Content uploaded by Seyi Olalekan Olawuyi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Seyi Olalekan Olawuyi on Nov 02, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 8 • Issue 6 • 2018
284
International Journal of Energy Economics and
Policy
ISSN: 2146-4553
available at http: www.econjournals.com
International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 2018, 8(6), 284-291.
Household Cooking Energy Situation in Nigeria: Insight from
Nigeria Malaria Indicator Survey 2015
Ebenezer Megbowon1*, Peter Mukarumbwa1, Sola Ojo2, Olawuyi Seyi Olalekan1
1Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Faculty of Science and Agriculture, University of Fort Hare,
South Africa, 2Department of Business Administration and Management, The Federal Polytechnic, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria.
*Email: megbowontoyin@gmail.com
Received: 11 August 2018 Accepted: 19 October 2018 Doi: https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.6913
ABSTRACT
The lingering electricity energy crisis in Nigeria which is beyond the control of most households necessitates making decision and choice on alternative
energy pathways for households’ sustenance and welfare. This study assessed households’ energy situation with respect to choice of cooking fuel and
cooking energy poverty status in Nigeria. Further investigation was sought to isolate the main factors inuencing households’ choice of individual fuels
as main cooking fuels using data from Nigeria’s Malaria Indicator Survey of 2015 with the application of descriptive and multivariate probit analyses.
Findings revealed that wood and kerosene fuels remain the major fuels utilized by most households in Nigeria for cooking purposes. Meanwhile,
level of education, household size, wealth status and regional factors are signicant predictors driving choices of fuels among households, though
the impact of these factors differs across the highlighted choices. Based on these ndings, mass enlightenment campaign on the safe use of clean
energy is recommended while the need for economic diversication by rural households to aid their wealth status is also emphasized. Also, there is
need to gear up corporate social responsibilities by the available private establishments in ensuring rural accessibility, availability and affordability
of modern and cleaner fuel (such as LPG).
Keywords: Cooking Energy Choice, Multivariate Probit Model, Nigeria
JEL Classications: D10, I30, Q40
1. INTRODUCTION
The energy sector is widely acknowledged to be indispensable
for the smooth sailing of any economy; it is a vital element
in human life and a pivotal input for social and economic
development (Brew-Hammond, 2010). This suggests that a
sustainable, secure, sufcient, affordable and accessible supply
of fuel as well as affordable use of energy is very crucial for
the growth and sustainability of modern societies. Hence, it is
central to addressing many of today’s development challenges
which are centered on human health, inequality, unemployment,
education, climate change, food security and general household
welfare (Bazilian et al., 2012; Varun and Bhat, 2009). The
motivation for and satisfaction derived from energy demand is
not the same for economic agents (household and productive
users) (Bhattacharyya and Timilsina, 2009), while households
use energy for cooking, heating, lighting and, cooling systems
to obtain the greatest degree of satisfaction, businesses on the
other hand demand and use it as part of production input which
account for business economic protability or loss. Hence, this
account for differentials in its demand, availability, affordability
and use. Despite these differences energy use type and pattern
have development implications.
Energy use at the household level remains a serious challenge
which many developing countries have continued to grapple
with (Hou et al., 2017), this is so because it has continued to
reect poor access to clean energy, hence energy poverty. It often
This Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Megbowon, et al.: Household Cooking Energy Situation in Nigeria: Insight from NMIS 2015
International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 8 • Issue 6 • 2018 285
highlight heavy reliance on alternative energy options-solid
fuels (mainly biomass and coal) which are not environmentally
sustainable and energy efcient and when used does have harmful
effect on the health and productivity of those in the household
(IEA, 2017). Its’ health hazards affect the vulnerable (females
and children) the most because of many hours spent while
cooking near exposed re-ames (Hou et al., 2017). An annual
premature death of 2.8 million people was recently reported
due to smoky environments caused by burning solid biomass in
inefcient stoves and or from combustion of kerosene or coal for
cooking (IEA, 2017). Furthermore, overreliance on traditional
energy sources like wood and agricultural residues has been
identied as a leading cause of deforestation (Bisu et al., 2016).
Access to clean reliable and modern energy sources is a daunting
task confronting the African continent at large (Baiyegunhi and
Hassan, 2014). In Nigeria, the situation is paradoxical in nature,
in that despite enormous natural resources that could be utilized
for energy generation purposes, the ranking of the country as the
6th largest oil exporting nation and an estimated 187 trillion standard
cubic meters of liquid natural gas reserve, which is the largest
reserve in Africa and 9th largest reserve in the world according
to (IEA, 2014), yet the country is still faced with energy crises
that have been existing for more than a decade, remain unabated
and with no of the crises in sight. These crises include shortage
of supply where the demand for electricity far exceeds currently
installed and generation capacities, frequent power outage,
inadequate and delayed maintenance of facilities and occasional
collapse of national grid among others. These energy crises without
doubt have links with population expansion, security issues, poor
investment, corruption, and inconsistent and lack of continuity in
energy sector initiatives by various governments. These crises have
implications for household welfare, industrialization, employment
generation and economic growth and development in general. For
instance, World Bank (2018) reported a national electricity access
of 59.3% and low per capita consumption for Nigeria of 144.5 kWh
per capita in 2016 and 2014 respectively. Aside, household sector
which is the largest consumer of electricity energy in Nigeria,
and also play a dominant role in energy-related sustainability
and conservative issues have to result in the reliance and usage
of various alternative options that are readily available to meet
their various electricity energy demand especially cooking which
account for about 80% of the total domestic energy consumption
(Oyedepo, 2012; Gujba et al., 2015).
Providing solution to electricity issues in the country is out of
the scope of this study, rather the study focused on households
alternative energy use in the face of persistent energy challenges.
Paucity of studies that offer comprehensive nationwide analysis on
the dynamics of household cooking energy situation in the country
in Nigeria using most current information where possible, which
could reect the effect of time and relevant government policies
and also needed for energy planning in the country motivated this
study. Hence, in light of the above facts, the aim of this paper is
to answer the following research question;
1. What is the pattern and trends of households cooking energy
situation and is any improvement observed?
2. Which current socioeconomic statuses explains the use of
specic cooking energy options by households.
It is envisioned that this study will assist in the formulation of
effective energy policies that could have positive impact on
household behavior with respect to cooking energy in Nigeria.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows; Section 2 contains
literature review while Section 3 focuses on the research
methodology and data. Section 4 presents the results and
discussion while Section 5 is the conclusion.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Energy is consumed at the household level for purposes of
cooking, heating, lighting and powering machines where necessary
(Ogwumike and Ozughalu, 2012). Energy type consumed by
households for cooking, heating and lighting can broadly be
categorised into traditional, transitional or modern energy sources.
Hence, conceptually, it is the type of energy consumed that
determines whether a household is energy poor or not, although
there are no universally accepted denition of energy poverty.
Household energy poverty is therefore conceptualized as a
situation where there is inadequate access to sustainable, cleaner
and modern energy sources (IEA, 2017; Sesan, 2012; Bouzarovski,
et al., 2016). These cleaner energy sources are fuels which are more
environmentally sustainable, energy efcient and when used does
not have any harm on the health of those in the households (IEA,
2017), and they include improved biomass, gas, biogas, solar
cooker and electricity (IEA, 2017; Ekouevi and Tuntivate, 2012).
Contrariwise, households who can only access or use traditional
energy sources and non-clean fuel are regarded as being energy
poor. This entails the use of energy sources which are of very
low technological-based such as rewood (traditional biomass),
charcoal, kerosene, plant residue and animal waste (IEA, 2017;
Ekouevi and Tuntivate, 2012). In addition, household is considered
energy poor when it has to spend more than 10% of its disposable
income to meet it energy need (Teller-Elsberg et al., 2016; Ismail
and Khembo, 2015).
Various theories have been postulated in order to explain household
energy choices in energy poverty studies. The theory of ‘energy
ladder model’ has been extensively used in such studies. The
theory states that households gradually climb an energy ladder
in three phases. They begin with traditional energy sources and
transitioning to commercial fuels and eventually to the use of
advanced fuels such as electricity (Bisu et al., 2016). The transition
through these three stages is guided by household income and
fuel prices. The model assumes a linear progression pattern of
households as they move along the imaginary energy ladder,
switching completely from traditional fuels as their income
increase. However, the energy transition theory has been criticized
by various recent studies that have found out that as household
income increases, traditional fuels are not discarded completely
rather they are used conjointly with other energy sources and
that income alone does not inuence household fuel use, thus
negating the energy ladder model. The weakness of the “energy
ladder” model led to proposition of alternative models like the fuel
stacking model (Masera et al., 2000). The “fuel stacking” model
assumes that the transition of households to clean energy is not
Megbowon, et al.: Household Cooking Energy Situation in Nigeria: Insight from NMIS 2015
International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 8 • Issue 6 • 2018
286
linear, rather households just increase number of energy sources
used without necessarily forgoing completely the old ones (Bisu
et al., 2016). Here, energy use patterns of households is guided by
many factors which include cultural, social, economic and even
personal preferences and not only income (Bisu et al., 2016). Other
theories used in literature include the poverty-environment and
the theory of utility maximization in consumer behaviour (Joshi
and Bohara, 2017; Ogwumike and Ozughalu, 2016).
Empirically, this study acknowledge the existence of several
studies (including Ogwumike et al., 2014; Oyekale, 2012; Mensah
and Adu, 2015, Karimu, 2015; Rahut et al., 2016; Rahut et al.,
2017; Nlom and Karimov, 2015; Makonese et al., 2018) that have
examined the factors inuencing household cooking fuel choice
at both local and national perspectives. These studies applied
different analytical techniques with majority applying Chi-square
analyses, multiple regression, multivariate probit regression,
Seemingly Unrelated Bivariate Probit regression, multinomial
probit, ordered probit model and multinomial logit in this regard.
Evidences from these literatures shown that specic choice of
household main cooking fuel is inuenced by both households’
economic and non-economic factors. The economic factors include
income and expenditure of household, and prices of fuel. While
on the other hand, non-economic factors include socio-economic
characteristics such age, gender, household size, education, distance
to fuel source, type of dwelling, location and distance to fuel
source. However, the dimension and extent of inuence of these
factors on household’s choice of fuel type vary across type of
fuel source. This study further observed while majority of studies
carried out in Nigeria were found to have been carried out in a
few local government areas, not even regional let alone the whole
country as a whole, the four studies (Oyekale, 2012; Ogwumike
and Ozughalu, 2012; Ogwumike et al., 2014, and Ogwumike and
Ozughalu, 2016) that looked at it from a nationwide perspective
utilized data for 2008, 2004 and 2004 respectively. One most recent
study by ifegasan et al., (2016) Where 2013 nationwide survey
data was used has a awed methodological approach. The multiple
regression approach used by ifegbasan et al., (2016) In addressing
their study's research question on whether socio-economic
characteristics predict household choice on the type of fuel being
used for cooking is inconsistent and inappropriate because there
is no clear conceptualization of the response variable. Besides in
similar studies like this response variables are categorical, this
violates the criteria of multiple regression/ols that response variable
should be continuous. Type of cooking fuel in ifegbasan et al.,
(2016) Are not in continuous form, hence the application of
multiple regression and subsequent inferences are awed. Yet,
comprehensive current and nationally representative information
where possible in this regard that could reect the effect of time and
relevant government policies is however needed in understanding
the dynamics of household cooking energy situation in the country
for better energy and environmental planning.
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Study Area, Data Source and Sampling
Nigeria is a West African country located approximately between
latitudes 40 and 140 North and longitude 30 and 150 East
(Ifegbesan et al., 2016). Nigeria is bordered by Benin to the west,
Cameroon to the east, Niger Republic on the northern side and
the Atlantic Ocean on the Southern side. The country consists of
36 states as well as a federal capital territory (FCT) which are
divided into six geopolitical zones South-South, South-West, North
Central, North East, North West and South East. The country’s
population is estimated to be 191 million (UN, 2017).
The study used the Nigeria Malaria Indicator Survey (NMIS) data
that were collected from October 2015 through November 2015.
The NMIS was implemented by National Malaria Elimination
Programme (NMEP), the National Population Commission
(NPopC), and the National Bureau of Statistics. The Population
and Housing Census of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (NPHC)
conducted in 2006 by the NPopC was used as the sample frame for
the 2015 NMIS. Samples were selected using stratied two-stage
cluster design consisting of 329 clusters. A two-stage sampling
strategy was adopted for the 2015 NMIS. In the rst stage, nine
clusters (EAs) were selected from each state, including the FCT.
In the second stage, 25 households were selected in each cluster
by equal probability systematic sampling. Details of the sampling
procedure can be found in (NMEP et al., 2016). The sample
selection was done in such a way that it was representative of each
state. 7,745 household were successfully interviewed, yielding
a response rate of 99% (NMEP et al., 2016). This study utilized
information on demographic and socioeconomic characteristics
of households and type of cooking energy.
3.2. Analytical Techniques
3.3.1. Descriptive analysis
Descriptive analysis was used to describe the pattern and trend of
household usage of cooking fuel sources and consequently cooking
energy poverty. Basically, frequencies, percentages, tables and
charts were used.
3.3.2. Multivariate Probit regression
The factors inuencing choice of main cooking fuel are not uniform
among different households. To this effect, a multivariate probit
model was employed to analyse the determinants of household’s
cooking energy choices. The study focused on four main specic
cooking fuels (LPG, kerosene, charcoal, and wood fuels) which
together accounts for about 94.9% of total cooking fuel used in the
study area. The rational for analysing the individual fuel energy
option was to avoid the aggregation problem. One advantage of
the multivariate probit model is that, unlike single-equation probit
and logit, and multinomial logit models, it simultaneously analyses
the choice of energy types thus allowing for non-zero covariance
across cooking energy types. Estimating the models independently
may generate biased and inconsistent coefcients, though, as
the error terms are likely to be correlated across activities. As
dependent variables, we use dummies for usage of a specic
type of cooking fuel, specically kerosene, wood, natural gas,
and charcoal. Households that use a type of fuel for as main fuel
for cooking are scored 1 and those that do not use such as main
fuel are scored 0. Following (Rahut et al., 2017), the multivariate
model for determining factors that inuence household cooking
energy choice is stated as follows;
Megbowon, et al.: Household Cooking Energy Situation in Nigeria: Insight from NMIS 2015
International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 8 • Issue 6 • 2018 287
YX
e
im mimim
**
=+
(1)
Y1 if Y
im
=>
im
and if otherwise
*00
Where Y represents the dependent variable which is the four
main cooking fuels (m = 1, 2, 3, 4) used by the ith household
(i = 1,…., 7745). X is the vector of explanatory variables that
inuences choice of cooking fuel by ith household, α is the vector
of unknown parameters, and e is the vector of unobserved error
term. The explanatory variables are described in Table 1. The
variables were recoded where necessary in order to carry out
this analysis.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents
Table 2 presents the socio-economic characteristics distribution
of the households. The result shows that 84.53% of the household
heads are males, Educational distribution of household head reveal
that while a higher proportion (34.15%) of the respondents have no
education, 19.7 and 29% attained primary and secondary education
respectively. Geopolitical distribution of respondents shows that
there is almost an equal representation of respondent in the survey.
Majority (59.12%) of the respondents live in the rural settlements,
while 40.88% live in the urban settlement. In terms of wealth
status, 31.1% of the aggregated respondents are considered to be
in poor category while 21.6% are in the moderately poor category
and 47.3% are found to be in the non-poor category.
4.2. Pattern and Trends of Households Cooking
Energy Situation
Most national censuses on household surveys have only recently
integrated questions relating to household energy usage. It is
therefore difcult to draw solid conclusions on a time series trend
of household energy use over a longer period of years. However,
in an attempt to only spot-light the trend of use of cooking fuel
types, this study utilized available information from Demographic
and Health Surveys carried out in Nigeria between 2003 and 2015.
A comparative distribution of household choice of fuel for cooking
in this regard is presented in Figure I. From the Figure I, it can be
deduced that there has not been signicant positive development
in the use of improved energy sources (for instance, electricity
and LPG) for cooking. Wood and kerosene also are clearly
revealed as the main choice of fuel energy for cooking by most
households in Nigeria over the years represented. Although, there
are slight changes in the proportion of household using these two
sources of energy sources as major fuel for cooking, the continual
dominant nature and use of wood fuel for cooking is worrisome.
This questions the effort, determination and investment by the
Nigerian government in improving the standard of living of the
people through poverty reduction (energy poverty inclusive) and
providing a sustainable environment.
In the same vein, it can further be deduced that the non-usage of
LPG as seen in Figure 1 could be as a result of fear of possible
inferno, poor knowledge of reduced pollution advantage, a high
Table 1: Specication of multivariate probit regression explanatory variables
Variables Description Type of data
Gender 1 if male, 0 if otherwise Dummy
Age Age of household head Continuous
Household size Number of people in the household Nominal
Education 1 if higher degree, 0 otherwise Dummy
Number of children Number of children<5 years in the household Nominal
Location 1 if rural, 0 otherwise Dummy
Region 1 if northern, 0 otherwise Dummy
Electricity Access 1 if having access, 0 otherwise Dummy
Wealth status 1=Poorest; 2=Poorer; 3=Middle, 4=Richer; 5=Richest Categorical
Table 2: Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics
of respondents
Gender of head Frequency (%)
Male 6547 (84.53)
Female 1198 (15.47)
Age of household head (years)
≤30 1659 (21.42)
31–50 3499 (45.18)
51–70 1963 (25.35)
≥71 624 (8.06)
Educational attainment of head
No education 2645 (34.15)
Primary 1528 (19.73)
Secondary 2253 (29.09)
Higher 1286 (16.6)
Household size
1–5 4950 (63.91)
6–10 2363 (30.51)
Above 10 432 (5.58)
Access to electricity
Yes 4247 (54.84)
No 3498 (45.16)
Wealth index
Poorest 1058 (13.66)
Poorer 1351 (17.44)
Middle 1676 (21.64)
Richer 1844 (23.81)
Richest 1816 (23.45)
Location
Urban 3166 (40.88)
Rural 4579 (59.12)
Geopolitical region
North central 1385 (17.88)
North East 1200 (15.49)
North West 1547 (19.97)
South East 1002 (12.94)
South South 1281 (16.54)
South West 1330 (17.17)
Source: Computed by authors
Megbowon, et al.: Household Cooking Energy Situation in Nigeria: Insight from NMIS 2015
International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 8 • Issue 6 • 2018
288
initial cost associated with acquisition of LPG gas ancillaries
(i.e., cooker, gas cylinder, re-lling of the gas cylinder as needs
demand) which is considered high considering the minimum wage
in the country and the traditional perception of high cost and that
usage of LPG gas is meant for the rich in the society. This can be
further deduced from current price of LPG which is estimated to
be about 23.7% of current minimum wage in Nigeria.
Figure II presents a comparative distribution of cooking energy
poverty status by geographical locations (i.e., urban and rural) with
respect to geopolitical zones of households. It is clearly shown that
among urban households, cooking energy poverty is prevalent in
the South West and South East geographical regions of the country
accounting 66.33% and 55.47% respectively. This is so because
rural-urban migration is higher in these regions. Thus several
households end up not having access to cleaner cooking fuels.
Contrarily, the South East and the Northern regions have higher
proportion of households in the rural area that are cooking energy
poor as shown in the Figure II. It is however puzzlingly to note
that the Northern region collectively is the most wood decient in
the country; where deforestation and desertication is prevalent
and which threaten the living conditions of the inhabitants in these
areas, yet as noted by Sa’ad and Bugaje, (2016) the region have
the highest prevalence of traditional biomass usage than any other
region in the country.
4.3. Determinants of Cooking Fuel Type Multivariate
Probit Regression Result
The result of the multivariate probit regression model on factors
inuencing choice or usage of specic cooking fuel by respondents
in the study area is presented in Table 3. The variables used in
this result were subjected to test of multicollinearity in order to
avoid a spurious and misleading results. The multicollinearity
test examined the appropriateness and reliability of the choice of
variables included in the multivariate probit model through the
variance ination factor (VIF) statistics and tolerance level. From
the multicollinearity test conducted none of the variables have a
VIF >10. Also, the average VIF of 1.69 for the model depicts an
overall tolerance of about 59.2%, which is a favourable indication
that multicollinearity is not a serious problem in the tted model.
The ndings from the tted model revealed that the coefcient of
gender of household head (base reference-male) is negative and
signicant with respect to the usage of charcoal and rewood as
main cooking fuels. This indicates that having a man as the head
of the households reduces the probability of a household using
charcoal or rewood as cooking fuel energy options. Alternatively,
the result does imply that usage of the two signicant solid fuels
(charcoal and rewood) increases with having female as the head.
This is not unexpected in developing Africa countries context
where female are decision makers with respect to cooking which
is a part of house chores, and are often saddled with the duty
to collect rewood from the forest for their cooking activities.
Additionally, the low economic status of female headed households
compare to male headed ones make such households to be
utilizing less expensive fuel (charcoal) for cooking, even if such
fuel is dangerous to human health. This further point out to the
vulnerability to poverty and lower standard of living nature of
women and consequently such households they head. Generally,
female heads and consequently their households are economically
vulnerable because of poor access to employment opportunities
and resources. This nding agrees with other studies such as
(Ogwumike et al., 2014; Rahut et al., 2017).
Also, the coefcient of age of household head is negative and
signicant with respect to the use of kerosene, but positive and
signicant for rewood. This result implies that probability of
using kerosene as cooking fuel decreases as the age of household
head increases when other variables are held constant while it
increases for rewood. This result is similar to the ndings of
(Baiyegunhi and Hassan, 2014) who all reported a shifting to
rewood consumption or preference for rewood as the age of the
household head increases. This arises due to reduction in income of
the head when he or she is no longer economically active coupled
with the fact that such household head might not have any other
source of income, either through remittances, pension or other
income sources. The reality of low or no and unstable income (for
pensioners) which is prevalent in Nigeria is seen to have lowered
the standard of living of households with older heads. Other reason
for high preference for rewood by households with older heads is
due to the old habit or conservatism associated with older people.
In this case, old folks may have become accustomed to the use of
traditional fuel energy source(s) and thus are less willing to change
towards modern reality of energy usage (Mensah and Adu, 2015).
Likewise, from Table 3, while a negative and significant
relationship between household size and use of LPG and kerosene
as main cooking fuels was observed, the relationship was positive
for usage of wood as main cooking energy. The result suggests a
reduction in the probability of a household using LPG and kerosene
for cooking as household size increases. This is majorly due to
Figure 1: Trends in type of main cooking fuel use
Source: Generated by Authors. NB: LPG and Natural gas were
categorized together in 2003, same as rewood and straw
Figure 2: Cooking energy poverty by geopolitical zone and location
Source: Generated by Authors from Nigeria Malaria Indicator Survey,
2015
Megbowon, et al.: Household Cooking Energy Situation in Nigeria: Insight from NMIS 2015
International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 8 • Issue 6 • 2018 289
the amount of energy required for cooking for large number of
persons and the consequent cost implication associated with it,
which is higher for larger households. It is expected that larger
household will prefer to use rewood because it requires a large
amount of fuel energy in aggregate to meet the family needs.
In line with the submission of (Pundo and Fraser, 2006), it is
comparatively affordable to use rewood for large family than
kerosene and charcoal because its rate of consumption per unit of
time is low. Again, the cheapness of rewood would require that
households with large family size use huge amount of it for their
cooking activities. Sufx to say that, this positive and signicant
estimated coefcient for family size was not unexpected and it is
in line with (Karimu, 2015).
The ndings from Table 3 also shows a negative and signicant
relationship between education and kerosene, charcoal and
wood fuels but a positive and signicant relationship with LPG.
This indicates that, increase in education attainment increases
the chances of a household using LPG as main cooking fuel
while on the other hand, it reduces the likelihood of using
kerosene, charcoal and wood as main coking fuels as expected,
ceteris paribus. A positive and higher return to education can be
deduced in this regard; that is, positive returns on employment
opportunities, income and standard of living generally resulting to
economic affordability of better and clean fuel energy options for
cooking and other domestic uses. This is supported by the studies
from (Bisu et al., 2016; Mensah and Adu, 2015). Likewise, the
coefcient of under 5 years in Table 3 is positive and signicant
for kerosene fuel preference but negative for rewood usage. This
thus implies that households with more children under the age of
5 years are more likely to use kerosene fuel energy and less likely
to use solid wood fuel as main cooking energy. This is because of
the inability of the mothers in rural area to collect rewood at this
nursing stage. This inability arose from more time used to attend
to other pressing house chores especially as it pertains to taking
care of the little children most often in cases where there are no
older children in the house to assist. Hence, it becomes imperative
and a justication for the use of kerosene as an alternative fuel
energy which is more easily accessible.
Furthermore, the result in Table 3 shows that there is a signicant
and negative relationship between rural dwelling and usage of
kerosene and charcoal as main cooking fuel choices; this does
imply that, living in rural areas reduces households’ chances of
using kerosene or charcoal for cooking. The result is however
positive for the use of rewood which by extension suggests
that rurality signicantly increases the probability of the using
of wood for cooking. This is mainly due to easy accessibility of
rewood in the rural areas unlike urban areas where development
in all forms has led to major deforestation; thus, various forms of
improved cooking fuel energy are available to choose from, Thus,
the signicant use of rewood is not unexpected. This nding is
similar to the submission of (Ogwumike et al., 2014) where urban
sector (location variable) was found to be negatively related to
household rewood consumption. Likewise, there is a negative
relationship between rural dwelling and usage of kerosene as main
cooking fuel which also suggests that living in rural areas reduces
household chances of using kerosene for cooking. This is largely
a result of little supply of kerosene fuel energy, distance, low
economic benet of supply of kerosene to rural areas and mostly,
the easy accessibility and availability of alternative fuel energy
options in the rural areas.
It is also seen from the Table 3 that the geopolitical variable
(northern region) is positive and signicantly related to usage of
charcoal and rewood as main cooking fuel but negatively related
to use of kerosene for cooking. This is expected considering the
high poverty rate in the northern part of Nigeria. Oyekale (2012)
buttressed on this that, when the households are struggling to meet
basic needs for food, demand for improved energy sources for
cooking will never be an importance. This positive relationship
with use of solid fuels as noted by (Sa’ad and Bugaje, 2016)
could also be as a result of the belief by northern households that
the food cooked on woods would be testier than the one cooked
with aluminum pots in a kerosene stoves; hence, the preference
by majority of the northern households for rewood fuel energy
source. The coefficient of electricity access is positive and
signicantly related to kerosene fuel. This suggests that households
are more likely to combine both kerosene and electricity for
cooking. However, the use and preference for kerosene as cooking
Table 3: Multivariate probit estimates of factors inuencing choice of cooking energy fuel
Variables LPG Kerosene Charcoal Wood
Coef. Std. Err. Coef. Std. Err. Coef. Std. Err. Coef. Std Err.
Constant −5.1135 0.3696 −2.5533 0.1475 −2.5053 0.1926 1.1462 0.1089
Gender 0.0399 0.0963 −0.0019 0.0520 −0.2192** 0.0839 −0.1348* 0.0479
Age −0.0006 0.0025 −0.0072* 0.0013 −0.0019 0.0020 0.0089* 0.0011
Household size −0.0589* 0.0198 −0.0763* 0.0105 0.0115 0.0117 0.0710* 0.0077
Education 0.6326* 0.0728 −0.2128* 0.0493 −0.3357* 0.0821 −0.1551* 0.0466
Number of children −0.0548 0.0481 0.0810* 0.0248 0.0064 0.0314 −0.0476** 0.0195
Residence (Rural) 0.0776 0.0866 −0.1072** 0.0459 −0.5714* 0.0788 0.3267* 0.0394
Northern Region −0.0799 0.0807 −0.6626* 0.0465 0.9059* 0.0726 0.1896* 0.0397
Access to electricity −0.1379 0.1349 0.1008** 0.0604 0.1285 0.0887 −0.0524 0.0467
Wealth status 0.8027* 0.0786 0.7155* 0.0324 0.1682* 0.0369 −0.5806* 0.0225
Log likelihood −6697.7315
Wald χ2 (36) 3548.29
Prob.>χ20.0000
Number of obs. 7745
Source: Computed by Authors from STATA 12
Megbowon, et al.: Household Cooking Energy Situation in Nigeria: Insight from NMIS 2015
International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 8 • Issue 6 • 2018
290
fuel energy option despite having access to electricity is as a
result of the deplorable and unreliable state of the power sector in
Nigeria till date and kerosene being a relatively clean and fairly
accessible fuel energy source was opted for as a back-up plan for
inconsistent electricity supply.
Lastly, the coefcient of wealth status shows a positive relationship
with all the cooking fuels considered except for rewood which
is significant negatively. The implication of the significant
relationship between LGP, kerosene and wealth is that non-poor
households who are mostly found in urban areas have a higher
probability of using LPG or kerosene as the main cooking fuel
energy sources majorly due to affordability and availability. This
further attests to the fact that rewood which is cheap and readily
available in the rural areas is mostly used by rural and agrarian
households who are generally conceptualized to fall within the
poorer category of households. From this, it can be implied that
LPG is more of a luxury item than necessities in Nigeria. This
however ought not to be so considering the abundance of natural
gas resources and endowment in Nigeria. This nding is also in
line with (Rahut et al., 2016).
It can be inferred that the effects of each of the tted explanatory
variables differs across the choice and use of specic cooking
fuel; hence, the signicant explanatory variables tted in the
multivariate probit model explain the variation in the preference
and use of alternative fuel energy options across different
categories of households in Nigeria.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper provided a nationwide information about current
patterns and trends of households cooking fuel energy use as well
as households’ energy poverty using the survey data from NMIS
2015. Multivariate probit model was further employed to analyse
the determinants of households’ use of main cooking fuel choices.
The descriptive analysis of trends and patterns of household energy
choice clearly show that the proportion of households using wood
and kerosene is still very high in the country and consequently
cooking energy poverty situation is high as well. This dependence
on wood harvesting negatively affects the environment because
it links into drivers of deforestation, reduced crop productivity
and increasing desertication rates especially in the north of
Nigeria. This trend implies there is need for urgent action by the
government in promoting access to modern fuels for cooking. The
result of the multivariate probit model revealed that gender, age,
household size, education, number of children, location (rural or
urban), access to electricity, region and wealth status signicantly
affect households’ energy choices. Based on these ndings, the
following policy statements are suggested: There is need for
enlightenment on the long term economic and environmental cost-
benets of LPG usage, pricing, and appropriate safety measures in
the process of using LPG for cooking. There should be intensive,
monitored and sustainable development programme targeted at
rural areas in Nigeria and most especially in northern geopolitical
region of the country. These programmes should include massive
deployment of infrastructures which will aid easy access to cleaner
cooking fuel energy for households use. The Nigerian government
could partner with the private sectors in the distribution of low
cost technology accessories and ancillary materials needed for the
use of LPG for cooking in the country. As well as in investments
in renewable energy sources such as biogas, improved biomass,
solar and energy efcient stoves as obtainable in the developed
countries. This could be seen as public-private sector initiative or
private sectors’ corporate and social responsibilities to assisting the
government in the ght against households’ energy poverty. Such
investment today is needed to improve access to and affordability
of modern and more efcient clean fuel and at the same time
achieve a pollution free environment which in the long run will
have a positive spill-over effects on health and general well-being
of the populace.
REFERENCES
African Development Bank Group. (2014). West Africa Monitor
Quarterly, 3, 14-15.
Baiyegunhi, L.J.S., Hassan, M.B. (2014), Rural household fuel energy
transition: Evidence from Giwa LGA Kaduna State, Nigeria. Energy
for Sustainable Development, 20(1), 30-35.
Bazilian, M., Nussbaumer, P., Rogner, H., Brew-Hammond, A., Foster, V.,
Pachauri, S., Kammen, D. (2012), Energy access scenarios to 2030 for
the power sector in Sub-Saharan Africa. Utilities Policy, 20(1), 1-16.
Bhattacharyya, S.C., Timilsina, G.R. (2009), Energy Demand Models
for Policy Formulation. A Comparative Study of Energy Demand
Models. Washington D.C: World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper No. 4866.
Bisu, D., Kuhe, A., Iortyer, H. (2016), Urban household cooking
energy choice: An example of Bauchi Metropolis, Nigeria. Energy,
Sustainability and Society, 6(1), 15.
Bouzarovski, S., Herrero, S.T., Petrova, S., Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2016),
Unpacking the spaces and politics of energy poverty: Path-
dependencies, deprivation and fuel switching in post-communist
Hungary. Local Environment, 21(9), 1151-1170.
Brew-Hammond, A. (2010), Energy access in Africa: Challenges Ahead.
Energy Policy, 38(5), 2291-2301.
Ekouevi, K., Tuntivate, V. (2012), Household Energy Access for Cooking
and Heating: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward. A World Bank
Study. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Gujba, H., Mulugetta, Y., Azapagic, A. (2015), The household cooking
sector in Nigeria: Environmental and economic sustainability
assessment. Resources, 4(2), 412-433.
Hou, B.D., Tang, X., Ma, C., Liu, L., Wei, Y.M., Liao, H. (2017), Cooking
fuel choice in rural China: Results from microdata. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 142, 538-547.
IEA. (2014), Africa Energy Outlook- A Special Report in the 2014 World
Energy Outlook Series. Paris: IEA.
IEA. (2017), Energy Access Outlook 2017: From Poverty to Prosperity.
World Energy Outlook Special Report. Available from: http://www.
iea.org/energyaccess.
Ifegbesan, A.P., Rampedi, I.T., Annegarn, H.J. (2016), Nigerian
households’ cooking energy use, determinants of choice, and some
implications for human health and environmental sustainability.
Habitat International, 55, 17-24.
Ismail, Z., Khembo, P. (2015), Determinants of energy poverty in South
Africa. Journal of Energy in Southern Africa, 26(3), 66-78.
Joshi, J., Bohara, A.K. (2017), Household preferences for cooking fuels
and inter-fuel substitutions: Unlocking the modern fuels in the
Nepalese household. Energy Policy, 107, 507-523.
Karimu, A. (2015), Cooking fuel preferences among Ghanaian
households: An empirical analysis. Energy for Sustainable
Megbowon, et al.: Household Cooking Energy Situation in Nigeria: Insight from NMIS 2015
International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 8 • Issue 6 • 2018 291
Development, 27, 10-17.
Makonese, T., Ifegbesan, A.P., Rampedi, I.T. (2018), Household
cooking fuel use patterns and determinants across Southern Africa:
Evidence from the demographic and health survey data. Energy and
Environment, 29(1), 29-48.
Masera, O.R., Saatkamp, B.D., Kammen, D.M. (2000), From linear fuel
switching to multiple cooking strategies: A critique and alternative
to the energy ladder model. World Development, 28(12), 2083-2103.
Mensah, J.T., Adu, G. (2015), An empirical analysis of household energy
choice in Ghana. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 51,
1402-1411.
National Malaria Elimination Programme (NMEP), National Population
Commission (NPopC), National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), ICF
International. (2016), Nigeria Malaria Indicator Survey 2015. Abuja,
Nigeria, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: NMEP, NPopC, and ICF
International.
Nlom, J.H., Karimov, A.A. (2015), Modeling fuel choice among
households in Northern Cameroon. Sustainability, 7(8), 9989-9999.
Ogwumike, F.O., Ozughalu, U. (2012), Energy consumption, poverty and
environmental linkages In Nigeria: A case of traditional and modern
fuels for cooking. In: Adenikinju, A., Iwayemi, A., Iledare, W.,
editors. Green Energy and Energy Security: Options for Africa.
Ibadan: Atlantis Books. pp.235-254.
Ogwumike, F.O., Ozughalu, U.M. (2016), Analysis of energy poverty and
its implications for sustainable development in Nigeria. Environment
and Development Economics, 21(3), 273-290.
Ogwumike, F.O., Ozughalu, U.M., Abiona, G.A. (2014), Household
energy use and determinants : Evidence from Nigeria. International
Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 4(2), 248-262.
Oyedepo, S.O. (2012), Energy and sustainable development in Nigeria:
The way forward. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 2(1), 1-17.
Oyekale, A.S. (2012), Assessment of households’ access to electricity
and modern cooking fuels in rural and Urban Nigeria: Insights from
DHS data. Life Science Journal, 9(4), 1564-1570.
Rahut, D.B., Behera, B., Ali, A. (2016), Household energy choice and
consumption intensity: Empirical Evidence from Bhutan. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53, 993-1009.
Rahut, D.B., Mottaleb, K.A., Ali, A. (2017), Household energy
consumption and its determinants in Timor-Leste. Asian Development
Review, 34(1), 167-197.
Sa’ad, S., Bugaje, I.M. (2016), Biomass consumption in Nigeria: Trends
and policy issues. Journal of Agriculture and Sustainability, 9(2),
127-157.
Sesan, T. (2012), Navigating the limitations of energy poverty: Lessons
from the promotion of improved cooking technologies in Kenya.
Energy Policy, 47, 202-210.
Sher, F., Abbas, A., Awan, R.U. (2014), An investigation of
multidimensional energy poverty in Pakistan: A province level
analysis. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy,
4(1), 65-75.
Teller-Elsberg, J., Sovacool, B., Smith, T., Laine, E. (2016), Fuel poverty,
excess winter deaths, and energy costs in Vermont: Burdensome for
whom? Energy Policy, 90, 81-91.
Varun, P.R., Bhat, I.K. (2009), Energy, economics and environmental
impacts of renewable energy systems. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 13(9), 2716-2721.
World Bank. (2018), Database World Development Indicators Access
to Electricity (% of population). Available from: https://www.data.
worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS. [Last accessed on
2018 Jul 16].
World Bank. (2018), Database World Development Indicators Electric
Power Consumption (kWh per capita). Available from: https://www.
data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC. [Last accessed
on 2018 Jul 16].