Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Differences in firewood users’ and LPG users’ perceived relationships between cooking fuels and women’s multidimensional well-being in rural India


Clean cooking fuels are generally assumed to bring health and other benefits for women compared with solid fuels, which suggests they should be preferred. However, despite the availability of clean cooking fuels, such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), the scale of solid fuel use in rural India remains large. Here we examine women’s positions on fuel transition and multidimensional well-being through a qualitative analysis of data from focus group discussions with comparable groups of women who have versus those who have not transitioned to LPG. We show that women who use firewood believe their cooking fuel supports their well-being in several ways, and see no enabling relationship between LPG use and well-being. In contrast, LPG users—who were previous firewood users—claim LPG has enabled well-being. These results suggest that perspectives on the relationship between fuel and well-being shift after transition, due to the realization of new advantages. Understanding differences in the perspectives of women using different fuels is vital to unpack the dynamics of cooking fuel transition.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Relationships between capabilities and the cooking fuels.
Fig. 2: Outcomes of the relationships between the cooking fuels and capabilities among firewood users.
Fig. 3: Outcomes and possible outcomes of the relationships between the cooking fuels and capabilities among LPG users.
Fig. 4: Comparison of capabilities between the cooking fuels.

Data availability

For confidentiality reasons, the raw FGD transcripts are restricted. All the data behind the figures are publicly available as source data at

Code availability

All the codes used for data analysis and visualizations in this study are publicly available at


  1. India Energy Outlook (International Energy Agency, 2015).

  2. Kar, A., Pachauri, S., Bailis, R. & Zerriffi, H. Capital cost subsidies through India’s Ujjwala cooking gas programme promote rapid adoption of liquefied petroleum gas but not regular use. Nat. Energy 5, 125–126 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dabadge, A. Subsidizing connections to the poor. Nat. Energy 4, 724–725 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Energy Access Outlook 2017: From Poverty to Prosperity (International Energy Agency, 2017).

  5. Fuso Nerini, F. et al. Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Energy 3, 10–15 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rosenberg, M., Armanios, D. E., Aklin, M. & Jaramillo, P. Evidence of gender inequality in energy use from a mixed-methods study in India. Nat. Sustainability 3, 110–118 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bhallamudi, I. & Lingam, L. Swaying between saving the environment and mitigating women’s domestic drudgery: India’s efforts at addressing clean cooking fuels. Gend., Technol. Dev. 23, 36–54 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Laursen, L. India’s energy subsidy slowdown. Nat. Energy 1, 16056 (2016).

  9. Dutta, S. & Banerjee, S. Exposure to indoor air pollution & women health: The situation in urban India. Environ. Urbanization Asia 5, 131–145 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Alim, M. A. et al. Respiratory involvements among women exposed to the smoke of traditional biomass fuel and gas fuel in a district of Bangladesh. Environ. Health Preventive Med. 19, 126–134 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith, K. R. et al. Millions dead: how do we know and what does it mean? Methods used in the comparative risk assessment of household air pollution. Annu Rev. Public Health 35, 185–206 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Practical Action Consulting Gender and Livelihoods Impacts of Clean Cookstoves in South Asia (Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, 2014);

  13. Pachauri, S. & Rao, N. D. Gender impacts and determinants of energy poverty: are we asking the right questions? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 5, 205–215 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Parikh, J. Hardships and health impacts on women due to traditional cooking fuels: a case study of Himachal Pradesh, India. Energy Policy 39, 7587–7594 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sagar, A. D. Alleviating energy poverty for the world’s poor. Energy Policy 33, 1367–1372 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sovacool, B. K. The political economy of energy poverty: a review of key challenges. Energy Sustain. Dev. 16, 272–282 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gaye, A. Access to Energy and Human Development 1–21 (UNDP, 2007).

  18. Borah, S. Fire wood collection: a back breaking work for tribal farm women. Developments in Agricultural and Industrial Ergonomics Vol. II (eds Gite, L. P., Mehta, C. R., Kotwaliwale, N. and Majumder, J.) 132–138 (Allied, 2009).

  19. Malakar, Y., Greig, C. & van de Fliert, E. Resistance in rejecting solid fuels: beyond availability and adoption in the structural dominations of cooking practices in rural India. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 46, 225–235 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith, K. R. & Sagar, A. Making the clean available: escaping India’s Chulha Trap. Energy Policy 75, 410–414 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sehjpal, R., Ramji, A., Soni, A. & Kumar, A. Going beyond incomes: dimensions of cooking energy transitions in rural India. Energy 68, 470–477 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Listo, R. Gender myths in energy poverty literature: a critical discourse analysis. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 38, 9–18 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sen, A. Inequality Reexamined (Russell Sage Foundation, 1992).

  24. Nussbaum, M. C. Women and Human Development: the Capabilities Approach (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).

  25. Robeyns, I. The capability approach: a theoretical survey. J. Hum. Dev. 6, 93–117 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Robeyns, I. The capability approach in practice. J. Political Philos. 14, 351–376 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Alkire, S. Why the capability approach? J. Hum. Dev. 6, 115–135 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Alkire, S. Valuing Freedoms: Sen’s Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction (Oxford Univ. Press, 2002).

  29. Day, R., Walker, G. & Simcock, N. Conceptualising energy use and energy poverty using a capabilities framework. Energy Policy 93, 255–264 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nussbaum, M. C. Creating Capabilities (Harvard Univ. Press, 2011).

  31. Mehta, S. R. in Women in the Indian Diaspora: Historical Narratives and Contemporary Challenges (ed. Pande, A.) 15–26 (Springer Singapore, 2018).

  32. Energy Poverty: How to Make Modern Energy Access Universal? (IEA, 2010).

  33. Mani, S., Jain, A., Tripathi, S. & Gould, C. F. The drivers of sustained use of liquified petroleum gas in India. Nat. Energy 5, 450–457 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana Report No. 14 (Government of India, 2019).

  35. Pachauri, S. et al. in Global Energy Assessment: Toward a Sustainable Future (ed. Global Energy Assessment Writing Team ed) Ch. 19 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

  36. Broto, V. C. et al. A research agenda for a people-centred approach to energy access in the urbanizing global south. Nat. Energy 2, 776–779 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Malakar, Y. Studying household decision-making context and cooking fuel transition in rural India. Energy Sustain. Dev. 43, 68–74 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wickramasinghe, A. Energy access and transition to cleaner cooking fuels and technologies in Sri Lanka: issues and policy limitations. Energy Policy 39, 7567–7574 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Viswanathan, B. & Kavi Kumar, K. S. Cooking fuel use patterns in India: 1983–2000. Energy Policy 33, 1021–1036 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wolske, K. S., Gillingham, K. T. & Schultz, P. W. Peer influence on household energy behaviours. Nat. Energy 5, 202–212 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Herington, M. J., Lant, P. A., Smart, S., Greig, C. & van de Fliert, E. Defection, recruitment and social change in cooking practices: energy poverty through a social practice lens. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 34, 272–280 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jagadish, A. & Dwivedi, P. In the hearth, on the mind: cultural consensus on fuelwood and cookstoves in the middle Himalayas of India. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 37, 44–51 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kar, A., Pachauri, S., Bailis, R. & Zerriffi, H. Using sales data to assess cooking gas adoption and the impact of India’s Ujjwala programme in rural Karnataka. Nat. Energy 4, 806–814 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Alkire, S. Choosing Dimensions: The Capability Approach and Multidimensional Poverty MPRA Paper 8862 (IDEAS, 2008).

  45. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. Designing Qualitative Research 5th edn (Sage, 2011).

  46. Bryman, A. Social Research Methods 3rd edn (Oxford Univ. Press, 2008).

  47. Litosseliti, L. Using Focus Groups in Research (Continuum, 2003).

  48. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook 2nd edn (Sage, 1994).

  49. R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).

  50. Huang, R. RQDA: R-based qualitative data analysis. R package version 0.3.1. (2018).

  51. Wickham, H. tidyverse: easily install and load the ‘tidyverse’. R package version 1.2.1. (2017).

  52. Allaire, J. J., Gandrud, C., Russel, K. & Yetman, C. networkD3: D3 JavaScript network graphs from R. R package version 0.4. (2017).

  53. Kassambara, A. ggpubr: ‘ggplot2’ based publication ready plots. R package version 0.2.5. (2020).

  54. Vaidyanathan, R., Xie, Y., Allaire, J. J., Cheng, J. & Russel, K. htmlwidgets: HTML widgets for R. R package version 1.5.1. (2019).

  55. Auguie, B. gridExtra: miscellaneous functions for ‘gird’ graphics. R package version 2.3. (2017).

Download references


Collection of data and foundational conceptual work by the lead author was funded by a PhD scholarship and fieldwork grant from The University of Queensland and the Dow Centre for Sustainable Engineering Innovation. Y.M. is grateful to C. Greig and E. van de Fliert of the University of Queensland for their guidance, and also to P. Rani and S. Kumar for providing logistic and interpretation services during the field work. Y.M. is thankful to CSIRO’s Data School FOCUS program team for providing a platform to learn the R language for data analysis. We thank J. Lacey and L. Poruschi of CSIRO for providing feedback on an early version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Y.M. designed the overall study, collected the data, performed the data cleaning, wrote the codes for data analysis and produced the figures. Y.M. and R.D. conceptualized the manuscript, performed the manual data analysis, developed the interpretation and wrote, edited and revised the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuwan Malakar.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes 1–4, Fig. 1, Tables 1–3 and references.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Malakar, Y., Day, R. Differences in firewood users’ and LPG users’ perceived relationships between cooking fuels and women’s multidimensional well-being in rural India. Nat Energy 5, 1022–1031 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing