Approximately 3 billion people, most of whom live in Asia, Africa, and the Americas, rely on solid fuels (i.e. wood, crop wastes, dung, charcoal) and kerosene for their cooking needs. Exposure to household air pollution from burning these fuels is estimated to account for approximately 3 million premature deaths a year. Cleaner fuels – such as liquefied petroleum gas, biogas, electricity, and certain compressed biomass fuels – have the potential to alleviate much of this significant health burden. A wide variety of clean cooking intervention programs are being implemented around the world, but very few of these efforts have been analyzed to enable global learning. The Clean Cooking Implementation Science Network (ISN), supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and partners, identified the need to augment the publicly available literature concerning what has worked well and in what context. The ISN has supported the development of a systematic set of case studies, contained in this Special Issue, examining clean cooking program rollouts in a variety of low- and middle-income settings around the world. We used the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adaptation, implementation, maintenance) framework to coordinate and evaluate the case studies. This paper describes the clean cooking case studies project, introduces the individual studies contained herein, and proposes a general conceptual model to support future planning and evaluation of household energy programs.

Promoting access to clean household cooking energy is an important subject for policy making in low‐ and middle‐income countries, in light of urgent and global efforts to achieve universal energy access by 2030 (Sustainable Development Goal 7). In 2014, the World Health Organization issued “Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality: Household Fuel Combustion”, which recommended a shift to cleaner fuels rather than promotion of technologies that more efficiently combust solid fuels. This study fills an important gap in the literature on transitions to household use of clean cooking energy by reviewing supply chain considerations for clean fuel options in low‐ and middle‐income countries. For the purpose of this study, we consider electricity, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), alcohol fuels, biogas, and compressed biomass pellets burned in high performing gasifier stoves to be clean fuel options. Each of the clean fuels reviewed in this study, as well as the supply of electricity, presents both constraints and opportunities for enhanced production, supply, delivery, and long‐term sustainability and scalability in resource‐poor settings. These options are reviewed and discussed together with policy and regulatory considerations to help in making these fuel and energy choices available and affordable. Our hope is that researchers, government officials and policy makers, and development agencies and investors will be aided by our comparative analysis of these clean household energy choices.

Addressing HAP and the health impacts associated with kerosene and biomass use was never an objective of the program. Consequently, there is limited evidence of impact in this area, and in hindsight, missed opportunities in terms of influencing cooking behavior change among biomass users, who are more at risk.

This longitudinal study presents the joint effects of a COVID-19 community lockdown on household energy and food security in an informal settlement in Nairobi, Kenya. Randomly administered surveys were completed from December 2019–March 2020 before community lockdown (n = 474) and repeated in April 2020 during lockdown (n = 194). Nearly universal (95%) income decline occurred during the lockdown and led to 88% of households reporting food insecurity. During lockdown, a quarter of households (n = 17) using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), a cleaner cooking fuel typically available in pre-set quantities (e.g. 6 kg cylinders), switched to polluting cooking fuels (kerosene, wood), which could be purchased in smaller amounts or gathered for free. Household size increases during lockdown also led to participants’ altering their cooking fuel, and changing their cooking behaviors and foods consumed. Further, households more likely to switch away from LPG had lower consumption prior to lockdown and had suffered greater income loss, compared with households that continued to use LPG. Thus, inequities in clean cooking fuel access may have been exacerbated by COVID-19 lockdown. These findings demonstrate the complex relationship between household demographics, financial strain, diet and cooking patterns, and present the opportunity for a food-energy nexus approach to address multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): achieving zero hunger (SDG 2) and universal affordable, modern and clean energy access (SDG 7) by 2030. Ensuring that LPG is affordable, accessible and meets the dietary and cooking needs of families should be a policy priority for helping improve food and energy security among the urban poor.

Exposure to household air pollution from polluting domestic fuel (solid fuel and kerosene) represents a substantial global public health burden and there is an urgent need for rapid transition to clean domestic fuels. Gas for cooking and heating might possibly affect child asthma, wheezing, and respiratory health. The aim of this review was to synthesise the evidence on the health effects of gaseous fuels to inform policies for scalable clean household energy. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we summarised the health effects from cooking or heating with gas compared with polluting fuels (eg, wood or charcoal) and clean energy (eg, electricity and solar energy). We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Environment Complete, GreenFile, Google Scholar, Wanfang DATA, and CNKI for articles published between Dec 16, 2020, and Feb 6, 2021. Studies eligible for inclusion had to compare gas for cooking or heating with polluting fuels (eg, wood or charcoal) or clean energy (eg, electricity or solar energy) and present data for health outcomes in general populations. Studies that reported health outcomes that were exacerbations of existing underlying conditions were excluded. Several of our reviewers were involved in screening studies, data extraction, and quality assessment (including risk of bias) of included studies; 20% of studies were independently screened, extracted and quality assessed by another reviewer. Disagreements were reconciled through discussion with the wider review team. Included studies were appraised for quality using the Liverpool Quality Assessment Tools. Key health outcomes were grouped for meta-analysis and analysed using Cochrane's RevMan software. Primary outcomes were health effects (eg, acute lower respiratory infections) and secondary outcomes were health symptoms (eg, respiratory symptoms such as wheeze, cough, or breathlessness). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021227092. 116 studies were included in the meta-analysis (two [2%] randomised controlled trials, 13 [11%] case-control studies, 23 [20%] cohort studies, and 78 [67%] cross-sectional studies), contributing 215 effect estimates for five grouped health outcomes. Compared with polluting fuels, use of gas significantly lowered the risk of pneumonia (OR 0·54, 95% CI 0·38-0·77; p=0·00080), wheeze (OR 0·42, 0·30-0·59; p<0·0001), cough (OR 0·44, 0·32-0·62; p<0·0001), breathlessness (OR 0·40, 0·21-0·76; p=0·0052), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 0·37, 0·23-0·60; p<0·0001), bronchitis (OR 0·60, 0·43-0·82; p=0·0015), pulmonary function deficit (OR 0·27, 0·17-0·44; p0·05). A significant decreased risk of bronchitis was observed (OR 0·87, 0·81-0·93; p<0·0001). Switching from polluting fuels to gaseous household fuels could lower health risk and associated morbidity and mortality in resource-poor countries where reliance on polluting fuels is greatest. Although gas fuel use was associated with a slightly higher risk for some health outcomes compared with electricity, gas is an important transitional option for health in countries where access to reliable electricity supply for cooking or heating is not feasible in the near term. WHO.