building integrated photovoltaic system (BIPV) in Kuala Lumpur
urban area. In: Proceedings of the 4th IASME / WSEAS international con-
ference on energy & environment (EE'09).
[52] Ali R, Daut I, Taib. S. A review on existing and future energy sources for
electrical power generation in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16
(6):4047–55.
[53] Sapsford Roger, Jupp Victor. Data collection and analysis. 2nd ed.. London:
Sage; 2006.
[54] Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities.
Educ Psychol Meas 1970;30:607–10.
[55] Tsantopoulos Georgios, Arabatzis Garyfallos, Tampakis Stilianos. Public atti-
tudes towards photovoltaic developments: case study from Greece. Energy
Policy 2014;71:94–106.
[56] Floyd J, Fowler JR. Survey research methods. 3rd ed.. London: Sage; 2002.
[57] Bergmann A, Hanley N, Wright R. Valuing the attributes of renewable energy
investments. Energy Policy 2006;34:1004–14.
[58] Liu Wenling, Wang Can, Mol Arthur PJ. Rural public acceptance of renewable
energy deployment: the case of Shandong in China. Appl Energy
2013;102:1187–96.
[59] Zyadin Anas, Puhakk Antero, Ahponen Pirkkoliisa, Cronberg Tarja, Pelkonen
Paavo. School students’ knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes toward
renewable energy in Jordan. Renew Energy 2012;45:78–85.
 D.A. Baharoon et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 498–515
[60] Canada Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). Wind energy in Canada: market
Research Briefing Document. Available from: (〈http://www.canwea.ca/ ima
ges/uploads/File /Resources/Membership_Fact_Sheet_-_Public_Opinion_
ResearchJune_29.pdf〉; 2005) [retrieved 03.05.2014].
[61] Karytsas Spyridon, Theodoropoulou Helen. Socio-economic and demographic
factors that influence publics' awareness on the different forms of renewable
energy sources. Renew Energy 2014;71:480–5.
[62] Baharoon Dhyia Aidroos, Rahman Hasimah Abdul, Omar Wan Zaidi Wan,
Fadhl Saeed Obaid. Historical development of concentrating solar power
technologies to generate clean electricity efficiently – a review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;41:996–1027.
[63] Farhar, B.C., Energy and the environment: the public view. Review of Energy
and the Environment October 1996; Issue Brief No.3.
[64] Firdaus Muhammad-Sukki, Roberto Ramirez-Iniguez, Abu-Bakar Siti Hawa,
McMeekin Scott G, Stewart Brian G. An evaluation of the installation of solar
photovoltaic in residential houses in Malaysia: past, present, and future.
Energy Policy 2011;39:7975–87.
515
[65] Zyadin Anas, Puhakk Antero, Ahponen Pirkkoliisa, Cronberg Tarja, Pelkonen
Paavo. Secondary school teachers’ knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes
toward renewable energy in Jordan. Renew Energy 2014;62:341–8.
[66] Bang HK, Ellinger AE, Hadjimarcou J, Traichal PA. Consumer concern, knowl-
edge, belief and attitude toward renewable energy: an application of the
reasoned action theory. Psychol Market 2000;17:449–68.
[67] Dhyia Aidroos Bahroon, Hasimah Abdul Rahman. Performance evaluation of
solar-fossil fuel-hybrid parabolic trough power plant in Yemen underdifferent
fuel types. IEEE 2014 Cencon2014-Dol. 978-1-4799-4848-2/14/.
[68] Kontogianni A, Tourkolias Ch, Skourtos M. Renewables portfolio,individual
preferences and social values towards RES technologies. Energy Policy
2013;55:467–76.
[69] Gadenne D, Kerr Sharm B, Smith D, T.. The influence of consumers' environ-
mental beliefs and attitudes on energy saving behaviours. Energy Policy
2011;39:7684–94.
[70] Sardianou E, Genoudi P. Which factors affect the willingness of consumers to
adopt renewable energies? Renew Energy 2013;57:1–4.