Issue 1 (201)/2025

ALSE and ACS Style
Candia, D.A. Factors associated with the choice of cooking fuel among households in Uganda. Journal of Applied Life Sciences and Environment 2025, 58 (1), 143-154. 
https://doi.org/10.46909/alse-581169

AMA Style
Candia DA. Factors associated with the choice of cooking fuel among households in Uganda. Journal of Applied Life Sciences and Environment. 2025; 58 (1): 143-154.
https://doi.org/10.46909/alse-581169

Chicago/Turabian Style
Candia, Douglas Andabati. 2025. “Factors associated with the choice of cooking fuel among households in Uganda.” Journal of Applied Life Sciences and Environment 58, no. 1: 143-154.
https://doi.org/10.46909/alse-581169

Factors associated with the choice of cooking fuel among households in Uganda

Douglas Andabati CANDIA

Department of Planning and Applied Statistics, College of Business and Management Sciences, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Nakawa, Kampala, Uganda

*Correspondence: douglascandia@gmail.com 

Received: Dec. 20, 2024. Revised: Apr. 16, 2025. Accepted: Apr. 25, 2025. Published online: May 14, 2025

ABSTRACT. The majority of households in Uganda rely on traditional cooking fuels the use of which is associated with many dangers. This study sought to identify the factors related to the choice of cooking fuel among households in Uganda. The study used secondary data from the 2018–19 Uganda Malaria Indicator Survey (UMIS). The analysis was performed using Pearson’s chi-square test and the complementary log-log regression model. Most respondents used unclean cooking fuels (98.96%). The use of clean cooking fuels was more likely among households in the richest wealth index category, those from the Pentecostal/born-again/evangelical or other religions, and households that had electricity. An increase in household members was found to reduce the likelihood of using clean cooking fuels. There is a need for the government to reduce the initial connection fees to the power grid and the tariff per unit of electricity consumed by households in Uganda.

Keywords: complementary log-log regression; cooking fuel; Uganda.

 

INTRODUCTION

An estimated 2.4 billion of the world’s population lacks access to clean cooking fuel yet in developing countries, cooking contributes to approximately 90 per cent of the household energy consumption (Choudhury et al., 2023). One of the targets under Goal 7 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is ensuring universal access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services by 2030. To achieve this, a renewed effort is needed to accelerate access to clean energy solutions beyond current efforts. If not revised, with the current trend, by 2030 an estimated 60 per cent of people lacking access to clean cooking fuel will be from sub-Saharan Africa (World Bank, 2024).

Consistent exposure to smoke from unclean cooking fuels has been linked to numerous health problems, including cataracts, childhood pneumonia, lung cancer, high blood pressure, under-five mortality, and obstetric complications, among others, due to household air pollution (Rasel et al., 2024; Simkovich et al., 2019). Traditional or unclean cooking fuels have also contributed to environmental degradation, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. (Timilsina et al., 2016).

If this trend is not addressed, this will have serious implications for the attainment of other SDGs, such as Goals 1–3 aimed, respectively, at ending all forms of poverty; ending hunger and achieving food security; and ensuring healthy lives due to the overall environmental, social, economic, health, and financial implications of cooking fuel choices.

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) which is predominantly rural, is characterized by heavy reliance on cooking fuels such as crop residue, cow dung, wood fuel, charcoal, and kerosene, with few – mostly urban-based – households using modern cooking fuels such as solar, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and electricity. The choice of cooking fuel is mainly driven by affordability or costs (Ali et al., 2017; Rahut et al., 2019), with households progressing from traditional methods (unprocessed biomass energy e.g. wood) to transition methods (processed biomass e.g. charcoal, kerosene) and finally to sustainable modern methods (non-solid e.g. electricity) as income or economic status improves (Mainimo et al., 2022).  Other than economic factors (cost, income, access to credit, etc.), studies have found other factors that do influence the adoption and use of modern cooking methods. These can be broadly grouped under demographic (age, gender, education, family size, etc.), technical (risk perception, safety concerns, health impact, etc.), sociocultural (cultural norms, religion, peer influence, etc.), and physical (access, availability, seasonal variations, etc.) (Ibe and Kollur, 2024).

In Uganda, households predominantly cook using firewood (85%) and charcoal (13%), mainly obtained from cutting down forests (NPA, 2020). However, government and development partners have fronted alternative solutions such as improved cooking stoves, LPG gas, and solar cookers, among others. However, the adoption of these has been low due to the high costs of purchasing and maintaining them, limited infrastructure to aid in distribution, limited awareness and negative perceptions of alternative cooking energy solutions, etc.

Some households in urban areas continue to use unclean cooking fuels such as charcoal alongside clean cooking fuels, such as electricity, depending on the available finances and the type of food being prepared, among other factors. According to the National Development Plan 3 (NDP3), the government of Uganda aims to reduce the use of biomass for cooking from 88% to 50% and also to increase the use of clean energy for cooking from 15% to 50% by 2025 (NPA, 2020). This will require identifying the key issues that influence peoples’ adoption and continuous use of either unclean or clean cooking fuels to inform policy decisions and other interventions by the government and other key stakeholders. Some studies have explored the factors that influence the choice of cooking fuel among households in Uganda. However, some of the have focused on specific parts of the country (Elasu et al., 2022; Mainimo et al., 2022) and with relatively small sample sizes, making it impossible to generalize the findings to the entire country. Furthermore, for some studies, key variables have not been included, such as access to electricity (Katutsi et al., 2020), which is the main source of clean energy in the country.

Therefore, this study seeks to identify the factors that influence households to opt to use either modern or traditional cooking fuels using nationwide data and proposes interventions to counter the current negative trend in the country regarding the use of sustainable improved cooking fuels.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data source

The study will use secondary data from the 2018–19 Uganda Malaria Indicator Survey (UMIS). The data were collected between 11 December 2018 and 31 January 2019 using a two-stage sampling design.

Firstly, a sample of clusters was selected from sampling frames for both non-refugee and refugee settlements. The sample frame for the non-refugee areas was the 2014 National Population and Housing Census (NPHC) while for the refugee areas, it was the National Refugees’ Survey sampling frame (UNHCR, 2020). Using probability proportional to size, 320 clusters (84 in urban areas and 236 in rural areas) were selected in non-refugee areas and 22 clusters in refugee areas.

At the second stage, households were selected using systematic sampling. In total, 8,878 households were selected. The sample was selected so as to enable the computation of estimates for key indicators at the national level, for rural and urban areas and for the 15 regions of the country (South Buganda, North Buganda, Kampala, Busoga, Bukedi, Bugisu, Teso, Karamoja, Lango, Acholi, West Nile, Bunyoro, Tooro, Kigezi, and Ankole). All women aged 15–49 years who resided permanently or visited and stayed in the selected households the night before the survey were eligible to be interviewed.

Dependent variable

The dependent variable in this study was the choice of cooking fuel. In the UMIS, respondents were asked, “What type of fuel does your household mainly use for cooking?” The responses were grouped into either modern/clean (electricity, LPG/cylinder gas, biogas) or traditional/unclean (kerosene, charcoal, wood, straw/shrubs/grass, agricultural crop residue, animal dung) (Choudhury et al., 2023; Epuitai et al., 2022; Ishengoma and Igangula, 2021). The responses to the question were then grouped under the categories of clean or unclean cooking fuels, based on the literature. Therefore, the dependent variable used for subsequent analysis is a nominal variable with two possible outcomes.

Independent variables

The independent variables considered for this study were: place of residence; region; sex of household head; age of household head; wealth index; number of household members; religion; highest educational level; household has radio; household has television; and household has electricity.

Data analysis

Data were analysed using STATA version 15 at three stages. Firstly, a descriptive summary of all plausible independent variables and the dependent variable was made using frequency distributions and percentages. Secondly, using Pearson’s chi-square test (Equation 1), the association between the dependent variable (slept under bed net) and the plausible independent variables were tested and the significant variables (p≤0.05) at this level were considered for multivariate analysis.

where  is the number of individuals observed in the i^th row and j^th column cell, is the number of individuals expected in the i^th row, and j^th column cell.

Finally, the complementary log-log regression model (Equation 2) was used for multivariate analysis due to the binary nature of the dependent variable and its suitability for events whose chance of occurrence is extremely high or extremely low.

In the case of this study, based on the literature for sub-Saharan Africa, it was assumed that few households used clean cooking fuels.

where  the intercept,  are the partial slope coefficients, are the independent variables

 

RESULTS

Table 1 provides a descriptive summary of the background characteristics of study respondents. The highest percentage of respondents resided in rural areas (68.46%), were from the northern region (32.28%), resided in male-headed households (68.63%), and were mostly aged 35–44 years (29.03%). Moreover, the highest proportion of respondents were in the poorest wealth index category (27.98%), resided in households with 5–6 members (27.17%), were Catholic (40.17%), and had, at most, primary level education (53.59%). The majority of respondents had a radio (53%), had no television (81.74%), did not have electricity (59.15%), and used unclean cooking fuels (98.96%).

The results for Pearson’s chi-square test of the association between choice of cooking fuel and the plausible independent variables are presented in Table 2.

The respondents’ place of residence, region, wealth index, number of household members, religion, highest education level, having a radio, having a television, and having electricity were significantly associated with the type of cooking fuel used. The age and sex of the household head (p>0.05) had no significant association with the type of cooking fuel used.

From Table 2, the majority of respondents in both urban (97.71%) and rural (99.29%) areas and all (100%) those in refugee areas used unclean cooking fuels. The Central region (2.13%) had the highest proportion using clean cooking fuels, followed by the western region (1.31%).

 

Table 1
Characteristics of respondents

Variables	Frequency	Percent
Choice of cooking fuel
Unclean	8,553	98.96
Clean	90	1.04
Place of residence
Urban	2,099	24.29
Rural	5,917	68.46
Refugee	627	7.25
Region
Central	1,645	19.03
Eastern	1,849	21.39
Northern	2,790	32.28
Western	2,359	27.29
Sex of household head
Male	5,932	68.63
Female	2,711	31.37
Age of household head
15-24	629	7.28
25-34	2,184	25.27
35-44	2,509	29.03
45-54	1,928	22.31
55-64	818	9.46
65+	575	6.65
Wealth index
Poorest	2,418	27.98
Poorer	1,833	21.21
Middle	1,362	15.76
Richer	1,341	15.52
Richest	1,689	19.54
Number of household members
1-2 members	532	6.16
3-4 members	1,899	21.97
5-6 members	2,348	27.17
7-8 members	1,920	22.21
9+ members	1,944	22.49
Religion
Anglican	2,876	33.28
Catholic	3,472	40.17
Muslim	825	9.55
Pentecostal/born-again/evangelical	1,201	13.90
Others	269	3.11
Highest educational level
No education	1,434	16.59
Primary	4,632	53.59
Secondary	2,072	23.97
Higher	505	5.84
Household has radio
No	4,062	47.00
Yes	4,581	53.00
Household has television
No	7,065	81.74
Yes	1,578	18.26
Household has electricity
No	5,112	59.15
Yes	3,531	40.85

 

Table 2
Association between type of cooking fuel and independent variables

Variables	Choice of cooking fuel		Total	p-value
	Unclean	Clean
Place of residence
Urban	97.71	2.29	2,099	0.000
Rural	99.29	0.71	5,917
Refugee	100.00	0.00	627
Region
Central	97.87	2.13	1,645	0.000
Eastern	99.03	0.97	1,849
Northern	99.78	0.22	2,790
Western	98.69	1.31	2,359
Sex of household head
Male	99.09	0.91	5,932	0.076
Female	98.67	1.33	2,711
Age of household head
15-24	98.73	1.27	629	0.724
25-34	98.90	1.10	2,184
35-44	99.08	0.92	2,509
45-54	98.81	1.19	1,928
55-64	99.39	0.61	818
65+	98.78	1.22	575
Wealth index
Poorest	99.92	0.08	2,418	0.000
Poorer	99.51	0.49	1,833
Middle	99.41	0.59	1,362
Richer	98.58	1.42	1,341
Richest	96.92	3.08	1,689
Number of household members
1-2 members	96.43	3.57	532	0.000
3-4 members	99.00	1.00	1,899
5-6 members	99.32	0.68	2,348
7-8 members	98.80	1.20	1,920
9+ members	99.33	0.67	1,944
Religion
Anglican	99.06	0.94	2,876	0.005
Catholic	99.31	0.69	3,472
Muslim	98.30	1.70	825
Pentecostal/born-again/evangelical	98.42	1.58	1,201
Others	97.77	2.23	269
Highest educational level
No education	99.51	0.49	1,434	0.000
Primary	99.35	0.65	4,632
Secondary	98.31	1.69	2,072
Higher	96.44	3.56	505
Household has radio
No	99.36	0.64	4,062	0.001
Yes	98.60	1.40	4,581
Household has television
No	99.32	0.68	7,065	0.000
Yes	97.34	2.66	1,578
Household has electricity
No	99.80	0.20	5,112	0.000
Yes	97.73	2.27	3,531

 

The highest proportion of respondents using clean cooking fuels was in the richest wealth index category (3.08%), from households with 1–2 members (3.57%), belonging to other religions (2.23%), and with higher education (3.56%). Clean cooking fuel use was also highest among respondents from households with a radio (1.40%), a television (2.66%), and electricity (2.27%). Table 3 presents the multivariate analysis results based on the complementary log-log regression model. Respondents’ place of residence, region, wealth index, highest education level, having a radio, and having a television had no significant effect (p>0.05) on the type of cooking fuel used. From Table 3, respondents in the richest wealth index category had a 1.92 (95% CI: 0.22, 3.62) increase in the log odds of using clean cooking fuels compared to those in the poorest wealth index category. The respondents in households with 3–4 members had a 1.03 (95% CI: -1.67, -0.38) decrease in the log odds of using clean cooking fuels compared to those with 1–2 members. In addition, respondents in households with 5–6 members, 7–8 members, and 9+ members had a decrease of 1.29 (95% CI: -1.97, -0.61), 0.74 (95% CI: -1.37, -0.11), and 1.35 (95% CI: -2.08, -0.63), respectively, in the log odds of using clean cooking fuels compared to those with 1-2 members. Those respondents who were Pentecostal/born-again/evangelical, had a 0.63 (95% CI: 0.03, 1.23) increase in the log odds of using clean cooking fuels compared to Anglicans. As for respondents of other religions, the log odds of using clean cooking fuels increased by 1.08 (95% CI: 0.19, 1.98) compared to Anglicans. Finally, for respondents who had electricity, the log odds of using clean cooking fuels increased by 1.52 (95% CI: 0.74, 2.30) compared to those who never had electricity in their households

 

DISCUSSION

The study sought to identify the factors that influenced households’ choice of cooking fuel in Uganda. Wealth index, number of household members, religion, and whether a household had electricity had a significant effect on households’ choice of cooking fuel. The type of place of residence was reported not to affect the type of cooking fuel used in a household. This could be attributed to the fact that people in rural areas of Uganda mostly use firewood while most of the people in urban areas use charcoal, which are both forms of unclean cooking fuel (Bamwesigye et al., 2020; Win et al., 2018).

 

Table 3
Determinants of choice of cooking fuel in Uganda

Variables	Coefficient.	z	P>z	[95% CI]
Place of residence
Rural (ref.)
Urban	0.10	0.35	0.72	-0.46	0.66
Region
Central (ref.)
Eastern	0.13	0.41	0.68	-0.48	0.73
Northern	-0.61	-1.26	0.21	-1.55	0.33
Western	0.26	0.87	0.38	-0.32	0.83
Wealth index
Poorest (ref.)
Poorer	1.02	1.26	0.21	-0.56	2.61
Middle	0.76	0.89	0.37	-0.91	2.44
Richer	1.35	1.61	0.11	-0.29	2.99
Richest	1.92	2.22	0.03	0.22	3.62
Number of household members
1-2 members (ref.)
3-4 members	-1.03	-3.13	0.00	-1.67	-0.38
5-6 members	-1.29	-3.71	0.00	-1.97	-0.61
7-8 members	-0.74	-2.32	0.02	-1.37	-0.11
9+ members	-1.35	-3.65	0.00	-2.08	-0.63
Religion
Anglican (ref.)
Catholic	0.05	0.16	0.87	-0.51	0.60
Muslim	0.41	1.20	0.23	-0.26	1.09
Pentecostal/born-again/evangelical	0.63	2.06	0.04	0.03	1.23
Others	1.08	2.37	0.02	0.19	1.98
Highest educational level
No education (ref.)
Primary	-0.31	-0.72	0.48	-1.15	0.53
Secondary	-0.12	-0.28	0.78	-1.00	0.75
Higher	0.26	0.53	0.59	-0.70	1.22
Household has radio
No (ref.)
Yes	0.13	0.54	0.59	-0.35	0.61
Household has television
No (ref.)
Yes	-0.26	-0.91	0.36	-0.83	0.30
Household has electricity
No (ref.)
Yes	1.52	3.81	0.00	0.74	2.30

(ref.) – reference category

 

This is true also within the different regions of Uganda, with a small fraction of households using clean cooking fuels and hence the insignificant effect of region on the type of cooking fuel used by households in Uganda. The significant increase in the use of clean cooking fuels among households in the richest wealth index category is consistent with other studies that reported high usage of clean cooking fuels among richer households (Ang’u et al., 2023; Ntegwa and Olan’g, 2024) who make up a small fraction of the general population in developing countries and can afford the high costs of acquiring, using, and maintaining clean energy technologies (Nzengya et al., 2021). Poorer households will most likely opt for cheaper but unclean cooking fuels so that their limited finances can be diverted to other pressing needs, such as food, clothing, school fees, etc.

The reduced likelihood of using clean cooking fuels with the increase in the number of household members is consistent with findings by several studies (Ali and Khan, 2022; Ali et al., 2024; Özcan et al., 2013).

This could be attributed to the increase in available labour for collecting firewood with an increase in household size (Pandey and Chaubal, 2011; Rahut et al., 2020) plus the increased household expenditure arising from having additional members, making it expensive to adopt clean cooking fuels. On the contrary, (Ang’u et al., 2023) reported an increase in the adoption of cleaning cooking fuels with an increase in household size.

The significance of the Pentecostal and other religions could be attributed to the notable influence of religion on people’s knowledge, values, attitudes, and practices (Dong et al., 2024). Religious beliefs may influence one’s ecological mindfulness and subsequently influence energy behaviours, such as the choice of cooking fuel (Li and Li, 2022). A study in India found that Muslims and Christians were more likely to use clean cooking fuels than Hindus (Majumdar et al., 2023).

The significance of having electricity is consistent with studies that have reported that quality access to electricity is a key contributing factor to the choice of fuel in households (Kapsalyamova et al., 2021; Sedai et al., 2021). Therefore, access to affordable and reliable electricity can result in a reduction in the use of unclean cooking fuels since a cleaner energy alternative is available (Kapsalyamova et al., 2021).

 

CONCLUSIONS

This study sought to identify the factors associated with the choice of cooking fuel among households in Uganda. Use of clean cooking fuel was more likely among households in the richest wealth index category, among those from the Pentecostal/born-again/evangelical or other religions, and households that had electricity. An increase in household members was found to reduce the likelihood of using clean cooking fuels.

The government and other key stakeholders can partner with religious leaders to sensitize their followers about the need to use clean cooking technologies and the available options. There is a need for the government to reduce the initial connection fees to the power grid and tariff per unit of electricity consumed by households in Uganda to encourage more people to connect to the grid and use power for household cooking since it is cleaner, environmentally friendly, and sustainable in the long run. In addition, there is a need for the government and other development partners to develop and implement policies and programmes aimed at wealth creation that will in turn increase household disposable income, hence raising the likelihood of households being able to afford to purchase and consistently use clean cooking fuels.

 

Author contributions: I declare that I have read and approved the publication of the manuscript in this present form.

Funding: There was no external funding for this study.

Acknowledgment: The author acknowledges the support of the DHS Program (ICF, 530 Gaither Road, Suite 500, Rockville, MD 20850) by providing the secondary data used for this study.

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

 

REFERENCES

Ali, J.; Khan, W. Factors affecting access to clean cooking fuel among rural households in India during COVID-19 pandemic. Energy for Sustainable Development 2022, 67, 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2022.01.006

Ali, A.; Rahut, D.B.; Mottaleb, K.A. Understanding the determinants of alternate energy options for cooking in the Himalayas: Empirical evidence from the Himalayan region of Pakistan. Journal of Cleaner Production 2017, 149, 528-539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.111

Ali, E.; Yaotse, K.; Obeng, E.O.B.; Gyamfi, S.; Osman, M.S.; Adoko, T.; Narra, S. Determinants of household cooking fuel choices: Does proximity to mine site matter? Energy for Sustainable Development 2024, 82, 101545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2024.101545

Ang’u, C.; Muthama, N.J.; Mutuku, M.A.; M’IKiugu, M.H. Determinants of the sustained use of household clean fuels and technologies: Lessons from Vihiga county, Kenya. Energy Reports 2023, 9, 1990-2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.01.026

Bamwesigye, D.; Kupec, P.; Chekuimo, G.; Pavlis, J.; Asamoah, O.; Darkwah, S.A.; Hlaváčková, P. Charcoal and Wood Biomass Utilization in Uganda: The Socioeconomic and Environmental Dynamics and Implications. Sustainability 2020, 12 (20), 8337. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208337

Choudhury, D.K.; Guptha, S.K.; Gurung, R. Determinants of household choice of cooking fuel in India : evidence from National Family Health Survey 5. International Journal of Social Economics 2023. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-12-2023-0988

Dong, J.; Ren, Y.; Glauben, T. Gospel or curse: the impact of religious beliefs on energy poverty in rural China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 2024, 11 (1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03119-w

Elasu, J.; Kimuli, B.R.; Adaramola, M.S. Cooking fuel choices of households in urban areas in Uganda: a multinomial probit regression analysis. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation 2022, 40 (2), 283-298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-12-2020-0112

Epuitai, J.; Woolley, K.E.; Bartington, S.E.; Thomas, G.N. Association between wood and other biomass fuels and risk of low birthweight in Uganda: a cross-sectional analysis of 2016 Uganda demographic and health survey data. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2022, 19 (7), 4377. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074377

Ibe, K.K.; Kollur, S.P. Challenges towards the adoption and use of sustainable cooking methods : a comprehensive review. Sustainable Environment 2024, 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/27658511.2024.2362509

Ishengoma, E.K.; Igangula, N.H. Determinants of household choice of cooking energy-mix in a peri-urban setting in Tanzania. Energy for Sustainable Development 2021, 65 (38), 25-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2021.09.004

Kapsalyamova, Z.; Mishra, R.; Kerimray, A.; Karymshakov, K.; Azhgaliyeva, D. Why energy access is not enough for choosing clean cooking fuels? Evidence from the multinomial logit model. Journal of Environmental Management 2021, 290, 112539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112539

Katutsi, V.; Dickson, T.; Migisha, A.G. Drivers of fuel choice for cooking among Uganda’s households. Open Journal of Energy Efficiency 2020, 9 (3), 111-129. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojee.2020.93008

Li, J.; Li, H. Spiritual support or living support: Which alleviates solid fuel use for rural households in ethnical minority regions of China? Renewable Energy 2022, 189, 479-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.016

Mainimo, E.N.; Okello, D.M.; Mambo, W.; Mugonola, B. Drivers of household demand for cooking energy: A case of Central Uganda. Heliyon 2022, 8 (3), e09118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09118

Majumdar, D.; Koley, M.; Chatterjee, P. Socio-economic factors and clean cooking fuel consumption in India: A household level study. Energy for Sustainable Development 2023, 76, 101298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2023.101298

UNHCR. Malaria Indicator Survey, Uganda 2018-19, https://www.dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm (accessed on 02 March 2020).

NPA. Third National Development Plan (NDPIII) 2020/21-2024/25. In Uganda Vision 2040 (Issue Third). http://www.npa.go.ug/wp-content/uploads/2020 (accessed on 15 March 2020).

Ntegwa, M.J.; Olan’g, L.S. Explaining the rise of economic and rural-urban inequality in clean cooking fuel use in Tanzania. Heliyon 2024, 10 (1), e23910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23910

Nzengya, D.M.; Mwari, P.M.; Njeru, C. Barriers to the Adoption of Improved Cooking Stoves for Rural Resilience and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Kenya. African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation 2021, 1641-1658. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_133

Özcan, K.M.; Gülay, E.; Üçdoğruk, Ş. Economic and demographic determinants of household energy use in Turkey. Energy Policy 2013, 60, 550-557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.046

Pandey, V.L.; Chaubal, A. Comprehending household cooking energy choice in rural India. Biomass and Bioenergy 2011, 35 (11), 4724-4731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.09.020

Rahut, D.B.; Ali, A.; Abdul Mottaleb, K.; Prakash Aryal, J. Understanding households’ choice of cooking fuels: Evidence from urban households in Pakistan. Asian Development Review 2020, 37 (1), 185-212. https://doi.org/10.1162/adev_a_00146

Rahut, D.B.; Ali, A.; Mottaleb, K.A.; Aryal, J.P. Wealth, education and cooking-fuel choices among rural households in Pakistan. Energy Strategy Reviews 2019, 24, 236-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.03.005

Rasel, S.M.; Siddique, A.B.; Nayon, F.S.; Suzon, S.M. Assessment of the association between health problems and cooking fuel type , and barriers towards clean cooking among rural household people in Bangladesh. BMC Public Health 2024, 24 (512), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-17971-7

Sedai, A.K.; Nepal, R.; Jamasb, T. Flickering lifelines: Electrification and household welfare in India. Energy Economics 2021, 94, 104975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104975

Simkovich, S.M.; Williams, K.N.; Pollard, S.; Dowdy, D.; Sinharoy, S.; Clasen, T.F.; Puzzolo, E.; Checkley, W. A Systematic Review to Evaluate the Association between Clean Cooking Technologies and Time Use in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Review 2019, 16 (13), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132277

Timilsina, R.R.; Rahut, D.B.; Mishra, R.; Sonobe, T. Are households shifting toward cleaner cooking fuel? Empirical evidence from India during 2005-2021. Frontiers in Environmental Economics 2016, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/frevc.2023.1137248

Win, Z.C.; Mizoue, N.; Ota, T.; Kajisa, T.; Yoshida, S.; Oo, T.N.; Ma, H. Differences in consumption rates and patterns between firewood and charcoal: A case study in a rural area of Yedashe Township, Myanmar. Biomass and Bioenergy 2018, 109, 39-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.12.011

World Bank. Tracking SDG7: The energy progress report 2024. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099031225175211404 (accessed on 02 April 2024).

 

Academic Editor: Dr. Ilie BODALE

Publisher Note: Regarding jurisdictional assertions in published maps and institutional affiliations ALSE maintain neutrality.