Challenges towards the adoption and use of sustainable cooking methods: a comprehensive review

ABSTRACT

The Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7) calls to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. This is crucial to achieving quality health, poverty reduction, improved livelihood, a sustainable environment, and socio-economic advancement. Part of achieving this goal is a transition to sustainable cooking methods. Economic, demographic, social, physical, and technical factors have constituted challenges towards adopting and using sustainable cooking methods. However, these factors vary in different study locations. While there are general trends, uniformity in the directions of trends was lacking in earlier reports. It shows these factors impact differently based on several determinants. Cases of opposite variations and neutrality were also observed. Therefore, the study comprehensively assesses all the factors and their dynamism in advancing sustainable cooking methods. The articles were carefully reviewed, and the various variations in the determinants led to a better understanding of the challenges towards adopting and using sustainable cooking methods. This is crucial for focused programs and interventions towards promoting sustainable cooking methods for adoption and use in different localities.

KEYWORDS:

• Cooking challenges
• household clean cooking
• environment
• energy
• rural areas

Sustainable Development Goals:

• Sustainable Development Goals

1. Introduction

Access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all has various advantages due to its potential to drive other sustainable development. The interlinkages, interrelations, associations and synergies of this Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7 span across SDG 1 – end poverty in all its forms; SDG 2 – end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture; SDG 3 – ensure healthy living and promote well-being, SDG 4 – ensure inclusive and equal quality education, SDG 5 – achieve gender equality and women empowerment, SDG 13 – climate change and SDG 15 – protect, restore and promote the sustainable use of the terrestrial ecosystem (Tucho & Kumsa, 2020). Furthermore, the clean energy transition offers significant opportunities for exclusive growth and employment in new and expanding industries, with an estimated doubling of job opportunities from 6 million to 14 million by 2030 (IEA, 2023).

SDG 7 aims to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all by the year 2030. This improved energy technology is essential for social security, livelihood improvement and economic growth. As part of achieving this goal, the provision for cooking needs to be advanced. Unfortunately, achieving this goal seems a herculean task, with most of the population lacking access to sustainable cooking techniques. The World Bank’s body, the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), reported that about 4 billion people cannot access modern energy cooking fuels and technologies (ESMAP, 2020). These include electricity, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), natural gas, biogas, solar, alcohol fuels, and processed biomass. It means that about half of the world’s population cannot use these efficient, clean, convenient, reliable, safe and affordable cooking fuels and technologies. Further estimates proposed that about 3 billion people across the globe rely on traditional energy systems (Nzengya et al., 2021). Also, about one-third of the world’s population still uses traditional cooking methods and options such as charcoal, wood, crop residue, dung, etc. (Wright et al., 2020).

The World Bank data on access to clean fuels and technologies for cooking as of 2020 shows the most recent value of the percentage of the population to energy access in rural areas (Figure 1). The data showed that approximately 27.6% of the world’s countries have less than 50% of the population with access to clean cooking methods (IEA et al., 2023a). ESMAP revealed that the percentage access to modern energy cooking services is as follows: sub-Saharan Africa −10 %, East Asia − 26%, and Latin America and the Caribbean − 56% (ESMAP, 2020). Sub-Saharan Africa recorded the lowest percentage across the world. The energy condition is such that about 45% of the people are without access to sustainable and clean cooking technologies. More than half of this population is concentrated in Nigeria, Ethiopia, Malawi, Kenya, Tanzania, DR Congo, and Burkina Faso (Tucho & Kumsa, 2020). These countries have below 15% access to clean cooking energy (IEA et al., 2023b). Likewise, in East and Central Asia, about 170 million people still depend on coal for their cooking energy.

Figure 1. Access to clean fuels and technologies for cooking in rural areas (% of population) (IEA et al., 2023b).

Over 50% of Indian households use solid fuels (Wright et al., 2020). An understanding of the factors peculiar to the different targeted geographical locations is needed to properly proffer solutions to the problems of traditional cooking methods and drive the adoption and use of sustainable cooking techniques and technologies in rural areas. The challenges can come in different forms and categories. Numerous studies have considered various factors to drive the shift to sustainable means from various perspectives, highlighting several factors. However, these studies are largely case studies of rural and urban areas. Similarly, the reviews focused only on a section of the challenges, technology or fuel and country-wise or regional data. Therefore, this study aims to provide a comprehensive and integrated assessment of the challenges towards adopting and using sustainable cooking techniques and technologies taking a holistic view of cooking challenges across the globe. It will facilitate, engender, and direct future initiatives, policies and strategies to achieve affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all by 2030. As stated, ‘More complete understanding of the local context of cooking—including users’ cooking experience, their physical cooking environment and the markets and the energy ecosystems in which they live’ is very much needed (ESMAP, 2020). The scope of the study focuses majorly on rural areas worldwide, as found in the literature.

2. The problem with traditional cooking methods

The rural areas are characterised by heavy reliance on unsustainable fuel (biomass in the form of firewood, crop residues, cow dungs), use of inefficient stoves with less than 10% helpful energy production, coal, kerosene (Gould & Urpelainen, 2018). These impact the community in various categories. The problem with traditional cooking methods is mainly due to incomplete combustion. The poor combustion efficiency releases aerosols, particulate matter, and greenhouse gases, among other poisonous emissions (Kumar et al., 2017). Therefore, the problems of traditional cooking methods can be classified into environmental, health, and socioeconomic effects (Bhallamudi & Lingam, 2019). A detailed summary of the problem with the traditional cooking system is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Problems with traditional cooking systems.

2.1. Environmental effects

Traditional cooking options have the potential for various environmental disasters which are not localised but global. As a result, environmental concerns are the major policy drivers towards sustainable cooking systems (Pye et al., 2020). Among the environmental issues is air pollution, which can be indoor or outdoor air pollution (Gould & Urpelainen, 2018; Samantaray, 2015). This is evident in the emission of toxic pollutants from traditional cooking sources. Up to 25% of black carbon is emitted (Jana & Bhattacharya, 2017). Furthermore, environmental degradation in the form of deforestation, depletion of local resources, loss of habit and biodiversity, disruption of the ecosystem and desertification can be linked with traditional cooking options (Gould & Urpelainen, 2018; Rosenthal et al., 2018). Also, the aesthetic of the environment is lost in this process.

The mix of unsustainable harvesting of wood fuel and subsequent emissions from incomplete combustions of these fuels is a harbinger of climate change (Quinn et al., 2018). As such, climate consequences such as global warming and ozone layer depletion are inevitable (Gould & Urpelainen, 2018). Agriculture is also affected negatively as animal dung that should be recycled to improve soil quality viz-a-viz increase nutrient content and water-hold capacity are diverted into fuel for household cooking (Jana & Bhattacharya, 2017).

2.2. Health effects

The United Nations has declared that lack of access to sustainable cooking fuel and technologies presents many health hazards and millions of deaths (United Nations, 2023). Traditional cooking methods are one the world’s biggest killers of indoor air pollution, championing premature death (Rosenthal et al., 2018; World Health Organisation, 2022). It is reported to be responsible for about 4.3 million annual premature deaths (Kumar et al., 2017). As a result of indoor air pollution, a high mortality rate has been recorded due to acute upper and lower respiratory illnesses, chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, and tuberculosis (Gould & Urpelainen, 2018). Furthermore, it leads to an average loss of productive life by 5% due to air pollution (Bhallamudi & Lingam, 2019).

The WHO also regarded unsustainable cooking fuel and technologies as the largest environmental contributor to ill-health (World Health Organisation, 2022). Such issues as non-communicable diseases include ischemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancers, chronic lung diseases, cardiovascular disease, and pneumonia (Anenberg et al., 2013; Pye et al., 2020; Stoner et al., 2021; World Health Organisation, 2022). Additionally, related physical injuries and ailments are frequent severe burns, backaches, bone fractures, headaches, risk of vision loss through cataracts, rheumatism and anaemia, maternal and pregnancy complications (Bhallamudi & Lingam, 2019; Kumar et al., 2017; Quinn et al., 2018; Samantaray, 2015). The distance covered to source the fuel increases the risk of musculoskeletal injury and violence (Stoner et al., 2021). Prevalent respiratory symptoms include cough, phlegm, breathlessness, wheezing, chest illness and blood in sputum. Another health effect of using unclean energy for cooking is the investment of a great deal of physical labour, consuming a large amount of metabolic energy.

2.3. Socio-economic effects

Traditional cooking systems also impede socioeconomic development (Ali & Khan, 2022). Approximately 2–4 hours daily are used for travelling and collecting firewood from long distances. This steals the productive time of women and girls. Time for schooling, income generation and socialisation are substituted for the search for traditional fuelwoods. Additionally, long hours are spent using unclean fuels, inefficient cooking techniques, and cleaning dirty utensils (Bhallamudi & Lingam, 2019). The direct negative impact is on their education, development of their children, and economic capacity. Other vices include susceptibility to rape, sexual harassment, and attack from wild animals (Stoner et al., 2021; Tucho & Kumsa, 2020). It also impedes women’s/girls’ empowerment via drudgery (Rosenthal et al., 2018).

3. Sustainable cooking options

Sustainable cooking techniques and technologies play a crucial role in the socioeconomic development of a community. They enhance the quality of life, contribute to quality health and well-being, reduce food wastage, and protect the environment (Kaygusuz, 2012). Sustainable cooking options refer to cooking sources and technologies that are environmentally friendly. In other words, these are energy sources with a minimal negative impact on the socioeconomic and environmental atmosphere. Sustainable cooking fuels and technologies include gas (natural gas, biogas, LPG), electricity, improved cookstoves, cookstoves using cleaner fuel sources, ethanol, biomass burning stoves (Quinn et al., 2018; Surendra et al., 2014; Tucho & Kumsa, 2020). Some renewable energy sources and technologies include hydro, wind, and solar energy technologies. For these energy sources, the amount of electrical energy generated depends on the water collected in the dam and released regularly to the turbine, wind speed and solar radiation intensity, respectively (Tucho & Kumsa, 2020).

Biogas plants are an improved version of biomass burning with the promise of clean cooking energy and fertiliser for agriculture. However, its functionality depends on feedstock availability produced from house resources, especially biodegradable wastes (Tucho & Kumsa, 2020). Biogas plants are localised for cost-effectiveness where feedstocks, water and slurry are available. It has the advantage of adapting to local cooking conditions, a less skilled workforce, easy management, and double-fold output (biogas and fertiliser depending on the installed anaerobic digester). Biogas also possesses the ability to lighten (Surendra et al., 2014).

A new wave in this direction is the integration and leveraging of the technologies of Industry 4.0 to enhance sustainability. Industry 4.0 refers to the technologies of the fourth industrial revolution. It involves the use of its enablers such as smart sensors, blockchain, artificial intelligence, robotics, big data, the Internet of Things, virtual reality and cloud computing. Incorporating these new technologies will increase innovativeness in designing sustainable cooking options with improved outcomes and advance energy accessibility and sustainability using a set of peculiarities for a given region (Alhammadi et al., 2024; Hassoun et al., 2022). The use of such advanced technology will ensure better performance, improvement and modernization of the existing technology (Mownika et al., 2021).

4. Challenges to the adoption and use of sustainable cooking methods

The adoption and use of sustainable cooking systems cover the initial uptake, the degree of use, and integration into the daily behaviours of users (Kumar et al., 2017). Various programs and initiatives have been put forward to make available and promote sustainable cooking techniques and technologies. Nevertheless, implementation was stalled because of a top-down approach that does not consider the local practices and user interests (Tucho & Kumsa, 2020). Challenges to adopting and using sustainable cooking methods can be broadly categorised into five, as summarised in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Summary of factors affecting the adoption and use of sustainable cooking methods.

4.1. Economic factors

Financial cost and affordability are the most influential and fundamental factors that pose a significant challenge to adopting and using sustainable cooking methods (ESMAP, 2020; Kapfudzaruwa et al., 2017; Tucho & Kumsa, 2020). This includes the income and cost of the associated sustainable cooking provision. It is categorised into two main areas—the price of the sustainable cooking option and the consumers’ financial capacity (Kapfudzaruwa et al., 2017). The energy ladder summarises the economic development relationship regarding the transition in energy use (Hosier, 2004). This theorem states that ‘there is a linear shift from unclean energy sources to clean energy and sustainable cooking techniques with an increase in the socio-economic status’ (Jewitt et al., 2019). Thus, with improved income, households will improve their livelihood and have better purchasing power required for the transition into sustainable energy (Vigolo et al., 2018).

Low economic standards drive traditional cooking methods, usually inexpensive, and create a barrier to sustainable cooking techniques and technologies. The energy ladder posits a phase transition, as represented in Figure 4. The observed transition occurs in three phases: Phase 1 – reliance on biomass (dung, agricultural wastes, firewood, etc.), phase 2 – transition methods (charcoal, improved wood stove, improved charcoal stove, kerosene pressure stove, etc.) and phase 3 – sustainable options (LPG Stove, electricity, electric stove etc.). However, the transition does not follow this progressive ladder-like structure; instead, households continue to rely on traditional methods to meet their energy needs and supplement with sustainable methods until they can afford the exclusive usage of sustainable cooking options (Yadav et al., 2021). This is represented by the dotted line in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Phase transition to sustainable cooking options in relation to the energy ladder.

According to studies, it is easier for urban households to use improved cooking technologies than rural households (Tucho & Kumsa, 2020). This is because the urban households are involved in the national economy (business or employment), which means high economic status, and have access to these sources in contrast to the rural households, which are deprived of access to improved cooking energy technologies and insufficient income to adopt this method. In other words, the macroeconomic environment significantly determines a household’s income and the price of sustainable cooking techniques and technologies (Kapfudzaruwa et al., 2017). Similarly, a direct variation between income and sustainable cooking methods has been observed (Vigolo et al., 2018). It corresponds with other studies as a positive attitude towards sustainable cooking alternatives is observed among the higher social class (Wang & Bailis, 2015). Also, a lack of jobs and regular sources of income presents a challenge in fueling sustainable cooking methods (Agbokey et al., 2019). As such, they have no alternative to traditional cooking means.

The initial cost of sustainable cooking technologies is also a significant barrier to its adoption. This is a primary and prohibitive factor towards this advancement (Jewitt et al., 2019; Vigolo et al., 2018). An increase in the price of sustainable cooking fuels and technologies reduces their adoption (Vigolo et al., 2018). Similarly, respondents in a study perceived cost as a barrier to adopting improved cookstoves (Nzengya et al., 2021). The availability of credit facilities for sustainable cooking technologies does not influence purchasing power. There are also concerns about the fuel cost, rising fuel costs and fluctuation of household incomes leading to backsliding. This impacts those with competing economic priorities or using zero-cost fuels or stoves more. They encourage stacking or backsliding (Jewitt et al., 2019). Furthermore, adopting sustainable cooking techniques is affected by competing preferences to invest in children’s education, land/property and goods (Jewitt et al., 2019). Additionally, high operating and maintenance costs and complex fuel production and combustion technologies present another burden to adopting sustainable cooking, as traditional systems have the advantage of low operational and maintenance costs (Wright et al., 2020).

4.2. Demographic factors

This deals with gender, age, education, and household composition, contributing to the diffusion of sustainable cooking systems. Gender plays a pivotal role in the advancement of sustainable cooking technologies. From literature and experiences, cooking interventions mostly revolve around women as the central element. They are crucial in increasing awareness and generating demand for sustainable cooking options. It was emphasised that women tend to advance in the energy ladder more than men (Kanyagui et al., 2023; Vigolo et al., 2018). Women-headed households, more often than men-headed households, tend to adopt sustainable energy options for cooking (Brooks et al., 2016; Mamuye et al., 2018; Mohapatra & Simon, 2017). This inclination is due to increasing awareness and demand for sustainable cooking solutions from community networks and relationships among women. Furthermore, as the primary users and beneficiaries of innovation and victims of unsustainable practices, sustainable cooking methods give women a better cooking alternative. The advancement is, however, hindered by a lack of sufficient authority and economic prowess within the households to impose their decision or effect the needful changes (Vigolo et al., 2018), as men are considered to have the ultimate decision about household expenditure and fiscal management.

Household size is another factor influencing the perception of sustainable cooking energy systems. This perception is negative by myriad studies with increased household size. Smaller households are perceived to adopt sustainable cooking systems, unlike larger ones (Vigolo et al., 2018). The inability of sustainable cooking methods to satisfy larger cooking purposes deters sustainable cooking transition as the traditional methods are easily adapted to accept larger cooking pots for families, events, and occasions. This hindrance can be attributed to the perception that sustainable cooking systems are too small to meet the cooking needs of large families (Vigolo et al., 2018); larger family size that promises available labour (Jagger & Jumbe, 2016; van der Kroon et al., 2014) and low values of time (Kapfudzaruwa et al., 2017) required for traditional fuel collection. As such, large families are seen to be a factor preventing the adoption and use of clean cooking methods. Larger households are more traditional in their inclination toward a cooking system (Mohapatra & Simon, 2017). Similarly, households with an average number of at least three children for each household do not adopt sustainable cooking methods (Pine et al., 2011). Conversely, larger households would adopt sustainable cooking technologies to conserve cooking time and fuelwood, thus promoting the adoption and use of clean cooking systems (Onyeneke et al., 2019). On a neutral note, some studies maintained that household size and the number of children do not influence a household’s adoption and use of sustainable cooking methods (Mamuye et al., 2018; Mohapatra & Simon, 2017).

Additionally, households lacking multi-burner stoves use more than one system for cooking. While larger meals are prepared using unsustainable means, sustainable systems are used for smaller meals. Also, some specific types of food are prepared using some cooking system which engenders stacking (Jewitt et al., 2019). Meeting traditional cooking needs with sustainable cooking methods presents a barrier as they are considered insufficient (Nzengya et al., 2021). On the other hand, the size of the cooking system is another determining factor. Sustainable cooking systems are considered too small to support big pots, especially when cooking for a larger number (Agbokey et al., 2019).

Education and the level of exposure are also other factors in adopting and using sustainable cooking methods. The receptiveness of new technological ideas often lies in understanding the technology through education and level of exposure towards its adoption. Generally, education and enlightenment increase sustainable fuel consumption while reducing traditional fuel usage (Vigolo et al., 2018). This tradeoff results from awareness, which can increase households’ willingness to adopt sustainable cooking techniques and technologies instead of undervalue them. The demonstration is based on understanding the health and environmental benefits of sustainable cooking (Kapfudzaruwa et al., 2017).

Further explanation showed that due to literacy levels, the knowledge and appreciation of the benefits of sustainable cooking between urban and rural areas are at variance (Kapfudzaruwa et al., 2017). A low literacy makes written procedures and schedules challenging to understand and follow (Wright et al., 2020). Insights from (Chalise et al., 2018) suggested that transitions into sustainable energy are boosted by increased technical knowledge of modern cooking systems, especially among women. The knowledge increases the sufficiency of this shift and boosts their confidence by ensuring that technical problems are resolved quickly and timely. Thus, increasing the technical know-how of sustainable cooking techniques and technologies is advantageous to adopting and sustaining its usage through confidence in implementing and maintaining the new cooking methods.

The probability that low literacy will accept new technological ideas regarding cooking is extremely low. This is boosted by a lack of adequate information on the benefits of modern technology (Nzengya et al., 2021). Also, a lack of education presents a poor perception of sustainable cooking alternatives in the form of a lack of ability to measure return on investment (fuel cost savings vs purchase cost of the sustainable cooking solution). Furthermore, it hinders people by inhibiting their ability to read flyers, billboards, instruction manuals, etc., while downplaying gender, awareness, economic culture and shared household habits. Thus, highly educated people are more likely to adopt sustainable cooking systems than less-educated people. This is further substantiated in the study by (Jan et al., 2017). Conversely, no significant effect regarding the influence of education on adopting sustainable cooking systems was observed (Kulindwa et al., 2018).

The role of age does not follow any trend, as different perspectives have been observed from past studies. Older couples or heads of household act as a barrier, while young couples or heads of household are seen as a driver to adopting sustainable cooking options. Further, a high propensity to adopt a sustainable cooking system was observed at a younger age (Mohapatra & Simon, 2017). Young people are attracted to cooking solutions for design and promotion as symbols of modernity and wealth (Kapfudzaruwa et al., 2017), embodied in modern cooking methods. The barrier removed by age could be because of the inquisitiveness of the younger age for more experimentation and exploration (Onyeneke et al., 2019) and the older generations’ difficulty changing long-developed cooking methods (Clark et al., 2017). On the other hand, older female heads were reported to have more inclination to sustainable energy use for cooking than younger male heads (Brooks et al., 2016; Person et al., 2012).

4.3. Socio-cultural factors

Cultural and religious customs also contribute to adopting and using sustainable cooking techniques and technologies. The failure of many programs worldwide can be attributed to the non-consideration of social background and local culture (Urmee & Gyamfi, 2014). This is because the compatibility of cooking culture increases the positive reputation of the sustainable cooking system (Tigabu, 2017). Also, cooking practices are often rooted in traditions and culture, which sustainable cooking solutions sometimes fail to accommodate (Wright et al., 2020). This is due to the influence of fuel choice and cooking methods by ethnic-specific traditional norms and taboos (Akintan et al., 2018), which do not allow for cooking of certain dishes, cooking styles or lack control over certain aspects of cooking, e.g. heat intensity (Wright et al., 2020).

Cultural influences range from the preservation of cultural identity embodied by some traditional cooking methods to the fear of losing the traditional flavour of food and cooking position (standing, sitting, kneeling) associated with the switch in cooking options. In Kenya, Peru, and Nepal, women consider using traditional food preparation practices a relevant component of their cultural identity (Rhodes et al., 2014). Such connection with history and culture is also seen in the traditional Indian chulha, which is seen as an artefact (Khandelwal et al., 2017). Some culturally constructed gender norms that give women responsibility for cooking and fuel collection but deny them control over households’ budgets deter the adoption of sustainable cooking methods (Rhodes et al., 2014).

Furthermore, culture has placed some difficulties on consumers to be patient, self-train and learn how to use modern cooking technologies (Nguyen, 2017), which hinders the advancement of modern cooking technologies. Similarly, unsustainable cooking means keeping the cooking pot in place whilst fueling, as it was considered culturally uncustomary to remove a pot from the flame during cooking, as with sustainable cooking alternatives. Smoke-producing stoves indicate enough food for visitors (Jewitt et al., 2019).

A study in India reported that a religious stigma of being impure associated with the heavy smoke from traditional methods is attached to the lower caste household. To dissociate themselves from this practice, sustainable cooking practices are favoured (Wang & Bailis, 2015). Thus, ritual purity favours sustainable cooking adoption. Similarly, some religious beliefs and practices through community support encourage members to adopt sustainable cooking practices. They also emphasise environmental protection and care, which promotes behavioural change, reducing deforestation for household cooking (Orellano et al., 2020).

Social influence profoundly influences swaying uptake of sustainable cooking (Chalise et al., 2018). Testimonials and word of mouth by peers, neighbours, community pioneers, friends, relatives, etc., are seen as instruments that drive the most impact towards promoting sustainable cooking methods. It was recorded that the benefits or disappointments of modern technology are spread through this (Chalise et al., 2018). It sufficed in their study as multiple technical problems at the preliminary stages of the biogas resulted in low adoption. Also, collecting firewood and cooking through traditional means provides valued social opportunities and shared enjoyment among people creating a bias against the advancement of sustainable cooking (Hollada et al., 2017). On the contrary, interpersonal communication played a primary persuasive role in adopting a sustainable cooking system among women in Kenya (Person et al., 2012). Likewise, neighbours’ behaviour positively influenced peri-urban Uganda (Bhojvaid et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2013).

Fuel stacking is a critical socio-cultural energy tradition impacting progress towards low carbon and a cleaner energy transition. It is the use of multiple fuels or a combination of fuels. Realistically, in addition to modern fuels, households depend on traditional fuels for specific activities (Yadav et al., 2021). It is a practice that is prevalent among higher-income fractions in urban areas. While they stack with the cleaner cooking fuel, they use the dirtier one. In studies in Nigeria, urban Myanmar, Kenya, Nepal and Ecuador, households that stack with kerosene or paraffin, charcoal, LPG, and electricity use charcoal, wood, charcoal and traditional stoves, three-stone fires, respectively, to meet their cooking demand (ESMAP, 2020). Fuel stacking is engendered by the inability of any single cooking option, whether traditional or sustainable, to meet households’ cooking needs, in addition to the excessive cost of sustainable energy sources, cultural preferences, and supply vulnerability (ESMAP, 2020; Yadav et al., 2021).

The decision to continue using firewood for cooking is influenced by local cooking habits, culture, food types, and gender norms (Tucho & Kumsa, 2020). Despite being the primary cooks in households, gender norms hinder women’s freedom and participation in economic and political processes, limiting their access to sustainable cooking techniques and technologies (Reiheld, 2013).

User needs, preferences, perceptions and context can significantly impact the uptake of sustainable cooking methods (ESMAP, 2020). This is categorised into convenience and use aesthetic (Vigolo et al., 2018). There are many facets to convenience and its use affecting sustainable cooking methods. Convenience is primarily measured by the time taken for fuel collection and cooking. It varies with different fuels and cooking methods. Generally, the average preparation time of sustainable energy cooking users has been lower than that of traditional means. It highlights the principal reason for the transition to sustainable cooking options, which may equate to less energy consumption with a possible direct proportion to the average expenditure and high affordability (ESMAP, 2020). Favouring sustainable cooking methods are the long hours spent gathering and breaking the wood into small pieces (Agbokey et al., 2019; Nguyen, 2017; Wang & Bailis, 2015), lots of firewood requirement and unreasonable extra labour (Agbokey et al., 2019; Nguyen, 2017) and faster cooking (Agbokey et al., 2019; Hanna et al., 2016), multitasking ability, taste of food devoid of smell of smoke, smoke reduction that improves health, and promotion of harmony in the home as it can be used indoors encouraging husbands to help in household cooking (Agbokey et al., 2019). In a study, a modern cooking method (BioLite) was preferred because it requires less firewood in comparison with the traditional stove and saves time on cooking while providing the women with an opportunity to undertake other adventures—household chores and productive economic activities (Agbokey et al., 2019). However, lamenting that foods cooked with sustainable cooking systems get cold faster than the traditional means favours unsustainable cooking alternatives (Hollada et al., 2017; Thompson et al., 2018). Also, the perception of traditional stoves as durable, easy to fuel and ideal for cooking particular foods or large meals are some of the behaviours that counter the inertia of sustainable transitions to clean cooking technologies (Jewitt et al., 2019).

The diversity of the uses of traditional cooking methods is a great hindrance to sustainable energy methods. Smoke from these unsustainable energy sources is used to preserve food, add flavour, and chase mosquitoes. Taste preference is another factor hindering the adoption and use of sustainable cooking options. There are some levels of attachment to a particular taste of food cooked with traditional means that may pose a hindrance to the adoption of the sustainable cooking system (Rhodes et al., 2014; Ruiz-Mercado & Masera, 2015; Troncoso et al., 2011; Wang & Bailis, 2015). Also, certain local foods could not be prepared with sustainable cooking systems (Hollada et al., 2017). These result in some preference for traditional cooking systems and corresponding bias against sustainable cooking adoption (Goswami et al., 2017). Opposing these is the influence of the taste of food cooked on traditional stoves as a barrier to change to sustainable cooking is overstated (Thurber et al., 2014). There was a lack of evidence to substantiate the preference of traditional cooking for low adoption of clean cooking energy on a taste preference basis (Bensch et al., 2015).

Other perceptions include that wood cooks faster than any fuel due to the ability to increase the heat by the addition of more firewood and the inability of any single cooking device (traditional or sustainable) to offer complete fulfilment of household cooking requirements (ESMAP, 2020; Jewitt et al., 2019; Mohan et al., 2019). These support the preference of unsustainable cooking methods to modern methods of cooking. On the contrary, the transition to sustainable energy sources for cooking is enhanced by aspirational appeal and clean kitchens and pots association and gendered household decision-making challenges by more educated or financially independent women (Jewitt et al., 2019).

Aesthetics and specifications are valued characteristics peculiar to sustainable energy technologies (Vigolo et al., 2018). The appearance of improved cook stoves, which are stylish, well-designed, and beautiful, has pleased Kenyan women (Loo et al., 2016). Hence, it aided its adoption. Also, aesthetics and social status are valued ahead of fuel savings in Zimbabwe (Urmee & Gyamfi, 2014), India (Rehman et al., 2012), and Burkina-Faso (Bensch & Peters, 2015). A sustainable cooking solution can be bought for its colour or modern design. However, status and aesthetic considerations are less important to older people, thus hindering the adoption of sustainable energy options for cooking (Kapfudzaruwa et al., 2017).

There is no doubt that institutions have considerable influence on the adoption of sustainable cooking solutions. It can either support or obstruct a given method as it provides an enabling environment for modern technology to thrive (ESMAP, 2020). This is because they strongly influence human behaviour regarding technology, fuel, and other factors. Unfortunately, despite the high socioeconomic opportunities therein, it seldom takes government priority (ESMAP, 2020). Policies, laws, and regulations such as a ban, subsidies, tax reduction/removal, financial support through loans and grants, technical assistance, sensitisation, and campaigns, etc., can promote or interfere with the availability and dissemination of cleaner cooking solutions, increasing awareness amongst the population and user affordability. Also, user behaviours are influenced by setting standards and labelling. Import duties and taxes associated with various cooking technologies and fuels contribute to the financial deterrent to the shift to sustainable cooking methods (Kapfudzaruwa et al., 2017). According to the literature, high taxes and misaligned tariff codes hinder industrial growth and dampen product adoption. Furthermore, poorly calibrated tax regimes such as taxing LPG as gas when stored as a liquid, sales taxes of ethanol, and high import duty limit the opportunity for adoption. Additionally, a lack of coordination within and between institutions in country contexts hinders clean cooking interventions (ESMAP, 2020).

4.4. Physical factors

Accessibility refers to purchasing when needed (Kumar et al., 2017). In other words, it is the readiness of sustainable cooking methods when needed by the user (ESMAP, 2020). Access-related issues such as availability of free biomass, reliable and affordable infrastructure, distance to sustainable fuel, delivery mechanism, road connectivity and quality of service govern the adoption of sustainable cooking techniques and technologies (Jewitt et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2017).

Access to adjacent forests for firewood and an increase in mobile vendors (use of motorcycles to transport firewood) encourage traditional cooking (Nzengya et al., 2021). The study further stated that the difficulty in obtaining sustainable fuel has caused many households to abandon it in favour of alternative methods. Charcoal availability poses a problem to adopting improved cookstoves by 77.6%, 42.3%, and 96.4% in the regions studied. Similarly, the availability of firewood obtained at an accessible cost often discourages adopting sustainable cooking methods (Vigolo et al., 2018). Suffice it to say that lack of access to biomass means better access to other sustainable cooking alternatives. Also, limitations associated with the availability of sustainable cooking fuel options advocate a negative shift towards the 2030 goal (Jewitt et al., 2019). Additionally, poor quality of service concerns in the form of corruption, epileptic power supply, and difficulty in refilling the gas stove was reported by some of the respondents in the study as a hindrance to the clean cooking proposition (Jewitt et al., 2019).

Reports from the literature showed a higher interest in adopting a sustainable cooking system because of the scarcity of firewood and lack of access to biomass among the lowest-income households (Jagger & Jumbe, 2016). They also attributed this shift to a tendency to conserve the household’s forest resources. Furthermore, findings suggest households prefer to adopt and use sustainable cookstoves instead of their traditional cooking means, given the availability of free LPG (Agbokey et al., 2019).

Infrastructural factors in the form of maintenance and repairs also affect the adoption and use of sustainable cooking systems. The breakdown and malfunctioning of sustainable cooking methods and delayed and absence of a means of repairs are some of the barriers to adopting sustainable cooking techniques highlighted by the women in a study by (Agbokey et al., 2019). A similar finding was observed from a study conducted in Kenya, as limited infrastructure hinders adoption and use of sustainable cooking methods (Lewis & Pattanayak, 2012).

Developing countries lack access to adequate technologies, mostly endemic in rural areas. This negatively affects the transition to sustainable options from traditional cooking methods. It ranges from a lack of awareness of the availability of alternative technologies to an attitude towards modern technology and its adoption and use. Thus, urban and rural locations present different significant effects on the type of cooking fuel adopted, shaped by availability, accessibility, income, education, habits, and cultural differences that vary between the two locations. Generally, there is a higher tendency to use traditional fuel (wood) in rural populations than urban ones (Wright et al., 2020). The adoption rate for sustainable cooking methods is higher in urban and suburban areas than rural areas (Vigolo et al., 2018). The inclination towards adoption among urban families is due to the choices available, unlike in rural areas, which face limited availability. Also, the unavailability of traditional cooking methods (firewood scarcity) favours adopting sustainable cooking methods in urban areas (Nguyen, 2017). Though urban dwellers may want to use unsustainable energy sources for cooking, urban settings make it less desirable due to low house ownership and no permanent kitchen or space to accommodate traditional stoves (Kapfudzaruwa et al., 2017). These provide more insight into households adopting clean cooking solutions in urban areas.

On the other hand, the rural location is less susceptible to switching to sustainable cooking methods due to their expensive nature in the location and easier access to cheaper local traditional alternatives (Kapfudzaruwa et al., 2017; Lewis & Pattanayak, 2012; Poddar & Chakrabarti, 2016). Furthermore, rural areas have not been sufficiently covered in the supply chain location of sustainable cooking techniques and require government subsidisation to reach households to increase adoption and use (Wright et al., 2020). Urban households are favoured to adopt sustainable fuels over local households (Kapfudzaruwa et al., 2017). This is because households in rural areas are unaware and incapable of affording it compared to urban dwellers.

Also, the perception of cooking methods differs in both regions. While urban settlements consider sustainable cooking options such as improved cookstoves, electricity and gas as fashionable, cooking with charcoal is preferred in rural settings. Generally, low interest in adopting sustainable cooking techniques is associated with consumers’ resistance to modern technologies (Vigolo et al., 2018). Studies show that reluctance and fright to try modern technologies resist sustainable cooking options (Rehman et al., 2012; Urmee & Gyamfi, 2014). Similarly, trust in the new alternative technology advances a shift to sustainable cooking options (Goswami et al., 2017). According to a previous study, people in urban areas trust sustainable cooking technologies and behavioural changes that help them adopt sustainable cooking practices (Kapfudzaruwa et al., 2017). This is created by the knowledge and awareness of the benefits of clean cooking and the readiness to internalise the knowledge.

Geography and climate also influence the adoption of sustainable cooking solutions. Households at higher altitudes and in colder temperatures are more inclined to tend to warm dwellings by using traditional cooking systems. They serve other purposes, such as heat and light sources (Bielecki & Wingenbach, 2014; Nzengya et al., 2021), meeting the social needs of the households as they gather around the fire and keep warm (Bielecki & Wingenbach, 2014; Thompson et al., 2018). They are preferred in winter and cold regions because they produce enough warmth to heat a space than sustainable cooking techniques (Njenga et al., 2016). On this, an improved cookstove, a sustainable cooking technology made of vermiculite stone that reduces heat loss and does not warm the house during the cold season, met low acceptance (Nzengya et al., 2021). In a study carried out in Ethiopia, a significant difference in temperature exists between the northeast region, with elevated temperatures of 50°C, and central Ethiopia, which experiences cool temperatures and high rainfall of more than 1,270 mm. This variation presents customer preference for a particular cooking technique in different regions (Kapfudzaruwa et al., 2017).

Variation in the weather conditions also causes a temporal shift in the energy ladder and the choice of methods. It was recorded that there is a positive shift towards sustainable cooking technologies during the rainy season (Jewitt et al., 2019). This is due to the difficulty in using the unsustainable means. The biomass (firewood) is usually wet and produces much smoke, making its use difficult. Also, the cost of biomass and transportation, which rises during the rainy seasons, aids the temporal shift to sustainable cooking methods. Other factors that favour sustainable cooking methods during the rains include difficulties storing dry wood, lighting wet wood, wet locations and the impracticality of moving this unsustainable means to drier or indoor locations. This season has allowed the women to appreciate sustainable cooking methods as they opined it promotes clean cooking facilities and reduces smoke and dirt in the kitchen (Jewitt et al., 2019). Given these, the rains can be regarded as an enabler pushing the shift to sustainable cooking systems while encouraging reflections on the health risks (coughs and impaired vision) of the households and community and acknowledging the advantages of the reduced discomfort of smoke.

It is also important to note that seasonal LPG shortages engendered firewood stacking in Mexico. The seasonal variation in LPG supply has hindered the exclusive use of this sustainable cooking method. Thus promoting stacking, as seen in the study by (Ruiz-Mercado & Masera, 2015).

4.5. Technical factors

Appropriate energy technology is understanding the local energy sources, available energy infrastructure, and characteristics of the demands in addition to local expectations. The suitability of the energy source is based on their modification with local materials for improved conversion efficiency in addition to fitting local demands expectations (Tucho & Kumsa, 2020). This will encourage technological advancement, income generation, and increased access to improved energy technology. Hence, the design of the sustainable cooking method is a determinant factor for its cooking efficiency, size of pot and type of food to be cooked. Some of the designs do not meet the cooking needs of the rural women. Examples of energy-saving stoves with lower efficiency cannot be compared with traditional cooking methods (Nzengya et al., 2021).

The practice of cooking is shaped by the risks and safety concerns. The perception that a particular cooking system exposes households and properties to danger reduces its uptake (Alam et al., 2016). These risks are ubiquitous, and communities are not insured (Chalise et al., 2018). As such, the awareness of associated risks with each cooking system (traditional or sustainable) and inclination to risk-averse influences households’ adoption of a particular cooking system. These risks concern health and the environment (Vigolo et al., 2018). Some perceived health risks associated with traditional cooking systems are due to smoke and soot from the cooking system. Respondents in different studies reported irritation of eyes, nose and lungs; sneezing; respiratory problems; congestion of the throat; eye redness, coughing, allergy-type symptoms, chest pains, headaches, accidental burns, and corresponding healthcare expenses with the use of traditional cooking methods (Alam et al., 2016; Bielecki & Wingenbach, 2014; Loo et al., 2016; Nzengya et al., 2021). Also, lower incidences of impacts such as burns, physical injury, illness, death, itchy/watery eyes, and cough were observed in country data from Cambodia and Nigeria, with an approximate average 5–10% higher incidence in the use of traditional fuels (ESMAP, 2020).

Though sustainable cooking methods are associated with reduced health impacts (Vigolo et al., 2018), it is also not without some perceived safety risks, such as cylinder bursting, gas leakage, and fear of explosion or fire (Dalaba et al., 2018). Cases of liquefied petroleum gas explosions and leakages have made transitioning and adopting this sustainable cooking method difficult. One of the respondents in a study stopped using a kerosene stove after witnessing a stove explosion at a neighbour’s house (Jewitt et al., 2019). It, therefore, presents the fear of the risks and explosions as one of the explanations for backsliding and caution towards sustainable cooking options. Similarly, some people lost interest in liquefied petroleum gas as it was perceived to cause burns and fires in houses (Agbokey et al., 2019). In addition, experimental time to validate their fears and outcomes of the new technology delays households’ adoption and use of these modern technologies (Chalise et al., 2018). However, despite the generalisation from studies agreeing that households’ adoption of sustainable cooking alternatives increases with greater awareness of health risks (Vigolo et al., 2018), some studies maintained neutrality. The advantage and advertisement of smoke reduction offered by improved cookstoves and related health benefits were not enough to drive the purchase of this sustainable method in Uganda and India significantly (Martin et al., 2013; Thurber et al., 2014). From the health perspective, a low influence was observed (Hanna et al., 2016). Furthermore, sustainable cooking fuels and technologies are perceived as luxurious rather than solutions to indoor air pollution, which has caused a significant hindrance in adopting and using sustainable cooking methods (Nzengya et al., 2021).

Concerning environmental impacts, deforestation leading to stress on the local forests and pollution (emission of gases), which exacerbate global warming, are the two major environmental impacts of traditional energy sources (Vigolo et al., 2018). While there are some levels of awareness of the increasing pressure on the natural environment, decision-making does not include the cost of degradation because of poverty-related short-term planning horizon (van der Kroon et al., 2014). Also, high environmental risk awareness was recorded more than outdoor air pollution and climate change (Jeuland et al., 2015). Hence, the adoption and use of sustainable cooking methods are favoured by the health benefits associated with it, as well as the environmental impact awareness.

In another study, observed health and environmental impacts and increased awareness associated with traditional cooking means have driven the shift to a more sustainable alternative to mitigate such adverse effects (Poddar & Chakrabarti, 2016). The adoption of sustainable cooking methods increased as the awareness of the negative impacts of deforestation and forest degradation of biomass increased (Jagger & Jumbe, 2016). In India, a barrier to adopting sustainable fuel (liquefied petroleum gas) was reported because of low awareness and knowledge of the health risks of traditional cookstoves (Alam et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2016). Similarly, a study in South Africa supported an increased willingness to adopt modern cooking systems as the safety awareness campaigns increased (Maré & Annegarn, 2017).

Some of the advantages of sustainable cooking options, such as efficiency (fuel and time), user-friendliness (ease of use), appearance, safety and smoke reduction, play crucial roles in the preference for a cooking system (Loo et al., 2016). In other words, inappropriateness in the design and characteristics of cooking systems presents a barrier to adopting sustainable cooking means (Vigolo et al., 2018). In rural Kenya, the efficiency of fuel use, time and flexibility in the size are factors in the adoption (Loo et al., 2016).

5. Implications

The transformation of these theoretical studies into intervention is critical as using these sources to build theories, strategies, models, and further research will transform sustainable household cooking. Furthermore, there is a need to focus on solutions, including the actors at different levels and relations that form the solution space. Fostering this collaboration towards innovative solutions and adaptation will yield an effective strategy for improvement. The review shows that different locations vary for variables affecting their adoption and use of sustainable energy and technology. While some variables are significant in some areas, they do not impact other regions. This means that solutions to sustainable household cooking access should be localised. However, some factors are more prominent than others. In other words, considering a combination of the prevailing factors in a community, state, or nation would be impactful in strategising effective sustainable household cooking interventions. Locations with similar demographic dynamics and resources will adopt similar successful approaches. It is also important to note that integrating sustainable cooking interventions with other related SDGs, such as agriculture and waste management, will enhance the attainment.

Awareness is a great tool to advance sustainable cooking. This can be through education (formal and informal), seminars, informational advertisements and promotions. This should emphasise the importance and cost in terms of health, social (welfare) and environmental effects of unsustainable cooking. Proactive engagement and ownership spell the need for residents’ awareness of the consequences of their actions, choices and responsibilities. Governments should inscribe this as part of the school curriculum to enlighten the young generation on time. This will bring exposure and enlightenment to the new technology. It will boost confidence, increase technical know-how, provide adequate information, and clear doubts about the new technology. Generally, males often lack the requisite knowledge for an informed decision on household cooking. Often spurred by economic pressure, sustainable cooking is neglected. Moreover, as it is primarily women’s primary role, they do not fully understand the implications. Therefore, the concentration of the awareness on the adult category should target the household heads. However, this does not undermine equity, which has a broader cover in terms of the audience. Additionally, education can be in the form of skill acquisition, which contributes to improving livelihood, affordability, and increasing technical know-how.

The economic factor is a major challenge hindering the study’s shift to sustainable cooking technologies. To overcome this cost and reduce the price of cooking fuel, research advances should be made to produce novel, sustainable cooking fuel. This means using local resources that can be found in abundance to improve the cooking condition of the locality. Because the resources are sourced locally, at a lower rate and with easy availability, the lack of a developed market and fluctuations in the market price for sustainable cooking fuel would no longer be a barrier. This can be biofuel (bioethanol) from agricultural wastes or waste treatment in the community. This will provide a sustainable cooking option, lead to effective waste management, and improve livelihood via job creation and technical knowledge. Also, this could provide fertilizer for agriculture. Thus, rechanneling credit facilities for a subsidy, which are limited, into advanced research for the provision of cheaper clean fuel in the locality would be a significant advancement of the new local technology.

Behavioral change is also impactful. Household size should be seen as an advantage to adopting sustainable household cooking rather than engendering traditional cooking. Rechanneling and investing the time spent collecting traditional fuel into some economic activities will increase the households’ economic status, thereby increasing their affordability for a sufficient, sustainable household cooking method. Bearing in mind the significance of social background and local culture in this transformation, embedding novel methods and research advances in line with the cooking culture of the people will significantly foster their adoption. This will address the traditional ethnic norms and taboos hindering sustainable cooking. This can be by embedding cultural inscriptions on the new technology, incorporating shape and size to accommodate the cooking positions, style, etc. Also, considering the diversity of foods in the region is essential to overcome fuel stacking.

Moreso, while these sustainable cooking methods are built, high efficiency, longevity and ease of operation are necessary to influence adoption. This will be in terms of time-saving, low fuel consumption, economic advantage, and diversity of purpose. Incorporating their usage into multi-use for lighting and heating will be an added advantage. However, this requires a careful integration and understanding of the region and the people for which it is built.

Governments should embrace the socioeconomic opportunities available with SDG. Policies, laws and regulations should be made in favor of sustainable household cooking. To increase affordability by households viz-a-viz reduction in the initial cost of sustainable cooking technologies, import duties, taxes, and bans on sustainable cooking options should be removed. Also, improving infrastructural development and adequate energy technologies will promote the adoption of sustainable cooking methods. Funding research and projects in the sustainable energy field will be significant. Researchers are also encouraged to incorporate the identification of cleaner and sustainable resources within the locality of their study as they study access, determinants and behavioral attitudes towards sustainable cooking fuel and technology.

It is important to note that these suggestions are not rigid. They are distinctive in locations. Community-based research and enterprise will be necessary to provide a sustainable solution. This is because resources differ from region to region, as well as sociocultural dynamics, environmental factors and political systems. Similarly, employing these requires a systematic adaptation in mainstreaming these solutions via support and learning from the residents for effective transformation.

6. Conclusion

With a prediction that about 4.5 billion people will not have access to modern cooking services by 2030, which defeats the purpose of SDG 7, understanding and addressing the determinants of a sustainable cooking system is crucial to overcoming the observed inertia in its adoption and use of sustainable cooking energy. The challenges towards adopting and using sustainable cooking methods have been identified to be influenced by many factors. Thus, despite many programs to facilitate this goal, equivalent progress has not been recorded. This study, therefore, used a comprehensive approach to assess the various challenges that affect the adoption and use of sustainable cooking techniques and technology across the globe. This is because finding a suitable sustainable cooking system is incredibly challenging. Various factors have been identified to affect the adoption and use of sustainable cooking techniques and technologies. These factors differ from one region to another. Thus, providing appropriate cooking technology requires a deep understanding of the location’s sociocultural, economic, physical, and technical dynamics to implement a successful adoption. Despite their promising advantages, these numerous factors have limited adoption and use spread. Generally, low economic status, high cooking technology and maintenance cost, large family size, infrastructure, and unfavorable institutional framework contribute to barriers to adopting and using this sustainable energy cooking. Other factors do not show a direct relationship, as different scenarios were recorded for different case studies. This highlights the importance of understudying each community for suitable conditions to promote the best fit sustainable cooking energy option. Through these, it is expected that SDG 7 will be advanced to ensure its attainment by 2030.

Acknowledgements

This project has been funded by the E4LIFE International Ph.D. Fellowship Program offered by Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham. We extend our gratitude to the Amrita Live-in-Labs® academic program for providing all the support.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.