The continued reliance on traditional biomass fuels for cooking remains a major public health, environmental and socio-economic challenge in Sub-Saharan Africa. About 2.1 billion people still cook with open fires or inefficient stoves fuelled by kerosene, biomass, coal and other polluting fuels, creating harmful household air pollution [1]. The International Energy Agency also reports that more than 2 billion people lacked access to clean cooking in 2023, with Sub-Saharan Africa accounting for a large and growing share of the global access gap [2]. Conditions in Sierra Leone are particularly severe. World Bank data show that access to clean fuels and technologies for cooking remains very low in Sierra Leone, especially in rural areas [3]. As a result, many rural households continue to rely heavily on firewood and charcoal as their primary sources of cooking energy. This dependence reflects not only income poverty but also structural energy poverty, weak rural energy markets, limited transport infrastructure and restricted access to affordable alternatives [4]. Household air pollution associated with traditional cooking practices is a serious health risk. The World Health Organization links exposure to smoke from polluting fuels and inefficient stoves to diseases such as stroke, ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer [1].

Women and children are particularly exposed because they spend more time around cooking spaces and because women are commonly responsible for cooking and fuel preparation. In rural contexts where access to health services is limited, these exposures deepen preventable illness and household vulnerability. The environmental implications are also significant. Traditional biomass use contributes to forest pressure where fuelwood is harvested unsustainably, while inefficient combustion releases greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants, including black carbon [4][5]. In Sierra Leone, forest resources are important for carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, soil protection and livelihood security. Continued dependence on firewood and charcoal therefore links household cooking practices to wider concerns around forest degradation, climate mitigation and rural ecological resilience. The socio-economic costs of traditional cooking practices are equally important. Women and girls often bear the primary responsibility for fuelwood collection, a task that can reduce time available for education, income-generating activities and community participation. Gender-sensitive energy research shows that energy poverty and cooking burdens are strongly connected to women’s time poverty, health risks and limited economic opportunities [6]. These gendered burdens reinforce existing inequalities and undermine development goals related to education, health, poverty reduction and women’s empowerment. Low-carbon cooking technologies, including improved biomass cookstoves, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), biogas systems, ethanol stoves and electric cooking solutions, are promoted as alternatives to traditional cooking systems. These technologies can reduce household air pollution, lower fuel consumption, decrease pressure on forest resources and contribute to climate mitigation [4][5]. However, their benefits depend on adoption, sustained use and compatibility with household cooking needs. Despite these potential benefits, the adoption of low-carbon cooking technologies in rural Sierra Leone remains limited. Some households adopt improved stoves or cleaner cooking options but continue to use traditional stoves alongside newer technologies. This pattern, often described as energy stacking, demonstrates that household energy transitions are rarely linear [7][8]. Barriers such as high upfront costs, limited fuel and stove availability, weak infrastructure, cultural cooking preferences, limited access to credit and inadequate policy support continue to constrain widespread adoption. Although clean cooking adoption has been examined in several developing-country settings, household-level quantitative evidence from Sierra Leone remains limited. This research contributes by analyzing data from 600 respondents across Bombali, Port Loko and Tonkolili districts. The objective is to examine whether low-carbon cooking technology adoption is associated with household income, education, household size, gender of the household head, awareness, access to credit, stove cost, fuel price and market distance. The analysis also compares adoption rates across the three districts.

Access to clean and low-carbon cooking technologies has emerged as an important issue in global development, public health, gender equality and climate change mitigation. Clean cooking generally refers to the use of fuels and technologies that reduce household air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions compared with traditional biomass-based cooking systems such as firewood and charcoal [1][4]. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development places clean and affordable energy at the centre of inclusive development through Sustainable Development Goal 7, while also linking energy access to health, gender equality and climate action [9]. In developing-country contexts, household cooking practices are embedded in socio-economic realities, cultural norms and existing energy systems. Persistent reliance on traditional biomass fuels reflects not only low income but also structural barriers, including limited infrastructure, weak supply chains and the historical prioritisation of electricity access over cooking energy in national energy policies [4][10]. In rural areas, households often depend on locally available biomass because it is perceived as affordable, accessible and suitable for traditional cooking practices. Low-carbon cooking technologies such as improved biomass cookstoves, LPG, biogas, ethanol and electric cooking are increasingly promoted as important pathways for achieving energy access, health improvement, gender equality, forest conservation and climate mitigation [2][4][5]. However, adoption remains uneven and context-specific. Evidence across developing regions shows that adoption is shaped by a complex interaction of economic, social, cultural and institutional factors [11][12].

This study used a cross-sectional household survey design to examine associations between observed household characteristics and low-carbon cooking technology adoption in rural Sierra Leone and low-carbon cooking technology adoption in rural Sierra Leone. The analysis combines descriptive statistics, bivariate tests and a heteroskedasticity-robust linear probability model. Because the data are observational and cross-sectional, all estimates are interpreted as associations rather than causal effects. The study covered rural households in Bombali, Port Loko and Tonkolili districts. Respondents were household heads or primary cooks who could report on household cooking technology, expenditure and access conditions. The final analytical sample contains 600 completed household interviews: 212 from Bombali, 192 from Port Loko and 196 from Tonkolili [16]. Primary data were collected through a structured, face-to-face questionnaire. The analytical dataset contains household income, years of education, household size, gender of household head, awareness score, access to credit, stove cost, fuel price, distance to market and low-carbon cooking technology adoption. Variable coding was as follows. Low-carbon cooking adoption equals 1 when the household reported using an improved biomass stove, LPG, biogas, ethanol or electric cooking technology, and 0 when it relied exclusively on a traditional three-stone fire or unimproved stove. Household income and stove cost were recorded in Sierra Leonean Leones (SLE) and divided by 1000 for regression estimation. Education is measured in completed years, household size as the number of household members, female-headed household as 1 for female and 0 for male, access to credit as 1 for yes and 0 for no, fuel price in SLE per reported unit, and market distance in kilometres. Awareness was recorded on a five-point scale ranging from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating greater reported awareness of clean-cooking benefits. Data collection was reported as occurring between March and April 2025. Informed consent was obtained from participants, participation was voluntary, and confidentiality was maintained. During data checking, one negative household-income value and one negative stove-cost value were identified as impossible values and treated as missing. The regression therefore uses complete cases (N = 598), while descriptive adoption and district comparisons use all 600 observations.

This study assessed the extent of low-carbon cooking technology adoption among 600 rural households in Bombali, Port Loko and Tonkolili districts. The results show that 38.0% of households had adopted at least one low-carbon cooking technology, indicating that adoption remains limited across the study areas. The similarity in adoption rates across the three districts suggests that the transition to cleaner cooking is a broader rural challenge rather than one confined to a particular district. The paper did not identify statistically significant household-level predictors of adoption. This means that the available evidence was insufficient to determine which household characteristics were most influential in shaping adoption decisions. The findings therefore point to the need for greater attention to the wider conditions surrounding access, availability and sustained use of low-carbon cooking technologies. Efforts to expand adoption should focus on making appropriate technologies more accessible, affordable and suitable for rural households. Policy interventions should also strengthen distribution networks, financing options, user support and coordination among government agencies, development partners and private-sector suppliers. The study contributes evidence on the current level of low-carbon cooking adoption in rural Sierra Leone and highlights important gaps for future research. Further studies should collect more detailed household, community and market-level data to support stronger explanations of adoption and guide more effective clean-cooking policies.

This research assessed the extent of low-carbon cooking technology adoption among 600 rural households in Bombali, Port Loko and Tonkolili districts. The results show that 38.0% of households had adopted at least one low-carbon cooking technology, indicating that uptake remains limited across the selected areas. Similar adoption rates across the three districts suggest that the transition to cleaner cooking represents a wider rural challenge rather than a problem confined to one location. The analysis did not identify any statistically significant household-level predictors of adoption. Consequently, the available evidence was insufficient to determine which household characteristics were most influential in shaping adoption decisions. Greater attention should therefore be given to the wider conditions affecting access, availability and continued use of low-carbon cooking technologies. Efforts to increase uptake should focus on making suitable technologies more accessible, affordable and compatible with rural cooking needs. Policy interventions should also strengthen distribution networks, financing options, maintenance services and coordination among government institutions, development partners, private suppliers and local communities. These findings provide evidence on the current level of low-carbon cooking technology adoption in rural Sierra Leone and identify important areas for further investigation. Future research should collect more detailed household, community and market-level information to support stronger explanations of adoption and guide effective clean-cooking policies.

The authors thank the participating households and community stakeholders in Bombali, Port Loko and Tonkolili districts for their time and contributions to the study.

Informed consent was obtained from all study participants. Participation was voluntary, and confidentiality was maintained throughout the research process.

Conceptualization, E.B. and H.M.S.; methodology, E.B.; formal analysis, E.B.; investigation, E.B. and H.M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, E.B.; writing—review and editing, E.B. and H.M.S. Both authors have read and approved the final manuscript.