Register or Submit a manuscript.
Quick Link
Advances in Environmental and Engineering Research

(ISSN 2766-6190)

Advances in Environmental and Engineering Research (AEER) is an international peer-reviewed Open Access journal published quarterly online by LIDSEN Publishing Inc. This periodical is devoted to publishing high-quality peer-reviewed papers that describe the most significant and cutting-edge research in all areas of environmental science and engineering. Work at any scale, from molecular biology to ecology, is welcomed.

Main research areas include (but are not limited to):

  • Atmospheric pollutants
  • Air pollution control engineering
  • Climate change
  • Ecological and human risk assessment
  • Environmental management and policy
  • Environmental impact and risk assessment
  • Environmental microbiology
  • Ecosystem services, biodiversity and natural capital
  • Environmental economics
  • Control and monitoring of pollutants
  • Remediation of polluted soils and water
  • Fate and transport of contaminants
  • Water and wastewater treatment engineering
  • Solid waste treatment

Advances in Environmental and Engineering Research publishes a variety of article types (Original Research, Review, Communication, Opinion, Comment, Conference Report, Technical Note, Book Review, etc.). We encourage authors to be succinct; however, authors should present their results in as much detail as necessary. Reviewers are expected to emphasize scientific rigor and reproducibility.

Publication Speed (median values for papers published in 2024): Submission to First Decision: 6.2 weeks; Submission to Acceptance: 16.2 weeks; Acceptance to Publication: 9 days (1-2 days of FREE language polishing included)

Current Issue: 2025  Archive: 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020
Open Access Review

Evidence-Based Rapid Review of Clean Cooking: Lessons for Nigeria and Other Developing Economies

Deborah Ayodele-Olajire 1,*, Temilade Sesan 2, Mike Clifford 3

  1. Department of Geography, University of Ibadan, Nigeria

  2. Centre for Petroleum, Energy Economics and Law, University of Ibadan, Nigeria

  3. Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom

* Correspondence: Deborah Ayodele-Olajire

Academic Editor: Joana Sousa

Special Issue: Energy Policies and Strategies for Achieving Sustainability

Received: December 08, 2024 | Accepted: June 24, 2025 | Published: July 25, 2025

Adv Environ Eng Res 2025, Volume 6, Issue 3, doi:10.21926/aeer.2503027

Recommended citation: Ayodele-Olajire D, Sesan T, Clifford M. Evidence-Based Rapid Review of Clean Cooking: Lessons for Nigeria and Other Developing Economies. Adv Environ Eng Res 2025; 6(3): 027; doi:10.21926/aeer.2503027.

© 2025 by the authors. This is an open access article distributed under the conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is correctly cited.

Abstract

Biomass-fuel use by over 2 billion of the world’s population contributes to their poor respiratory health and climate change. This paper traces the history of clean cooking and explores strategies for its sustained adoption in developing countries, such as Nigeria, drawing on global lessons from past successes and failures. This study employed a rapid review methodology to synthesize evidence and inform decision-making on the adoption of clean cooking. The research was guided by a central question on how to promote long-term adoption in Nigeria and similar developing countries. Literature was retrieved from the Scopus database using multiple search strings, with “clean cook fuel*” providing the most comprehensive results; 200 articles were selected from Scopus, and 23 additional relevant articles were sourced from Google Scholar. In total, 223 publications were thematically categorized into the following areas: policy, health, gender, fuels, technology, and climate change. Deductive thematic analysis was then applied to identify key insights and structure the paper’s discussion around the historical evolution of clean cooking, adoption challenges, and policy recommendations. The historical evolution from ‘improved cookstoves’ to ‘clean cooking’ illustrates a significant shift in focus from improving the efficiency of biomass fuel use to promoting modern, cleaner energy sources, such as Liquefied Petroleum Gas and electricity. However, the transition has been hindered by persistent barriers, including the high cost of cleaner alternatives, unreliable supply chains, and a lack of social acceptance in many communities. Similarly, interventions often fall short due to inadequate planning, insufficient stakeholder engagement, and the failure to address the specific needs and preferences of local populations. To overcome the challenges of the clean cooking sector, a more nuanced approach is needed that combines market-based strategies with targeted subsidies, taking into account the socio-economic realities of the target population. Specifically, there is a need for context-specific interventions that are culturally sensitive and economically feasible, and for the ongoing adaptation (and innovation) of clean cooking solutions to the preferences of different population demographies. Achieving universal access to clean cooking requires a coordinated and sustained effort involving multiple stakeholders, including governments, international organizations, non-government organizations, and local communities.

Keywords

Affordable and clean energy (SDG 7); climate action (SDG 13); energy poverty; modern cooking; improved cookstoves; energy transition; evidence-informed policy making; Sub-Saharan Africa; sustainability

1. Introduction

Over 2 billion people worldwide use biomass fuels, including wood, charcoal, agricultural residues, wood/biomass pellets, sawdust, and animal dung, among others [1,2,3]. In Nigeria, about 74% of households depend on biomass fuels for cooking [4]. The use of these fuels contributes to poor respiratory health [5] and to climate change [6]. Specifically, the burning of biomass fuels causes indoor air pollution, which raises the burden of respiratory illnesses and mortality among women and children in particular [7]. Meanwhile, smoke (which contains soot, or black carbon) from burning solid biomass fuels for cooking has been identified as the strongest second contributor to climate change after carbon dioxide [8,9]. Due to the foregoing, clean cooking practices - defined by the Clean Cooking Alliance as the use of cookstoves and fuels that reduce or eliminate reliance on solid biomass fuels [10,11] - are essential. This definition from the Clean Cooking Alliance has been criticised for supporting the use of ‘even a little’ biomass through improved cookstoves, for example, [12]. The World Health Organization and the United Nations define clean cooking similar to the Clean Cooking Alliance. Although, the International Energy Agency defines clean cooking as “access to safer and more sustainable cooking and heating fuels and stoves than traditional biomass stoves” [13], its definition does not exclude the use of improved cookstoves. Overall, clean cooking practices are limited by the widespread reliance on solid biomass fuels due to the unavailability and/or inaccessibility of modern fuels like Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) and electricity in the global south - that is, energy poverty.

Energy poverty is a development issue that is receiving increasing attention on the global stage through Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7, which aims to provide access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all, unlike what was previously achieved [14,15]. Given that energy poverty comprises the twin problems of access to both electricity and clean cooking, it can be ameliorated by increasing access to cooking energy that promotes human health and environmental sustainability, and to clean and reliable electricity [16]. Clean cooking, in particular remains a development challenge due to the limited access of poor households to modern energy sources (such as LPG and electricity) and their reliance on inefficiently burned biomass sources for cooking. The sector requires high capital, social (context-based considerations) and policy investments to achieve access for the world’s poorest. Although there is a track record of private sector investment, a lacuna exists with respect to social investment by national governments. Within the scope of development efforts, the global clean cooking sector benefits from the development assistance provided by international and multilateral organizations [16,17]. However, despite many years of investment, the goal of widespread access to clean cooking remains unachieved.

Despite the efforts of global and national actors, the perennial problems of long-term adoption - with factors such as focusing on lab designs and stove technology without input from target communities [18], stove interventions without prior research or needs assessments [19], and market approaches that exclude the poor in urban and rural areas [20] among others; inability to scale up stove interventions and long-term unreliability of clean cooking options (for example, high costs of gas and unreliable electricity supply) persist.

In this paper, we review the available evidence from academic and grey literatures to situate advances in clean cooking in developing economies, particularly in Nigeria, within the context of global trends. We examine the question: How can the long-term adoption of clean cooking be promoted to mitigate and adapt to climate change, alleviate energy poverty, and promote energy access in Nigeria and other developing countries? Overall, the specific objective of this paper is to trace the historical development of clean cooking and uncover strategies for enabling its long-term adoption in developing economies like Nigeria based on lessons from adoption successes and failures recorded globally.

2. Methodology

2.1 Data Sources and Retrieval

In this study, we employed the rapid review methodology [21]. Rapid review is a methodology that has been widely used in healthcare settings [22,23,24] - the rapid review method provides a streamlined approach for quickly synthesizing evidence for decision making and allows an interrogation of recent events, which then serve as a basis for further analysis [25]. According to [21], the recommended steps in conducting a rapid review are: define a practice question, search for research evidence, critically appraise the information sources, synthesize the evidence, and identify applicability and transferability issues for further consideration during the decision-making process.

Step 1: At this level, we framed our practice question around the problem of clean cooking adoption - ‘how can the long-term adoption of clean cooking be promoted in mitigating/adapting to climate change, alleviating energy poverty, and promoting energy access in Nigeria and other developing countries?’.

Step 2: Given that several connected themes pertain to clean cooking adoption, we used the following search strings within the “Article title, abstracts, keyword” field of the Scopus database to retrieve relevant literature that provided research evidence: clean cook adopt*, clean cook alliance*, clean cook energ*, clean cook facilit*, clean cook fuel*, clean cook intervention*, clean cook servic*, clean cook solution*, clean cook stove*, clean cook stud*, clean cook technolog* and clean cook transit*. These search strings resulted in a diverse array of studies. Due to the observation that there were several overlaps across the search strings, the results from the string clean cook fuel*, which recorded the highest number with 200 results, were used for further analysis (details in Table 1).

Table 1 Metadata of publication results from Scopus literature search.

Step 3: With the initial 200 results comprising mostly empirical journal articles and a few book chapters, review articles and conference proceedings, and using the qualitative thematic analysis approach, we assessed the content of the publications and re-grouped them into the categories: policy, health outcomes, gender, fuels, technology, energy access, economic impact, consumer preferences, climate change mitigation, and adoption. At this stage of critically appraising the information sources, we opted to obtain new articles based on the references of the 200 results and other recommendations. This broader search using Google Scholar returned publications spanning 2009 to 2025, from which 23 articles were selected based on relevance. The use of Google Scholar was also to ensure that key articles, which may not have been captured in the Scopus database, are included. A total of 223 publications were selected for the final thematic analysis.

Step 4: Due to the focus of the paper on seeking evidence to promote the long-term adoption of clean cooking in Nigeria and other developing countries, we identified studies that contained research evidence for achieving this goal and/or lessons from successful locations across both developed and developing countries. Only the most relevant articles based on their centrality to clean cooking evolution, long-term adoption, climate change mitigation/adaptation concerning clean cooking, energy access, and poverty were included in the literature synthesis.

Step 5: In this step, we focused on identifying transferable issues and lessons. Assessments across the publication from Scopus and Google Scholar reveal the central and rallying position of the Clean Cooking Alliance in matters of clean cooking around the world, as well as a diverse range of perspectives around the adoption of clean cooking in India and China.

2.2 Data Processing and Analysis

Deductive thematic analysis was applied in analysing the publication results. The number of publications for each theme are as follows: policy (33), health outcomes (39), gender (18), fuels (25), technology (12), energy access (10), economic impact (16), consumer preferences (11), climate change mitigation (8), and adoption (29). These themes have been used to frame the narrative of this paper beginning with a historical perspective that traces the transition from improved cookstoves through clean cooking to the nascent modern energy for cooking; clean cooking policy and politics at the global level and in Nigeria; perennial challenges in the clean cooking sector and interventions; solutions to the perennial challenges, recommendations for policy and future research areas.

3. Historical Perspectives: Tracing the Transition from ‘Improved Cookstoves’ to ‘Clean Cooking’ and to ‘Modern Energy Cooking Systems’

Early documentation of cookstove improvement and development can be traced to the Gandhian groups in India, especially in the 1940s [26]. Around this time, the focus of stove development was to achieve smoke reduction. In the 1970s, concerns arose that fuelwood was driving deforestation, and this spurred improved cookstoves into international focus [27]. Experts have advocated reducing fuelwood use in stoves, that is, achieving fuel efficiency, due to its assumed effects on deforestation [26,28]. It was in the 1980s that it was discovered that agriculture, among others, contributed more to deforestation than household fuelwood use [29]. This realization led to waning interest in cookstove development by the end of the decade [26]. However, from the 1990s, the global health burden of indoor air pollution from solid biomass use, along with the connection between black carbon (soot) and climate change, has revived interest in improved cookstoves [6]. This link to climate change is important in Sub-Saharan Africa to mitigate the region’s increased vulnerabilities stemming from climate-dependent livelihoods, poorer economies and lower climate change-related knowledge production [30]. Indeed, improved cookstoves started to be viewed as both a health and a climate change mitigation intervention [1,31]. This phase in the history of cookstove development combined the goals of smoke reduction and fuel efficiency with advocacy to transition away from biomass fuels to gas and electricity [12].

The gradual shift in narrative and practice from ‘improved cookstoves’ (focused on reducing solid biomass use) to ‘clean cooking’ (emphasis on cleaner technologies and fuels, especially LPG and electricity) can be traced to the 2000s. A rapid review of results from Scopus suggests that peer-reviewed articles in the Energy for Sustainable Development journal were among the first publications to advocate for clean cooking fuels (instead of biomass fuels) for countries in the Global South, aiming to achieve the then-Millennium Development Goals - specifically, [32] and [33]. Just before this period, the stove and not the fuel was the distinguishing factor for legitimate interventions. Therefore, prior to the 2000s it was possible to burn biomass fuels or improved versions of biomass (e.g., briquettes) in stoves designed to be less polluting than the ordinary three-stone fire, which would be accepted within the sector as a legitimate intervention. The global pivot from this modus operandi to a seeming consensus that such efforts were pointless (because they did not eliminate that much smoke after all) was quite sharp, and it was around this point in the 2000s that the clean cooking discourse emerged [29] (see Figure 1).

Click to view original image

Figure 1 Evolution of Clean Cooking Systems (1940s - Present).

A mid-point in the transition from ‘improved cookstoves’ to ‘clean cooking’ was the recognition of ‘clean cookstoves’. The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC) emerged on the international scene, drawing attention to clean, not just improved, cookstoves. The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves - which was launched at the Clinton Global Initiative 2010 annual meeting in New York - is a public-private partnership hosted by the UN Foundation [34,35,36,37]. The Alliance is funded through the philanthropic support of donors [38]. Globally members include the US Environmental Protection Agency and the 590 partner organizations of the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air [39], Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, Irish Aid, among others [38]. In Nigeria, some members of the Alliance include the Federal Ministry of Environment, Standard Organization of Nigeria, Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves and related NGOs small/medium enterprises, foundations etc. [10]. At the launch of GACC, the then-Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, highlighted the Alliance’s focus on clean and efficient stoves and fuels [34]. This launch brought stove development to an even larger international audience, with the narrative encompassing both improved and clean cookstoves. In 2018, GACC changed its name to the Clean Cooking Alliance, apparently in recognition of the importance of fuels (among others) within the clean cooking space [40]. This change in the Alliance’s name signaled a formal and international shift in the narrative from ‘improved cookstoves to ‘clean cooking’.

Irrespective of its name change, the Alliance has continued to support both improved and clean cookstoves, especially in how it defines ‘clean’ [10]. The continued support for improved cookstoves has been criticized by public commentators [12]. For most actors within the clean cooking space, including the Clean Cooking Alliance, there is often a conflict in language on support for biomass fuels through efficient (improved) cookstoves and outright condemnation of solid biomass fuel use. For example, the Alliance terms biomass fuels as ‘dirty’ but advances their use in improved cookstoves [41,42]. In any case, phasing out improved cookstoves or the efficient use of biomass fuels may be difficult due to the affordability barrier to accessing clean alternatives for poor households in the Global South countries [26].

As the narrative shifted from improved cookstoves to clean cooking, the concept of using modern energy sources for cooking—particularly renewable solar energy through electric cooking (eCooking)—began to gain traction in the 2010s [43,44]. With support from UK Aid through its Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office, along with the World Bank through the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), and collaborations such as the Modern Energy Cooking Forum (MECF) and the Global Electric Cooking Coalition (GeCCo), eCooking is being introduced to many countries in the global south, including Nigeria [45,46,47]. However, the affordability of both grid and off-grid solar energy for many citizens in the global south, including Nigerians, remains a challenge to the large-scale adoption of eCooking. Meanwhile, biogas (and other biofuels) as well as green hydrogen are other clean and renewable fuels that may be relevant to the Nigerian context but have received insufficient attention for their potential contribution to addressing the clean cooking challenge [48,49].

3.1 Benefits and Challenges of Improved Cookstoves

Although improved cookstoves are ostensibly designed to reduce indoor air pollution, not all have been found to perform this function, and the smoke reduction benefits of some are minimal [50,51]. In their review to assess the effectiveness of improved biomass cookstove interventions on indoor air quality and blood pressure in low- and middle-income countries, [50] found that interventions employing standard combustion improved cookstoves with chimneys led to significant reductions in indoor air pollutants and blood pressure levels among users. Although chimneys are known to significantly reduce Indoor Air Pollution (IAP) when used with biomass stoves, their adoption has been slow, partly because they are expensive and require permanent modifications to the kitchen structure. Also, the smoke that is released into the environment ends up contributing to outdoor pollution, further limiting their attractiveness as a widespread solution [52]. Meanwhile, the study by [51] suggests that many available options of improved cookstoves offer only minimal reductions in pollutants. Yet, this is what the majority of poor households, especially those in rural areas, can afford, making a straightforward conclusion to the matter complicated.

In the Nigerian case, benefits have been attributed to the use of improved cookstoves in some instances. For example, [7] uses a ‘before and after’ (experimental) study design to document the effect of enhanced cookstoves on indoor particulate matter, lung function, and fuel efficiency on 81 households in Obiakpor Local Government Area, Port-Harcourt. The authors found a significant reduction (32%, p = 0.02)1 in particulate matter concentration compared with traditional alternatives, improved lung function with the improved cookstoves, and reduced family spending on firewood (conventional method, one-third of the amount). Additionally, the Egaga Stove has been found to minimize fuelwood use by approximately 50 percent [53,54].

Testing improved cookstoves is essential and should be encouraged. The global findings on improved cookstoves highlight the need for strong institutions that would promote the continuous testing of stoves in current use to ensure that they provide their expected benefits. In Nigeria, a testing center was established in Afikpo, Ebonyi State. Such cookstove testing centers may benefit from being decentralized and domiciled within different educational, research, or other capable institutions. However, all the institutions would need to be bound by the same global standards to ensure consistency in results reporting. A national example is provided by the Standards Organization of Nigeria [55]. The issue, many times, is not so much the technological attributes of the cookstove as it is the extent to which the cookstove fits into the existing social, economic, and cultural milieu into which it is introduced (for example, [56]). This is because cooking is a highly artistic and gendered activity, so the subject of cookstoves typically evokes multiple layers of complexity that go beyond specific artefacts. The evidence suggests that even if all cookstoves were certified as 100% effective in eliminating smoke, that would not be sufficient to encourage biomass-reliant households everywhere to adopt them [12].

Globally, despite the push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to renewable energy sources in mitigating climate change, there has been slow progress towards the adoption of renewable fuels, such as biogas and solar power, for cooking. Instead, there is an aggressive drive for LPG, a fossil fuel. The “clean” in clean cooking, per the narrative of the CCA, has not been so much about adopting renewables, but about transitioning to soot-free stoves. Meanwhile, the “clean” cooking solution that has been most widely championed in many countries in the global south (certainly in Nigeria) has been LPG, which is decidedly non-renewable.

3.2 Subsidy Versus Market-Based Approaches to Scaling Up Clean Cooking

There have been publications that have reviewed and assessed the benefits, challenges, and case-study experiences of both the subsidy and market-based approaches to upscaling clean cooking (for example, [28,57]). The two dissenting camps mainly refer to the failures of India’s National Programme on Improved Chula, which primarily was subsidy-based and China’s successful National Improved Stoves Programme, which implemented a market approach - with 'in-kind' subsidies such as technical assistance and overall government commitment. Meanwhile, China was considerably more prosperous than India at the time, just as it is now, so the purchasing power of rural folk there was higher than that in India. However, studies like [58] suggest that some form of subsidies would still be needed, particularly for the world’s poorest. Earlier arguments by [59,60] also indicate that a combination of both approaches is more likely to promote successful upscaling.

As shown throughout the rest of this paper, a combination of subsidy and market approaches, tailored to socio-cultural and geographic contexts, may be a promising way forward in specific contexts of the Global South. For example, both methods can be creatively combined as BURN manufacturing in Kenya appears to have done. In this regard, the company applies the proceeds of carbon offsets to keep the costs of clean cookstoves down and affordable for low-income families [61]. The affordability ensures that households can replace their units when needed. Thus, the critical question might be: to what extent is the implementation of an intervention flexible in accommodating contextual factors and responding to necessary needs? Overall, subsidies may be effective in specific contexts, while market-based approaches may be necessary in others – it all depends on the specifics of each context. The risk inherent in a dogmatic adherence to market approaches is that actors might miss the nuances of different contexts.

4. Clean Cooking Policy and Politics at the Global Level and in Nigeria

At the global level, the Clean Cooking Alliance, CCA (formerly the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves) - a consortium of high-profile individuals and other organizations and non-governmental entities - has helped frame the global agenda on clean cooking through its work (CCA, n.d.c). In addition to the discussions presented in the previous section, it is essential to note here the CCA’s emphasis on a market-based approach [37,41]. This preference inadvertently influences the implementation of clean cooking in countries of the Global South and national-level policy directions [62]—especially in cases where those countries look to the CCA for financial support. For instance, in a Nigerian case and aside from the lack of transparency in the process, one of the criticisms of former Senator Bukola Saraki - a CCA champion - was that the Federal Government’s planned clean cooking intervention followed a subsidy rather than a market approach [63].

Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) is another global institution that advocates clean cooking. SE4ALL is a multi-stakeholder partnership between governments, civil society, and the private sector. It is an initiative of the United Nations, launched in September 2011 by the United Nations Secretary-General, with the goals of ensuring universal access to modern energy services, doubling the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency, and doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix by 2030 [64]. One of the programmes SE4ALL is currently involved in, which is expected to influence policy making, is the Clean Cooking Data for All (CCDA) initiative. The initiative is being piloted in Rwanda to collect data on household use of clean cookstoves in the country. This data is to be combined with household surveys and other data to understand the preferences and behaviours of households [65]. This programme began in January 2021 and is ongoing [66]. Through its partnerships, SE4ALL connects funders and various actors within the clean cooking sector who need funding. For example, the CCDA is funded by the Swedish Postcode Foundation, with the World Bank’s Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) being a partner. At the same time, implementation is being coordinated by SE4ALL and Nexleaf Analytics [65].

Another global group poised to influence clean cooking policy is the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) convened initiative. The Coalition, comprising both state and non-state members, works to reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants [67]. Among the CCAC’s work are policy development, project funding, and technical assistance services. In Uganda, the Coalition is funding a project to ensure a coordinated, integrated National Clean Cooking strategy to achieve clean cooking targets by 2025 [68]. The Coalition supports national policy development, especially concerning Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs) such as black carbon or soot.

The Federal Ministry of Environment (FMOE), primarily through the Clean Cooking Unit domiciled within the Department of Climate Change, coordinates climate change and clean cooking issues on behalf of the Federal Government of Nigeria - for example, the National Clean Cooking Scheme (NCCS) which has empowered four government secondary schools in Kaduna State, Nigeria by retrofitting their kitchens from firewood to LPG [69]. In 2022, the FMOE established the National Clean Cooking Committee within the Inter-ministerial Committee on Climate Change as a step toward developing the nation’s clean cooking policy [70]. Also in 2022, the National Council on Climate Change (NCCC) was inaugurated by the Federal Government of Nigeria with a mandate to coordinate Nigeria’s response to, and address the impacts of climate change - which supposedly includes clean cooking.

At the national level, other key organizations that have helped shape the policy directions of the clean cooking sector include the International Centre for Energy, Environment and Development (ICEED) and the Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (NACC), a member of CCA, as well as Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Environment. Most important is the synergy that has been achieved over time among ICEED, NACC, and the FMOE (for example, see [71]). ICEED is a non-governmental organization that advocates for policy reforms and implements community projects related to the environment, energy, and development [72]. The Centre was established in the 2000s, and in 2012, it collaborated with several parties (including entrepreneurs) to launch NACC [55].

NACC is a public-private partnership with a mandate of facilitating the growth of the clean cookstoves market in Nigeria. The Nigerian Alliance works at the national level, similar to the CCA at the global level, and is one of the early and active partners of the CCA [73]. An innovation of NACC is the Nigeria Clean Cooking Forum, which convenes a diverse array of stakeholders within the Nigerian clean cooking sector. The forum has met annually since at least 2021, bringing together both public (including Nigeria's Federal Ministry of Environment) and private sector stakeholders (e.g., entrepreneurs). Among the achievements of the Forum, alongside NACC, is their active contributions to the national clean cooking policy [74].

Concerning cross-level interactions, national-level actors who have been able to wield power at the global level, potentially contribute locally relevant insights to the international discourse. For example, the current CEO of SE4ALL, Damilola Ogunbiyi, is a Nigerian and a former General Manager of the Lagos State Electricity Board as well as former Managing Director of the Nigerian Rural Electrification Agency [75]. Additionally, Bahijjahtu Abubakar, who has served as the national coordinator of Rural Women Energy Security (RUWES), was also a former co-chair of CCAC from 2012 to 2014 [76,77]. Although, these cross-level movements are important for connecting global-local experiences, their effect on cooking energy access is uncertain, especially for poorer households that have historically been excluded.

At the national level, cross-level interactions have arguably facilitated progress in achieving key action points, such as the drafting of the nation’s clean cooking policy (discussed subsequently). The collaborations between the FMOE, NACC and ICEED have been key to this achievement [55,72,78]. Moreover, the partnership between funding and fund sourcing organizations, such as the CCA and the Heinrich Böll Foundation, is another contributor to progress in NACC’s advocacy. A significant factor is NACC's successful collaboration with the FMOE.

Despite the good intentions for a clean cooking policy as early as 2014, a draft policy was only successfully drawn up about a decade later, in 2023 [74,79]. One of the factors that may have aided its actualization is the currency of climate change issues and the ‘sudden’ popularity of clean cooking due to being a seeming ‘low-hanging’ measure for meeting Nigeria’s NDP and SLCP commitments [80]. Clean cooking is primarily addressed within the climate sphere in Nigeria, whereas the global discourse tends to emphasize the public health aspect of it. As noted earlier, the “clean” in clean cooking refers more to smoke-reduction benefits than to climate. After all, LPG, which is widely accepted as a “clean” cooking fuel, is not environmentally friendly. This structure in Nigeria perhaps has to do with the fact that the issue was taken up institutionally by the climate change department – a development that is not unrelated to the influx of donor funding to the department to help the country meet its Nationally Determined Contributions.

The road to the draft National Clean Cooking Policy was a long one, but it is a testament to the fact that interest groups can influence policy [74,81]. A chronicle of this journey may be incomplete without highlighting the role of the 2016 Nigeria Clean Cooking Forum. The 2016 forum, co-hosted by NACC and the Federal Ministry of Environment, saw synergy between the two bodies, resulting in resolutions that feature in the current draft policy [71]—for example, setting up training centers for the local production of improved cookstoves in each geopolitical zone. Possibly in recognition of NACC’s input to the draft National Clean Cooking Policy and relevance in Nigeria’s clean cooking landscape, the group is to serve as an advisor to the National Clean Cooking Committee [82].

5. Perennial Challenges in the Clean Cooking Sector and Interventions

The perennial challenge of the clean cooking sector appears to be achieving long-term adoption, scaling up of interventions, and ensuring the reliability of solutions in the long term. Free stove distribution, a strategy of many actors in this sector, is insufficient to promote a wholesale transition to clean cooking. More important is the willingness and ability of users to replace stoves with other improved or clean options when necessary. According to several studies, the barriers to the adoption of clean cook stoves in global south countries include the high cost of stoves, high cost of LPG and electricity, interrupted supply chains that do not reach rural areas, stove size, safety, non-availability of spare parts on the open market to replace faulty stove accessories, fuel stacking2 (a reliance on multiple fuels) and household size [2,83,84].

Ease of access to clean cook stoves, clean fuels, spare parts for clean cook stoves, and the ease of use of these are critical factors that can improve the adoption of clean cook stoves. Incentives to switch to clean cookstoves include reduced firewood usage, decreased smoke emissions and their associated health problems, and reduced time spent gathering firewood and cooking, among others [83]. [84] found that in Kenya, the ‘physical opportunity’ to use multiple fuels and stoves was a factor that explained 82% of the drivers of fuel stacking, which should not be viewed as a disadvantage. In any case, a critical evaluation of the barriers identified above could help determine long-term solutions to the perennial problems of the clean cooking sector.

Several clean cooking interventions have been implemented in various national contexts. For example, the National Programme on Improved Chula (NPIC), the National Biomass Cookstove Initiative (NBCI), and the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) are initiatives by the Indian government aimed at promoting clean cooking (see, for example, [31,85,86]). Additionally, in China, the National Improved Stoves Programme (NISP) was a government initiative aimed at promoting clean cooking [87,88]. According to [89], China's Rural Centralized Residence (RCR) Policy, implemented since 2005, has also positively influenced households' adoption of clean cooking fuels, particularly in Sichuan Province, by increasing total incomes and the cost of traditional fuel collection and storage.

Whereas Indian government interventions are primarily based on subsidies, with recent attempts at a market approach, the Chinese government intervention follows a market-based approach. Given the success of the NISP compared to interventions by the Indian government, many actors in the clean cooking sector, especially those in the global North, now advocate for market-based approaches for new interventions [60]. However, analyses that precede such arguments do not fully account for the type of government being practiced in China, which involves government control of the economy and markets. Meanwhile, India’s recent use of macrosocial strategies reveals the importance of institutional norms and affordability in achieving successful outcomes. These macrosocial strategies are aimed at effecting change at the societal level rather than focusing solely on individual behaviors. In [90], the strategy was a societal campaign aimed at convincing middle-income households to ‘give up’ LPG subsidies. India's macrosocial policies and institutional norm changes have involved encouraging wealthier households to surrender LPG subsidies to poorer families, while also providing LPG to poor rural women [90].

Generally, South Asia is a region that experiences considerable government and other support for clean cooking as well as interest from users. In Indonesia, [91] present how Indonesians responded positively to the clean, energy-efficient and ‘healthy’ stoves they received during a clean stove initiative pilot program. Earlier, around 2007, the government led an intervention to help households transition from kerosene to LPG, due to the high expenses associated with its kerosene subsidy [92]. South Asia is experiencing significant innovation in clean cooking technologies. Examples include the efficient charcoal-powered and fan-powered stoves from the Philippines [93,94], as well as a clean cooking stove that also generates electricity from Bangladesh [95], among others. However, the rates of sustained adoption of these innovations are uncertain. However, [58] found that over 700 million people in the region could still rely on traditional stoves in 2030 based on climate change mitigation scenarios. An increase in climate change mitigation efforts could lead to higher energy costs, thereby limiting access to clean fuel for people with low incomes. The authors highlight that reducing fuel costs through subsidies or expanding the government’s minimum support for stoves are necessary measures to promote clean cooking. Subsidies could be financed with fund transfers from responsibility-sharing international agreements.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, cookstove interventions have involved national governments, donors from the global North, and non-governmental organizations (from local to international levels). These actor groups have attempted and implemented different clean cooking interventions, and these interventions are reported through studies in Tanzania [96], Ghana [97], Kenya [98], and Nigeria [7], [99], among others. In the following sections, two cases of clean cooking interventions and a community response to market shifts in Nigeria are presented to glean the challenges and opportunities for clean cooking interventions and sustainability in the country. The lessons learned apply to other African countries facing similar energy access challenges.

5.1 The 2014 Presidential Intervention on Clean Cookstoves for Rural Women as Part of the National Clean Cooking Scheme

In November 2014, Nigeria’s Federal Executive Council approved approximately 9.2 billion Naira (roughly $54 million) for the procurement of 750,000 stoves and 18,000 thermal cookers to be distributed to rural women [100]. The reported 9,287,250,000 Naira worth of stoves and bags were to be delivered by the contractor, Messrs. Integral Renewable Energy Services Limited, within 12 weeks [63,100]. This intervention was to be the first phase (a five-year term) of the National Clean Cooking Scheme and would involve the importation of improved cookstoves for low-income households [101]. The Scheme was launched in September 2012 during President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration and under the aegis of the Federal Ministry of Environment’s Renewable Energy Programme Unit, to distribute 20 million cookstoves to poor households by 2020 [102,103]. The 2014 intervention received mixed reactions from Nigerians and later became controversial, as the stoves and bags remained unavailable for up to 135 days after the government approved the funds [17]. Several faults were leveled against the intervention, some of which are discussed in this section.

First was the lack of transparency in the proposed distribution strategy. Initially, it was announced that the wives of state governors would distribute the stoves and bags. However, due to widespread criticism, this distribution plan was revised to be done by religious institutions and women-led local organizations [17]. Second, key stakeholders seemed to be excluded from the planning and, to an extent, the implementation process. For example, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation initially held greater sway on the intervention than the Ministry of the Environment [17,63], which was an anomaly considering the prominent role historically played by the latter in clean cooking policy and implementation.

Third, it appears that due process was not followed in approving the money from the nation’s Ecological Fund [63]. Fourth, the contractor’s contract was reportedly fraught with loopholes, which could have contributed to the Ministry of the Environment’s threat to terminate the agreement. The stated reason for the danger was the Ministry of Environment’s inability to ascertain the number of cookstoves delivered by the contractor [100]. Even worse, due to this disagreement, the stoves that were eventually delivered languished in Eagle Square, Abuja, for a very long time—a colossal waste of resources [104,105]. Fifth, the distribution, rather than sale, of cookstoves was questioned by market-oriented approach stakeholders and others [17,63]. Sixth, the fact that the cookstoves would be imported from elsewhere was faulted as working against the development of the local clean cooking manufacturing sector [63]. Finally, and importantly for the long-term sustainability of the initiative, were reactions from some of the target beneficiaries regarding their needs for better nutrition, affordable fuels, improved infrastructure, security, healthcare, and jobs, among others, rather than cookstoves [101].

5.2 The National Assembly Intervention on Clean Cooking Initiative (NAICCI)

The National Assembly Intervention on Clean Cooking Initiative (NAICCI) was an ostensibly 4-year clean cooking intervention that involved the distribution of improved cookstoves, LPG cylinders, and burners in Kwara and Akwa Ibom States, Nigeria, between 2014 and 2018 [69]. Using a sample of 161 households out of the 1,000 who benefited across four Local Government Areas in Kwara State, the authors, [106], used the Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Decision Support Tool (REDD + DST) in estimating reduced carbon emission to arrive at 8.6 tCO2e per capita and hence 2.2 tCO2e saved per year. In another publication, [107] found that, for the Sustainable Development Goal benefits of NAICCI, economic security had the most significant effect on food security, followed by social security, environmental sustainability, climate and finally, energy security. In other words, energy security appeared to have the least effect on food security. Such a position might indicate a need for incentives to motivate communities to adopt clean cooking and its innovations fully.

NAICCI provides an opportunity to assess the long-term sustainability of a clean cooking initiative in Kwara State, as it is the home state and political base of one of the CCA’s champions, former Senator Bukola Saraki [35]. Primary research should be conducted in Kwara State to ascertain the degree of sustained adoption of clean cooking in the piloted communities, while interrogating ways to support the establishment of clean cooking as a norm.

5.3 The Response of Nigerian Households to Shifts in the Cooking Energy Market

Over the years, Nigerians have demonstrated their ability to adapt to economic and other challenges. The Abacha stove, primarily powered by charcoal or sawdust, gained prominence in Nigeria as a response to the astronomical costs of kerosene during the military administration of the late General Sanni Abacha [108]. During that period, kerosene prices went from 0.5 Naira per litre in 1992 - with minimum wage of 250 Naira/49 dollars, to 6 Naira in 1994 - with minimum wage of 363 Naira/31 dollars [109,110]. The stove made a comeback for some in the 2020s during the civilian administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, again due to the prohibitive cost of kerosene, and along with it, LPG [111,112]. By this time, kerosene had lost a lot of its popularity due to the removal of government subsidies, and LPG had started gaining ground in urban households, especially. Still, in 2020, the limited availability of LPG filling plants in some parts of the country due to restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the pursuit of ‘dirty’ alternatives or ‘backsliding’ from clean cooking [113]. The Nigerian experience suggests that any interruptions to the purchasing power or affordability of clean fuels could result in a reversal to ‘dirty’ cooking [114].

5.4 Lessons from the Outcomes of Nigeria's Clean Cooking Interventions for Policy and Practice

Each of the faults identified in Nigeria's 2014 presidential intervention provides lessons or important considerations that future clean cooking interventions in developing economies can incorporate into their planning and implementation. First, it is essential to close the gap in the general public's acceptance of improved and clean cookstoves as a better alternative to traditional methods. One of the points of resistance to clean cooking interventions is the attitude of ‘why do I need “their cookstove” when my current option can cook my next meal?’ Studies suggest that while education raises awareness of the hazards associated with cooking on polluting stoves, it has little impact on the adoption of cleaner stoves [115]. Efforts to educate the general public on the health, environmental, and potential financial benefits of improved and clean cookstoves are essential. However, evidence-based behavioral campaigns may be more effective in increasing the adoption rates of clean cooking [116]. Such campaigns could increase the acceptance of government and other actors' interventions on clean cooking in sub-Saharan Africa.

Second, there are answers to pertinent questions that would better guide uptake by target communities of cookstove interventions in Nigeria and other developing economies, given socio-cultural and economic realities. Some of these questions generated from evidence uncovered through this rapid review, including those outlined by [101], are: Why do they use the stoves they do now? Do they see any reasons to change the stoves? If yes, what would they like a new stove to do for them? How would they get the fuel to power the stove? How affordable are the available fuel options for powering the stove? How does the cost of running the new stoves compare with current costs, and how would this impact their willingness to switch? How compatible are the new stoves with the food types, cooking patterns, and broader lifestyle of the target audience (for example, is the stove slow, and would it work for families who leave home very early in the day)? What about maintenance and repair, particularly for those in remote areas? When stoves are spoiled beyond repair and need to be replaced, are poor rural women willing or able to replace stoves themselves (that is, buy replacements from their income), or will the government/donors continue to supply the stoves indefinitely? Are there non-cooking benefits derived from current stoves that could influence the adoption of new stoves (for example, smoke could serve as a mosquito repellent)? How will the target list of beneficiaries be generated? Are local manufacturers (also, community fabricators and potters) and other stakeholders being sufficiently carried along in the intervention planning and execution?

Overall, evidence-informed behavioral campaigns should be prioritized ahead of clean cooking interventions. Alongside these campaigns, researchers with proven capacity in clean cooking research and local knowledge of pertinent issues should be funded to provide evidence from field studies to help design interventions and aid positive outcomes from intended clean cooking programmes.

6. Solutions to the Perennial Challenges of the Clean Cooking Sector, Recommendations for Policy and Future Research Areas

Urban and rural disparities should be a key consideration in Nigeria’s clean cooking policy. Lessons from Tanzania highlighted by [96] indicate that economic and rural-urban inequalities exist in the use of clean cooking fuel in the country. The authors stress the need for policy changes to ensure equitable access to education, electricity, and economic status. Additionally, [117] highlighted urban-rural disparities in China south of the Yangtze River in their analysis of the population's reliance on clean cooking fuels and technologies. In Ogun State, Nigeria, the use of LPG was more in urban areas than in rural ones, with the level of education playing a significant role in the tendency of rural residents to use charcoal [118]. Overall, the Nigerian clean cooking policy should accommodate this knowledge of rural-urban ‘clean cooking’ disparities in its framework and implementation.

Evidence from the literature suggests that ‘developing with locals’ is the viable solution to the problem of clean cooking adoption - that is, ‘context-specific’ interventions [60,62,119]. The issue of scaling up appears to require a combination of subsidy and market strategies, which the socioeconomic characteristics of individuals within the target population should determine. Therefore, local development of a specific plan remains necessary. International organizations may be advocating for the market approach in order to facilitate measurements and accountability for projects [60]. However, the national (as well as state and local) government needs to consider its local contextual evidence in designing future clean cooking interventions.

Trade-offs and alternative measurement modes may need to be developed for successful scaling up. In order to prevent what has been termed ‘backsliding’ in the clean-cooking literature [119], the draft National Clean Cooking Policy may need to include an emergency plan for situations such as pandemics, disasters or economic upheavals that could affect household sustenance of clean cooking practices - in other words, it needs to be a shock-responsive and resilient clean cooking policy. In addition, such an emergency plan should include a binding commitment on the government to ensure that the clean cooking practices of households are protected and maintained. In this respect, civil society groups such as the NACC can help in the continuous monitoring of the processes and outcomes of clean cooking, seeking to ensure accountability from the government. An unyielding commitment to support clean cooking irrespective of socioeconomic and environmental shocks would also bolster community confidence in the reliability of proffered clean cooking solutions.

Different actors have their roles to play, and this is why stakeholders need to start talking about ‘clean cooking governance’. National governments should in no way pose barriers to advances in clean cooking through economic policies (such as high taxation for companies in the clean cooking space). The NACC, in collaboration with the country’s National Orientation Agency (https://www.noa.gov.ng/), is well-positioned to embark on evidence-informed behaviour change campaigns, which are more thoughtfully designed, on clean cooking. Before launching such a campaign, internally or externally funded field research could be targeted at answering questions that are pertinent ahead of potential clean cooking interventions. Additionally, this research involves the intentional engagement of stakeholders within the traditional and clean cooking value chains, including often-neglected stakeholders such as potters, metal fabricators, market women, and retailers, among others. The campaign should then be designed feeding off the findings of research and engagement. The success rates of interventions may be higher if they are based on evidence. Both campaigns and clean cooking interventions can be launched simultaneously. Following the campaign and intervention, field research could continue for longitudinal assessment of clean cooking outcomes (such as the number of household adoptions and years of sustained use).

Transdisciplinarity is part of the solution to achieving clean cooking access in Nigeria. Following [56] and other scholars [26,119], technologically focused approaches are insufficient; social methodologies that recognise context-based peculiarities are needed. Transdisciplinary teams involving multidisciplinary academics, government agencies, non-government organizations, practitioners, as well as members of the target population, are required in order to plan and implement appropriate clean-cooking interventions.

Regarding the affordability of improved cookstoves and other clean cooking solutions, future research can consider the following question: How much do these stoves cost? Compared with the income of poor households, are they affordable? Is there a need for subsidies? If so, how can the marketing of stoves be separated for low-income families and others who are able to afford their actual costs? Asking these questions and others will help in providing evidence that would be beneficial in developing future clean cooking interventions in Nigeria and other countries in the Global South.

7. Conclusion

This paper has shown how, despite records of effort and investment, the widespread adoption of clean cooking solutions remains elusive in developing regions like Nigeria due to a complex interplay of economic, social, cultural, and infrastructural challenges. The rhetorical shift from ‘improved cookstoves’ to ‘clean cooking’ reflects a move from enhancing biomass efficiency to promoting modern, cleaner energy sources such as LPG and electricity. However, the transition has been hindered in practice by persistent barriers, including the high cost of clean alternatives, unreliable energy supplies, and a lack of social acceptance in many communities. There are, and have been, global and national programs to promote clean cooking, with multilateral organizations like the World Bank and national governments playing vital roles. However, the implementation of interventions often falls short due to factors such as inadequate planning, insufficient stakeholder engagement, and the failure to address the specific needs and preferences of local populations.

The analysis shows that addressing clean cooking challenges requires a nuanced approach that blends market-based strategies with targeted subsidies, tailored to the socio-economic realities of the target population. Specifically, tailored, culturally sensitive, and economically viable interventions—alongside ongoing innovation to match diverse population needs—are essential for sustainable clean cooking solutions. Ultimately, achieving the goal of universal access to clean cooking will require a coordinated and sustained effort involving multiple stakeholders, including governments, international organizations, NGOs, and local communities. With the foregoing, it is possible to overcome the barriers to the adoption of clean cooking practices and make significant strides towards improving public health, reducing environmental impacts, and achieving sustainable development goals.

Author Contributions

D. Ayodele-Olajire: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft, review and editing. T. Sesan: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing. M. Clifford: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing.

Funding

This research was funded by the International Science Partnerships Fund (Research England) ODA Institutional Support Grant Funding 2023/2024 for the project Developing Evidence-Based Policies for Clean Cooking in Nigeria, RIS: 28708537.

Competing Interests

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. Anenberg SC, Balakrishnan K, Jetter J, Masera O, Mehta S, Moss J, et al. Cleaner cooking solutions to achieve health, climate, and economic cobenefits. Environ Sci Technol. 2013; 47: 3944-3952. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Langbein J, Peters J, Vance C. Outdoor cooking prevalence in developing countries and its implication for clean cooking policies. Environ Res Lett. 2017; 12: 115008. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  3. Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. Results: The Energy Progress Report measures the population with access to electricity in both rural and urban areas in each country from 2000-2022. The below chart shows the global progress for the period 2000-2022 [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: Energy Sector Management Assistance Program; 2022. Available from: https://trackingsdg7.esmap.org/results?p=Access_to_Clean_Cooking&i=Clean_cooking_access_rate_for_Total_area_(%25).
  4. Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. Nigeria-Tracking SDG 7 [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: Energy Sector Management Assistance Program; 2022. Available from: https://trackingsdg7.esmap.org/country/nigeria.
  5. Aung T, Jagger P, Hlaing KT, Han KK, Kobayashi W. City living but still energy poor: Household energy transitions under rapid urbanization in Myanmar. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2022; 85: 102432. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  6. Rosenthal E. Third-world stove soot is target in climate fight [Internet]. New York, NY: The New York Times Company; 2009. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/science/earth/16degrees.html?_r=1&ref=global-home.
  7. Fajola A, Fakunle B, Aguwa EN, Ogbonna C, Ozioma-Amechi A. Effect of an improved cookstove on indoor particulate matter, lung function and fuel efficiency of firewood users. Am J Res Commun. 2014; 2: 189-207. [Google scholar]
  8. Novakov T, Rosen H. The black carbon story: Early history and new perspectives. Ambio. 2013; 42: 840-851. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  9. Bond TC, Doherty SJ, Fahey DW, Forster PM, Berntsen T, DeAngelo BJ, et al. Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment. J Geophys Res. 2013; 118: 5380-5552. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  10. Clean Cooking Alliance. Financials & Donors [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: Clean Cooking Alliance; 2025. Available from: https://cleancooking.org/financials-donors/.
  11. Clean Cooking Alliance. Sector Directory [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: Clean Cooking Alliance; 2025. Available from: https://cleancooking.org/sector-directory/.
  12. Gunther M. These cheap, clean stoves were supposed to save millions of lives. What happened? [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: The Washington Post; 2015. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/these-cheap-clean-stoves-were-supposed-to-save-millions-of-lives-what-happened/2015/10/29/c0b98f38-77fa-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html.
  13. International Energy Agency. Energy access outlook 2017: From poverty to prosperity. Paris, France: International Energy Agency; 2017. [Google scholar]
  14. González-Eguino M. Energy poverty: An overview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015; 47: 377-385. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  15. Ayodele-Olajire D, Gbadegesin O, Gbadegesin A. Conquering energy poverty in Nigeria: Lessons from countries transitioning to green and clean energy. Benin J Geogr Plann Environ. 2023; 3: 45-60. [Google scholar]
  16. World Bank Group. Moving the needle on clean cooking for all [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group; 2023. Available from: https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2023/01/19/moving-the-needle-on-clean-cooking-for-all.
  17. Tirpak D, Adams H. Bilateral and multilateral financial assistance for the energy sector of developing countries. In: Development policy as a way to manage climate change risks. Oxford, UK: Routledge; 2015. pp. 135-151. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  18. Shafer M. Stupid stoves: Why rebranding won’t solve the clean cooking alliance’s problems [Internet]. Columbus, OH: NextBillion; 2019. Available from:
    https://nextbillion.net/stupid-stoves-clean-cooking-alliance-problems/.
  19. CODEPRESS. #WomenCookstoves: Tracking the 9.2 billion Naira meant for clean cookstoves in Nigeria [Internet]. New York, NY: WebGeniusLab; 2015. Available from: https://www.connecteddevelopment.org/womencookstoves/.
  20. Gill-Wiehl A, Sievers S, Kammen DM. The value of community technology workers for LPG use: A pilot in Shirati, Tanzania. Energy Sustain Soc. 2022; 12: 5. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  21. Dobbins M. Rapid review guidebook [Internet]. Hamilton, ON: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools; 2017. Available from: https://www.nccmt.ca/tools/rapid-review-guidebook.
  22. Lal S, Adair CE. E-mental health: A rapid review of the literature. Psychiatr Serv. 2014; 65: 24-32. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence. Lancet. 2020; 395: 912-920. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Mullins E, Evans D, Viner RM, O'Brien P, Morris E. Coronavirus in pregnancy and delivery: Rapid review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 55: 586-592. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  25. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012; 1: 10. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Sesan T. Global imperatives, local contingencies: An analysis of divergent priorities and dominant perspectives in stove development from the 1970s to date. Prog Dev Stud. 2014; 14: 3-20. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  27. Gill J. Improved stoves in developing countries: A critique. Energy Policy. 1987; 15: 135-144. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  28. Barnes DF, Openshaw K, Smith KR, Van der Plas R. What makes people cook with improved biomass stoves [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank; 1994. Available from: http://www.liana-ry.org/Liana_docs/what_makes_people_cook_with_improved_biomass_stoves.pdf.
  29. Crewe E. The silent traditions of developing cooks. In: Discourses of development. Oxford, UK: Routledge; 2020. pp. 59-80. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  30. Ayodele-Olajire D, Olusola A. A review of climate change trends and scenarios (2011-2021). Curr Dir Water Scarc Res. 2022; 7: 545-560. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  31. Hanbar RD, Karve P. National programme on improved chulha (NPIC) of the government of India: An overview. Energy Sustain Dev. 2002; 6: 49-55. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  32. Henderick P, Williams RH. Trigeneration in a northern Chinese village using crop residues. Energy Sustain Dev. 2000; 4: 26-42. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  33. Goldemberg J, Johansson TB, Reddy AK, Williams RH. A global clean cooking fuel initiative. Energy Sustain Dev. 2004; 8: 5-12. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  34. United Nations Foundation. Secretary Clinton announces global alliance for clean cookstoves: New initiative to improve global health through clean energy technologies [Internet]. New York, NY: United Nations Foundation; 2010. Available from: https://unfoundation.org/media/secretary-clinton-announces-global-alliance-for-clean-cookstoves/.
  35. Useem A. How the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves manages 700 partners [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: Devex; 2013. Available from: https://www.devex.com/news/how-the-global-alliance-for-clean-cookstoves-manages-700-partners-81271.
  36. UNFCCC. Global alliance for clean cookstoves - Creating a thriving global market for clean and efficient household cooking solutions [Internet]. Bonn, Germany: UNFCCC; 2015. Available from: https://unfccc.int/news/global-alliance-for-clean-cookstoves#:~:text=Launched%20in%202010%2C%20the%20Global,and%20efficient%20household%20cooking%20solutions.
  37. U.S. State Department. Global alliance for clean cookstoves [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. State Department; 2017. Available from:
    https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/partnerships/cleancookstoves/.
  38. Clean Cooking Alliance. Our Approach [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: Clean Cooking Alliance; 2025. Available from: https://cleancooking.org/our-approach/.
  39. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air. Homepage [Internet]. Partnership for Clean Indoor Air; 2012. Available from: https://pciaonline.org/.
  40. Clean Cooking Alliance. Global alliance for clean cookstoves is now the clean cooking alliance [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: Clean Cooking Alliance; 2018. Available from: https://cleancooking.org/news/10-29-2018-global-alliance-for-clean-cookstoves-is-now-the-clean-cooking-alliance/.
  41. Clean Cooking Alliance. How does the Alliance define “clean” and “efficient”? [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: Clean Cooking Alliance; 1990. Available from:
    https://cleancooking.org/news/01-01-1990-how-does-the-alliance-define-clean-and-efficient/.
  42. Clean Cooking Alliance. Clean cooking for the billions without it [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: Clean Cooking Alliance; 2025. Available from: https://cleancooking.org/.
  43. Brown E, Leary J, Davies G, Batchelor S, Scott N. eCook: What behavioural challenges await this potentially transformative concept? Sustain Energy Technol Assess. 2017; 22: 106-115. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  44. Batchelor S, Brown E, Leary J, Scott N, Alsop A, Leach M. Solar electric cooking in Africa: Where will the transition happen first? Energy Res Soc Sci. 2018; 40: 257-272. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  45. Carlin K, Esteve I, Omonuwa W, Sherwood J. Scaling eCooking in Nigeria: Gap analysis for programme development [Internet]. Leicestershire, UK: Modern Energy Cooking Services; 2021. Available from: https://mecs.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Scaling-eCooking-in-Nigeria.pdf.
  46. Clean Cooking Alliance. Modern Energy Cooking Forum 2024 [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: Clean Cooking Alliance; 2024. Available from: https://cleancooking.org/events/modern-energy-cooking-forum-2024/.
  47. GeCCo. Electric cooking: From niche technology to mainstream living. Homepage [Internet]. Leicestershire, UK: GeCCo; 2022. Available from: https://www.gecco.org/.
  48. Robinson BL, Clifford MJ, Selby G. Towards fair, just and equitable energy ecosystems through smart monitoring of household-scale biogas plants in Kenya. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2023; 98: 103007. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  49. Clifford M, Prakash R, Rai MP. Latest advances and status analysis of nanomaterials for microalgae photosystem, lipids and biodiesel: A state of art. J Environ Chem Eng. 2023; 11: 109111. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  50. Kumar A, Saxena A, Pandey SD, Joshi SK. Design and performance characteristics of a solar box cooker with phase change material: A feasibility study for Uttarakhand region, India. Appl Therm Eng. 2022; 208: 118196. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  51. Stanistreet D, Phillip E, Kumar N, Anderson de Cuevas R, Davis M, Langevin J, et al. Which biomass stove(s) capable of reducing household air pollution are available to the poorest communities globally? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18: 9226. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  52. Lenz L, Bensch G, Chartier R, Kane M, Ankel-Peters J, Jeuland M. Releasing the killer from the kitchen? Ventilation and air pollution from biomass cooking. Dev Eng. 2023; 8: 100108. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  53. Sesan T. Deconstructing ‘discriminatory’ technologies: Insights into inclusive development from improved cookstove projects in Nigeria. In: Sustainable access to energy in the Global South: Essential technologies and implementation approaches. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. pp. 217-228. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  54. Adetayo OD, Adeyinka SA, Agbabiaka HI. Domestic energy usage and its’ health implications on residents of the Ese‐Odo and Okitipupa local government areas of Ondo state, Nigeria. Environ Qual Manage. 2020; 29: 51-61. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  55. NACC. NACC Elects New Executives [Internet]. Abuja, Nigeria: NACC; 2018. Available from: https://naccnigeria.org/nacc-elects-new-executives.
  56. Robinson BL, Clifford MJ, Hewitt J, Jewitt S. Cooking for communities, children and cows: Lessons learned from institutional cookstoves in Nepal. Energy Sustain Dev. 2022; 66: 1-11. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  57. Puzzolo E, Zerriffi H, Carter E, Clemens H, Stokes H, Jagger P, et al. Supply considerations for scaling up clean cooking fuels for household energy in low‐and middle‐income countries. GeoHealth. 2019; 3: 370-390. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  58. Cameron C, Pachauri S, Rao ND, McCollum D, Rogelj J, Riahi K. Policy trade-offs between climate mitigation and clean cook-stove access in South Asia. Nat Energy. 2016; 1: 15010. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  59. O’Neal D. Designing stoves for mass production [Internet]. Oxford, UK: CABI; 2005. Available from: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20053030357.
  60. Bailis R, Cowan A, Berrueta V, Masera O. Arresting the killer in the kitchen: The promises and pitfalls of commercializing improved cookstoves. World Dev. 2009; 37: 1694-1705. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  61. Wheat S. Clean stoves Ashden Award winner from 2006 meets King Charles in Nairobi [Internet]. London, UK: Ashden; 2023. Available from: https://ashden.org/news/clean-stoves-ashden-award-winner-from-2006/#:~:text=In%202006%20Peter%20Scott%E2%80%99s%20company,other%20countries%20in%20the%20region.
  62. Natsios A. The Clash of the Counter-bureaucracy and Development [Internet]. London, UK: Center for Global Development; 2010. Available from: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/118483/file_Natsios_Counterbureaucracy.pdf.
  63. Premium Times. Saraki lambasts Nigerian govt. over planned procurement of N9.3 billion cooking stoves, says project questionable, illegal [Internet]. Abuja, Nigeria: Premium Times; 2014. Available from: https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/172344-saraki-lambasts-nigerian-govt-planned-procurement-n9-3-billion-cooking-stoves-says-project-questionable-illegal.html?tztc=1.
  64. African Development Bank. Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) [Internet]. Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire: African Development Bank; 2011. Available from: https://www.afdb.org/en/topics-and-sectors/initiatives-partnerships/sustainable-energy-for-all-se4all#:~:text=In%20September%202011%2C%20the%20UN,of%20renewable%20energy%20in%20the.
  65. SEforALL. Clean cooking data for all: Using household insights to kickstart clean cooking investment [Internet]. Abuja, Nigeria: SEforALL; 2021. Available from:
    https://www.seforall.org/news/clean-cooking-data-for-all-using-household-insights-to-kickstart-clean-cooking-investment.
  66. SEforALL. Clean Cooking Data Initiative (CCDI) [Internet]. Abuja, Nigeria: SEforALL; 2025. Available from: https://www.seforall.org/programmes/clean-cooking/clean-cooking-data-initiative-ccdi.
  67. Climate and Clean Air Coalition. Our Results [Internet]. Paris, France: Climate and Clean Air Coalition; 2021. Available from: https://www.ccacoalition.org/content/our-results.
  68. Climate and Clean Air Coalition. Uganda - Support for integrated national clean cooking strategy [Internet]. Paris, France: Climate and Clean Air Coalition; 2023. Available from: https://www.ccacoalition.org/projects/uganda-support-integrated-national-clean-cooking-strategy.
  69. Federal Ministry of Environment. Clean Energy [Internet]. Abuja, Nigeria: Federal Ministry of Environment; 2022. Available from: https://environment.gov.ng/clean-energy/.
  70. Oladapo O. Inauguration of a government-sponsored national clean cooking committee in Nigeria [Internet]. Milton, MA: Climate Scorecard; 2022. Available from:
    https://www.climatescorecard.org/2022/08/inauguration-of-a-government-sponsored-national-clean-cooking-committee-in-nigeria/.
  71. Ajakaiye F. Stakeholders brainstorm on easy access to clean cooking energy for all [Internet]. This Day; 2016. Available from: https://www.thisdaylive.com/2016/12/06/stakeholders-brainstorm-on-easy-access-to-clean-cooking-energy-for-all/.
  72. ICEED. Nigeria pushes for wider LPG adoption to curb energy poverty [Internet]. Abuja, Nigeria: ICEED; 2025. Available from: https://iceednigeria.org/.
  73. NACC. NACC elects Christine K. as Chairperson for her Steering Committee [Internet]. Abuja, Nigeria: NACC; 2015. Available from: https://naccnigeria.org/nacc-elects-christine-k-as-chairperson-for-her-steering-committee.
  74. NACC. Draft National Clean Cooking Policy Validated by Stakeholders’ [Internet]. Abuja, Nigeria: NACC; 2022. Available from: https://naccnigeria.org/draft-national-clean-cooking-policy-validated-by-stakeholders.
  75. SEforALL. Damilola Ogunbiyi announced as new CEO of Sustainable Energy for All [Internet]. Abuja, Nigeria: SEforALL; 2020. Available from:
    https://www.seforall.org/press-releases/damilola-ogunbiyi-announced-as-new-ceo-of-sustainable-energy-for-all.
  76. Collins K. Being passionate about short-lived climate pollutants and changing lives of Nigerian women and girls [Internet]. Paris, France: Climate and Clean Air Coalition; 2014. Available from: https://www.ccacoalition.org/news/being-passionate-about-short-lived-climate-pollutants-and-changing-lives-nigerian-women-and-girls.
  77. Uwaegbulam C. RUWES, UNDP launch clean energy scheme for rural women [Internet]. Lagos, Nigeria: The Guardian Newspaper; 2015. Available from:
    https://guardian.ng/property/ruwes-undp-launch-clean-energy-scheme-for-rural-women/.
  78. NACC. GACC Regional Director visits Katsina [Internet]. Abuja, Nigeria: NACC; 2015. Available from: https://naccnigeria.org/gacc-regional-director-visits-katsina.
  79. Ilorin.Info. Press Release: Saraki joins Clinton, others to raise $500 m for the Global Clean Cookstoves Sector [Internet]. Ilorin.Info; 2014. Available from: https://ilorin.info/fullnews.php?id=12243.
  80. Oghifo B. FG Makes Clean Cooking Part of Climate Change Response [Internet]. This Day; 2020. Available from: https://www.thisdaylive.com/2020/12/29/fg-makes-clean-cooking-part-of-climate-change-response/.
  81. Uwaegbulam C. FG moves to develop national policy on clean cooking [Internet]. Lagos, Nigeria: The Guardian Newspaper; 2022. Available from: https://guardian.ng/property/fg-moves-to-develop-national-policy-on-clean-cooking/.
  82. Federal Ministry of Environment. National Clean Cooking Policy [Internet]. Abuja, Nigeria: Federal Ministry of Environment; 2024. Available from: https://naccnigeria.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/National-Clean-Cooking-Policy-v2.pdf.
  83. Agbokey F, Dwommoh R, Tawiah T, Ae-Ngibise KA, Mujtaba MN, Carrion D, et al. Determining the enablers and barriers for the adoption of clean cookstoves in the middle belt of Ghana-a qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16: 1207. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  84. Perros T, Allison AL, Tomei J, Aketch V, Parikh P. Cleaning up the stack: Evaluating a clean cooking fuel stacking intervention in urban Kenya. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2023; 188: 113900. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  85. Cabiyo B, Ray I, Levine DI. The refill gap: Clean cooking fuel adoption in rural India. Environ Res Lett. 2020; 16: 014035. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  86. Kumar P, Upadhyay E, Kannan K, Yadav A. Evaluation of cooking practices in India to achieve SDGs 7.1.2. Phys Chem Earth. 2024; 136: 103774. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  87. Smith KR, Shuhua G, Kun H, Daxiong Q. One hundred million improved cookstoves in China: How was it done? World Dev. 1993; 21: 941-961. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  88. Edwards RD, Liu Y, He G, Yin Z, Sinton J, Peabody J, et al. Household CO and PM measured as part of a review of China's national improved stove program. Indoor Air. 2007; 17: 189-203. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  89. Liu Z, Wang M, Xiong Q, Liu C. Does centralized residence promote the use of cleaner cooking fuels? Evidence from rural China. Energy Econ. 2020; 91: 104895. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  90. Jagadale SR, Kemper J. ‘Give it up!’: A macro-social marketing approach to India's clean cooking fuel access. J Macromark. 2022; 42: 433-453. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  91. Widijantoro J, Windarti Y. Fostering clean and healthy energy in rural communities: Lessons from the Indonesia clean stove initiative pilot program. Int J Energy Econ Policy. 2019; 9: 107-114. [Google scholar]
  92. Thoday K, Benjamin P, Gan M, Puzzolo E. The mega conversion program from kerosene to LPG in Indonesia: Lessons learned and recommendations for future clean cooking energy expansion. Energy Sustain Dev. 2018; 46: 71-81. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  93. Chen K, Wang W, Qiu J, Guo W, Du J, Gao B, et al. Housing conditions, cooking fuels, and health-related quality of life among rural middle-aged and elderly in northwest China: A ten-year balanced panel study. Prev Med Rep. 2024; 37: 102563. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  94. Cabangal DM, Festin DJ, Marasigan ND, Manuel MC, Gumasing MJ. Performance comparison and indoor air quality exposure assessment of fan-powered stove versus charcoal-fueled stoves. Proceedings of the 2nd African International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management; 2020 December 07-10; Harare, Zimbabwe. Southfield, MI: IEOM Society International. [Google scholar]
  95. Ehsan MD, Sarker M, Mahmud R, Riley PH. Performance of an electricity-generating cooking stove with pressurized kerosene burner. Procedia Eng. 2015; 105: 619-627. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  96. Ntegwa MJ, Olan’g LS. Explaining the rise of economic and rural-urban inequality in clean cooking fuel use in Tanzania. Heliyon. 2024; 10: e23910. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  97. Tabiri KG, Adusah-Poku F, Novignon J. Economic inequalities and rural-urban disparities in clean cooking fuel use in Ghana. Energy Sustain Dev. 2022; 68: 480-489. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  98. Shupler M, Menya D, Sang E, Anderson de Cuevas R, Mang’eni J, Lorenzetti F, et al. Widening inequities in clean cooking fuel use and food security: Compounding effects of COVID-19 restrictions and VAT on LPG in a Kenyan informal urban settlement. Environ Res Lett. 2022; 17: 055012. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  99. Okereke C, Onyeneke RU, Ijeoma S, Fadero T, Ahanotu K, Anieze EE. Attitude, knowledge and perception of choice of cooking fuels: Evidence from two large communities in South‐East Nigeria. Environ Prog Sustain Energy. 2023; 42: e13983. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  100. Osewezina W. 9.2 billion Naira clean cook stove project in more controversy [Internet]. Abuja, Nigeria: Channels Television; 2015. Available from: https://www.channelstv.com/2015/06/07/9-2-billion-naira-clean-cook-stove-project-in-more-controversy/.
  101. Sesan T. Getting the FEC to clean up its cookstove act [Internet]. Abuja, Nigeria: Premium Times; 2014. Available from: https://opinion.premiumtimesng.com/2014/12/18/getting-fec-clean-cookstove-act-temilade-sesan/?tztc=1.
  102. Ley K, Gaines J, Ghatikar A. The Nigerian Energy Sector: An Overview with a Special Emphasis on Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency and Rural Electrification [Internet]. Abuja, Nigeria: Nigerian Energy Support Programme; 2015. Available from: https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2015-en-nigerian-energy-sector.pdf.
  103. Remteng C, Suleiman MB, Asoegwu CM, Emenyonu CN. Clean Cooking in Nigeria [Internet]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Energypedia; 2021. Available from: https://energypedia.info/wiki/Clean_Cooking_in_Nigeria.
  104. Nzeh E. Nigeria: GEJ's N9.2 billion stoves send judokas out of Abuja Stadium [Internet]. Lagos, Nigeria: The Guardian Newspaper; 2015. Available from: https://allafrica.com/stories/201507241447.html.
  105. Adepegba A. Campaigners abandon Jonathan stoves at Abuja stadium [Internet]. Ogun, Nigeria: Punch Nigeria Limited; 2016. Available from:
    https://punchng.com/campaigners-abandon-jonathan-stoves-abuja-stadium/.
  106. Onah I, Ayuba HK, Idris NM. Estimation of fuelwood-induced carbon emission from the use of improved cook stoves by selected households in Kwara State, Nigeria. Clim Change. 2020; 160: 463-477. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  107. Onah I, Nyong A, Ayuba KH. A case study of improved cookstoves and clean fuel use by selected Nigerian Households. World Dev. 2021; 142: 105416. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  108. World Rainforest Movement. Nigeria: The Devastating Flames of Abacha Coal-Pots and the People’s Forests [Internet]. Montevideo, Uruguay: World Rainforest Movement; 2006. Available from: https://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin-articles/nigeria-the-devastating-flames-of-abacha-coal-pots-and-the-peoples-forests.
  109. Ogundari IO, Momodu AS, Akarakiri JB, Siyanbola WO, Jesuleye OA. Kerosene subsidy and oil deregulation policy development in Nigeria. J Resour Energy Dev. 2018; 13: 23-33. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  110. Dapel Z. Setting the record straight on public - sector minimum wage in Nigeria [Internet]. LinkedIn; 2018. Available from: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/setting-record-straight-public-sector-minimum-wage-nigeria-dapel.
  111. Ogunnaike S. Abacha Stove Again? [Internet]. Abuja, Nigeria: Daily Trust; 2021. Available from: https://dailytrust.com/abacha-stove-again/.
  112. Climate Action Africa. The return of Abacha stove: A look at the health and environmental costs of Nigeria’s economic hardship [Internet]. Lagos, Nigeria: Climate Action Africa; 2022. Available from: https://climateaction.africa/abacha-stove-health-environmental-nigerias/.
  113. Egboboh C. GAS360 partners Modern West Advisory to boost access to clean cooking in Nigeria [Internet]. Accra, Ghan: Business Day; 2024. Available from:
    https://businessday.ng/news/article/gas360-partners-modern-west-advisory-to-boost-access-to-clean-cooking-in-nigeria/.
  114. Oyeniran IW, Omojolaibi JA, Alasinrin KB. Evolving energy choices: Analyzing the dynamics of clean cooking fuel transition in Nigeria. Energy Sustain Dev. 2025; 85: 101630. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  115. Beltramo T, Blalock G, Levine DI, Simons AM. The effect of marketing messages and payment over time on willingness to pay for fuel-efficient cookstoves. J Econ Behav Organ. 2015; 118: 333-345. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  116. Sesan T, Jewitt S, Clifford M, Ray C. Toilet training: What can the cookstove sector learn from improved sanitation promotion? Int J Environ Health Res. 2018; 28: 667-682. [CrossRef] [Google scholar] [PubMed]
  117. Pan J, Yuan Y, Guo Z, Wu M, Li Y, Qi C, et al. Calculation of the proportion of population using clean cooking fuel and technology based on earth big data: A case study in the South of the Yangtze River in China. IEEE Access. 2023; 11: 138165-138175. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  118. Elijah AA, Balikis LI, Ambali OI. Comparative analysis of access, and preferences of rural and urban households for cooking energy, and the determinants in Nigeria: A case of Ogun state. Agric Trop Subtrop. 2017; 50: 45-53. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
  119. Jewitt S, Atagher P, Clifford M. “We cannot stop cooking”: Stove stacking, seasonality and the risky practices of household cookstove transitions in Nigeria. Energy Res Social Sci. 2020; 61: 101340. [CrossRef] [Google scholar]
Newsletter
Download PDF Download Full-Text XML Download Citation
0 0
Newsletter  

TOP