1. Introduction
Energy has always been central to human existence; the historical development of energy also reflects human development. The discovery of fire, the domestication of animals, the discovery of fossil fuels, the electrification of cities, advances in nuclear physics, and the oil wars in the Middle East all have significance in human history and civilization [1]. Ensuring the accessibility of cost-effective energy is vital for the nation’ progress, economic growth and the overall welfare of individuals, while its absence has a significant detrimental impact on humanity and their endeavours [2]. Despite the fact that energy service underpins better health, education, safety, income, gender justice, and economic development [3,4], the persistent prevalence of energy poverty continues to represent a multi-dimensional global issue. Many people worldwide still grapple with energy poverty, resulting in substantial welfare losses to the country [5]. This situation not only compromises the individual’s quality of life and life satisfaction, but, across a broader, to a reduction in personal income levels, health, comfort, and access to education [6,7,8,9]. Furthermore, the implications extend globally, contributing to increased income inequality [10].
There exists a fundamental difference in the energy needs, consumption patterns, and impacts between men and women, primarily due to the gendered division of labour and socio-economic norms and this discrepancy is more pronounced in the Global South [11,12,13]. Where strategic gender needs inequalities emerge from the social sphere and positioning, the practical needs inequalities stem from gender-assigned roles allocated in the home. Women-centric tasks include not only household activities, but also energy-related tasks such as gathering fuelwood, cooking, fuel stacking, and other forms of energy management Additionally, the lack of energy for lighting also affects women more than men, as women tend to stay inside the home for household chores and caretaking activities. This demonstrated the need for justice rather than equality in providing energy services for men and women when considering the gender dimension. The study also shows that women with greater agency in household decision-making are more likely to adopt clean cooking solutions, as they are severely affected by indoor air pollution [14]. Despite this, women rarely participate in decision-making processes concerning energy issues at home [15]. Hence, the absence of gender consideration in energy discourse significantly affects women due to entrenched gendered roles. Gender disparities also manifest in household energy management and perceptions of energy benefits [3,16]. As stated by Clancy et al. (2003) ([17], p 11), “Women and men have different perceptions about the benefits of energy; men see the benefits of electricity in terms of leisure, quality of life, and education for their children; while women see electricity as providing the means for reducing their workload, improving health, and reducing expenditure”. Most societies and cultures exhibit gender hierarchies, with women having limited access to resources and opportunities. The energy sector is no exception. There is a direct relationship between gender roles and energy poverty. Gender, rather than being a binary category, is a socially defined and culturally learned role between males and females, contributing to women’s heightened vulnerability to energy poverty. This encompasses the norms, behaviours, and roles attributed to males and females. Due to different roles and norms in the home, society, and workplace, the impact of energy poverty on males and females is different. Energy poverty not only affects women due to gendered roles but also manifests in gender-neutral energy usage, such as indoor temperature regulation and transportation. Women tend to use transportation less frequently than men and typically do not use heaters or coolers when they are alone at home.
Hence, overlooking the inclusion of a gender perspective in energy literature will lead to a limited understanding of the subject. This article aims to comprehensively analyze the current research on the impact of energy poverty on women. By delving into this underexplored intersection between energy poverty and gender dimension, our primary objective is to examine how energy poverty uniquely affects women and provide valuable insights to the existing body of knowledge. The inclusion of the concept of gender into the literature on energy has evolved since the 1970s [18]. However, the literature on the intersection of energy poverty and gender is limited, as highlighted by Chen et al. (2022) [19]. In the same way, Petrova and Simcock (2019) [20] state that even though women are depicted as being extremely energy-poor, the energy poverty literature generally fails to discuss gender impact adequately and openly. A recent review explores the in-depth analysis of energy poverty, its indicator, factors, as well as solutions, but the article overlooks the gendered impact of energy poverty [21]. Similarly, another recent systematic review focuses on the gender’s influence on energy access with a detailed analysis of gender, energy management, and employment, but does not focus on the impact of energy poverty [22].
Achieving Sustainable Development Goal 7, universal access to clean energy for all, required an academic exploration of all areas that can be affected by energy poverty. Under the circumstances of climate change, energy poverty tends to increase which calls for integrated evidence of its impact. Therefore, it is necessary to review the previous work to address the understudied areas. There is a prior systematic review performed examining how energy-saving measures and energy use influence health [23], and indicators to measure energy poverty [24]. A systematic review conducted by Simcock et al. (2021) [25] shows the vulnerable groups who experience energy poverty and transport poverty in Global North, while the detailed scoping review performed by Ballesteros-Arjona et al. (2022) [26] analyzes the relationship between energy poverty and health with an equity lens. Similarly, the prior article emphasizes that the persistence of both gender discrimination and energy poverty presents a significant barrier to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), highlighting the impact of energy poverty on women [27]. It is important to acknowledge the contribution of these authors to the area of energy poverty; however, their papers are limited to studies that focus on energy poverty but do not examine the impact of energy poverty on women comprehensively. The need for interdisciplinary energy research linking women and energy poverty is also noted by prior researchers [28,29]. The necessity of incorporating gender considerations into future research on energy poverty, particularly given the under-researched nature of this area has been highlighted in the prior research as there is lacking gender-related concerns and a gender-focused approach in the literature [20,30]. Despite the clear evidence of the disproportionate impact of energy poverty on women and the existence of gender gaps in energy-related decision-making, there remains a scarcity of publications on the intersection of gender and energy poverty [31]. Much of the literature uses the terms ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ interchangeably, which has been criticized in gender studies [32]. For this review, we used the terms ‘gender’ and ‘women’ to search the literature from the database. This approach acknowledges the interconnectedness of gender dynamics and women’s experiences in the context of energy poverty. Notably, the scarcity of literature exclusively dedicated to the examination of the impact of energy poverty on women necessitated the inclusion of papers that address related aspects, such as energy burden, gender, and housing conditions affecting women. While past literature extensively delves into the implications of energy poverty on health without referencing the gender aspect exactly [33,34,35,36,37], the gendered focus within energy literature remains conspicuously limited. Consequently, this review adopts a gendered lens to scrutinize the academic landscape on this topic, allowing us to illuminate how energy poverty affects women, unveiling a spectrum of challenges and vulnerabilities often overlooked in traditional energy discourse. By scrutinizing the academic landscape through this lens, we unearthed the intricate intersections between gender dynamics, socio-economic factors, and energy access, shedding light on how these complexities shape women’s experiences of energy poverty. In this review, we undertook the content analysis of 200 papers and selected 25 papers as the sample. Grey literature is also scrutinized for inclusion in the discussion section. The dearth of review articles specifically addressing women and energy poverty underscores the significance of this review.
Current Research on Energy Poverty and Its Intersection with Gender
The concept of energy poverty is said to have emerged as a result of the energy crisis and the issues associated with fuel poverty in developed economies with cold climates; moreover, its scope covers only those households which are unable to keep the home warm [38,39]. However, over time, the scope of energy poverty has evolved to encompass both developing as well as developed countries, and all sorts of climates [40]. In warmer climates, for example, the inability to access affordable cooling also constitutes energy poverty. Additionally, the rise in energy costs, growing income inequality, and the inadequate access to modern energy services in rural and urban areas worldwide have further influenced the expansion of this concept. Thus, energy poverty is a wider concept and is relevant to world economies [41]. Energy poverty can be caused by factors such as low-income, high-energy cost, or low efficiency of the factor related to energy use. Energy poverty has been defined in various aspects; however, these all refer to either a lack of access to energy or its insufficiency as needed at home or the level or capacity of energy consumption. As per the International Energy Agency, energy poverty is defined as the lack of access to electricity and reliance on traditional biomass fuels for cooking. It is characterized by three situations: a lack of access to modern energy services, a lack of reliability of services, and affordability of access [39]. Parajuli (2011) [42] defines energy poverty as the absence of access to convenient, reliable, efficient, and modern energy technologies that are necessary to satisfy the basic needs to support human and economic development. Pachauri and Spreng (2004) [43] expanded the concept to include quantity and affordability of energy access. In the same way, Sovacool et al. (2012) [44] incorporated mechanical power and mobility into the definition of energy service. It is hard to quantify energy poverty per se due to its complexity; however, various approaches to capturing or assessing energy poverty are found in the literature (Aweke and Navrud 2022) [5]. In the income-expenditure approach, energy poverty is determined by analyzing the portion of income that is being paid for the energy. If a significant portion of household income is allocated to meeting energy needs, this can indicate energy poverty, especially if this allocation leaves insufficient funds for other essential goods and services. This approach is used widely in fuels, as this method is in accordance with the energy poverty definition. The physical threshold approach considers households without grid connections as energy-poor, while the subjective measure relies on households’ self-assessment. The technology threshold approach classifies those lacking access to modern energy services as energy-poor, and the multidimensional approach uses various indicators to measure energy poverty [45,46].
Energy is indispensable factor to achieve sustainable development goals while energy poverty can incumber their progress. Energy poverty has different impacts among individuals based on factors such as gender, geographic location, climate, a country’s energy-security capabilities, age, health, ethnicity, and other household demographics [47,48,49,50,51,52]. The consequences of energy poverty on children are linked to issues such as higher rates of infant mortality, child physical disability and disparities in access to education, which ultimately affect the overall well-being of society [53,54]. Zhang et al. (2021) [55] also highlight the negative impact of energy poverty on child well-being and academic performance in China through econometric methods. Energy poverty affects individual health and well-being, sometimes being fatal to energy-poor people [56,57]; this corroborates with the findings of Thomson et al. (2017) [58], who investigated the effect of energy poverty on human health using data from 32 European countries. Concerning the age aspect of vulnerability, research by Oliveras et al. (2020) [59] demonstrates that elderly women’s health is adversely affected by energy poverty. Through spatial and statistical analysis, the study revealed a greater vulnerability among women to energy poverty in regions characterized by a higher prevalence of gender-sensitive indicators, as indicated by Bîrsănuc (2023) [60]. This finding aligns with the investigation conducted by Sánchez Sánchez-guevara et al. (2020) [61], which utilized statistical databases and Geographic Information Systems to highlight gender disparities within energy poverty.
Amid the literature on energy, limited research covers how energy poverty affects women in various dimensions of life, although they are more prone to the emotional and physical effects of energy poverty. Women tend to be in the domestic sphere, they are exposed to higher negative consequences of energy poverty in many rural areas of developing countries due to various socio-economic and cultural aspects. Women bear the brunt of the consequences of inadequate energy access like indoor air pollution, due to the gendered nature of work and prevalent gender inequality, especially in the Global South. This impact has been studied in India [62], Cambodia [6], Bangladesh [63], Nigeria [64], China [65], and Brazil [66], to name a few countries. The impact is heightened for these individuals due to their responsibility for household chores. Summarizing the available evidence in the existing literature, this paper provides a systematic review to address the existing research lacuna by investigating the relationship between energy poverty and its gendered dimensions, focusing on the impact of energy poverty on women. To do this, an extensive investigation and examination of highly pertinent research were conducted, as outlined in the next section.
2. Methodology
This study is based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol [67]. Additionally, this method entails developing a detailed review protocol that includes a thorough literature search strategy, along with clear criteria for determining the inclusion and exclusion of studies. Once the relevant journal articles and reports are identified, they undergo a screening process and are objectively assessed for their relevance and quality.
2.1. Database Selection and Searching Literature
While selecting the database, the coverage and metadata have been considered. We selected Web of Science, Science Direct, and Scopus for this review because these databases provide comprehensive academic papers of several disciplines and are systematically maintained [68,69]. The review was supplemented with handpicked articles from Google Scholar, which is recognized as a comprehensive academic search engine. The literature were selected using a search string using the Boolean operator, field code function, sentence (in Google), and truncation as shown in Table 1. Our priority was literature on energy poverty that explicitly mentioned ‘gender’ or ‘women’.
2.2. Selection Criteria
Due to the extensive quantity of literature documents returned by the defined search string in databases, which included various types of documents such as journal articles, conference papers, and books written in languages other than English, we refined the search by applying certain inclusion criteria as follows.
Inclusion criteria: Peer-reviewed research articles written in English are included in this review.
Exclusion criteria: Grey literature, books, conference papers, review papers, and reports are not included.
Among the few limitations of this review, the first is that we selected only English-language journal articles that are based on primary data, either qualitative or quantitative. Another limitation of this study is that there may be relevant text in the academia that was not covered by our research criteria search string. Despite this limitation, this will not highly be affecting the outcomes of the study.
2.3. Selection Process and Extraction
Of the total of 724 articles downloaded from the database, 57 articles were removed because of duplication among used search engines, making a total of 667 papers. After the removal of duplicate papers, screening of the remaining papers was conducted. Screening is based on two steps; in the first step, the title and abstract are screened against the inclusion criteria. During the abstract reading, if the paper deals with energy poverty, it was saved for full-text review. Furthermore, a quick full-text review was performed for some of the papers that had the potential to include the required themes. From this screening, a total of 471 papers were removed that did not study the impact of energy poverty on women. Among those excluded articles, 154 articles were irrelevant to the study of energy poverty. Other articles discussed topics ranging from climate change, diet, health, and nutrition, to medical studies, forest resources, language, entrepreneurship, solar energy, CO2 emissions, agriculture and farming, electricity consumption, cooking fuel adoption, disability, freedom of movement, and marketization and finance. The reasons for omitting those papers are detailed in Appendix A. This process involved three authors, who independently screened all titles and abstracts to minimize the bias. After scanning, data based on the three authors were combined; moreover, articles that did not meet the criteria were excluded, and a list of the articles was finalized.
In the second step, the corresponding author screened the full text of the 196 articles based on guiding questions for the review, which resulted in 21 articles that were useful for the research question. The remaining 175 articles were excluded as they do not explicitly address the impact of energy poverty on women. The reasons for exclusion after full-text screening were because the article focused on various topics unrelated to the objective of the study. These topics included children and energy poverty, culture, race, or remittance, calculation or determinants of energy poverty, time poverty or fuel stacking, single parents or elderly people and fuel poverty, energy access or transition, income and development, female politicians, mitigating energy poverty, crime, clean cooking fuel, and diet, health, and nutrition. Some of the excluded articles mentioned women in their results, but did not intend to study the impact of energy poverty; these were saved for use in the introduction section of the review (Appendix B). Those articles, although not focused explicitly on the impact of energy poverty on women, helped to reveal the impact of energy poverty as a cross-cutting issue.
The final set of articles for analysis comprised 21 articles from the database and 4 hand-picked articles from Google Scholar, snowballing the references, making a total of 25 articles. These selected 25 articles were discussed among coauthors for their opinions on the selected articles to ensure good quality and to avoid bias, as recommended by Ishtiaque et al. (2020) [70]. After ensuring consistency in the quality assessment, corresponding author assessed the studies for their results. The planned steps of this selection process are illustrated in Figure 1 as per the PRISMA flow chart.
The metadata and primary characteristics of the selected paper were extracted before analysis. We summarized those data under different variable codes in an Excel sheet (Appendix C). This created the outline for further analysis of the selected articles.
2.4. Analysis and Synthesis of Results
We used the thematic synthesis approach for the analysis of acquired data from the selected articles. We adopted this approach because it is a well-recognized approach for formulating the analytic themes in systematic reviews. The authors proceed with an inductive approach to analyzing the results of the assembled articles. To address the central objective, codes were extracted from the articles, and a theme was identified. The themes were created as per the judgment of the authors. Later content analysis was also adopted in the analysis of qualitative articles to explore the content for the adopted theme, in some cases, generated new themes. The analysis delved into various gendered aspects, including women’s roles in household energy management, and their vulnerability to ill health and well-being due to energy poverty.
3. Results
The results of our comprehensive examination of the intersection of energy poverty and gender reveal nuanced insights into the multifaceted impacts on women across different geographical, socio-economic, and cultural contexts. Through the analysis of 200 papers through a gendered lens and the selection of 25 representative studies, supplemented by insights from grey literature for discussion, we uncovered patterns, disparities, and areas of concern regarding the unique challenges faced by women in energy-poor environments. Gender is a fundamental aspect of social life and influences various aspects of human experience, including access to resources, decision-making processes, and socio-economic status. Hence, we utilized a gendered lens to explore the multifaceted dimensions of energy poverty. Here, we present a synthesis of our findings, categorized into key themes that emerged from our review.
3.1. Description of Authorship, Context, and Content
Less than half of the articles consist of female-first authors, and nearly half of the articles refer to the global north. Spatially, the articles are conducted both in developing and developed countries. In terms of the methodology of the study, 80% of the articles use quantitative and the rest adopt qualitative and mixed approaches. There is an increased number of studies on gendered energy poverty, as well as a male first author. The topic of gendered energy poverty is no longer women-driven, as higher numbers of male authors are also talking about this issue, which is a positive indicator. The highest prevalence consisted of studies examining the impact of energy poverty on women and their health, comprising nearly 32% of the selected papers, as depicted in Table 2, along with the description of the final list of articles (the continent-wise article has been depicted in Appendix D). The table shows that the effect of energy poverty on women is not only confined by geographical area or the economic status of the countries.
3.2. Themes on Impact of Energy Poverty on Women
Energy poverty is a highly gendered issue, and women often bear disproportionate consequences. Various studies confirm the mortality and health impacts of cold homes due to energy poverty [91,92,93]. A cold home not only cause physical health problems but also mental distress, as discussed in the study [94] using data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study. During the cold season, energy poverty leads to a significant number of deaths due to high expenditure on heating [40]. A household is considered energy-poor when it is unable to fulfil its energy requirements [95] or is deprived of the required level of energy to live comfortably at home [51]. It affects both developed and developing countries and is often referred to as “fuel poverty” in developed countries like those in the Global North. The UK is the first country to recognize and respond to fuel poverty [95,96], with higher number of people people dying from cold than from cancer [97]. Similarly, in the United States, the toll of fatalities during cold season due to energy poverty exceed those from road accidents [98]. Developed countries are more concerned with the affordability and warmth provided by energy [99,100], whereas developing countries, especially South Asia, are still struggling for the basic energy needed for cooking and access to electricity. There is very limited study on fuel poverty in cold areas in this region of the world. When discussing based on energy ladder, the household of this region is still on the lower rungs and more work needs to be carried out to provide the energy needed to move up to the higher rungs. On the other hand, the Global North has a pressing need for affordability to remain on the upper energy ladder.
Energy poverty is an absence of clean, affordable, and adequate energy for individuals, but for women, the absence of energy is not just a matter of being energy-poor. It includes being deprived of education, good health, income-generating opportunities, personal well-being, and being time-poor, leading to gender inequality for generations and creating a vicious cycle of poverty for them. Examination of the included articles revealed five overarching cross-cutting themes (Figure 2), with several instances of these themes coexisting within the same publication, as outlined in Table 1.
3.2.1. Health Impact
Energy access and health have been studied widely. As a result of energy poverty, respiratory health, mental health, and other physical health problems tend to increase or become more prevalent. Women also need to deal with energy poverty because the responsibility of cooking is often placed on them [17]; this is relevant in situations where energy poverty is defined as the inability to access modern cooking fuels and adequate lighting after sunset [101]. This concept also extends to households that are unable to obtain modern fuel sources; moreover, individuals who rely on biomass for cooking are considered to be experiencing energy poverty, according to Phoumin and Kimura (2019) [6] and González-eguino (2015) [45].
In the South, energy poverty is linked to the use of dirty fuel like fuelwood or dung cake, and a lack of clean fuel for cooking; this is referred to as performing ‘typical women-things’. Such household reproductive work has been continuing for generations and women are still bound by the socio-cultural norms of being in the domestic sphere of society. Unpaid domestic tasks like cooking and fuel management, combined with energy poverty, heavily impact women. In rural areas, where modern energy sources are scarce, reliance on solid fuels like wood or animal waste leads to indoor air pollution (IAP), directly harming health. Women are exposed to particulate matter while cooking with firewood, but the contaminants affect them even at times when they are not cooking because women spend more time inside the house inhaling the polluted air coming from the fuel wood. These particulate matter in the air remain inside a home for quite a long time due to improper ventilation. Women are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of biomass fuel smoke, as they are exposed to it for over 5 h a day while cooking, often in the presence of children, who also become vulnerable [102]. In the Global South, a female child will often help her mother with energy management and household drudgery, including fuel wood gathering, which may lead to health risks, school withdrawal, and becoming illiterate [89,90]. This deprives girls of attaining their full potential in comparison to male children. Consequently, girls miss the opportunities of earning income, and developing decision-making capabilities, and they become dependent on their husbands for financial support. This situation contributes to gender inequality and low self-efficacy within society and the family. This nexus illustrates that SDG 5, gender equality, has a high dependency on SDG 7, especially when individuals are energy-poor due to deprivation of energy access such as in South Asia and Africa. In addition, studies have shown that as household income increases, households tend to discontinue the use of fuel wood for cooking and turn to clean fuels instead. However, it is also found that there is a category of people who show self-restrictive behaviour, a phenomenon referred to as a blind spot in the energy poverty literature [103]. Those people continue using polluting fuel despite the affordability of clean fuel in their situation. Using fuel wood is not only due to energy poverty, but ease and availability including other factors like culture and tradition. Hence, indoor air pollution (without energy poverty as a prime focus) and human health (without women as a prime focus) have not been considered in the majority of studies related to energy poverty. The adoption of this criterion is also motivated by the fact that it is well established that indoor air pollution has a negative impact on health, particularly on women because they are responsible for cooking food. Furthermore, in the cold climate of China, Nepal, and India, women have to deal with both aspects of energy poverty, cold homes, and dirty fuel in the kitchen [40].
On the other hand, studies in the Global North are more inclined toward temperature-related health issues. In a Southern European city, women were disproportionately impacted by energy poverty and experienced significantly worse health outcomes compared to those not facing this issue [78]. The findings from Wilkinson et al. (2004) [83] underscore the vulnerability of older women to winter mortality, highlighting that measures to alleviate fuel poverty can reduce the number of deaths among elderly women during the colder months. Similarly, prior studies conducted in Ireland and Spain have revealed a significant disparity, with women suffering disproportionately higher rates of fuel poverty compared to men [47,104]. Another study shows that gender vulnerability in hot temperatures is as high as in cold temperatures and that older women are more susceptible to summer energy poverty [105]. The research carried out across 11 Asian countries employed structural equation modelling techniques and established a statistically significant relationship between energy poverty and women’s health [80]. Similarly, a study conducted in Barcelona found that energy poverty was associated with adverse health outcomes, with the most pronounced effects observed among women, particularly in terms of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. These health issues were attributed to indoor temperature problems caused by a gender-based division of labour [59]. Robinson (2019) [74] takes a socio-spatial approach to describing the relationship between gender and energy poverty in England, revealing pronounced gender-based energy vulnerabilities in both health and economic activities. The findings underscore the intersectional nature of energy poverty, where gender interacts with other axes of social difference such as age, disability, and socioeconomic status, further compounding vulnerabilities.
An individual’s acts may depend on the physical environment around them; for instance, faulty streetlights and blackouts can be the cause of prostitution or drug use, as posited by the broken window theory. Supporting this theory, a recent study found that energy poverty significantly increases the likelihood of young women engaging in unsafe sexual practices, such as early or unprotected sex, contracting sexually transmitted infections, and having multiple partners [82]. Moreover, this risk is heightened among those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. This study uses the data from the Demographic and Health Survey in Ghana for statistical analysis and suggests that information deprivation and economic vulnerability associated with energy poverty are contributing factors. Another statistical investigation examines the association between energy poverty and obesity, using panel data from Australia spanning from 2006 to 2019. The interesting result of this study, based on Household, Income and Labor Dynamics in Australia, is that energy poverty is strongly related to increased obesity [81].
As per the study, energy poverty contributes to obesity through two main channels: inadequate sleep and compromised general and mental health. Furthermore, the gendered allocation of household energy responsibility, specifically the task of cooking with fuelwood that has a disproportionate impact on women’s health [59,77,79]. However, male family members often trivialize the issue due to cultural norms and comparisons to past practices. In Bangladesh, authors observed that the majority of the husbands downplay women’s health complaints by citing their mothers who performed such tasks without complaints [75]. The study concluded that energy policy tends to be gender-blind, leading to energy injustice and higher energy poverty rates for women. In many low and middle-income countries, girls start cooking at the age of 15 and are exposed to indoor air pollution for the rest of their lives [106], making girl children prone to respiratory diseases [89]. Behera and Jindal (1991) [107] explained that women are exposed to the equivalent of 60,000 h of biomass smoke in their lifetime in the areas where people use biomass for cooking using 6 h per day. Various meta-analyses have also confirmed that exposure to biomass fuel smoke is associated with COPD, lung cancer, asthma, and acute respiratory infections [36,108,109]. It is also evident that biomass smoke causes cataracts [110] and increases the risk of ear diseases and infant mortality [34,37]. In addition, studies have found maternal exposure to biomass smoke causes reduced birth weights and congenital birth defects in their children, in addition to causing productivity loss among women [111]. On the contrary, clean cooking fuel was found to enhance women’s health outcomes, notably reducing the risk of diagnoses such as hypertension, cancer, respiratory disease, and depression [112]. Clean cooking fuel transition could reduce these effects; however, the adoption and sustainability of clean cooking is found to be influenced by several factors such as caste and culture, as seen in India [113], affordability and availability in Latin America [114], women’s education in Burkina Faso [115], income in Ethiopia [116], user-behaviour-oriented technology in Hondurus and Uganda [117], and household size and total expenditure in Nigeria [118].
The problem associated with energy poverty in cooking fuel is not only indoor air pollution, but also drudgery, reduced access to education, poor health, time poverty, limited income-generating opportunities, and employment [119,120]. Women endure a higher impact of energy poverty because of gender-allocated tasks inside a home because of societal expectations. The literature conceptualizes ‘home’ as a homogenous unit while studying energy poverty [20], although women experience the impact of energy poverty mostly at home and it is often the case that the home is the most gendered space within society [121]. The author investigates the gender difference in homes related to energy renovations in the study where he found that energy renovation falls under the male sphere and decisions between genders differ due to the gender division of labour in the home. The feminization of energy poverty exacerbates gender inequality and hinders women’s empowerment. A very small body of literal has analyzed the gendered impact of energy poverty.
3.2.2. Emotional Impact
Experiencing energy poverty can have significant emotional consequences due to living in conditions of domestic energy deprivation, often resulting in feelings of “not being at home in one’s own home” [20]. Zhang et al. (2022) [77] examined the impact of energy poverty on various factors such as gender, age, and employment, finding that depression rates are higher among the energy-poor, compared to those who are not. The study also revealed that energy poverty induces higher levels of depression in women than in men, aligning with the findings by Carrere et al. (2021) [78], which articulates higher depression levels in women as they have to deal with thermal discomfort at home. This heightened self-perceived depression is attributed to increased time spent at home and a sense of helplessness associated with energy poverty. Spending more time at home especially in the kitchen [14,122] due to gendered roles, women’s psychological well-being can be negatively impacted by inadequate household lighting, a smoky kitchen on their physical and mental health [123,124,125]. Additionally, the study found that women facing energy poverty are more likely to seek specialized mental health services, with significantly higher frequencies of psychiatrist and psychologist visits compared to those without energy poverty [59].
Women, facing heightened mental health risks from inadequate energy services, often must compromise on the quality and affordability of energy in their homes by rationing consumption [72]. This rationing behaviour not only negatively impacts women but also potentially contributes to the illness of elderly household members and discontent among children. Consequently, it intensifies feelings of shame and guilt among women [30]. To alleviate this guilt associated with underutilizing energy, women may limit the use of heaters or lights to times when their children or other family members are present, even though women are more sensitive to thermal comfort [126]. Scientific experiments confirm women perceive both colder and hotter temperatures as more uncomfortable compared to men in response to sudden temperature changes [127]. This means that female skin requires time to become stable when temperature deviations are present. Despite women being more sensitive to temperature, they often end up having inadequate heating or cooling, resulting in a higher impact of energy poverty to women [74].
Due to the inability to afford social interaction costs related to energy such, as bright lighting and temperature control while their friends are at home, women tend to socialize less [20]. At the same time, a study also documented that women take pride in their ability to support their families by managing energy needs during times of limited income [84]. Women cope with energy poverty by undertaking household practices and behaviours, taking on additional responsibilities for managing household energy services to lower electric expenses. A qualitative study performed in Hong Kong shows that although households are not energy-poor as per income expenditure, their household behaviour shows energy poverty due to rationing energy [128]. This task takes the mental challenge and, at times, physical discomfort. Several studies have explored how energy poverty affects mental health by causing chronic discomfort, financial worries, debt accumulation, a sense of powerlessness, and social isolation [30,129]. They also examine how energy efficiency can alleviates mental distress [130] and increase life expectancy in women [79]. In exploring women’s subjective well-being in relation to energy deprivation in Ghana, Gambia, and Sierra Leone, the research uncovered a notable adverse association between multidimensional energy poverty and happiness [88]. Additionally, the findings underscored the detrimental effect of energy poverty on women’s life satisfaction.
3.2.3. Impact on Income
Energy poverty not only leads to income loss but also results in increased expenses [84]. The study conducted in the USA found that women-headed households, especially black women, experienced the highest energy burden, requiring them to allocate a larger portion of their income toward energy expenses [19]. As a major contributing factor to energy poverty, the concept of “energy burden”, quantifies how much one’s income is dedicated to energy expenses. It not only leads to energy poverty but also exacerbates social inequalities and overall poverty. Consequently, this economic element serves as a critical determinant in shaping an individual’s experience of energy poverty, maintaining significance even when other factors remain consistent over varying time frames. A study conducted in Spain indicates that women are more likely to be in monetary poverty, which can exacerbate their experience of energy poverty [131]. Women bear the burden of affordability of energy than men [59] due to low income, hence they use less energy [76]. The study also exhibited that women are sensitive to energy poverty, but at the same time, they have lower adaptive capacity than men. Women’s decisions to adopt clean fuel over fuel wood often go unheeded, as they typically do not earn an income and do not contribute to the cost of fuel transition [75]. Lack of ownership of household assets and cost barriers to adopting modern energy sources contribute significantly to energy vulnerability among women. Hence, female-headed households exhibit higher levels of energy poverty than households headed by males, primarily due to women’s limited access to multiple sources of income [132]. Furthermore, men are supposed to have diverse sources of income, which is not possible for women due to social norms [133]. The research findings reveal that individuals involved in fuel wood collection face significant risks, including falling from trees and animal attacks, leading to income loss during their recovery. Energy poverty exacerbates the problem by diverting their time from potential labour. Similarly, women missed their chance to participate in the labour force because of respiratory issues resulting from energy poverty in Cameroon [134]. Additionally, participants in the study mentioned missing out on income opportunities like selling vegetables due to exhaustion from the physically demanding task of collecting and transporting fuelwood [84]. In South Africa, more than 67% of respondents said that income poverty is the consequence of energy poverty and 85% of them see electricity as a key driver for economic development and it can enhance their quality of life [73]. While investigating the relationship between adequate warmth in the house and the perception of women in Ukraine, it was found that fuel poverty has a higher impact on women due to lower income [85]. In this study, participants were queried about the perceived thermal comfort within their homes; the findings revealed that women experience a higher degree of energy poverty as a result of living in colder homes because they could not afford to heat their homes. This underscores the complex interplay between energy poverty, safety concerns, and economic opportunities experienced by the study participants. Furthermore, Greece illustrates the cyclical relationship between energy poverty and unemployment among women. The finding of the study shows the cyclical relationship between energy poverty and unemployment among women reflects a multifaceted issue. High energy costs contribute to economic strain, disproportionately affecting unemployed women in certain contexts; however, this impact is not uniform and depends on various factors, such as household structure, access to social support systems, and local labour market conditions [135]. Studies show bi-directional relationship between energy poverty and unemployment. Energy poverty disproportionately burden women with household chores limiting their time for employment, especially in the society where traditional gender roles are prevalent [136]. Households that were found to be in energy poverty, particularly during periods like the COVID-19 lockdown, struggled to sustain employment due to a loss of income. The loss of income diminished their capacity to access energy, which, in turn, negatively impacted their productivity and ability to engage in income-generating activities. This economic vulnerability limited their employment stability and opportunities [137]. A study also finds a significant link between energy poverty and economic growth, with energy poverty reduction boosting economic performance. It concludes that addressing energy poverty is crucial for a country’s sustainable growth and economic development [2].
3.2.4. Increased Drudgery, Time Poverty, and Sexual Assault
Women are more likely to experience energy poverty as a result of a gendered division of labour within households, which entails their involvement in unpaid domestic work, prolonged indoor stays, health issues, and limited opportunities to engage in the productive economy as noted by Robinson (2019) [74], Oliveras et al. (2020) [59] and [28]. Qualitative research conducted in Poland, Greece, and Czechia, as reported by Petrova and Simcock (2019) [20], further highlights the adverse impact of energy poverty on women’s mental and physical health, and increased household drudgery from extended indoor living and cooking responsibilities. Even though the interviews in this research do not have gender-focused questions, gendered consideration was naturally mentioned by the participants, highlighting the higher impact of energy poverty to women. There are 842.47 million sub-Saharan Africans without clean cooking electricity, with 87% residing in rural areas, primarily where there is a woman as the head of the family [76].
Across many cultures, the responsibility of gathering firewood often falls on women, exposing them to heightened vulnerabilities due to energy poverty. Hence, mothers express reluctance to send them to collect firewood, fearing potential sexual assault, as noted by Njenga et al. (2021) [84]. Instances of sexual violence against women during firewood collection, a task predominantly shouldered by women, have been documented (The UNHCR has documented numerous cases of sexual assault against refugee women in Somalia. These incidents involve brutalization by bandits during their activities of collecting fuelwood outside the safety of their camps [138].). Tragically, cases of suicide have been recorded, linked to the inability to secure sufficient wood fuel [138,139]. The impact extends beyond the immediate threat of violence. Women, on average, cover approximately 30 km each month, spending 2.7 h per trip collecting fuelwood. This not only consumes a significant amount of their time but also contributes to physical ailments such as backaches, headaches, and overall stress [140]. Tahira Abdullah, a prominent human rights activist, aptly captures this reality by stating, “Poverty has a woman’s face”. The arduous task of collecting firewood entails not only the risk of physical injury but also the looming threats of predatory attacks, time burden, sexual assault, and sometimes deformed spine and uterus prolapsed [141]. This concern is vividly echoed by over half of the respondents in Africa, all of whom were female, revealing the pervasive nature of these challenges [73]. In addition, more than 60% of the participants in Africa perceived this task not only as time-consuming but also as potentially dangerous, involving risks such as physical injuries, predatory attacks, and the fear of sexual assault accentuated by the same study. Marriage becomes their safety net, allowing them to escape this perilous task, with hopes of husbands who can afford alternative energy sources or marrying outside the village for a more secure future [84]. Despite women having limited information about energy matters and often ceding decision-making authority to their male partners in household energy issues, it was frequently the female partner who initiated various everyday adjustments to routines and behaviours aimed at conserving energy [20]. These energy-saving options are uncomfortable and increase drudgery most of the time, making them time-poor and hindering her opportunity to engage in productive activities however everyday energy-saving behavioural adaptations are often perceived as a feminine responsibility.
Lack of decision-making capability and cultural norms, exacerbate the consequences of energy poverty for women. In rural Bangladesh, women were compelled to wear full clothing while cooking over a fire, even in hot weather, which led to a heightened experience of energy poverty and energy injustice at the household level [75]. It is also observed that women tend to spend more time inside their homes compared to men, often due to their lower participation in the labour force, which contributes to a higher incidence of energy poverty among women. Moreover, Heredia’s 2022 research demonstrates that lower levels of self-efficacy and self-devaluation are contributing factors to women’s experiences of energy poverty. In the same way, energy decisions are often made by male members, as seen in Africa and Bangladesh [73,75]. While females are typically excluded from decision-making, they remain liable for the day-to-day management of energy-related tasks [20]. Given that the majority of individuals affected by energy poverty are women, Carley and Konisky (2020) [123] suggest that women should be involved in the decision-making process when formulating an energy justice policy. At the ground level, women are responsible for cooking and fuel management. Hence, the involvement of women in decision-making for energy issues like consumption and transition of fuel is important. Women’s increased earning enhances the intra-house decision-making power, therefore helping in the alleviation of energy poverty [142]. This suggests the need for rural development programs that support women by providing opportunities for income generation. Engaging local people in the implementation of development as well as energy policy is also important as they can address local needs, engage local experts, and build social capital among them. In the same way, excluding women in energy policy is a loss for the community as this may miss the contribution of women [143]. The result of the study conducted in 37 developed and developing countries concluded that, although males have more knowledge of the sustainability of energy supply, women were more concerned about the importance of sustainable energy supply [144]. This study also shows that females make better holistic associations in energy-sustainable decision-making. Therefore, gender should be taken into consideration for better results.
3.2.5. Gender Inequality and Justice
Energy poverty is closely linked to gender inequality and can contribute to the onset of new forms of inequality [20]. It is associated with increased risks of illiteracy and health issues, and this can further amplify gender-based inequalities, as previous research has emphasized [73,145]. An empirical study with a sample of 51 developing countries, covering the timeframe of 2002 to 2017, has shown that reducing energy poverty empowers women socio-economically and politically, enhancing gender equality in employment, health, and education [86,87]. Other studies support that improved energy access boosts women’s empowerment and educational outcomes globally [146,147]. Tackling energy poverty is also a matter of justice, as equitable access to energy resources can help reduce systemic gender inequalities. Moreover, addressing gender inequality in household labour and responsibilities can alleviate the effects of energy poverty for women. Energy poverty can increase physical violence due to resource deprivation [148]. Developing countries face challenges in accessing clean energy, with affordability being a key concern, while in developed countries, energy efficiency and affordability are major issues [56,149]. The perspective of energy poverty and, consequently, its impact on women may thus vary in these contexts. In the global south, energy poverty stems from the absence of electricity access [43], and, in some cases, the lack of agency women also causes energy poverty [14]. Moreover, the review emphasizes the role of cultural norms and decision-making dynamics within households, where women often lack agency in energy-related decisions. This lack of empowerment exacerbates the consequences of energy poverty for women. Inequality, both as a cause and a consequence, was identified, with energy poverty amplifying gender-based inequalities and, conversely, gender inequalities exacerbating the impact of energy poverty on women. The connection of electricity is not the conclusion of this story, but electricity can be used for various purposes which are not limited to income generation, quality of life, or self-development [3].
4. Conclusions
The contribution of this paper lies in its comprehensive examination of the intersection between energy poverty and gender, specifically focusing on the unique challenges faced by women. The findings from the analysis illuminate the intricate connections between energy poverty and various dimensions of women’s lives, from health disparities to increased drudgery, heightened emotional distress, and the perpetuation of gender inequalities. In addition, the emotional impact, encompassing feelings of guilt, shame, and depression, has been noted, emphasizing the need to consider psychological well-being in energy policies and interventions. The types of impact may look different from gender lens in going from the Global South to the Global North. In the Global South, reliance on biomass for cooking results in severe respiratory issues and mental health problems due to indoor air pollution, increasing women’s mortality and keeping them in miserable situations. Conversely, in the Global North, cold climates increase winter mortality rates, particularly among older women, with affordability and warmth being major concerns. The emotional toll of energy poverty manifests in higher depression rates among women, driven by inadequate living conditions and feelings of helplessness. Economically, energy poverty increases household expenses and income loss, especially for female-headed households, limiting women’s opportunities for education and employment. The time and physical effort required for energy-related tasks, such as collecting firewood, expose women to physical dangers and further restrict their socio-economic mobility. Addressing these issues through gender-sensitive energy policies and inclusive decision-making can alleviate the impact of energy poverty on women and promote greater gender equality, highlighting the need for a holistic and intersectional approach to energy justice.
Firstly, it is imperative to incorporate a gender perspective into energy policies, ensuring the active involvement of women in decision-making processes to address their unique needs and challenges because neutrality in the policy is criticized as a bias as it may benefit men more than women [18]. Secondly, strategies to alleviate gender inequalities in household responsibilities and labour division can help women in mitigating the consequences of energy deprivation. Furthermore, in recognizing that electricity fulfils not only practical needs but also strategic needs, efforts should be made to harness the effects on women. In addition, financial mechanisms such as microfinance and subsidies targeting women, along with awareness campaigns to promote the adoption of clean energy technologies, are important. Lastly, empowering women to enhance their self-concern and agency is crucial for minimizing the impact of energy poverty. By fostering awareness of their agency, women can proactively enhance their comfort and overall well-being in the face of energy poverty challenges. It is vital to strike a balance between energy conservation and personal welfare, encouraging prudent energy use while prioritizing individual comfort. This holistic approach promotes both energy savings and a healthier lifestyle, ultimately mitigating the impact of energy insecurity.
By shedding light on the nexus between energy poverty and gender, this review contributes valuable insights to academic literature and policy discourse by examining how energy poverty affects the achievement of SDG 7 and SDG 5. Women in the context of energy poverty face unique challenges and this review advocates for more interdisciplinary research, policy initiatives, and practical interventions that recognize these challenges. Ultimately, these efforts contribute to the achievement of SDG 7, ensuring access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all, and SDG 5, gender equality, as well as multiple other sustainable goals because energy poverty can impede the progress of those goals in the right trajectory.
Conceptualization, R.P.S. and B.M.; methodology, R.P.S. and B.M.; validation, S.P.L. and B.M.; formal analysis, R.P.S. and B.M.; investigation, R.P.S.; resources, R.P.S., B.M. and S.P.L.; data curation, R.P.S. and B.M.; writing—original draft preparation, R.P.S.; writing—review and editing, R.P.S., S.P.L., C.M. and B.M.; visualization, R.P.S.; supervision, B.M. and S.P.L.; project administration, R.P.S.; funding acquisition, B.M. and S.P.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial supports from Swedish Research Council and ongoing collaboration between Linnaeus University and Kathmandu University which led to this publication. We would also like to give special thanks to Mandip Shrestha for his review/feedback in the initial draft.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Search string and initial result.
| Database | Search Code | Initial Article Retrieved |
|---|---|---|
| Web of Science | ((energy poverty) or (fuel poverty) and (impact or effect) and (gender or wom*n)) | 306 |
| Scopus | 119 | |
| Science Direct | 299 | |
| Google Scholar | Impact of energy poverty on women | 4 (Hand-picked) |
Details of the selected articles for this review.
| SN | Journal and Publication Year | Authors | Title | First Authors Sex | Coverage of the Study (Methodology) | Central Theme |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2022) | Zhang J. et al. [ | EP and depression in Rural China: Evidence from the quantile regression approach | Male | China (Quan) | EP and depression |
| 2 | Social Science & Medicine (2012) | Banerjee, M. et al. [ | Cooking with biomass increases the risk of depression in pre-menopausal women in India | Female | India (Quan) | |
| 3 | Energies (2021) | Longe, O.M. [ | An assessment of the EP and gender nexus towards clean energy adoption in Rural South Africa | Female | South Africa (Mixed) | EP and gender |
| 4 | Geoforum (2019) | Robinson, C. [ | EP and gender in England: A spatial perspective | Female | England (Quan) | EP and gender |
| 5 | Energy Policy (2020) | Moniruzzaman, M. and Day, R. [ | Gendered EP and energy justice in rural Bangladesh | Male | Bangladesh (Qual) | |
| 6 | Energy for Sustainable Development (2022) | Heredia, M.G. et al. [ | Mainstreaming a gender perspective into the study of EP in the city of Madrid | Female | Spain (Qual) | |
| 7 | Energy Policy (2022) | Ngarava, S. et al. [ | Gender and ethnic disparities in EP: The case of South Africa | Male | South Africa (Quan) | |
| 8 | Social & Cultural Geography (2019) | Petrova, S. and Simcock, N. [ | Gender and energy: Domestic inequities reconsidered | Female | Poland, Greece and Czechia (Qual) | |
| 9 | Frontiers in Public Health (2022) | Zhang, Z.Y. et al. [ | Is there gender inequality in the impacts of EP on health? | Male | China (Quan) | |
| 10 | SSM—Population Health (2020) | Oliveras, L. et al. [ | The association of EP with health, health care utilisation and medication use in Southern Europe | Female | Spain (Quan) | EP and health |
| 11 | Gaceta Sanitaria (2021) | Carrere, J. et al. [ | EP, its intensity and health in vulnerable populations in a Southern European city | Female | Spain (Quan) | |
| 12 | Energy Economics (2021) | Pan, L. et al. [ | EP and public health: Global evidence | Male | 175 countries (Quan) | |
| 13 | Energy and Buildings (2021) | Abbas, K. et al. [ | Health implications of household multidimensional EP for women: A structural equation modeling technique | Male | South and South East Asia (11 countries) (Quan) | |
| 14 | Energy Economics (2021) | Prakash, K. and Munyanyi, M.E. [ | EP and obesity | Male | Australia (Quan) | EP and obesity |
| 15 | SSM-Population Health (2024) | Okyere, M. et al. [ | Energy and vulnerability: Exploring the energy poverty-risky sexual behavior nexus among young women in Ghana | Male | Ghana (Quan) | EP and risky sexual activities among women |
| 16 | International Journal of Health Services (2016) | Marí-Dell’Olmo, M. et al. [ | Housing Policies and Health Inequalities | Male | Spain (Quan) | FP and mental health |
| 17 | Br. Med. J. (2004) | Wilkinson, P. et al. [ | Vulnerability to winter mortality in elderly people in Britain: Population based study. | Male | Britain (Quan) | FP and mortality |
| 18 | Energy Research & Social Science (2021) | Njenga, M. et al. [ | Women’s work is never done: Lifting the gendered burden of firewood collection and household energy use in Kenya | Male | Kenya (Mixed) | Energy burden and women |
| 19 | iScience (2022) | Chen, C. et al. [ | Localized energy burden, concentrated disadvantage, and the feminization of EP | Female | USA (Quan) | |
| 20 | Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space (2013) | Petrova, S. et al. [ | Perceptions of thermal comfort and housing quality: Exploring the micro-geographies of EP in Stakhanov, Ukraine | Female | Ukraine (Quan) | EP and housing condition |
| 21 | Energy for Sustainable Development (2021) | Nguyen, C. and Su, T. [ | Does energy poverty matter for gender inequality? Global evidence | Male | 51 Developing countries (Quan) | EP and gender inequality |
| 22 | Technological Forecasting & Social Change (2024) | Acheampong, A.O. et al. [ | Energy poverty and gender equality in education: Unpacking the transmission channels | Male | 98 Countries (Quan) | |
| 23 | Applied Research Quality Life (2024) | Nsenkyire, E. et al. [ | Multidimensional Energy Poverty in West Africa: Implication for Women’s Subjective Well-being and Cognitive Health | Female | Gambia, Sierra Leone, and Ghana (Quan) | EP and happiness and life satisfaction |
| 24 | Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy (2021) | Bakehe, N.P. [ | Indoor air pollution and gender difference in respiratory health and schooling for children in Cameroon | Male | Cameroon (Quan) | EP and education |
| 25 | Journal of Asian Economics (2021) | O’Brien, J. et al. [ | The effects of fuelwood on children’s schooling in rural Vietnam | Male | Vietnam (Quan) |
EP = Energy Poverty; FP = Fuel Poverty; Quan = Quantitative; Qual = Qualitative.
Appendix A
Reasons for removal while first screening in title and abstract.
| Study Area of Papers | Scopus | Science Direct | Web of Science |
|---|---|---|---|
| Climate change | 1 | 27 | 15 |
| Diet, health, and nutrition | 20 | 20 | 40 |
| Medical | 9 | 13 | 15 |
| Forest resource | 1 | 12 | 3 |
| Language | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| Entrepreneurship | 0 | 6 | 16 |
| Solar energy | 0 | 3 | 9 |
| CO2 emission | 0 | 11 | 3 |
| Agriculture and farming | 0 | 24 | 9 |
| Electricity consumption | 1 | 6 | 9 |
| Cooking fuel adoption | 2 | 5 | 10 |
| Disability and freedom to movement | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Marketization and finance | 0 | 0 | 17 |
| Other papers that are irrelevant to energy poverty | 3 | 131 | 20 |
| 37 | 259 | 175 |
Appendix B
Reasons for exclusion after full text screening.
| Focus of the Study | Number of Excluded Articles |
|---|---|
| Children and EP | 3 |
| Culture/race/remittance and EP | 5 |
| Calculation/determinant of EP | 3 |
| Time poverty/Fuel stacking | 5 |
| Single parent/elderly people and fuel poverty | 2 |
| Energy access/energy transition | 14 |
| Income/development and EP | 6 |
| Women politician and EP | 1 |
| Mitigating EP | 1 |
| Crime and EP | 1 |
| Clean cooking fuel | 5 |
| Diet, health and nutrition | 28 |
| Other papers not based on impact of EP on women | 101 |
| Total | 180 |
Appendix C
Variable codes of the selected articles.
| Journal name |
| Publication year |
| Authors |
| Title |
| Authors gender |
| Coverage of the study |
| Methodology |
| The central theme of the article |
Appendix D
Selected articles continent-wise.
| SN | Journal and Publication Year | Title | Region of Study | Central Theme |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Energies (2021) | An assessment of the EP and gender nexus towards clean energy adoption in Rural South Africa | Africa | EP and gender |
| 2 | Energy Policy (2022) | Gender and ethnic disparities in EP: The case of South Africa | EP and gender | |
| 3 | SSM-Population Health (2024) | Energy and vulnerability: Exploring the energy poverty-risky sexual behavior nexus among young women in Ghana | EP and risky sexual activities among women | |
| 4 | Energy Research & Social Science (2021) | Women’s work is never done: Lifting the gendered burden of firewood collection and household energy use in Kenya | Energy burden and women | |
| 5 | Applied Research Quality Life (2024) | Multidimensional Energy Poverty in West Africa: Implication for Women’s Subjective Well-being and Cognitive Health | EP and happiness and life satisfaction | |
| 6 | Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy (2021) | Indoor air pollution and gender difference in respiratory health and schooling for children in Cameroon | EP and education | |
| 7 | iScience (2022) | Localized energy burden, concentrated disadvantage, and the feminization of EP | America | Energy burden and women |
| 8 | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2022) | EP and depression in Rural China: Evidence from the quantile regression approach | Asia | EP and depression |
| 9 | Social Science & Medicine (2012) | Cooking with biomass increases the risk of depression in pre-menopausal women in India | EP and depression | |
| 10 | Energy Policy (2020) | Gendered EP and energy justice in rural Bangladesh | EP and gender | |
| 11 | Frontiers in Public Health (2022) | Is there gender inequality in the impacts of EP on health? | EP and gender | |
| 12 | Energy and Buildings (2021) | Health implications of household multidimensional EP for women: A structural equation modeling technique | EP and health | |
| 13 | Journal of Asian Economics (2021) | The effects of fuelwood on children’s schooling in rural Vietnam | EP and education | |
| 14 | Energy Economics (2021) | EP and obesity | Australia | EP and obesity |
| 15 | Geoforum (2019) | EP and gender in England: A spatial perspective | Europe | EP and gender |
| 16 | Energy for Sustainable Development (2022) | Mainstreaming a gender perspective into the study of EP in the city of Madrid | EP and gender | |
| 17 | Social &Cultural Geography (2019) | Gender and energy: Domestic inequities reconsidered | EP and gender | |
| 18 | SSM—Population Health (2020) | The association of EP with health, health care utilisation and medication use in Southern Europe | EP and health | |
| 19 | Gaceta Sanitaria (2021) | EP, its intensity and health in vulnerable populations in a Southern European city | EP and health | |
| 20 | International Journal of Health Services (2016) | Housing Policies and Health Inequalities | FP and mental health | |
| 21 | Br. Med. J. (2004) | Vulnerability to winter mortality in elderly people in Britain: Population based study. | FP and mortality | |
| 22 | Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space (2013) | Perceptions of thermal comfort and housing quality: Exploring the micro-geographies of EP in Stakhanov, Ukraine | ||
| 23 | Energy Economics (2021) | EP and public health: Global evidence | Global Studies | EP and health |
| 24 | Energy for Sustainable Development (2021) | Does energy poverty matter for gender inequality? Global evidence | EP and gender inequality | |
| 25 | Technological Forecasting & Social Change (2024) | Energy poverty and gender equality in education: Unpacking the transmission channels | EP and gender inequality |
References
1. Cleveland, C.J.; Morris, C. Handbook of Energy; 1st ed. Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013.
2. Ullah, S.; Khan, M.; Yoon, S.M. Measuring Energy Poverty and Its Impact on Economic Growth in Pakistan. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 10969. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su131910969]
3. Pradhan Shrestha, R.; Jirakiattikul, S.; Shrestha, M. “Electricity Is Result of My Good Deeds”: An Analysis of the Benefit of Rural Electrification from the Women’s Perspective in Rural Nepal. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2023; 105, 103268. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103268]
4. Xie, Y.; Xie, E. Measuring and Analyzing the Welfare Effects of Energy Poverty in Rural China Based on a Multi-Dimensional Energy Poverty Index. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 13603. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151813603]
5. Aweke, A.T.; Navrud, S. Valuing Energy Poverty Costs: Household Welfare Loss from Electricity Blackouts in Developing Countries. Energy Econ.; 2022; 109, 105943. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.105943]
6. Phoumin, H.; Kimura, F. Cambodia’s Energy Poverty and Its Effects on Social Wellbeing: Empirical Evidence and Policy Implications. Energy Policy; 2019; 132, pp. 283-289. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.032]
7. Zhang, L.; Xiao, Y.; Wu, Q.; Li, J. Will the Use of Solid Fuels Reduce the Life Satisfaction of Rural Residents—Evidence from China. Energy Sustain. Dev.; 2022; 68, pp. 94-102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2022.03.006]
8. Mainali, B.; Pachauri, S.; Nagai, Y. Analyzing Cooking Fuel and Stove Choices in China till 2030. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy; 2012; 4, 031805. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4730416]
9. Moura, P.; Fonseca, P.; Cunha, I.; Morais, N. Diagnosing Energy Poverty in Portugal through the Lens of a Social Survey. Energies; 2024; 17, 4087. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en17164087]
10. Nguyen, C.P.; Nasir, M.A. An Inquiry into the Nexus between Energy Poverty and Income Inequality in the Light of Global Evidence. Energy Econ.; 2021; 99, 105289. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105289]
11. Pradhan Shrestha, R.; Jirakiattikul, S.; Lohani, S.P.; Shrestha, M. Perceived Impact of Electricity on Productive End Use and Its Reality: Transition from Electricity to Income for Rural Nepalese Women. Energy Policy; 2023; 183, 113839. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113839]
12. Pueyo, A.; Maestre, M. Linking Energy Access, Gender and Poverty: A Review of the Literature on Productive Uses of Energy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2019; 53, pp. 170-181. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.019]
13. Winther, T.; Matinga, M.N.; Ulsrud, K.; Standal, K. Women’s Empowerment through Electricity Access: Scoping Study and Proposal for a Framework of Analysis. J. Dev. Eff.; 2017; 9, pp. 389-417. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2017.1343368]
14. Choragudi, S. Do All the Empowered Women Promote Smokeless Kitchens? Investigating Rural India. J. Clean. Prod.; 2024; 447, 140903. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140903]
15. Pradhan Shrestha, R.; Jirakiattikul, S.; Chapagain, B.; Katuwal, H.; Gyawali, S.; Shrestha, M. Biogas Adoption and Its Impact on Women and the Community: Evidence from Nepal. Int. J. Environ. Stud.; 2024; 81, pp. 537-553. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2024.2323296]
16. Shrestha, B.; Tiwari, S.R.; Bajracharya, S.B.; Keitsch, M.M.; Rijal, H.B. Review on the Importance of Gender Perspective in Household Energy-Saving Behavior and Energy Transition for Sustainability. Energies; 2021; 14, 7571. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14227571]
17. Clancy, J.S.; Skutsch, M.; Batchelor, S. The Gender-Energy-Poverty Nexus: Finding the Energy to Address Gender Concerns in Development; University of Twente: Enschede, The Netherlands, 2003.
18. Osunmuyiwa, O.; Ahlborg, H. Inclusiveness by Design? Reviewing Sustainable Electricity Access and Entrepreneurship from a Gender Perspective. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2019; 53, pp. 145-158. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.03.010]
19. Chen, C.F.; Feng, J.; Luke, N.; Kuo, C.P.; Fu, J.S. Localized Energy Burden, Concentrated Disadvantage, and the Feminization of Energy Poverty. iScience; 2022; 25, 104139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.104139]
20. Petrova, S.; Simcock, N. Gender and Energy: Domestic Inequities Reconsidered. Soc. Cult. Geogr.; 2021; 22, pp. 849-867. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2019.1645200]
21. Chan, C.; Delina, L.L. Energy Poverty and beyond: The State, Contexts, and Trajectories of Energy Poverty Studies in Asia. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2023; 102, 103168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103168]
22. Üstündağlı Erten, E.; Güzeloğlu, E.B.; Ifaei, P.; Khalilpour, K.; Ifaei, P.; Yoo, C.K. Decoding Intersectionality: A Systematic Review of Gender and Energy Dynamics under the Structural and Situational Effects of Contexts. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2024; 110, 103432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103432]
23. Wang, C.; Wang, J.; Norbäck, D. A Systematic Review of Associations between Energy Use, Fuel Poverty, Energy Efficiency Improvements and Wealth. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 7393. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127393]
24. Siksnelyte-butkiene, I.; Streimikiene, D.; Lekavicius, V.; Balezentis, T. Energy Poverty Indicators: A Systematic Literature Review and Comprehensive Analysis of Integrity. Sustain. Cities Soc.; 2021; 67, 102756. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102756]
25. Simcock, N.; Jenkins, K.E.H.; Lacey-Barnacle, M.; Martiskainen, M.; Mattioli, G.; Hopkins, D. Identifying Double Energy Vulnerability: A Systematic and Narrative Review of Groups at-Risk of Energy and Transport Poverty in the Global North. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2021; 82, 102351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102351]
26. Ballesteros-Arjona, V.; Oliveras, L.; Munoz, J.G.; Olry, A.; Carrere, J.; Ruiz, E.M.; Peralta, A.; Leon, A.C.; Rodriguez, I.M.; Daponte-Codina, A. et al. What Are the Effects of Energy Poverty and Interventions to Ameliorate It on People’s Health and Well-Being?: A Scoping Review with an Equity Lens. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2022; 87, 102456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102456]
27. Munien, S.; Ahmed, F. A Gendered Perspective on Energy Poverty and Livelihoods–Advancing the Millennium Development Goals in Developing Countries. Agenda; 2012; 26, pp. 112-123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2012.674252]
28. Pachauri, S.; Rao, N.D. Gender Impacts and Determinants of Energy Poverty: Are We Asking the Right Questions?. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.; 2013; 5, pp. 205-215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.04.006]
29. Listo, R. Gender Myths in Energy Poverty Literature: A Critical Discourse Analysis. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2018; 38, pp. 9-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.01.010]
30. Heredia, M.G.; Sánchez-Guevara Sánchez, C.; Núñez Peiró, M.; Sanz Fernández, A.; López-Bueno, J.A.; Muñoz Gómez, G. Mainstreaming a Gender Perspective into the Study of Energy Poverty in the City of Madrid. Energy Sustain. Dev.; 2022; 70, pp. 290-300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2022.08.007]
31. Clancy, J.S.; Feenstra, M. Women, Gender Equality and the Energy Transition in the EU; University of Twente: Enschede, The Netherlands, 2019.
32. Fathallah, J.; Pyakurel, P. Addressing Gender in Energy Studies. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2020; 65, 101461. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101461]
33. Awaworyi Churchill, S.; Smyth, R. Energy Poverty and Health: Panel Data Evidence from Australia. Energy Econ.; 2021; 97, 105219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105219]
34. Alam, B.; Acharjee, S.; Mahmud, S.M.A.; Akter, J.; Ali, M.; Islam, S.; Khan, N. Household Air Pollution from Cooking Fuels and Its Association with Under-Five Mortality in Bangladesh. Clin. Epidemiol. Glob. Health; 2022; 17, 101134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cegh.2022.101134]
35. Brown, H.; Vera-Toscano, E. Energy Poverty and Its Relationship with Health: Empirical Evidence on the Dynamics of Energy Poverty and Poor Health in Australia. SN Bus. Econ.; 2021; 1, 139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43546-021-00149-3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34806029]
36. Kurmi, O.P.; Arya, P.H.; Lam, K.H.; Sorahan, T.; Ayres, J.G. Lung Cancer Risk and Solid Fuel Smoke Exposure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur. Respir. J.; 2012; 40, pp. 1228-1237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00099511] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22653775]
37. Lee, D.H.; Han, J.; Jang, M.; Suh, M.W.; Lee, J.H. Association between Meniere s Disease and Air Pollution in South Korea. Sci. Rep.; 2021; 11, 13128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92355-0]
38. Bradshaw, J.; Hutton, S. Social Policy Option and Fuel Poverty. J. Econ. Psychol.; 1983; 3, pp. 249-266. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(83)90005-3]
39. IEA. Energy Access Outlook 2017: From Poverty to Prosperity. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-access-outlook-2017 (accessed on 26 February 2025).
40. Li, K.; Lloyd, B.; Liang, X.; Wei, Y. Energy Poor or Fuel Poor: What Are the Differences?. Energy Policy; 2014; 68, pp. 476-481. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.012]
41. Qurat-ul-Ann, A.-R.; Mirza, F.M. Meta-Analysis of Empirical Evidence on Energy Poverty: The Case of Developing Economies. Energy Policy; 2020; 141, 111444. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111444]
42. Parajuli, R. Access to Energy in Mid/Far West Region-Nepal from the Perspective of Energy Poverty. Renew. Energy; 2011; 36, pp. 2299-2304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.01.014]
43. Pachauri, S.; Spreng, D. Energy in and Use Relation Access Energy to Poverty. Econ. Polit. Wkly.; 2004; 39, pp. 271-278.
44. Sovacool, B.K.; Cooper, C.; Bazilian, M.; Johnson, K.; Zoppo, D.; Clarke, S.; Eidsness, J.; Crafton, M.; Velumail, T.; Raza, H.A. What Moves and Works: Broadening the Consideration of Energy Poverty. Energy Policy; 2012; 42, pp. 715-719. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.007]
45. González-eguino, M. Energy Poverty: An Overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2015; 47, pp. 377-385. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.013]
46. Munyanyi, M.E.; Mintah, K.; Baako, K.T. Energy-Related Deprivation and Housing Tenure Transitions. Energy Econ.; 2021; 98, 105235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105235]
47. Marí-Dell’Olmo, M.; Novoa, A.M.; Camprubí, L.; Peralta, A.; Vásquez-Vera, H.; Bosch, J.; Amat, J.; Díaz, F.; Palència, L.; Mehdipanah, R. et al. Housing Policies and Health Inequalities. Int. J. Health Serv.; 2016; 47, pp. 207-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0020731416684292] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28030990]
48. Sadath, A.C.; Acharya, R.H. Assessing the Extent and Intensity of Energy Poverty Using Multidimensional Energy Poverty Index: Empirical Evidence from Households in India. Energy Policy; 2017; 102, pp. 540-550. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.056]
49. Oliveras, L.; Peralta, A.; Palencia, L.; Gotsens, M.; Lopez, M.J.; Artazcoz, L.; Borrell, C.; Olmo, M.M. Energy Poverty and Health: Trends in the European Union before and during the Economic Crisis, 2007–2016. Health Place; 2021; 67, 102294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102294]
50. Gillard, R.; Snell, C.; Bevan, M. Advancing an Energy Justice Perspective of Fuel Poverty: Household Vulnerability and Domestic Retro Fit Policy in the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2017; 29, pp. 53-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.012]
51. Bouzarovski, S. Energy Poverty in the European Union: Landscapes of Vulnerability. WIREs Energy Environ.; 2014; 3, pp. 276-289. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wene.89]
52. Lesala, M.E.; Shambira, N.; Makaka, G.; Mukumba, P. Exploring Energy Poverty among Off-Grid Households in the Upper Blinkwater Community, South Africa. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 4627. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16114627]
53. Sule, I.K.; Yusuf, A.M.; Salihu, M.-K. Impact of Energy Poverty on Education Inequality and Infant Mortality in Some Selected African Countries. Energy Nexus; 2022; 5, 100034. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2021.100034]
54. Sen, K.K.; Singha, B.; Karmaker, S.C.; Bari, W.; Chapman, A.J.; Khan, A.; Saha, B.B. Evaluating the Relationship between Energy Poverty and Child Disability: A Multilevel Analysis Based on Low and Middle-Income Countries. Energy Sustain. Dev.; 2023; 77, 101331. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2023.101331]
55. Zhang, Q.; Appau, S.; Lord, P. Energy Poverty, Children’s Wellbeing and the Mediating Role of Academic Performance: Evidence from China. Energy Econ.; 2021; 97, 105206. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105206]
56. Zhang, D.; Li, J.; Han, P. A Multidimensional Measure of Energy Poverty in China and Its Impacts on Health: An Empirical Study Based on the China Family Panel Studies. Energy Policy; 2019; 131, pp. 72-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.04.037]
57. Cuerdo-Vilches, T.; Navas-Martín, M.Á. Examining Energy Poverty among Vulnerable Women-Led Households in Urban Housing before and after COVID-19 Lockdown: A Case Study from a Neighbourhood in Madrid, Spain. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 6680. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16156680]
58. Thomson, H.; Snell, C.; Bouzarovski, S. Health, Well-Being and Energy Poverty in Europe: A Comparative Study of 32 European Countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2017; 14, 584. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14060584] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28561767]
59. Oliveras, L.; Artazcoz, L.; Borrell, C.; Palència, L.; López, M.J.; Gotsens, M.; Peralta, A.; Marí-Dell’Olmo, M. The Association of Energy Poverty with Health, Health Care Utilisation and Medication Use in Southern Europe. SSM Popul. Health; 2020; 12, 100665. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100665]
60. Bîrsănuc, E. Correction to: Mapping Gendered Vulnerability to Energy Poverty in Romania. Appl. Spat. Anal. Policy; 2023; 16, 400006. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12061-023-09503-4]
61. Sánchez Sánchez-guevara, C.; Fernández, A.S.; Peiró, M.N. Feminisation of Energy Poverty in the City of Madrid. Energy Build.; 2020; 223, 110157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110157]
62. Rabha, R.; Ghosh, S.; Padhy, P.K. Effects of Biomass Burning on Pulmonary Functions in Tribal Women in Northeastern India. Women Health; 2019; 59, pp. 229-239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2018.1452834] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30067466]
63. Alim, M.A.; Sarker, M.A.B.; Selim, S.; Karim, M.R.; Yoshida, Y.; Hamajima, N. Respiratory Involvements among Women Exposed to the Smoke of Traditional Biomass Fuel and Gas Fuel in a District of Bangladesh. Environ. Health Prev. Med.; 2014; 19, pp. 126-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12199-013-0364-4]
64. Oluwole, O.; Ana, G.R.; Arinola, G.O.; Wiskel, T.; Falusi, A.G.; Huo, D.; Olopade, O.I.; Olopade, C.O. Effect of Stove Intervention on Household Air Pollution and the Respiratory Health of Women and Children in Rural. Air Qual. Atmos. Health; 2013; 6, pp. 553-561. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11869-013-0196-9]
65. Chen, F.; Lin, Z.; Chen, R.; Norback, D.; Liu, C.; Kan, H.; Deng, Q.; Huang, C.; Hu, Y.; Zou, Z. et al. The Effects of PM2.5 on Asthmatic and Allergic Diseases or Symptoms in Preschool Children of Six Chinese Cities, Based on China, Children, Homes and Health (CCHH) Project. Environ. Pollut.; 2018; 232, pp. 329-337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.072] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28970023]
66. Fernandes, A.G.O.; Machado, C.D.S.; Pinheiro, G.P.; Telles De Oliva, S.; Cristina, R.; Mota, R.C.L.; Lima, V.B.D.e.; Cruz, C.S.; Chatkin, J.M.; Cruz, Á.A. Dual Exposure to Smoking and Household Air Pollution Is Associated with an Increased Risk of Severe Asthma in Adults in Brazil. Clin. Transl. Allergy; 2018; 8, 48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13601-018-0235-6] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30555680]
67. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Int. J. Surg.; 2010; 8, pp. 336-341. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007]
68. Zhu, J.; Liu, W. A Tale of Two Databases: The Use of Web of Science and Scopus in Academic Papers. Scientometrics; 2020; 123, pp. 321-335. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8]
69. Gusenbauer, M.; Haddaway, N.R. Which Academic Search Systems Are Suitable for Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses? Evaluating Retrieval Qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 Other Resources. Res. Synth. Methods; 2020; 11, pp. 181-217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378]
70. Ishtiaque, A.; Masrur, A.; Rabby, Y.W.; Jerin, T.; Dewan, A. Remote Sensing-Based Research for Monitoring Progress towards SDG 15 in Bangladesh: A Review. Remote Sens.; 2020; 12, 691. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs12040691]
71. Zhang, J.; He, Y.; Zhang, J. Energy Poverty and Depression in Rural China: Evidence from the Quantile Regression Approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 1006. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19021006]
72. Banerjee, M.; Siddique, S.; Dutta, A.; Mukherjee, B.; Ray, M.R. Cooking with Biomass Increases the Risk of Depression in Pre-Menopausal Women in India. Soc. Sci. Med.; 2012; 75, pp. 565-572. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.021]
73. Longe, O.M. An Assessment of the Energy Poverty and Gender Nexus towards Clean Energy Adoption in Rural South Africa. Energies; 2021; 14, 3708. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14123708]
74. Robinson, C. Energy Poverty and Gender in England: A Spatial Perspective. Geoforum; 2019; 104, pp. 222-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.05.001]
75. Moniruzzaman, M.; Day, R. Gendered Energy Poverty and Energy Justice in Rural Bangladesh. Energy Policy; 2020; 144, 111554. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111554]
76. Ngarava, S.; Zhou, L.; Ningi, T.; Chari, M.M.; Mdiya, L. Gender and Ethnic Disparities in Energy Poverty: The Case of South Africa. Energy Policy; 2022; 161, 112755. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112755]
77. Zhang, Z.; Linghu, Y.; Meng, X.; Yi, H. Is There Gender Inequality in the Impacts of Energy Poverty on Health?. Front. Public Health; 2022; 10, 986548. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.986548]
78. Carrere, J.; Peralta, A.; Oliveras, L.; López, M.J.; Marí-Dell’Olmo, M.; Benach, J.; Novoa, A.M. Energy Poverty, Its Intensity and Health in Vulnerable Populations in a Southern European City. Gac. Sanit.; 2021; 35, pp. 438-444. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2020.07.007]
79. Pan, L.; Biru, A.; Lettu, S. Energy Poverty and Public Health: Global Evidence. Energy Econ.; 2021; 101, 105423. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105423]
80. Abbas, K.; Xu, D.; Li, S.; Baz, K. Health Implications of Household Multidimensional Energy Poverty for Women: A Structural Equation Modeling Technique. Energy Build.; 2021; 234, 110661. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110661]
81. Prakash, K.; Munyanyi, M.E. Energy Poverty and Obesity. Energy Econ.; 2021; 101, 105428. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105428]
82. Okyere, M.A.; Chirstian, A.K.; Essel-gaisey, F. Energy and Vulnerability: Exploring the Energy Poverty-Risky Sexual Behavior Nexus among Young Women in Ghana. SSM Popul. Health; 2024; 25, 101597. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2023.101597]
83. Wilkinson, P.; Pattenden, S.; Armstrong, B.; Fletcher, A.; Kovats, R.S.; Mangtani, P.; McMichael, A.J. Vulnerability to Winter Mortality in Elderly People in Britain: Population Based Study. Br. Med. J.; 2004; 329, pp. 647-651. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38167.589907.55]
84. Njenga, M.; Gitau, J.K.; Mendum, R. Women’s Work Is Never Done: Lifting the Gendered Burden of Firewood Collection and Household Energy Use in Kenya. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2021; 77, 102071. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102071]
85. Petrova, S.; Gentile, M.; Bouzarovski, S.; Mäkinen, I.H. Perceptions of Thermal Comfort and Housing Quality: Exploring the Microgeographies of Energy Poverty in Stakhanov, Ukraine. Environ. Plan. A; 2013; 45, pp. 1240-1257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a45132]
86. Nguyen, C.P.; Su, T.D. Does Energy Poverty Matter for Gender Inequality? Global Evidence. Energy Sustain. Dev.; 2021; 64, pp. 35-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2021.07.003]
87. Acheampong, A.O.; Opoku, E.E.O.; Amankwaa, A.; Dzator, J. Energy Poverty and Gender Equality in Education: Unpacking the Transmission Channels. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change; 2024; 202, 123274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123274]
88. Nsenkyire, E.; Nunoo, J.; Sebu, J.; Nkrumah, R.K.; Amankwano, P. Multidimensional Energy Poverty in West Africa: Implication for Women’s Subjective Well-Being and Cognitive Health. Appl. Res. Qual. Life; 2024; 19, pp. 859-880. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11482-024-10271-7]
89. Bakehe, N.P. Indoor Air Pollution and Gender Difference in Respiratory Health and Schooling for Children in Cameroon. Rev. Soc. Econ.; 2024; 82, pp. 294-315. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2021.1986634]
90. O’Brien, J.; Do, P.; Edelson, M. The Effects of Fuelwood on Children’s Schooling in Rural Vietnam. J. Asian Econ.; 2021; 72, 101266. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2020.101266]
91. Marmot Review Team. The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel Poverty; Institute of Health Equity: London, UK, 2011.
92. Jones, O. Thousands of People in the UK Are Dying from the Cold, and Fuel Poverty Is to Blame; The Guardian, 27 February 2020. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/dying-cold-europe-fuel-poverty-energy-spending (accessed on 26 February 2025).
93. Grey, C.N.B.; Schmieder-gaite, T.; Jiang, S.; Nascimento, C.; Poortinga, W. Cold Homes, Fuel Poverty and Energy Efficiency Improvements: A Longitudinal Focus Group Approach. Indoor Built Environ.; 2017; 26, pp. 902-913. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1420326X17703450]
94. Clair, A.; Baker, E. Cold Homes and Mental Health Harm: Evidence from the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Soc. Sci. Med.; 2022; 314, 115461. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115461]
95. Bednar, D.J.; Reames, T.G. Recognition of and Response to Energy Poverty in the United States. Nat. Energy; 2020; 5, pp. 432-439. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0582-0]
96. Burguillo, M.; Barisone, M.; Juez-martel, P. Which Cooking and Heating Fuels Are More Likely to Be Used in Energy-Poor Households? Exploring Energy and Fuel Poverty in Argentina. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2022; 87, 102481. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102481]
97. Guertler, P.; Smith, P. Cold Homes and Excess Winter Deaths; E3G: London, UK, 2018.
98. Teller-Elsberg, J.; Sovacool, B.; Smith, T.; Laine, E. Fuel Poverty, Excess Winter Deaths, and Energy Costs in Vermont: Burdensome for Whom?. Energy Policy; 2016; 90, pp. 81-91. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.12.009]
99. Karpinska, L.; Śmiech, S. Invisible Energy Poverty? Analysing Housing Costs in Central and Eastern Europe. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2020; 70, 101670. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101670]
100. Dubois, U.; Meier, H. Energy Affordability and Energy Inequality in Europe: Implications for Policymaking. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2016; 18, pp. 21-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.015]
101. Gaye, A. Access to Energy and Human Development, Human Development; Report 2007/2008 UNDP: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
102. Sharma, D.; Jain, S. Impact of Intervention of Biomass Cookstove Technologies and Kitchen Characteristics on Indoor Air Quality and Human Exposure in Rural Settings of India. Environ. Int.; 2019; 123, pp. 240-255. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.11.059] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30544089]
103. Eisfeld, K.; Seebauer, S. The Energy Austerity Pitfall: Linking Hidden Energy Poverty with Self-Restriction in Household Use in Austria. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2022; 84, 102427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102427]
104. Healy, J.D.; Clinch, J.P. Quantifying the Severity of Fuel Poverty, Its Relationship with Poor Housing and Reasons for Non-Investment in Energy-Saving Measures in Ireland. Energy Policy; 2004; 32, pp. 207-220. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00265-3]
105. Nunez-Peiro, M.; Sanchez, C.S.-G.; Sanz-Fernandez, A.; Gayoso-Heredia, M.; Lopez-Bueno, J.; Gonzalez, F.J.N.; Linares, C.; Diaz, J.; Gomez-Munoz, G. Exposure and Vulnerability Toward Summer Energy Poverty in the City of Madrid: A Gender Perspective. Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions; Bisello, A.; Vettorato, D.; Haarstad, H.; Beurden, J.B. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; ISBN 9783030573317
106. Salvi, S.; Barnes, P.J. Is Exposure to Biomass Smoke the Biggest Risk Factor for COPD Globally. Chest; 2010; 138, pp. 3-6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.10-0645] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20605806]
107. Behera, D.; Jindal, S.K. Respiratory Symptoms in Indian Women Using Domestic Cooking Fuels. Chest; 1991; 100, pp. 385-388. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.100.2.385]
108. Po, J.Y.T.; Fitzgerald, J.M.; Carlsten, C. Respiratory Disease Associated with Solid Biomass Fuel Exposure in Rural Women and Children: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Thorax; 2011; 66, pp. 232-239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/thx.2010.147884]
109. Sumpter, C.; Chandramohan, D. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Associations between Indoor Air Pollution and Tuberculosis. Trop. Med. Int. Health; 2013; 18, pp. 101-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tmi.12013]
110. Patel, M.; Shrestha, M.K.; Manandhar, A.; Gurung, R.; Sadhra, S.; Cusack, R.; Chaudhary, N.; Ruit, S.; Ayres, J.; Kurmi, O.P. Effect of Exposure to Biomass Smoke from Cooking Fuel Types and Eye Disorders in Women from Hilly and Plain Regions of Nepal. Br. J. Ophthalmol.; 2022; 106, pp. 141-148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316766] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32920527]
111. Kc, A.; Halme, S.; Gurung, R.; Basnet, O.; Olsson, E.; Malmqvist, E. Association between Usage of Household Cooking Fuel and Congenital Birth Defects-18 Months Multi-Centric Cohort Study in Nepal. Arch. Public Health; 2023; 81, 144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13690-023-01169-1] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37568204]
112. Li, F.; Chandio, A.A.; Duan, Y.; Zang, D. How Does Clean Energy Consumption Affect Women’s Health: New Insights from China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 7943. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137943]
113. Goswami, A.; Bandyopadhyay, K.R.; Kumar, A. Exploring the nature of rural energy transition in India Insights from case studies of eight villages in Bihar. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag.; 2017; 11, pp. 463-479. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-11-2016-0001]
114. Gould, C.F.; Schlesinger, S.B.; Molina, E.; Bejarano, M.L.; Valarezo, A.; Jack, D.W. Household fuel mixes in peri-urban and rural Ecuador: Explaining the context of LPG, patterns of continued firewood use, and the challenges of induction cooking. Energy Policy; 2020; 136, 111053. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111053] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32675905]
115. Sana, A.; Kafando, B.; Dramaix, M.; Meda, N.; Bouland, C. Household energy choice for domestic cooking: Distribution and factors influencing cooking fuel preference in Ouagadougou. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2020; 27, pp. 18902-18910. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08427-7]
116. Wassie, Y.T.; Rannestad, M.M.; Adaramola, M.S. Determinants of household energy choices in rural sub-Saharan Africa: An example from southern Ethiopia. Energy; 2021; 221, 119785. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.119785]
117. Pakravan, M.H.; MacCarty, N. What motivates behavior change? Analyzing user intentions to adopt clean technologies in low-resource settings using the theory of planned behavior. Energies; 2020; 13, 3021. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en13113021]
118. Emodi, N.V.; Haruna, E.U.; Abdu, N.; Morataya, S.D.A.; Dioha, M.O.; Abraham-Dukuma, M.C. Urban and rural household energy transition in Sub-Saharan Africa: Does spatial heterogeneity reveal the direction of the transition?. Energy Policy; 2022; 168, 113118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113118]
119. Modi, V.; McDade, S.; Lallement, D.; Saghir, J. Energy services for the millennium development goals. 2005; Available online: https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publications/MP_Energy2006.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2024).
120. Kaygusuz, K. Energy services and energy poverty for sustainable rural development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2011; 15, pp. 936-947. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.003]
121. Tjørring, L. We forgot half of the population! The significance of gender in Danish energy renovation projects. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2016; 22, pp. 115-124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.008]
122. Kannan, S.; Bessette, D.L. Time-use among men and women in Zambia: A comparison of grid, off-grid, and unconnected households. Energy Sustain. Dev.; 2023; 76, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2023.101276]
123. Carley, S.; Konisky, D.M. The justice and equity implication of the clean energy transition. Nat. Energy; 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0641-6]
124. Brush, C.G.; Bruin, A.D.; Welter, F. A gender aware framework for women’s entrepreneurship. Int. J. Gend. Entrep.; 2009; 1, pp. 8-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17566260910942318]
125. He, X. Influence of cooking energy for people’s health in rural China: Based on CLDS data in 2014. Energy Reports; 2021; 7, pp. 279-288. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.10.031]
126. Karjalainen, S. Gender differences in thermal comfort and use of thermostats in everyday thermal environments. Build. Environ.; 2007; 42, pp. 1594-1603. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.01.009]
127. Xiong, J.; Lian, Z.; Zhou, X.; You, J.; Lin, Y. Physiology & behavior investigation of gender difference in human response to temperature step changes. Physiol. Behav.; 2015; 151, pp. 426-440. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.07.037]
128. Yip, A.O.; Mah, D.N.; Barber, L.B. Revealing hidden energy poverty in Hong Kong: A multi-dimensional framework for examining and understanding energy poverty. Local Environ.; 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2020.1778661]
129. Liddell, C.; Guiney, C. Living in a cold and damp home: Frameworks for understanding impacts on mental well-being. Public Health; 2015; 129, pp. 191-199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2014.11.007]
130. Gilbertson, J.; Grimsley, M.; Green, G. Psychosocial routes from housing investment to health: Evidence from England’s home energy efficiency scheme. Energy Policy; 2012; 49, pp. 122-133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.053]
131. Bienvenido-Huertas, D.; Fernández, A.S.; Sánchez, C.S.-G.; Rubio-Bellido, C. Assessment of energy poverty in Andalusian municipalities. Application of a combined indicator to detect priorities. Energy Rep.; 2022; 8, pp. 5100-5116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.045]
132. Crentsil, O.A.; Asuman, D.; Penny, A.P. Assessing the determinants and drivers of multidimensional energy poverty in Ghana. Energy Policy; 2019; 133, 110884. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110884]
133. Winther, T.; Ulsrud, K.; Matinga, M.; Govindan, M.; Gill, B.; Saini, A.; Brahmachari, D.; Palit, D.; Murali, R. In the light of what we cannot see: Exploring the interconnections between gender and electricity access. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.; 2020; 60, 101334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101334]
134. Bakehe, N.P. Energy poverty: Consequences for respiratory health and labour force participation in Cameroon. J. Environ. Econ. Policy; 2021; 11, pp. 235-247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2021.1962412]
135. Andreosatou, Z. Energy Poverty and Gender Nexus—A Case Study Analysis from Greece. 2024; Available online: https://ieecp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/JUSTEM_Report_Energy-Poverty-and-Gender.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2024).
136. Liu, H.; Dong, Y.; Luo, C. Why do women bear more? The impact of energy poverty on son preference in Chinese rural households. Energy Policy; 2024; 195, 114405. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114405]
137. Bienvenido-Huertas, D. Do unemployment benefits and economic aids to pay electricity bills remove the energy poverty risk of Spanish family units during lockdown? A study of COVID-19-induced lockdown. Energy Policy; 2021; 150, 112117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112117]
138. Cecelski, E. The Role of Women in Sustainable Economic Development. Colorado. 2000; Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/26889.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2024).
139. Agrawal, B. Cold Hearths and Barren Slopes: The Wood Fuel Crisis in the Third World; Zed Books: New York, NY, USA, 1986.
140. Parikh, J. Hardships and health impacts on women due to traditional cooking fuels: A case study of Himachal Pradesh. Energy Policy; 2011; 39, pp. 7587-7594. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.05.055]
141. Rewald, R. Energy and Women and Girls: Analyzing the Needs, Uses, and Impact of Energy on Women and Girls in the Developing World. Oxfam Research Backgrounder Series. 2017; Available online: https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/energy-women-girls/ (accessed on 23 December 2024).
142. Gafa, D.W.; Egbendewe, A.Y.G. Energy poverty in rural West Africa and its determinants: Evidence from Senegal and Togo. Energy Policy; 2021; 156, 112476. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112476]
143. Rainisio, N.; Boffi, M.; Pola, L.; Inghilleri, P.; Sergi, I.; Liberatori, M. The role of gender and self-efficacy in domestic energy saving behaviors: A case study in Lombardy, Italy. Energy Policy; 2022; 160, 112696. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112696]
144. Arachchi, J.I.; Managi, S. Preferences for energy sustainability: Different effects of gender on knowledge and importance. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2021; 141, 110767. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110767]
145. Toro, F.; Fernández-Vázquez, E.; Serrano, M. The Gender–Energy–Poverty Nexus under Review: A Longitudinal Study for Spain. Vulnerable Households in the Energy Transition. Studies in Energy, Resource and Environmental Economics; Bardazzi, R.; Pazienza, M.G. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; 117. ISBN 9783031356834
146. Subedi, M.N.; Bharadwaj, B.; Rafiq, S. Who Benefits from the Decentralised Energy System (DES)? Evidence from Nepal’s Micro-Hydropower (MHP). Energy Econ.; 2023; 120, 106592. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106592]
147. Chandrasekaran, M.; Krishnapriya, P.P.; Jeuland, M.; Pattanayak, S.K. Gender Empowerment and Energy Access: Evidence from Seven Countries. Environ. Res. Lett.; 2023; 18, 045003. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acc2d3]
148. Hailemariam, A.; Sakutukwa, T.; Yew, S.P.L. The Impact of Energy Poverty on Physical Violence. Energy Econ.; 2021; 100, 105336. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105336]
149. Soriano-hernández, P.; Mejía-montero, A.; van Der Horst, D. Characterisation of Energy Poverty in Mexico Using Energy Justice and Econophysics. Energy Sustain. Dev.; 2022; 71, pp. 200-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2022.09.005]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Mainali, Brijesh 2
; Charafeddine Mokhtara 3
; Sunil Prasad Lohani 1
1 Renewable & Sustainable Energy Laboratory, Departmental of Mechanical Engineering, Kathmandu University, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal;
2 Department of Built Environment and Energy Technology, Linnaeus University, 351 95 Växjö, Sweden
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of El Oued, El Oued 39000, Algeria;