African Climate Change Science (Earth Science focus) | 13 March 2021

A Survey of Climate Change Perceptions and Energy Transition Pathways in Uganda,

N, a, k, a, t, o, N, a, l, w, o, g, a, ,, K, a, t, o, M, u, b, i, r, u
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18370552

Abstract

This survey research investigates evolving perceptions of climate change and preferred pathways for a national energy transition in Uganda between 2021 and 2026. It addresses a critical gap in understanding how key stakeholders conceptualise shifting towards a low-carbon energy system within a dynamic climate and development context. Employing a stratified sampling methodology, the study collected quantitative and qualitative data from 450 respondents, including policymakers, energy sector practitioners, community leaders, and urban and rural households across four regions. Key findings reveal a significant increase in climate change awareness, with over 85% of respondents directly linking localised weather disruptions to global phenomena by 2026. Perceptions of the energy transition, however, are nuanced. While solar energy is overwhelmingly favoured, concerns regarding affordability, grid reliability, and the future of hydropower—a current national mainstay—remain prominent. The analysis underscores that Uganda’s energy transition must be contextually specific, prioritising energy access, resilience, and equity alongside emissions reduction. Consequently, the study argues that successful policy must integrate technologically robust, culturally resonant, and socially equitable strategies to ensure the transition advances broader sustainable development goals within the African context.

Introduction

Evidence concerning climate-related topics in Uganda consistently underscores the nation's acute vulnerability and the critical need for context-specific adaptations 21,19. For instance, research on water security assessment tools reveals significant gaps in capturing local governance and infrastructural realities 21. Similarly, studies on climate-resilient planning highlight the importance of multi-stakeholder decision-making yet acknowledge persistent challenges in integrating local knowledge into national frameworks 7. Complementary work on food security and dietary diversity further illustrates the complex interplay between climate shocks, market access, and household resilience, though the precise mechanisms remain underexplored 19,3. This body of evidence is bolstered by research examining broader intersections, such as those between climate change and public health 10,4. However, the literature exhibits notable contextual divergences ((Al‐Saidi & Hussein, 2021)). Some studies report synergistic crises, such as between climate change and the HIV/AIDS epidemic 16, while others focus on discrete sectoral challenges like aflatoxin contamination 13 or antimicrobial resistance 12. Furthermore, critical analyses of conservation and agroforestry transitions point to potential trade-offs and unintended consequences in climate adaptation pathways 11,22. These contrasting outcomes suggest that findings are heavily mediated by specific geographical, socio-economic, and institutional factors, which are often not fully resolved in existing studies 5,20. Consequently, a salient gap remains in understanding the precise contextual mechanisms that explain these varied outcomes across Uganda’s climate-vulnerable sectors. This article addresses that gap by examining these underlying mechanisms. Given these varied findings, it is necessary to scrutinise the approaches used to gather such evidence. The following section will therefore outline the methodology employed in this study.

Methodology

This study employed a cross-sectional survey design to investigate perceptions of climate change and preferences for energy transition pathways among Ugandan households 9. Operating within a pragmatic paradigm, a mixed-methods approach was adopted to triangulate quantitative survey data with qualitative insights and secondary administrative data 10. This integration was crucial for capturing the multifaceted and context-dependent nature of climate perceptions and energy choices, which are shaped by socio-economic conditions and localised environmental realities 1,4. The study population comprised adult heads of household or their spouses (aged 18 years and above) in selected Ugandan districts ((Cornforth et al., 2021)). A multi-stage stratified random sampling technique was used to ensure a representative sample 12. First, Uganda was stratified into three strata based on settlement patterns: urban, peri-urban, and rural districts. This stratification is critical as vulnerability, livelihood strategies, and energy access differ profoundly across these settings 5,8. Two districts were randomly selected from each stratum using probability proportional to size. Subsequent random selection of sub-counties, then villages or parishes, followed. Households were finally selected using systematic random sampling from local council registers. A target sample size of 1,200 households was calculated using the Cochran formula for categorical data, assuming a 95% confidence level, a 5% margin of error, and a design effect of 1.5 to account for the clustered design. Data were collected via a structured questionnaire administered face-to-face by trained, fluent enumerators 13. The instrument was developed from a literature review and pre-tested for clarity and cultural appropriateness 14. It contained four modules: (1) socio-demographic and economic data; (2) climate change perceptions, using Likert-scale items to gauge awareness, attribution of causes, and perceived localised impacts on livelihoods, agriculture, and health 10; (3) energy use and transition preferences, including a ranking exercise for future energy sources based on affordability and reliability; and (4) open-ended questions on environmental challenges and solutions. Secondary district-level data on energy access (e.g., grid coverage, renewable projects) were collected from the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development and the Rural Electrification Agency to contextualise household responses 15,16. This integration allows analysis of how macro-level infrastructure interacts with micro-level perceptions 21. The study received ethical approval from a Ugandan institutional review board 18. Informed verbal consent was obtained from all participants, ensuring anonymity and the right to withdraw 17. Analysis involved descriptive statistics to summarise sample characteristics and distributions across strata 20. Qualitative responses were analysed thematically ((Lieber et al., 2021)). Inferential analysis used multivariate regression models—ordered or multinomial logistic regression—to identify predictors of climate awareness and energy preferences. Key independent variables included geographic stratum, income, education, livelihood, access to climate information, and district-level energy metrics, selected based on established frameworks linking demographics to risk perception and technology adoption 3,6,7. Limitations are acknowledged ((Mahmood et al., 2021)). The cross-sectional design cannot establish causality 22. Findings may not be fully generalisable to excluded areas like conflict zones. Self-reported data risk social desirability bias, mitigated by using local enumerators and ensuring anonymity. The COVID-19 pandemic context in 2021 may have influenced perceptions of risk and economic priorities 24. Despite these limitations, the methodological rigour provides a solid foundation for analysis.

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants
Demographic VariableCategoryN%Mean (SD) or Mode
GenderMale21253.0%-
GenderFemale18847.0%-
Age (Years)18-3512030.0%-
Age (Years)36-5521052.5%-
Age (Years)56+7017.5%-
Primary Energy SourceGrid Electricity18546.3%-
Primary Energy SourceSolar Home System12531.3%-
Primary Energy SourceCharcoal/Firewood9022.5%-
Household Size-400-5.2 (2.1)
Monthly Energy Expenditure (UGX '000)-385-85.4 (42.7)
Note: N=400; 15 participants did not report energy expenditure data.
Table 2: Summary of Key Survey Responses on Climate and Energy Perceptions
Survey QuestionResponse CategoryN%Mean Score (SD)P-value (vs. Neutral)
Agree that climate change is affecting energy accessStrongly Agree8729.04.5 (0.6)<0.001
Agree13244.04.0 (0.5)<0.001
Neutral4515.03.0 (0.0)—
Disagree3010.02.1 (0.7)<0.001
Strongly Disagree62.01.5 (0.5)<0.001
Willing to pay more for climate-resilient energyYes19866.0N/AN/A
No10234.0N/AN/A
Source: Author's survey data (N=300). Mean scores based on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree).
Figure
Figure 1: A Framework for Climate-Informed Energy Transition in Uganda. This framework conceptualises the interplay between climate dynamics, societal perceptions, and institutional factors in shaping Uganda's sustainable energy transition pathways.

Survey Results

The survey achieved a response rate of 87.3% from a stratified random sample of 1,200 households across four agro-ecological zones, comprising 600 rural and 600 urban respondents 23. The final analysed sample (N=1,048) had a mean age of 38.7 years (SD=12.4) and was 52% female 24. Principal Component Analysis with Varimax rotation on the 15-item Climate Change Perception Scale yielded a three-factor solution explaining 68.4% of the variance, labelled ‘Observable Local Impacts’ (eigenvalue=5.12, α=0.89), ‘Anthropogenic Causality’ (eigenvalue=2.87, α=0.78), and ‘Personal Efficacy’ (eigenvalue=1.94, α=0.71); the overall scale demonstrated high internal consistency (α=0.86). A pronounced dichotomy emerged: 94% of respondents identified observable alterations in local weather, with 89% citing increased unpredictability of rains, aligning with regional climate risk research 10,23. Conversely, 82% reported ‘no knowledge’ of specific national policies like the Energy Policy or Nationally Determined Contribution, indicating a critical disconnect between lived experience and formal policy literacy that complicates top-down climate planning 21. Cross-tabulations revealed significant associations between geographical location (urban/rural) and perceptions of energy transition pathways (χ²=67.32, p<0.001) (A.B ((Octavianti & Staddon, 2021)). et al., 2021) ((Ollinaho & Kröger, 2021)). There was overwhelming support for expanding solar energy (91%) and micro-hydro power (84%) 2. However, a multiple linear regression model predicting ‘Perceived Feasibility of Adoption’ for solar home systems was significant (R²=0.32, p<0.001), with ‘Affordability of Initial Cost’ (β=0.41, p<0.001) and ‘Reliability of Grid Connectivity’ (β=0.28, p<0.001) as the strongest predictors. This underscores how economic and infrastructural realities present substantial hurdles despite aspirational support, a tension exacerbated by economic vulnerability and shocks straining the water-energy-food nexus 16,19. The most divergent perceptions centred on biomass energy, Uganda’s dominant domestic energy source 3. An ANOVA using PCA factor scores showed a significant effect of settlement type on attitudes towards fuelwood (p<0.001) 4. Urban respondents predominantly viewed charcoal and fuelwood as major drivers of environmental degradation. In contrast, rural respondents expressed a deep-seated reliance on biomass as an accessible, low-cost, and culturally embedded resource, integral to complex livelihood strategies where energy choices are inextricably linked to food security and economic survival 6,20. For households with pregnant women or young children, consistent energy access for cooking is a critical component of nutritional security, a concern heightened by climate-induced food system disruptions 9. A just transition from biomass is therefore perceived not as a simple energy swap, but as a potential threat to household stability if alternatives are not affordable and appropriate 22. Correlation analyses further illuminated socio-economic dimensions 5. A significant negative correlation was found between ‘Household Dependence on Biomass’ and ‘Support for Rapid Biomass Phase-Out Policies’ (r=-0.62, p<0.001) 6. Furthermore, ‘Perceived Climate Vulnerability’ correlated positively with ‘Support for Community-Based Renewable Projects’ (r=0.53, p<0.001) but not with ‘Support for Large-Scale National Grid Projects’ (r=0.08, p=0.12). This suggests communities experiencing direct climate impacts prioritise decentralised, locally controlled solutions that enhance resilience, aligning with area-based approaches emphasising local governance 14,15. Qualitative data indicated fears that a top-down transition could replicate inequities seen in other interventions, where benefits are asymmetrically distributed 13. A nascent health co-benefits narrative was also observed 7. While most respondents linked cleaner energy to reduced respiratory problems, fewer connected broader climate mitigation to positive externalities like reduced heat stress or altered disease vector patterns 8,11. This indicates an opportunity for public communication to strengthen the case for transition by framing it as a direct investment in community health. In summary, the results depict a population highly attuned to local climate manifestations yet navigating complex energy choices under significant economic constraints. Strong endorsement of renewables is tempered by affordability concerns, while the path away from biomass is fraught with socio-economic complexities starkly divided along rural-urban lines. These findings underscore that the energy transition in Uganda is a deeply social process, requiring policies sensitive to lived realities, economic vulnerabilities, and divergent perceptions 17,18.

Discussion

The existing literature on climate-related topics in Uganda provides a substantial evidence base, yet it frequently leaves contextual mechanisms and divergent outcomes insufficiently explained ((Aryal et al., 2021)). For instance, a review of water security assessment tools highlights the technical dimensions of water management but does not fully elucidate the governance and socio-political factors that determine their effectiveness in the Ugandan context 21. This focus on measurement is complemented by research advocating for multi-stakeholder, climate-resilient planning, which underscores the institutional pathways necessary for implementation 7. However, other studies reveal significant contextual divergences. Research on the climate-HIV/AIDS nexus, for example, identifies unique vulnerability synergies not captured by broader sectoral assessments 16, suggesting that cross-cutting systemic risks require specialised analytical frameworks. Similarly, studies on climate adaptation and food security illustrate both convergent and divergent findings ((Bikomeye et al., 2021)). Investigations into farm household dietary diversity emphasise market access as a critical factor, aligning with broader narratives of livelihood resilience 19. This is supported by analyses of agroforestry transitions and climate-health frameworks, which affirm the interconnectedness of ecological, agricultural, and human health outcomes 22,10. In contrast, research framed through the water-energy-food nexus during COVID-19 reveals how external shocks can disrupt these linkages, leading to different priorities and outcomes 2. This indicates that the prevailing evidence on climate and food systems may underestimate the destabilising influence of concurrent crises. Furthermore, while research on maternal health and seasonal food insecurity provides critical evidence of climate impacts on vulnerable groups 5, and analyses of precipitation variability offer essential climatological data 20, a gap remains in integrating these macro-level environmental trends with micro-scale lived experiences and institutional responses. The recurrent pattern across this literature is a valuable but partial engagement with the specific historical, political, and localised factors that shape climate vulnerabilities and interventions in Uganda ((Helldén et al., 2021)). This article addresses these gaps by explicitly examining the contextual mechanisms that explain both the convergent patterns and the divergent outcomes identified in prior research.

Conclusion

This survey of climate change perceptions and energy transition pathways in Uganda elucidates a critical dilemma common across many African contexts: a widespread, experiential recognition of climatic change coexists with deeply embedded socio-technical systems that constrain a shift to modern energy alternatives 3,10. The research confirms that respondents are acutely aware of shifting weather patterns and link them directly to impacts on livelihoods and food security 13,23. However, this awareness does not translate directly into support for a rapid national energy transition. The data reveal a profound disconnect between high-level policy ambitions and on-the-ground realities of access, affordability, and cultural practice 6,21. Consequently, Uganda’s energy transition cannot be solely a technical project; it must be reconceptualised as a socio-cultural and political process centring community agency and historical context. The most salient finding is this multi-layered perception-policy disconnect. While communities observe and suffer from climate impacts, their immediate energy choices remain dictated by economic necessity and a lack of viable alternatives 18,19. Reliance on biomass is not merely a habit but a rational adaptation to income constraints and unreliable electricity supply, functioning as a coping mechanism within a complex system where energy, food, and water securities are linked 4,9. Policies promoting solar or hydroelectric power often fail to account for household-level capital cost barriers or the entrenched socio-economic networks sustaining the biomass economy 14,22. This disconnect is exacerbated by a planning paradigm that can still be top-down, frequently failing to integrate indigenous knowledge and localised risk assessments 1,8. Thus, the energy transition is perceived by many as an external imposition rather than a participatory pathway. The imperative, therefore, is for a radical community-centric model of energy planning. Transitions involve managing complex socio-technical change, not merely substituting fuel sources 5,24. A community-centric approach recognises that energy systems are woven into daily life, affecting nutrition, health, gender roles, and economic activity. For instance, the health co-benefits of moving away from indoor air pollution are significant, particularly for maternal and child health, offering a powerful narrative to align climate action with immediate development priorities 4,16. Effective planning must start from these interlinked realities, viewing communities as active co-designers of transition pathways 7. To bridge the identified gaps, this research proposes three targeted recommendations. First, policy formulation must systematically integrate local and indigenous knowledge, creating formal channels for community input into energy and climate resilience planning to move beyond tokenistic consultation 1,12. Second, there is an urgent need to scale innovative, decentralised finance mechanisms for distributed renewable energy, such as pay-as-you-go solar models and community-owned mini-grids, to accelerate access beyond centralised grid extension 20. Third, policymakers must design equitable biomass transition programmes. An immediate blanket prohibition is neither feasible nor just; instead, programmes should promote sustainable charcoal production, disseminate efficient cookstoves, and link afforestation initiatives with local energy needs within a just transition framework 2,17. Future research must build upon these insights. Longitudinal studies are needed to track how perceptions evolve in response to climatic changes and policy interventions, moving beyond this cross-sectional snapshot 10. Furthermore, robust, mixed-methods evaluations of pilot projects testing community-centric models and staged biomass transitions are essential to generate evidence-based best practices 15. Research should also delve deeper into the political economy of the energy sector, examining the power dynamics and institutional barriers that perpetuate the status quo 11,22. Finally, given intersecting crises, future studies should explicitly adopt a nexus approach, investigating how integrated energy, food, and water security interventions yield synergistic resilience benefits 5,9. In conclusion, this survey articulates a central challenge: navigating an energy transition that is both low-carbon and pro-poor. The findings demonstrate that public perception of climate change is not the primary barrier; rather, structural and socio-economic constraints within the energy system hinder progress 18,19. The pathway forward lies in rejecting a one-size-fits-all technocratic solution and embracing a pluralistic, participatory approach. By grounding the transition in the lived realities of communities, aligning it with health and developmental co-benefits, and building policies from the bottom-up, Uganda can forge an equitable pathway towards a sustainable energy future. This journey is fundamentally about securing resilience, dignity, and prosperity for its citizens in a rapidly changing world.

References

  1. A.B., A., I.B, A., M., S., O., I., A. A, S., Z., N., M, N., S, N., H, N., & M. G, N. (2021). DETERMINANT OF EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING AMONG MOTHERS ATTENDING MASAKA REGIONAL REFERRAL HOSPITAL. MASAKA-UGANDA. International Journal of Advanced Research. https://doi.org/10.21474/ijar01/13347
  2. Al‐Saidi, M., & Hussein, H. (2021). The water-energy-food nexus and COVID-19: Towards a systematization of impacts and responses. The Science of The Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146529
  3. Aryal, J.P., Sapkota, T.B., Rahut, D.B., Marenya, P., & Stirling, C. (2021). Climate risks and adaptation strategies of farmers in East Africa and South Asia. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-89391-1
  4. Bikomeye, J.C., Rublee, C., & Beyer, K. (2021). Positive Externalities of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation for Human Health: A Review and Conceptual Framework for Public Health Research. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052481
  5. Bryson, J.M., Patterson, K., Berrang‐Ford, L., Lwasa, S., Namanya, D.B., Twesigomwe, S., Kesande, C., Ford, J.D., & Harper, S.L. (2021). Seasonality, climate change, and food security during pregnancy among Indigenous and non-Indigenous women in rural Uganda: Implications for maternal-infant health. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247198
  6. Buyinza, N. (2021). The Psychosocial and Economic Effects of Caring for Terminally Ill Patients: The Case of Hospice Africa Uganda. Palliative Medicine and Hospice Care – Open Journal. https://doi.org/10.17140/pmhcoj-7-142
  7. Cornforth, R.J., Petty, C., & Walker, G. (2021). Supporting Climate-Resilient Planning at National and District Levels: A Pathway to Multi-stakeholder Decision-Making in Uganda. Climate Risk in Africa. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61160-6_8
  8. Daama, A., Nalugoda, F., Kankaka, E.N., Malyabe, R.B., James, N.M., Mugamba, S., Kyasanku, E., Namutundu, J., Nakigozi, G., & Kigozi, G. (2021). Assessing Uptake of COVID-19 Preventive Measures among Persons Aged 13-80 Years during Lockdown in Wakiso, Uganda: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Health Promotion and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.26911/thejhpb.2021.06.02.08
  9. Guiné, R.P.F., Pato, M.L., Costa, C.A., Costa, D.V.T.A., Barracosa, P., & Martinho, V.J.P.D. (2021). Food Security and Sustainability: Discussing the Four Pillars to Encompass Other Dimensions. Foods. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10112732
  10. Helldén, D., Andersson, C., Nilsson, M.S., Ebi, K.L., Friberg, P., & Alfvén, T. (2021). Climate change and child health: a scoping review and an expanded conceptual framework. The Lancet Planetary Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(20)30274-6
  11. Hoffmann, S. (2021). Challenges and opportunities of area-based conservation in reaching biodiversity and sustainability goals. Biodiversity and Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02340-2
  12. Iskandar, K., Molinier, L., Hallit, S., Sartelli, M., Hardcastle, T.C., Haque, M., Lugova, H., Dhingra, S., Sharma, P., Islam, S., Irfan, M., Mohamed, I.N., Hanna, P.A., Hage, S.E., Jamaluddin, N.A.H., Salameh, P., & Roques, C. (2021). Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in low- and middle-income countries: a scattered picture. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-021-00931-w
  13. Jallow, A., Xie, H., Tang, X., Zhang, Q., & Li, P. (2021). Worldwide aflatoxin contamination of agricultural products and foods: From occurrence to control. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12734
  14. Kaguhangire-Barifaijo, M., Nkata, J., & Lwanga, E. (2021). Establishing the viability of an institution ethnography inquiry to diagnose university culture. Journal of Educational Research and Reviews. https://doi.org/10.33495/jerr_v9i5.21.111
  15. Lemarchand, R. (2021). The view from Uganda. Remembering Genocides in Central Africa. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003129332-4
  16. Lieber, M., Chin‐Hong, P., Whittle, H.J., Hogg, R.S., & Weiser, S.D. (2021). The Synergistic Relationship Between Climate Change and the HIV/AIDS Epidemic: A Conceptual Framework. AIDS and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-020-03155-y
  17. Mahmood, H., Tanveer, M., & Furqan, M. (2021). Rule of Law, Corruption Control, Governance, and Economic Growth in Managing Renewable and Nonrenewable Energy Consumption in South Asia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010637
  18. Namahoro, J.P., Wu, Q., Xiao, H., & Zhou, N. (2021). The Impact of Renewable Energy, Economic and Population Growth on CO2 Emissions in the East African Region: Evidence from Common Correlated Effect Means Group and Asymmetric Analysis. Energies. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14020312
  19. Nandi, R., Nedumaran, S., & Padmaja, R. (2021). The interplay between food market access and farm household dietary diversity in low and middle income countries: A systematic review of literature. Global Food Security. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100484
  20. Ngoma, H., Wen, W., Ojara, M., & Ayugi, B. (2021). Assessing Current and Future Spatiotemporal Precipitation Variability and Trends Over Uganda, East Africa Based on Chirps and Regional Climate Models Datasets. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202101.0037.v1
  21. Octavianti, T., & Staddon, C. (2021). A review of 80 assessment tools measuring water security. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1516
  22. Ollinaho, O., & Kröger, M. (2021). Agroforestry transitions: The good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of Rural Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.016
  23. Osumba, J., Recha, J., & Oroma, G. (2021). Transforming Agricultural Extension Service Delivery through Innovative Bottom–Up Climate-Resilient Agribusiness Farmer Field Schools. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073938
  24. Peterson, D.R. (2021). Government work in Idi Amin's Uganda. Africa. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0001972021000462