Content uploaded by Atagher Peter Tyev
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Atagher Peter Tyev on Nov 19, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Research & Social Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss
“We cannot stop cooking”: Stove stacking, seasonality and the risky
practices of household cookstove transitions in Nigeria
Sarah Jewitt
a,⁎
, Peter Atagher
b
, Mike Clifford
b
a
School of Geography, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom
b
Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Fuelwood
Energy ladder
Backsliding
Risk
Household air pollution
Benue state
ABSTRACT
Drawing on qualitative data from three contrasting sites in Benue state, Nigeria, this paper explores how and
why cooking system use and priorities vary over time and space as well as the influence of household air
pollution (HAP)-related health risks on fuel and stove choices. The findings indicated that cooking system
choices were constrained by economic and access considerations linked to spatio-temporal variations in fuel
cost, availability and service quality coupled with socio-cultural and utilitarian influences on cooking practices.
Respondents demonstrated strong preferences for wood-fuelled traditional stoves although shifts in fuel use
between wet and dry seasons were observed. Stove and fuel ‘stacking’ were widely practised to meet different
cooking requirements and minimise risks from (often seasonal) variations in fuel prices, access and reliability of
supply. ‘Backsliding’ from clean to solid biomass fuels was observed when families outgrew their improved
cookstoves or considered biomass to be more affordable, reliable, accessible or safer. There was limited
awareness or concern about HAP-related health risks and smoke was valued for preserving food and signalling
food security. Attention is drawn to the value of integrating household risk perceptions into improved cookstove
promotion and behaviour change initiatives to better understand constraints to the adoption and sustained use of
clean cooking systems. The paper concludes by highlighting the benefits of monitoring household cooking
system stacks (rather than the ‘main’ fuel/stove used) for analysing how their components vary over space and
time and providing insights into the effectiveness of measures taken to reduce HAP exposure.
1. Introduction
Heart disease, childhood pneumonia, chronic respiratory diseases,
cancers, burns and cataracts are all linked to the use of traditional
cookstoves burning solid biomass fuels which are used by around 3
billion people globally [1]. In Nigeria, cooking accounts for 91% of
total domestic energy consumption [2] and wood is the most widely
utilised cooking fuel with 120 million Nigerians estimated to be vul-
nerable to illness and deaths from exposure to cooking smoke [3].
Household air pollution (HAP) from inefficient stoves fuelled with
biomass, kerosene or coal is thought to cause 4 million deaths yearly
[1]. Women and children often suffer greater exposure as prevailing
gender norms tend to give them greater responsibility for food pre-
paration [1,4,5]. In addition to these health impacts, the use of un-
sustainably harvested biomass fuel for cooking has been linked to forest
degradation while soot from incomplete biomass combustion con-
tributes to black carbon emissions and global warming [4,6].
Recognising that biomass will remain an important source of
cooking and heating energy for decades to come [7], the Global Alli-
ance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC) was established in 2010 with the aim
‘to foster the adoption of clean cookstoves and fuels in 100 million
households by 2020′ [8]. In October 2018, GACC changed its name to
the Clean Cooking Alliance (CCA); acknowledging the importance of
increasing access to ‘clean’ cooking systems (CCS), rather than just
stoves, in order to address HAP-related health and environmental
problems [9]. This has been accompanied by emphasis on increasing
investment in the clean cooking sector, developing programs to raise
demand for CCS and improving the policy environment; strategies that
mark a departure from more classic hardware-oriented-initiatives that
have been criticised for failing to consider end-user priorities [9,10].
Alongside CCA's activities, Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) in
collaboration with IEA, the World Bank and the Energy Sector
Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) drafted energy-related tar-
gets and indicators for inclusion in the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs). Target 7.1.2 seeks ‘universal access to clean fuels and tech-
nologies for cooking’ and tracks the ‘proportion of the population with
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101340
Received 12 May 2019; Received in revised form 23 October 2019; Accepted 28 October 2019
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sarah.jewitt@nottingham.ac.uk (S. Jewitt), eaxpa@exmail.nottingham.ac.uk (P. Atagher), mike.clifford@nottingham.ac.uk (M. Clifford).
Energy Research & Social Science 61 (2020) 101340
2214-6296/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
T
primary reliance on clean fuels and technologies’ but progress towards
this is lagging and has barely kept pace with population increase [1].
Efforts to explain this have focused primarily on barriers to the initial
adoption of CCS [12] yet, as Rosenthal et al. [13] point out, there is a
need to better understand why biomass fuel use persists even when
clean cooking solutions are available (and often affordable). House-
holds that adopt CCS often continue to use their existing stoves
(‘stacking’) both to meet diverse cooking needs (a fairly universal re-
quirement) and address more specific deficiencies in energy access or
stove characteristics [14–17]. More serious is a tendency for families to
abandon CCS and revert (‘backslide’) to biomass-fuelled cookstoves
[14]; behaviour that echoes concerns about the sustained use of im-
proved sanitation systems as it undermines the health benefits asso-
ciated with sustained and exclusive use of ‘improved’ technologies
[9,18,19]. A need has therefore been identified for better under-
standings of how user-based and socio-cultural influences on cooking
practice [20–23] interact with existing energy services to not only in-
fluence CCS uptake but also their sustained use [12,24,25].
Building on these studies, this paper draws on research with (pri-
marily) biomass fuel users in three contrasting sites within Benue state
Nigeria. Our research questions focus on the interplay of socio-cultural
systems and energy services (including stove/fuel characteristics) as
influences on fuel/stove use, how this affects fuel/stove stack compo-
sition over space and time and the extent to which knowledge or con-
cerns about HAP-related risks affect fuel/stove use. The paper is in-
formed by the careful use of a range of ‘human-centred’ [26], primarily
qualitative approaches to explore how and why cooking system com-
binations vary over space and time, interpret meanings attached to
fuel/stove choices and understand how they are perceived in relation to
other household priorities. Its novelty lies in its focus on shifts in the
composition of cooking system stacks (rather than on individual fuels or
stoves) and its contributions to existing conceptualisations of key bar-
riers to and enablers for energy transitions among biomass users
[10,26,27]. A key theme arising from our findings is how context-spe-
cific end-user priorities plus spatio-temporal variations in the cost, ac-
cessibility and reliability of modern energy services combine to pro-
mote risk minimising behaviour that can inhibit the sustained use of a
single CCS. These insights, along with understandings of how in-
dividuals perceive HAP-related risks and prioritise ICS in relation to
competing financial priorities, have relevance for policy-makers as well
as for tracking access to clean cooking solutions and promoting the
development of approaches that support their uptake and sustained use
[26].
A review of key literature is provided in Section 2 where, drawing
from our empirical findings, we also outline the value of considering
end-user risk perceptions as an influence on the uptake and sustained
use of CCS. In Section 3.1, an overview of the study site locations is
provided while Section 3.2 describes the methodological approach.
Section 4 sets out the key findings and is divided into four parts. Details
on household fuel/stove use are provided in Sections 4.1 while 4.2
identifies how cooking system choices reflect a combination of socio-
cultural and more utilitarian factors. The influence of economic con-
siderations is explored in 4.3 while 4.4 focuses on issues of fuel access
and quality of service. A discussion and a conclusion to the paper are
provided in Sections 5 and 6.
2. Literature review
A range of models and theoretical approaches have been developed
to elucidate factors that encourage (or hinder) CCS adoption. One of the
most longstanding is the ‘energy ladder’ model which assumes that
increasing socio-economic status is accompanied by a linear shift from
biomass-fuelled traditional stoves to cleaner, more efficient cooking
systems [28,29]. There is inconsistent evidence for such a pattern as
while low socio-economic status is often important in preventing CCS
adoption, it is often not the main or only constraint. In the cookstove
literature, key barriers to CCS adoption tend to fall within three broad
groups; namely economic influences, access and availability/infra-
structural factors and socio-cultural considerations [14,20,21,22,30-
33]. In addition to constraining CCS adoption, many of these barriers
have also been linked to the frequently non-linear nature of CCS tran-
sitions including the stacking of clean, transitional (e.g. kerosene or
biogas) and biomass fuels and the abandonment of clean fuels in favour
of biomass [12,14,20,24,34].
With respect to economic influences (broadly defined), initial stove
costs coupled with ongoing fuel payments often deter uptake; especially
for those with competing economic priorities or using zero-cost fuels or
stoves [1,10,14,20,21,34-39]. Among those who adopt CCS, fuel price
rises or unaffordable ongoing fuel costs can encourage stacking or
backsliding; especially where zero-cost biomass is available
[1,12,14,21,22,34–36,40]. As influences on both CCS uptake and
stacking/backsliding, economic factors are therefore often intersected
by access-related issues including the availability of free biomass at one
end of the spectrum and infrastructure for reliable and affordable CCS
access at the other [1,14,20-22,24,32,34,35,37,40,41]. Spatio-temporal
variations in fuel requirements, availability, access and quality can also
promote stacking [12,14,24,34,36,42].
With respect to socio-cultural considerations, CCS adoption and
sustained use can be inhibited by inertia-inducing influences including
taste preferences, [12,21,24,32] and religious customs surrounding
stove/fuel use [20,32,43]. Culturally-constructed gender norms that
give women responsibility for cooking and fuel collection but deny
them control over household budgets may also limit CCS transitions
[5,31,36,39,42,44,45]. By contrast, other socio-cultural factors can
help promote CCS adoption including their aspirational appeal [12],
associations between ritual purity and clean kitchens/pots [32] and
challenges to gendered household decision-making by more educated
or financially independent women [12,20,39]. Such influences high-
light the duality of agency and structure [46] and illustrate how com-
plex stove/fuel choices and the ‘practice’ of cooking reflect both self-
interest and socially-motivated factors [20,21,22,24].
Reflecting this, efforts have been made to identify and adapt be-
haviour change models to counter inertia and promote sustained tran-
sitions to CCS [12,34,47]. Some of these effectively highlight more
utilitarian end-user preferences for traditional cooking systems that
often underpin both stacking and low motivation for CCS uptake
[9,12,47] but receive less attention than the three main groups of
barriers mentioned above. Examples include perceptions of traditional
stoves as durable [10,12,31,34,42], easy to fuel [10,12,31,40] and ideal
for cooking particular foods [25,31,32] or large meals [12,34,39,42].
Also, and in stark contrast to global concerns about HAP-related health
problems, biomass smoke is often greatly valued by end-users for pre-
serving food and deterring mosquitoes [10,31].
These observations often reflect end-users’ limited awareness of
HAP-related health risks [10,31], but even when this is not so, health
concerns rarely drive cooking technology transitions [9,20,32] and are
often overshadowed by more immediate priorities that cut across the
three main barrier groups. Examples include backsliding to or stacking
biomass fuels to reduce the risk of not being able to cook when faced
with fuel shortages or price rises [12,14]. CCS-related safety concerns
can also shape the practice of cooking within a community; especially
where significant incidents are known to have occurred [20–22]. This
has been observed where LPG explosions and leakages have deterred
uptake and caused backsliding [20,21,31,34,40].
Knowing how different risks are perceived at societal as well as
individual levels can therefore add significant insights into cooking as
practice [20–22]. To date, however, risk-related research has received
limited attention in relation to CCS; despite being used to explore
perceptions of energy-related issues as diverse as electricity transmis-
sion infrastructure, non-conventional renewables and interlinkages
between energy security and health [48,49,50]. To this end, we high-
light the contribution that a closer focus on cooking-related risk
S. Jewitt, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 61 (2020) 101340
2
perceptions could have to this field. In particular, the ways in which
different risks are ‘foregrounded’ or ‘backgrounded’ [51] can offer in-
sights into decision-making by low income groups preoccupied with
meeting basic subsistence needs [10,11,52]. At the same time, the risk
and environmental risk transition models [53,54] provide useful con-
text for exploring spatio-temporal risk perceptions in response to shifts
in mortality and disease patterns and their environmental influences.
Given the influence of the energy ladder model in CCS-related research,
the intersection of risk perceptions with socio-economic status has po-
tential to elucidate how priority is given to different risks/hazards ac-
cording to their spatial or temporal proximity. Amongst groups whose
everyday lives are dominated by hazards linked to food insecurity,
disease and high infant mortality, for example, temporally distant,
complex risks such as HAP with poorly understood cause-effect re-
lationships are likely to be backgrounded [10,11]. Understanding how
such risk perceptions intersect with social norms and available fuel/
stove combinations to influence cooking practice at both individual and
community levels are therefore likely to be of value for initiatives
seeking to promote and sustain clean energy transitions.
3. Study location and methodological approach
3.1. Study site location and context
The field-based research was undertaken in a Tiv-dominated area of
Benue state (BS) in North Central Nigeria (see Fig. 1). Analysis of data
on the main cooking fuels used in the 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2015 Ni-
gerian Demographic Health Surveys highlighted Benue as a good study
location on account of its high dependence on biomass fuel and pro-
nounced rural-urban variations in the use of alternative fuels such as
kerosene, charcoal, electricity and LPG. An additional influence was
Atagher's familiarity with local socio-economic and cultural norms and
ability to speak Tiv which helped in gaining access to local community
members and building trust.
Three sites within BS were chosen for study based on their con-
trasting fuel use and access to energy infrastructure. They are referred
to by codes instead of place names in line with assurances of anonymity
provided to participants. The first site, located in an urban community
(BS-U) within the state capital, had good access to modern fuels (ty-
pically around 120 h/week of electricity supply plus a range of LPG
refilling outlets) along with charcoal and fuelwood. As such, it provided
useful insights into the value attached to ICS and modern fuels com-
pared to more ‘traditional’ cooking systems typically comprising of
wood-fuelled three stone fires (WFTSFs). The second site, located in a
peri‑urban area (BS-PU), was characterised by a reliance on fuelwood as
the primary cooking fuel. Households that couldn't afford to purchase
firewood travelled several kilometres to gather it free of cost as local
woodlands had been exhausted. Electricity was available in this site for
only around 18 h/week. The third site, a rural community (BS-R), had
access to state-managed plantations from which households gathered
firewood for cooking. Livelihoods here were dominated by trading and
farm produce processing with access to electricity on a par with that in
BR-PU.
A greater proportion of households in BS-U (86%) had electricity
connections than in BS-PU and BS-R (43% and 14% respectively) which
they used mainly for lighting rather than cooking (see Table 1). Solar
lighting was also used; especially in BS-U. Although electricity subsidies
meant that tariffs were below the prices charged by generating com-
panies [55], concern about the overestimation of bills by electricity
distribution companies had deterred some households from paying for
connections. This was particularly so in BS-U and BS-PU where fewer
meters were available. Reflecting the situation for Nigeria as a whole
[56], LPG was not widely used for cooking. Unlike LPG, kerosene was
subsidised [57] for most of the fieldwork period
1
but was rarely
available at the official price and kerosene stove use declined from the
late 2000s. Echoing studies elsewhere [20,21,31,34,40,60], concerns
about the risk of explosions were expressed in relation to both fuels and
kerosene was associated with serious burn injuries.
Fig. 1. Map of the study sites within Benue state.
Table 1
Main fuel used by sample households in the three study sites.
Urban Urban%
(count)
Semi-urban%
(count)
Rural%
(count)
Total%
(count)
Firewood 43 (3) 57 (4) 86 (6) 61 (13)
Charcoal 14 (1) 14 (1) 0 10 (2)
Kerosene 14 (1) 14 (1) 0 10 (2)
Electricity 14 (1) 0 0 5 (1)
LPG 14 (1) 14 (1) 14 (1) 14 (3)
1
In January 2016, petroleum product subsidies were removed and the gov-
ernment approved kerosene price rose from US$0.25 to 0.41 but when oil prices
rose in mid-2016, official kerosene prices remained stable, implying ‘the return
of an implicit subsidy’ [58:1]. More recently, moves have been made to remove
VAT on locally-produced LPG [59].
S. Jewitt, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 61 (2020) 101340
3
3.2. Data collection and analysis
Fieldwork in Benue took place between March 2015 and May 2016
although contact with the study communities is ongoing. Echoing si-
milar studies elsewhere in Nigeria [10] access to community members
was obtained via chiefs who acted as gatekeepers and assisted in the
purposive selection of male and female participants from different
socio-economic groups and with access to a range of stove/fuel com-
binations. To capture the perspectives of female respondents and
minimise potential discomfort about being approached by a male re-
searcher, a female Tiv research assistant was employed to work
alongside Atagher. All participants gave informed consent before taking
part in the research and their names were anonymised in line with
ethical approval obtained in advance of the study.
In response to calls for improved understandings of how cultural
dynamics drive household stove and fuel choices [16,26], qualitative
techniques were used to explore research questions on factors influen-
cing the use of (and temporal shifts between) different cooking stack
components along with spatial variations in stack composition. Ques-
tions regarding respondents’ awareness of HAP-related health problems
and their influence on stove/fuel use along with discussions on broader
perceptions of risk and socio-economic priorities were investigated
using qualitative methods. Focus group discussions (FGDs) and parti-
cipatory exercises were carried out with 49 (14 male, 35 female) par-
ticipants to identify stove/fuel use and preferences in the different sites
with ranking exercises chosen as a means to identify where stove and
fuel choice sat within broader household priorities and aspirations. The
fieldwork also involved direct and participant observation of cooking
activities in each site. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with
3 community elders in each site (6 female and 3 male) to elicit in-
formation on changes in cooking practices over time.
Questions relating to spatial variations in energy access and the
influence of household demographics and kitchen layout on stove/fuel
stack components were addressed with the use of household surveys
undertaken with 21 participants recruited during the FGDs; 7 at each
site. These surveys contained open and closed questions and sought to
complement the qualitative methods in enhancing understandings of
variations in stove/fuel use, including stoves that were no longer in use
and the reasons for this. The overall sample size (survey plus qualitative
methods) was influenced by a desire to inductively analyse and inter-
pret differences between the three sites rather than to produce gen-
eralisable results [61]. Qualitative data derived from these methods
were translated from Tiv, transcribed, exported into NVivo 10, coded
and analysed thematically with meanings and interpretations being
cross-checked among the research team [61]. Quantitative data from
the surveys were coded in Microsoft Excel and analysed using simple
descriptive statistics.
Although fieldwork conducted by Nigerian researchers from the
same ethnic group helped to provide ‘insider’ perspectives that were
useful in informing the research [10] we acknowledge that their edu-
cation and economic security simultaneously marked them out as
‘outsiders’ and may have encouraged some social desirability bias [62].
We attempted to minimise the effects of this by using observational
approaches in combination with interviews, FGDs and surveys during
the course of the fieldwork. Other limitations include the danger of
misinterpreting meanings during interviews or translation [61], silen-
cing less dominant voices due to FGD composition or dynamics and
missing nuances during coding due to the fast-paced nature of the FGDs
[63]. In order to elicit the views of quieter FGD participants, efforts
were made to speak privately to them on a different occasion. To
minimise misinterpretation and the loss of nuance, Atagher and his
research assistant compared notes taken during FGDs to cross-check
their understandings of the issues under discussion and fill in any gaps.
Transcribed interviews were also shared for cross-checking while
translations were checked and clarified by the co-authors.
4. Findings
4.1. Household fuel use
The cooking systems used by respondents in the study sites formed a
spectrum from WFTSFs through slightly cleaner charcoal and transi-
tional kerosene stoves to ‘clean’ gas and electric cookers (see Fig. 2).
Echoing SDG7.1.2′s emphasis on tracking ‘primary reliance on clean
fuels and technologies’, questions about the main fuel used revealed
that 13 of the 21 sample households (61%) relied on wood (see
Table 1). Some rural-urban variations were noted with firewood being
used more widely in BS-R than in BS-U and BS-PU where more fuel
options were present. One BS-U household used electricity as their main
cooking fuel and two (one in BS-U and one in BS-PU) used kerosene.
LPG was not widely used on the whole although three households (one
in each site) reported it as their primary cooking fuel. Charcoal was
more prevalent with one sample household in BS-U and BS-PU using it
as their primary fuel and a few reporting good incomes from selling it. It
was most commonly burned on rudimentary metal ‘Abacha’ stoves
2
which our respondents referred to as ‘improved’ (compared to WFTSFs)
although they likely offer insignificant improvements in either fuel-ef-
ficiency or smoke reduction.
As discussions with respondents made clear, however, our questions
on the main fuel used revealed only a partial picture as most used a
stack of fuel/stove combinations to meet their cooking needs (see
Table 2). Echoing studies in many other areas [12,14–17,22,24,31,32]
wood was widely used in combination with clean (or cleaner) fuels in
all three sites. In BS-U, many households retained WFTSFs and demand
for firewood was such that some households purchased it for re-sale
within the community. In BS-R, WFTSFs were most commonly used but
many respondents made sparing use of kerosene (sometimes just for
Fig. 2. Different stoves used in the study sites.
2
‘Abacha’ stoves became widespread following kerosene shortages during the
time of Sani Abacha; a military dictator who served as the President of Nigeria
from 1993 until his death in 1998. Since then, they have been widely produced
and there are many different types available. Initially, Abacha stoves were used
to burn any available fuel but our respondents were referring to locally made
charcoal-burning stoves (see Fig. 2).
S. Jewitt, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 61 (2020) 101340
4
lighting their fires) and some used charcoal- and LPG-fuelled systems.
Although 12 electric and gas stoves were used by our sample house-
holds, none relied solely on CCS.
During discussions about the make-up of household cooking system
stacks, it became clear that temporary – often seasonal – shifts between
stack components were common in all three sites. Sometimes this re-
stacking resulted in cleaner stove/fuel combinations but both short and
longer term ‘backsliding’ to more polluting systems were also observed.
Coding of the qualitative data highlighted three main sets of explana-
tions for these shifts which focused around user-based priorities linked
to a mixture of pragmatic and socio-cultural factors, economic con-
straints and issues relating to access and poor quality of service. These
proved useful in identifying key barriers to both the adoption and
sustained use of clean fuel/stove combinations - as either primary
cooking systems or components of cleaner stacks - and are explored in
the following 3 sections.
4.2. The influence of user-based cooking priorities linked to utilitarian and
socio-cultural factors
Utilitarian and socio-cultural factors had an important influence on
how users prioritised particular cooking systems and the value placed
on WFTSFs was clearly apparent in all three sites, helping to explain
low levels of demand for CCS. Echoing research elsewhere in Nigeria
[10], respondents emphasised the benefits of wood smoke for adding
flavour to food and also preserving it in the absence of either re-
frigerators or a reliable and affordable supply of electricity to power
them:
“…on the three-stone fire we use firewood as the main fuel for cooking
and sometimes for preserving meat…you cannot use another stove for
meat preservation, so when it comes to that…firewood and the three-
stone fire is utilized to give the meat an accentuated aroma that is highly
appreciated. If I had a gas stove, I would still use firewood to preserve my
meat because it is very important to the family”
(Male. Interview. BS-U).
Perceptions that wood ‘cooks faster than any other fuel’ also en-
couraged WFTSF use; especially when food needed to be cooked in a
hurry such as when household members returned hungry from the
fields. During our observation of cooking activities in the study sites,
cooks explained that they could quickly increase the heat by adding
more wood, helping to perpetuate the belief that traditional stoves cook
quickly:
“…with my three-stone fire I put in as much firewood as I can to enable
my meals to cook faster”
(Male. FGD. BS-U).
The fact that fuelwood could be added to three stone fires with
minimal preparation (unlike many cleaner burning biomass stoves
which require wood to be chopped into small pieces) was particularly
valued along with the ability to keep the cooking pot in place whilst re-
fuelling. During FGDs, respondents explained that as it is considered
culturally inappropriate to remove a pot from the flame during cooking,
many improved biomass (including Abacha) stoves were disliked for
requiring this:
“…what I do not like about the stove is the process of feeding in fuel
which is carried out in a manner that reflects a typical traditional ritual.
The practice is uncustomary, a pot is usually brought down from the
stove before charcoal is fed into the combustion chamber…I personally
know of some places where people, especially strangers, hardly eat meals
that are prepared on the stove”
(Female. Interview. BS-U).
WFTSFs were also liked for their capacity to cook large meals; an
important attribute in Tiv communities where ‘ethnic specific’ [10]
cultural norms associate cooking large quantities of food with higher
socio-economic status. Tiv respondents also preferred smoke-producing
stoves as they made clear visual statements that there was enough food
to give to a visitor. Linked to this was the ease with which WFTSFs
could be adapted to accept larger cooking pots for special events:
“…during cultural festivals…a gas stove cannot satisfy the demand of the
people present…that is why we use big pots on the three stone fireplace
because these traditional stoves can withstand the large sizes of our
cooking pots”
(Female elder. Interview. BS-U).
This was an important theme in all FGDs as respondents pointed out
that the food requirements of larger households could not easily be
accommodated on most improved stoves:
“I believe there is no stove that would accommodate the quantity of food I
cook in my household except my three stone fireplace…stoves like gas,
electric, kerosene and Abacha would not help out…so I prepare the three
stone fireplace and purchase enough firewood for all my cooking activ-
ities…even if I have a gas stove, the quantity of food that is needed in my
household cannot be prepared on such a stove…not possible”
(Female elder. Interview. BS-PU).
Indeed, this appeared to be an important cause of long-term back-
sliding in the study sites as families ‘outgrew’ their improved stoves and
reverted to WFTSFs:
“I have stopped using my kerosene stove since my family size is now large
and I have gone back to my traditional three-stone fire since it can cook
the desired quantity of meals at once”
(Female. FGD. BS-U).
Other explanations for backsliding from kerosene and caution in
using LPG reflect fears about the risk of burns and explosions (with one
respondent having witnessed a kerosene stove exploding at a neigh-
bour's house) coupled with a dislike of the smoke they produce:
“I think it is the smokiest stove I have ever used…we are done with the
stove”
(Male elder. Interview. BS-U).
Although strong user preferences for WFTSFs were prevalent in all
three sites, there was widespread agreement that one cooking device
was insufficient to meet all household requirements. Echoing research
elsewhere [10,12,14-17,22,24,32], FGDs revealed a combination of
practical and socio-cultural reasons for stacking a range of fuel/stove
combinations. The ability to cook different foods simultaneously was
highlighted as particularly desirable so households without multi-
burner stoves used more than one system for preparing larger meals or
foods with different cooking requirements:
“…the three-stone fire [is used] for preparing large quantities of food
while the kerosene stove is for soup only”
(Female. FGD. BS-U).
As is common in other areas with pronounced seasonal weather
patterns [12,24,34], cooking system choices varied between the dry
and wet seasons with short-term shifts up the energy ladder often oc-
curring during the rains in response to increased smoke production
from burning wet wood:
Table 2
Total number of stoves used by households in the study sites.
Urban%
(count)
Semi-urban%
(count)
Rural%
(count)
Total%
(count)
Three stone fire 23.8 (5) 33 (7) 33 (7) 90.4 (19)
Abacha stove 19 (4) 14.2 (3) 23.8 (5) 57 (12)
Kerosene stove 23.8 (5) 19 (4) 14.2 (3) 57 (12)
Electric stove 9.52 (2) 4.76 (1) 4.76 (1) 19 (4)
LPG stove 14.2 (3) 9.52 (2) 14.2 (3) 38 (8)
S. Jewitt, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 61 (2020) 101340
5
“In the rainy season, I use my kerosene stove because firewood is usually
wet, so it produces a lot of smoke. I don''t use my three-stone fire during
this time’’
(Female. FGD. BS-U).
One respondent reported having purchased a new stove as a result
of his wife's smoke-related health problems:
“…my wife … was experiencing pains in her eyes and when I took her to
the hospital, I ended up spending so much money such that I have no
savings again. Since then if she makes a demand in the kitchen, I quickly
respond to it … unless I don''t have [the means to do so]”
(Male. FGD. BS-R).
Additional reasons favouring the use of cleaner stoves from house-
hold cooking stacks during the rains include difficulties associated with
keeping stored wood dry, lighting wet wood and the impracticality of
moving WFTSFs to drier or indoor locations. With these factors in mind
and reflecting a tendency for men to control household budgets in the
study area, as elsewhere [5,10,20,21], FGDs revealed that the wet
season was a time when women often asked their husbands to purchase
improved cookstoves. In most cases they were referring to Abacha
stoves which they perceived as relatively inexpensive and cleaner in the
sense that they produced less smoke and helped reduce drudgery as-
sociated with keeping kitchens and cooking pots clean:
“…since I have been using the Abacha stove, my cooking pots have re-
mained clean, but the three-stone fire produces a lot of smoke and dirt …
you don''t experience that with Abacha stoves”
(Female, FGD. BS-U).
“…three stone fires and firewood smoke make the kitchen look untidy
including the cooking pots”
(Female elder. Interview. BS-R).
The onset of the rainy season therefore acted as an enabler for shifts
to slightly cleaner cooking stacks whilst also encouraging household-
and community-level reflection on the health risks of WFTSFs. The
discomfort of smoke generated by WFTSFs was widely acknowledged
during this time along with seasonal coughs and impaired vision among
cooks. Some respondents mentioned that they tried to reduce these
problems by moving away from the cooking area and returning when
smoke was less visible. Others expressed both a dislike of and concern
about smoke but felt compelled to put up with it as food needed to be
prepared and they couldn't afford cleaner cooking systems:
“I do not have any means to reduce smoke…and we cannot stop
cooking” (Female. Interview. BS-U).
“…it is not my desire to cook on a three-stone fire because of smoke but I
have to cook in this way since I do not have alternatives and we have to
cook a large quantity of food”
(Female. FGD. BS-PU).
Outside the rainy season, HAP-related health concerns, insofar as
they were understood and articulated, tended to be further ‘back-
grounded’ [11,51] in relation to more immediate priorities associated
with meeting household food and financial requirements. To some ex-
tent this reflects limited awareness of HAP-related health risks coupled
with difficulties linking HAP to respiratory problems like chronic ob-
structive pulmonary disease that are not experienced immediately
[19,54,64].
4.3. The influence of economic factors
As the quotes above suggest, economic constraints and associated
spending priorities had a significant influence on stove and fuel choices
in the study area. Providing some support for the energy ladder model
[28], FGDs indicated that low income groups tended to rely particularly
heavily on WFTSFs; especially in BS-R and BS-PU where zero-cost
fuelwood was available:
“Just look around this community…you will discover that it is poorer
households that travel in search of firewood”
(Female. Interview. BS-PU).
By contrast, higher income groups
3
in all three sites and residents of
BS-U (who typically purchased their firewood) tended to make greater
use of modern and transitional fuel/stove combinations including
electric, gas and kerosene. As other studies suggest [14,20–22,30–33], a
key barrier amongst non-adopters in BS-U seemed to be the initial cost
of a clean stove
4
rather than concerns about ongoing fuel costs. Indeed,
respondents in BS-U in particular were aware that a 5 kg LPG cylinder
typically cost US$6
5
and would usually last a family of four for a month,
making its cost comparable to the charcoal needed to fuel an Abacha
stove:
“I am aware that after the preliminary cost of the stove, the users only
need to refill the gas cylinder and that now has a lower operational cost
compared to kerosene, charcoal and firewood…Nevertheless we have
other needs that constrain our budget’’
(Male. Interview. BS-U).
In support of studies indicating low levels of demand for CCS
[1,9,10,14,21], discussions about competing spending priorities in-
dicated preferences to invest in children's education, land/property and
goods (e.g. generators or a vehicle) that would help in developing or
expanding businesses:
“I cannot make such investment because I need to pay my children''s
tuition fees and expand my firewood business”
(Male. FGD. BS-R).
These preferences were particularly pronounced in BS-R and BS-U
where many households depended heavily on zero-cost fuelwood.
Reflecting particularly low concern for (or ‘backgrounding’) of HAP-
related health risks coupled with the low aspirational value of CCS
relative to property-based assets, some respondents stated that they
would prioritise a new kitchen over a new stove as they perceived well-
ventilated kitchens to be more effective in reducing smoke.
For users that had already invested in transitional or clean cooking
solutions, by contrast, rising fuel costs coupled with fluctuating
household incomes sometimes resulted in either temporary or longer-
term backsliding. In terms of longer-term backsliding, many households
that had previously stacked kerosene stoves reported abandoning them
in favour of WFTSFs as they found it hard to obtain kerosene at the
official subsidised price of US$0.25/litre. This became more pro-
nounced in BR-U after the subsidy was removed in January 2016 and
the official price rose to US$0.41 [58]. In the study area, kerosene was
commonly sold for US$1.05–1.7/litre which was considered too ex-
pensive for regular use as a cooking fuel:
“…kerosene…is available only at the unregulated price of ₦210 [US
$1.05] even in urban areas so some of us are forced to use three-stone
fireplaces. Sometimes we wonder if it is the government's desire to en-
courage us to use firewood’’
(Male. FGD. BS-R).
Shorter term shifts between cooking stack elements tended to reflect
efforts to juggle user-based cooking priorities, available income and a
3
Income groups in the study sites were identified using a range of indictors
including the number of income-earners in the household, their approximate
income levels and key household expenses including the average cost of
household energy.
4
Gas stove prices started from US$63 while a double burner electric stove
cost US$105. Kerosene stoves cost around US$40 compared to US$15 for an
Abacha stove.
5
US$1 equated to around 200 Nigerian Naira in May 2015
S. Jewitt, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 61 (2020) 101340
6
need to minimise the risk of not being able to cook:
“I like charcoal, I use it when I do not have money to refill my gas
cylinder and when I do not have the charcoal, I use firewood and with
these three arrangements, I rarely run out of fuel for cooking household
food”
(Female elder. Interview. BS-U).
“…[the] electric stove, has high electricity bills associated with it. I can't
afford continuous usage and the price of kerosene too is high but the
Abacha stove is okay given my lean resources”
(Female. FGD. BS-U).
Providing additional insights into seasonal shifts towards cleaner
cooking stack components, FGDs revealed that fuelwood price rises
during the rains worked alongside increased smoke and wet cooking
locations to encourage the temporary abandonment of WFTSFs among
households that paid for their wood. Because of higher transport costs
in the wet season, prices were reported as being over US$15 for a
month's supply compared to US$10 in the dry season. Seasonal price
variations were also reported for charcoal with a 100 kg bag in the wet
season typically costing US$8 in BS-U and US$6 in BS-PU compared to
dry season prices of US$6 in BS-U and US$5 in BS-PU.
6
Although these price differences didn't appear to inhibit a shift to
Abacha stoves during the rains – even in BS-R where many households
gathered fuelwood free of cost – households with gas stoves tended to
make greater use of them in the rainy season.
4.4. The influence of factors related to fuel access and quality of service
In addition to cost-related factors, issues relating to access and
quality of service often discouraged the adoption of clean (or cleaner)
cooking technologies or – where households already owned such
technologies – their sustained use. Likewise, the role of stacking in
minimising risks associated with fuel price fluctuations applied equally
to short and longer-term fuel access problems.
In BS-R and BS-PU, the availability of free fuelwood and the time
taken to gather it had a major influence on the composition of house-
hold cooking stacks. A number of respondents from these sites lamented
their declining access to firewood but felt financially constrained in
paying for alternative fuels. This was particularly noticeable in BS-PU
where the conversion of former forest and bush into farm land had
made fuelwood collection more time-consuming:
“Since firewood around the community has been exhausted, we travel to
the hinterland covering 10 km each trip…valuable time that could have
been invested in other household activities is lost in the process, but
firewood is obtained at a free cost”
(Female. FGD. BS-PU).
Alternative fuel options were limited, however, as access to elec-
tricity connections and LPG infrastructure was poor and kerosene was
rarely available in BS-R.
In BS-U, by contrast, the lack of access to free firewood meant that
wood-fuelled stoves occupied a less prominent place within household
cooking stacks while better access to electricity, kerosene, LPG and
associated infrastructure encouraged the use of transitional and clean
cooking systems. Nevertheless, concerns about poor quality of service
were reported to have hindered the adoption and use of electric stoves
due to suspicions about corruption surrounding estimated (rather than
metered) electricity billing. This was most common in BS-PU and BS-U
where electricity meters were uncommon:
“many people protested because there were no electric meters to read
their daily consumption”
(Female Elder. Interview. BS-U).
For other respondents, concerns about the quality of the electricity
supply were more significant in discouraging the adoption of electric
cookers or causing backsliding among households that owned them.
Echoing Oyedepo's [8] critique of Nigeria's failure to meet domestic
demand for electricity, FGDs highlighted a decline in the regularity and
reliability of their service:
“Although I bought an electric stove about three years ago, we hardly
have steady electricity supply in our community…When they supply
electricity, it lasts few hours, so we do not use the stove”
(Male elder. Interview. BS-U).
The difficulties associated with re-filling LPG cylinders were also
reported as causes of backsliding in BS-PU as the need to travel to BS-U
for this added significant expenditure:
“I have a gas stove, though I stopped using it because of the refilling,
transportation charges…I now use my Abacha stove”
(Female. FGD. BS-PU).
In BS-U where access to LPG and kerosene (albeit not at the official
price) was better than in BS-PU and BS-R, households relied on WFTSFs
when these fuels were in short supply. For kerosene, shortages tended
to occur in the dry season as demand was lower and vendors didn't
always maintain their supplies. This facilitated seasonal fuel switching
as households made greater use of kerosene in the wet season when
fuelwood was hard to access, smoky and difficult to light. Similar ten-
dencies were also apparent among electric stove users who were forced
by seasonal supply interruptions to backslide to transitional or biomass
fuels:
“…there will be a need to make alternative arrangements since electricity
supply has been seasonal over time. In such situations, the traditional
stove has a role to play that is very essential”
(Male. Interview. BS-U).
In BS-R, by contrast, options for seasonal re-stacking were more
limited as kerosene was rarely available and wet weather conditions
made firewood collection difficult. For households wishing to avoid
using WFTSFs during this period, charcoal-fuelled Abacha stoves were
generally regarded as the most accessible and reliable option.
5. Discussion
Findings from the study sites illustrate how end-user cooking pre-
ferences and priorities are spatially and temporally specific and often
differ widely from more technology-oriented systems for classifying
improved cooking systems [37,42]. As Benue is poorly serviced with
energy infrastructure – particularly outside urban areas – these pre-
ferences and priorities are intersected by variations in the cost of and
access to different fuels and cooking devices. In contrast to fuel effi-
ciency as an incentive for CCS adoption and sustained use [30] com-
peting economic priorities coupled with seasonal and rural-urban var-
iations in fuel prices, access and reliability of supply acted as more
important influences on stove and fuel use decisions in the study area
(see Fig. 3).
Echoing critiques of the energy ladder model [14,16,20,24,28,29],
income was often not the most significant influence on cooking system
choices. As is the case in high income countries, fuel/stove stacking was
widely undertaken to facilitate varied (and socio-culturally specific)
cooking practices whilst minimising fuel insecurity risks by enabling
flexible responses to fluctuations in fuel costs, accessibility and relia-
bility of supply [14,24]. Reflecting this, both backsliding and more
temporary (often seasonal) shifts away from clean and transitional fuels
were quite common among (primarily urban) households when faced
6
A 100 kg bag typically lasted a family of five for one month.
S. Jewitt, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 61 (2020) 101340
7
with rising prices or reduced/unreliable access to their preferred fuels.
Backsliding was also linked to families ‘outgrowing’ their improved
stoves and reverting to WFTSFs which allowed them to cook larger
meals.
Of significance for initiatives seeking to promote CCS transitions
was the value placed by households from all three sites and across in-
come groups on retaining WFTSFs within their cooking stacks. In rural
areas where fuelwood could be freely gathered, cost and accessibility
considerations were clearly important, but this was less true of urban
households that had access to a range of alternative fuels but were
frequently willing to pay more for firewood. Echoing findings by
Herington et al. and Malakar et al. [20–22], this inertia reflected the
interplay of social systems and energy services (including particular
stove/fuel characteristics) on the practice of cooking. Particularly im-
portant were ‘ethnic-specific’ [10] cultural preferences for food cooked
using biomass and the capacity of WFTSFs to cook large quantities
which in the study area signals food security and wealth. In more
practical terms, WFTSFs were valued for their sturdiness, reliability,
simplicity and flexibility (in accepting unprepared fuelwood and dif-
ferent sized pots) as well as for producing smoke for preserving food.
These characteristics coupled with difficulties in accessing CCS that are
perceived as reliable, flexible, affordable and safe present important
challenges for stimulating their adoption and sustained used; particu-
larly in rural areas where zero-cost firewood is available.
Reflecting Smith and Ezzati's (2005, p. 324) finding that ‘high ef-
fective discount rates’ tend to accompany low incomes, discussions of
HAP-related health risks indicated that many respondents were forced
to ‘background’ [11,51] these relative to more pressing anxieties linked
to food and financial security and the need to ensure some means of
cooking. Although some respondents had experienced serious HAP-re-
lated illnesses, others struggled to connect smoke to diseases with
temporally distant symptoms and, following various accidents in the
local community, expressed greater concern about risks linked to ker-
osene burns, stove explosions and leakages from highly flammable LPG
cylinders.
Nevertheless, evidence from BS-R and BS-PU indicated that a desire
to avoid smoke produced by wet fuelwood coupled with difficulties in
gathering wood during the rainy season sometimes stimulated seasonal
shifts from WFTSFs to slightly cleaner and more efficient charcoal
stoves. As most respondents appeared to be acting in response to dis-
comfort rather than an awareness of HAP-related health risks, it is
possible that such shifts could be encouraged through information and
communication campaigns targeting respiratory health or greater
involvement of women (as change agents or CCS entrepreneurs) within
the CCS value chain [44].
6. Conclusions
The challenges of increasing demand for cleaner fuels and improved
stoves among low income biomass-dependent groups are increasingly
acknowledged [1,7,9,10,12,20,65]; especially in rural areas where
zero-cost fuelwood is available and national energy policies overlook its
importance as an energy source [38]. While findings from this study are
drawn from three communities in Nigeria and can't be generalised to
other regions or countries, they nevertheless shed light on decisions
underpinning cooking system choices that are likely to resonate with
biomass-dependent groups in other parts of the world. In particular, our
research illustrates how end-users favour stacking a range of stoves and
fuels that give them the flexibility to cook different foods for varying
numbers of people whilst minimising risks related to changes in price,
accessibility and reliability of different fuels along with perceived safety
hazards. Whilst efforts to discourage stacking would be counter-
productive and most probably resisted, an emphasis on promoting
cleaner and safer stacks may be more effective in combining end-user
priorities with health and environmental benefits.
In particular, more emphasis on risk perceptions within CCS pro-
motion and social marketing initiatives would help to elucidate user-
defined benefits of different cooking stack components and factors
underlying variations in stack composition over time and space [9]. The
influence of reliability of supply, sustainability and affordability of
household energy sources on CCS use is recognised by SE4ALL and
included in SDG7 indicators [65]. Keeping track of their impacts on
cooking system use is problematic, however, as household-level data is
currently limited on the nature of cooking technologies used [1] and
household surveys rarely capture information on seasonal changes in
fuel or stove use. Particularly problematic is the focus of most house-
hold data collection to date on the ‘main’ cooking fuel rather than
whether multiple fuels or stoves are used. This provides a poor sense of
trends in fuel stacking and ‘backsliding’ over time (including season-
ally) and space. Given that SDG7.1.2′s indicator is the ‘proportion of the
population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technologies’ (our
emphasis), limited data is likely to be collected on the nature of
household fuel and stove ‘stacks’ - and how they vary spatially between
rural, peri‑urban and urban contexts or temporally. This will in turn
provide an incomplete picture of HAP exposure and the success of
measures taken to reduce this.
Fig. 3. Key influences on cooking system choices.
S. Jewitt, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 61 (2020) 101340
8
In terms of developing monitoring and evaluation tools to ‘support
sustained success of HAP interventions’ [13:5], it would be useful to
track the components of household fuel and stove stacks as well as more
linear shifts between the main fuels and stoves used. This would enable
better insights to be gained on how the components of stove and fuel
stacks vary in different settings and over shorter as well as longer time
periods. It also has potential to encourage initiatives promoting cleaner
stacks that allow households flexibility to adjust to fluctuating fuel
prices, availability, reliability or changing family sizes whilst seeking to
prevent backsliding. While the establishment of such a nuanced mon-
itoring approach would no doubt be complex, the development of tiered
approaches to monitoring multiple attributes of energy access suggests
that it is possible [1].
In terms of encouraging shifts to cleaner stacks that make greater
use of fuels like electricity and LPG, there may be useful lessons to learn
from community-wide behaviour change approaches used in sanitation
interventions [9,19]. In particular, multi-level approaches embodying
sensitivity to culturally-rooted end-user priorities and risk perceptions
could help to encourage community-level shifts in the adoption and
sustained use of cleaner cooking technology stacks; especially if com-
bined with financing strategies and infrastructural investment to ad-
dress affordability and quality of service constraints.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Government of Nigeria’s Tertiary
Education Trust [TETFUND/ES/AST&D/POLY/UGBOKOLO/VOL.XIV]
and a Department for International Development, Department of
Energy and Climate Change, and Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council joint grant [EP/L002639/1]. We would like to
thank Esther Igyase for working alongside Atagher during his field re-
search as well as respondents in the study communities without whose
assistance the research would not have been possible. The authors are
also very grateful to the anonymous reviewers whose comments and
suggestions were extremely useful in improving the paper
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.erss.2019.101340.
References
[1] IEA (International Energy Agency), International Renewable Energy Agency, United
Nations Statistics Division, World Bank Group, World Health Organisation,
International Bank of Reconstruction and Development, Washington, DC, 2018
Tracking SDG7. The Energy Progress Report 2018.
[2] S.O. Oyedepo, On energy for sustainable development in Nigeria, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 16 (2012) 2583–2598.
[3] ICEED (International Centre for Energy Environment and Development), 120 mil-
lion Nigerians especially women, vulnerable to dangers of firewood smoke,
Available: (2019) http://iceednigeria.org/ic/120-million-nigerian-women-
vulnerable-to-dangers-of-firewood-smoke-expert/.
[4] B.K. Sovacool, The political economy of energy poverty: a review of key challenges,
Energy Sustain. Develop. 16 (3) (2012) 272–282, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.
2012.05.006.
[5] R. Listo, Gender myths in energy poverty literature: a critical discourse analysis,
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 38 (2018) 9–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.01.010.
[6] K.R. Smith, M. Jerrett, H.R. Anderson, R.T. Burnett, V. Stone, R. Derwent, Public
health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: health implica-
tions of short-lived greenhouse pollutants, Lancet 374 (2009) 2091–2103.
[7] WHO, Burning opportunity: Clean Household Energy for health, Sustainable de-
velopment, and Wellbeing of Women and Children, WHO, Geneva, 2016.
[8] GACC. About. Available: (2017) http://cleancookstoves.org/about/.
[9] T. Sesan, S. Jewitt, M. Clifford, C. Ray, Toilet training: what can the cookstove
sector learn from improved sanitation promotion? Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 28
(2018) 667–682.
[10] A. Akintan, S. Jewitt, M. Clifford, Culture, tradition, and taboo: understanding the
social shaping of fuel choices in Nigeria, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40 (2018) 14–22.
[11] S. Jewitt, K. Baker, Risk, wealth and agrarian change in India: Household-level
hazards vs. late-modern global risks at different points along the risk transition,
Glob. Environ. Chang. 22 (2012) 547–557.
[12] M. Jürisoo, F. Lambe, M. Osborne, Beyond buying: the application of service design
methodology to understand adoption of clean cookstoves in Kenya and Zambia,
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 39 (2018) 164–176, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.
023.
[13] J. Rosenthal, K. Balakrishnan, N. Bruce, D. Chambers, J. Graham, D. Jack, et al.,
Implementation science to accelerate clean cooking for public health, Environ.
Health Perspect. 125 (2018) 3–7.
[14] O.R. Masera, B.D. Saatkamp, D.M. Kammen, From linear fuel switching to multiple
cooking strategies: a critique and alternative to the energy ladder model, World
Dev. 28 (2000) 2083–2103.
[15] B. Van Der Kroon, R. Brouwer, P.J. Van Beukering, The energy ladder: theoretical
myth or empirical truth? results from a meta-analysis, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
20 (2013) 504–513.
[16] I. Ruiz-Mercado, O. Masera, Patterns of stove use in the context of fuel–device
stacking: rationale and implications, Ecohealth 12 (2015) 42–56.
[17] M.U. Treiber, L.K. Grimsby, J.B. Aune, Reducing energy poverty through increasing
choice of fuels and stoves in Kenya: complementing the multiple fuel model, Energy
Sustain. Develop. 27 (2015) 54–62.
[18] S. Jewitt, A. Mahanta, K. Gaur, Sanitation Sustainability, Seasonality and Stacking:
Improved facilities for how long, where and whom? Geogr. J. 184 (2018) 255–268.
[19] T. Clasen, K.R. Smith, Let the “A” in wash stand for air: integrating research and
interventions to improve household air pollution (HAP) and water, sanitation and
hygiene (WaSH) in low-income settings, Environ. Health Perspect. 127 (2019),
https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4752.
[20] Y. Malakar, C. Greig, E. van de Fliert, Resistance in rejecting solid fuels: beyond
availability and adoption in the structural dominations of cooking practices in rural
India, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 46 (2018) 225–235, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.
2018.07.025.
[21] Y. Malakar, Studying household decision-making context and cooking fuel transi-
tion in rural India, Energy Sustain. Develop. 43 (2018) 68–74, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.esd.2017.12.006.
[22] M.J. Herington, P.A. Lant, S. Smart, C. Greig, E. van de Fliert, E. Defection, re-
cruitment and social change in cooking practices: energy poverty through a social
practice lens, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 34 (2017) 272–280, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2017.09.001.
[23] C. Bielecki, G. Wingenbach, Rethinking improved cookstove diffusion programs: a
case study of social perceptions and cooking choices in rural Guatemala, Energy
Policy 66 (2014) 350–358.
[24] A. Jagadish, P. Dwivedi P, In the hearth, on the mind: cultural consensus on fuel-
wood and cookstoves in the middle Himalayas of India, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 37
(2018) 44–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.017.
[25] M. Khandelwal, M.E. Hill, P. Greenough, J. Anthony, M. Quill, M. Linderman,
H.S. Udaykumar, Why have improved cook-stove initiatives in India failed? World
Dev. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.006xx.
[26] B. Sovacool, What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship
and proposing a social science research agenda, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1 (2014) 1–29.
[27] B. Sovacool, M. Bazilian, M. Toman, Paradigms and poverty in global energy policy:
research needs for achieving universal energy access, Environ. Res. Lett. 11 (2016),
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/6/064014.
[28] R.H. Hosier, J. Dowd, Household fuel choice in Zimbabwe: an empirical test of the
energy ladder hypothesis, Resour. Energy 9 (4) (1987) 347–361.
[29] G. Leach, The energy transition, Energy Policy 20 (1992) 116–123.
[30] E.A. Rehfuess, E. Puzzolo, D. Stanistreet, D. Pope, N.G. Bruce, Enablers and barriers
to large-scale uptake of improved solid fuel stoves: a systematic review, Environ.
Health Perspect. 122 (2014) 120–130, https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1306639.
[31] D. Stanistreet, E. Puzzolo, N. Bruce, D. Pope, E. Rehfuess, Factors influencing
household uptake of improved solid fuel stoves in low- and middle-income coun-
tries: a qualitative systematic review, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 11 (8)
(2014) 8228–8250, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110808228.
[32] Y. Wang, R. Bailis R, The revolution from the kitchen: social processes of the re-
moval of traditional cookstoves in Himachal Pradesh, India, Energy Sustain.
Develop. 27 (2015) 127–136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2015.05.001.
[33] E. Puzzolo, D. Pope, D. Stanistreet, E.A. Rehfuess, N.G. Bruce, Clean fuels for re-
source-poor settings: a systematic review of barriers and enablers to adoption and
sustained use, Environ. Res. 146 (2016) 218–234, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envres.2016.01.002.
[34] A. Kar, H. Zerriffi H, From cookstove acquisition to cooking transition: framing the
behavioural aspects of cookstove interventions, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 42 (2018)
23–33, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.02.015.
[35] G.L. Simon, Geographies of mediation: market development and the rural broker in
Maharashtra, India, Polit Geogr. 28 (2009) 197–207.
[36] T.A. Sesan, Navigating the limitations of energy poverty: lessons from the promo-
tion of improved cooking technologies in Kenya, Energy Policy 47 (2012) 202–210.
[37] T.A. Sesan, Global imperatives, local contingencies: an analysis of divergent prio-
rities and dominant perspectives in stove development from the 1970s to date,
Progr. Develop. Stud. 14 (2014) 3–20.
[38] D. Barnes, S.R. Khandker, H.A. Samad, ‘Energy poverty in rural Bangladesh, Energy
S. Jewitt, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 61 (2020) 101340
9
Policy 39 (2011) 894–904.
[39] B. Person, J.D. Loo, A.L. Cohen, It is good for my family's health and cooks food in a
way that my heart loves: qualitative findings and implications for scaling up an
improved cookstove project in rural Kenya, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 9
(2012) 1566–1580.
[40] N.D. Moses, N.A. MacCarty, What makes a cookstove usable? trials of a usability
testing protocol in Uganda, Guatemala, and the United States, Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
52 (2019) 221–235, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.002.
[41] K.R. Smith, Why both gas and biomass are needed today to address the solid fuel
cooking problem in India: a challenge to the biomass stove community, Energy
Sustain. Develop. 38 (2017) 102–103.
[42] K. Troncoso, A. Castillo, O. Masera, L. Merino, Social perceptions about a techno-
logical innovation for fuelwood cooking: case study in rural Mexico, Energy Policy
35 (2007) 2799–2810.
[43] P.P. Otte, A (new) cultural turn toward solar cooking—Evidence from six case
studies across India and Burkina Faso, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2 (2014) 49–58,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.006.
[44] T. Sesan, M. Clifford, S. Jewitt, C. Ray, ‘We learnt that being together would give us
a voice’: gender perspectives on the East Africa improved cookstove value chain,
Fem. Econ. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2019.1657924.
[45] E. Fingleton-Smith, The lights are on but no (men) are home. The effect of tradi-
tional gender roles on perceptions of energy in Kenya, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40
(2018) 211–219.
[46] A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration,
Polity, Cambridge, 1984.
[47] N.J. Goodwin, S.E. O'Farrell, K. Jagoe, J. Rouse, E. Roma, A. Biran, E.A. Finkelstein,
Use of behavior change techniques in clean cooking interventions: a review of the
evidence and scorecard of effectiveness, J. Health Commun. 20 (Suppl. 1) (2015)
43–54, https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.1002958.
[48] D. Hernández, E. Siegel, Energy insecurity and its ill health effects: a community
perspective on the energy-health nexus in New York city, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40
(2019) 211–219.
[49] M. Cordoves-Sánchez, A. Vallejos-Romero, Social construction of risk in non-con-
ventional renewable energy: risk perception as a function of ecosystem services in
La Araucanía, Chile, Ecol. Econ. 159 (2019) 261–270.
[50] D.A. Wadley, J.H. Han, P.G. Elliott, Risk hidden in plain sight: explaining home-
owner perceptions of electricity transmission infrastructure, Energy Policy 132
(2019) 744–753.
[51] M. Douglas, A. Widalsky, Risk and Culture: An Essay On the Selection of
Technological and Environmental Dangers, University of California Press, Berkeley
and Los Angeles, 1982.
[52] A.H. Maslow, Motivation and Personality, second ed, Harper and Row, New York,
1970.
[53] K.R. Smith, The risk transition and developing countries, in: J.X. Kasperson,
R. Kasperson (Eds.), Global Environmental Risk, Earthscan, London, 2001, pp.
148–172.
[54] K.R. Smith, M. Ezzati, How environmental health risks change with development:
the epidemiologic and environmental risk transitions revisited, Ann. Rev. Environ.
Resour. 30 (2005) 291–333.
[55] R. Olorunbi, The Rising Cost of Nigeria's Petroleum Subsidy, (2019) The Africa
Report. 15/01/2019. Available https://www.theafricareport.com/418/nigeria-the-
cost-of-cheaper-petrol/.
[56] S. Opera, 90 Per Cent of Nigerian Homes Lack LPG Cylinders, Reveals NLPGA, The
Guardian, 2018 21/11/18. Available https://guardian.ng/energy/90-per-cent-of-
nigerian-homes-lack-lpg-cylinders-reveals-nlpga/.
[57] C. Agbaegbu, M. Amaza, Black market and middlemen — not poor — benefit from
kerosene subsidy. Available (2018): https://www.icirnigeria.org/black-market-
and-middle-men-not-poor-benefit-from-kerosene-subsidy/ Accessed 30/04/19.
[58] IISD, Compensation mechanisms for fuel subsidy removal in Nigeria. Available
(2016): https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/compensation-
mechanisms-fuel-subsidy-removal-nigeria.pdf.
[59] Punch, keroene subsidy removal. A boost for cooking gas. 29/01/19. Available
(2019): https://punchng.com/kerosene-subsidy-removal-a-boost-for-cooking-gas-
adeshina/.
[60] M. Beard, An exploration of the factors associated with paediatric burn injuries in
rural and peri-urban Malawi, PhD thesis University of Nottingham, 2017.
[61] A. Bryman, Social Research Methods, fifth ed., Oxford University Press, USA, 2016.
[62] B.K. Sovacool, J. Axsen, S. Sorrell, Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy
social science: towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research
design, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45 (2018) 12–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.
07.007.
[63] J. Smithson, Focus Groups, SAGE Publications, London, UK, 2008.
[64] K. Ravindra, K.R. Smith, Better kitchens and toilets: both needed for better health,
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25 (2018) 12299–12302, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11356-018-1879-4p.
[65] SE4ALL, Available (2018): https://www.seforall.org/heatmaps/cleancooking.
S. Jewitt, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 61 (2020) 101340
10
