www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN Determinants of household

adoption of clean energy
with its rural–urban disparities
in Bangladesh
Iqramul Haq 1*, Maruf Khan 2, Sharanon Chakma 2, Md. Ismail Hossain 3,4,
Shuvongkar Sarkar 3, Md. Rayhan Ali Rejvi 2, Md. Salauddin 5 & Md Mizanur Rahman Sarker 1
This study aims to investigate factors influencing the adoption of clean energy among households in
Bangladesh, using Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition and extended probit regression model with data
from the 2019 Bangladesh multiple indicator cluster survey. Small households, primarily Muslim
and urban dwellers, who speak the Bengali language and are Internet and mobile users, were likelier
to adopt cleaner fuels than their counterparts. On the contrary, households residing in the Barisal,
Khulna, Rajshahi, and Rangpur divisions, belonging to poor and middle-class households, with
household heads aged 15–64 and without formal education, were less likely to adopt cleaner fuels
than their counterparts. The concentration curve revealed socioeconomic inequality in the adoption
of clean energy, particularly favouring richer households in urban and rural areas. Further analysis
using the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition showed that urban residents showed a higher probability of
adopting clean energy, with a significant difference of 0.508 compared to rural areas. Regarding the
endowment effect, poor wealth quintile contributed the most, followed by the ownership of rented
dwellings and the middle wealth quintile. The Bengali differential effect made the largest contribution
to this aspect of the disparity, followed by the exposure of the Internet and the influence of the Dhaka
and Chattogram divisions. The detailed analysis provides valuable insights for policymakers and
practitioners on the issue of disparities in the adoption of clean energy between urban and rural areas
in Bangladesh.

The increasing global demand for energy, driven by urbanization and population growth, underscores the criti-
cal need to understand the essential role of coal-generated power in both the global electricity and environment
­impact1. Addressing the climate change, reducing electricity production costs, modernize infrastructure, and
providing power to remote areas necessitate the three essential elements of decentralization, decarbonization,
and democratization (the “three Ds”) in the global energy ­sector2. Since the ratification of the Paris Agreement,
the achievement of carbon neutrality has assumed a more significant role on the world s­ tage3,4
The achievement of a low-carbon economy is particularly important for developing countries because they
depend on fossil fuels. Bangladesh is a developing nation on the Indian subcontinent that has not yet completely
abandoned its dependence on fossil fuels for electricity g­ eneration5. Bangladesh has successfully evolved from
being ridiculed as a "bottomless basket" to being a "role model" economy for other developing ­nations6. During
the last 30 years, Bangladesh has achieved one of the world’s most remarkable economic growth rates, averaging
4.0% ­annually7. Bangladesh achieved an impressive decade of 7% GDP growth, exceeded the lower middle-
income threshold in 2015, and effectively transitioned out of the least developed country (LDC) s­ tatus8. Gold-
man Sachs Investment Bank has designated Bangladesh as one of the next 11 nations poised for rapid economic
growth in the twenty-first century. In 2015, Bangladesh stood out with the second highest real GDP growth rate,
reaching an impressive 6.4%9. However, despite its economic success, Bangladesh’s traditional environmental
achievements have generally not met e­ xpectations10. Carbon dioxide (­ CO2) emissions in 2019 were almost 0.6

1
Department of Agricultural Statistics, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka 1207,
Bangladesh. 2Department of Agricultural Economics, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka 1207,
Bangladesh. 3Department of Statistics, Jagannath University, Dhaka 1100, Bangladesh. 4Department of
Mathematics and Natural Sciences, BRAC University, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh. 5Criminal Investigation
Department, Dhaka, Bangladesh. *email: iqramul.haq@sau.edu.bd

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:2356 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52798-7 1

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

metric tons lower per person in Bangladesh than they were in 2­ 00011. It should be emphasized that the use of
gaseous fossil fuels accounts for approximately two thirds of Bangladesh’s national C ­ O2 emissions (World Bank
2020), illustrating the country’s predominant dependence on fossil ­fuels5,12. On the other hand, Bangladesh’s
overall greenhouse gas emissions have increased by more than 45% since 1­ 99013. Air pollution resulting from
greenhouse gas emissions is not the only source of environmental pollution in Bangladesh. For example, indus-
trial effluents, household waste, and agricultural runoff are the main causes of Bangladesh’s constant decline in
water ­quality14. In addition, deforestation is a major cause of environmental pollution in Bangladesh due to the
country’s susceptibility to natural disasters such as landslides and fl­ oods15. Therefore, addressing the causes of
the degradation of Bangladesh’s environmental quality has become a top priority on the government’s policy
agenda. With international obligations to formulate effective policies to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas
emissions, Bangladesh prioritizes transitioning to a low-carbon ­economy16. Bangladesh was one of the 196
countries and economies that ratified the Paris Agreement at the United Nations Climate Change Conference
(COP21) in December ­20153,17. Bangladesh ranks seventh in the global climate risk index in 2021 due to climate
change, although it contributes less than 0.48% of global emissions and its significant i­ mpact18. Bangladesh must
continue its efforts to become carbon neutral, focusing on greening production and consumption processes for
environmental sustainability and international obligations, as it is one of the most vulnerable c­ ountries19. Limiting
­CO2 emissions is a national priority due to the severe impact on domestic industries, particularly agriculture,
resulting from climate c­ hange20.
Global concerns about energy security have led developing countries to adopt reliable, cost-effective, and
clean energy irrigation technologies to ensure food security, reduce pollution and enhance climate ­benefits21.
The transition to solar energy could replace 10% of conventional energy sources, preserve fossil fuel reserves
and ensure sustainable water management in ­agriculture21,22. Solar technology is increasingly popular around
the world to promote climate-friendly renewable energy in p ­ roduction23. It not only reduces the dependence
of farmers on expensive energy sources, but also reduces carbon dioxide emissions, improving both crop qual-
ity and quantity, and minimizing water ­wastage23,24. The government of Bangladesh is actively promoting the
adoption of advanced technologies to harmonize energy and water resources in search of a more sustainable
food production ­system23. Despite its ever-growing energy needs, Bangladesh has been heavily dependent on
indigenous and imported fossil fuels. Consequently, the combustion of fossil fuels now accounts for a significant
part of the country’s overall energy ­consumption13,25.
In previous research, the probit model was widely used to assess various aspects of household energy
choices, such as cooking and lighting p ­ references26,27. Some studies used multivariate probit estimates to evalu-
ate energy c­ hoices28, while others used logit models to analyse factors determining the adoption of solar energy
­technologies29. A study conducted in China concentrated on the impact of non-farm employment on the adop-
tion of clean e­ nergy30. While several studies have investigated the prevalence of clean energy adoption and
its determining factors in some LMICs, there is a noticeable lack of research shedding light on this aspect in
Bangladesh. This study aims to address this gap by outlining its objectives.
Addressing the existing research gap, our study primarily delves into examining the prevalence of clean energy
adoption and its determining factors. Additionally, we explore the variations in energy adoption patterns between
urban and rural households in Bangladesh, assessing the socioeconomic disparities in clean energy adoption
within these demographic segments.
While a previous study in Bangladesh focused on identifying factors influencing solar adoption and their
impact on welfare, utilizing the linear probability model (LPM) and probit regression, its scope was limited to
solar home systems (SHS) 31. Acknowledging the potential issues of endogeneity inherent in adoption decisions,
we applied an extended probit regression to investigate these factors and applied a Blinder-Oaxaca decomposi-
tion analysis to elucidate the disparities between urban and rural areas. It’s noteworthy that, to the best of our
knowledge, our present study is the first in Bangladesh to employ this comprehensive methodology in exploring
the dynamics of clean energy adoption. The findings will be valuable for the government in aligning national
goals with international goals like SDG 7.A (affordable and clean energy) and enhancing clean energy research
and technology in developing countries like Bangladesh.

Materials and methods

Sources of data
This study used data from the Bangladesh Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) 2019, a cross-sectional
survey specifically designed to collect information on crucial indicators associated with the Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals (SDGs). The Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) conducted this national representative survey
with the financial support of UNICEF.

Sample design and sample size

The data was collected through a two-stage stratified cluster sampling approach. In the first step, 3,220 samples
were collected from 08 divisions, and in the second stage 20 sample were gathered. Finally, out of a total of 64,400
households in 08 divisions, 61,602 households were successfully interviewed. The collected data were weighted
to ensure that the survey findings accurately represented the country. As a result, the final sample size for the
Bangladesh survey was 61,242 households.

Dependent variable
The study dependent variable is the adoption of clean energy. The household’s decision regarding clean fuels is
binary, presenting two mutually exclusive outcomes: the use of clean fuels or unclean f­ uels32. Those household

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:2356 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52798-7 2

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

were used elective stove, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), piped natural gas stove and biogas stove for cooking
were considered as clean fuel adopters’ categories otherwise it is considered non clean fuel adopters’ ­categories30.

1, Ifhouseholdusecleanfueltechnologiesforcooking
Adoption of clean energy (ACE) =
0, Ifhouseholddidnotusecleanfueltechnologiesforcooking

Independent variables
Along with the dependent variable, we also take into account a respondent’s division (Barishal, Chattogram,
Dhaka, Khulna, Mymensingh, Rajshahi, Rangpur and Sylhet), type of residence (urban, rural), sex of household
head (male, female), household head education (No education, primary, secondary and above), ethnicity of the
head of household (Bengali, others), size of the household (< 4, 4–5, 6 +), age of the household head (15–64,65 +),
Internet ( yes, no), dwelling (own, rent, others), mobile ( yes, no) as potential factors for this study. The wealth
index is a composite measure of a household’s wealth, calculated using principal components analysis. The
wealth index is derived from data on a household’s ownership of assets like televisions and bicycles, housing
construction materials, and water access and sanitation facilities. It ranks households based on their assets and
final factor scores, dividing them into five ­quintiles33. The survey population is ranked according to their wealth
score and divided into five quintiles, from lowest to highest. In 2019, the Bangladesh Wealth Index used 25 vari-
ables to construct the index, aiming to capture long-term wealth through household a­ ssets33. The index ranks
households from poorest to richest, based on their wealth score. The poor category was formed by merging the
poorest and poorer groups of study participants, while the rich category was created by combining the richest and
richer groups. Wealth index can be classified as three categories (poor, middle and rich). Empirical studies show
a positive correlation between income and clean fuel u ­ se34. Studies in Bangladesh 35, ­Bhutan36, and ­Pakistan37
also confirm a positive association between income and wealth and the use of clean fuels.

Analysis procedure
In this study, the summary of explanatory factors was presented using a percentage frequency distribution.
We used two-way contingency tables and chi-square tests to analyze the connection between independent and
dependent variables, as well as the association between sociodemographic components. Mathematically, chi-
square statistics can be defined as
n
 (observed frequency yi − Expected frequency yi )2
χ2 = (1)
Expected frequency yi
i=1

This metric is based on a chi-square distribution, with (Number of rows – 1) × (Number of columns – 1)
degrees of freedom.

Extended probit regression

A Probit Regression was conducted to assess how wealth quintile influences the choice of adopting clean energy
within households.
The specific model is:
ACEi = α + β1 Wealth Index +β2 C + ε (2)
In Formula (2), the dependent variable ACEi is the dependent variable (binary variable) indicates whether
the respondents use clean energy or not; the explanatory variable wealth index (it has been classified as poor,
middle, and rich); ε is the coefficient to be evaluated; C represents the control variables, including individual,
household and community characteristics; ε is the random disturbance term.
As the decision to adopt clean energy (which depends on self-decision) is assumed to be correlated with
unobservable time-varying factors, endogeneity issues are more likely to be found. The study considers potential
endogeneity issues that could lead to biased estimates when examining the effects of the wealth index on the
adoption of clean energy. In order to address this concern, extended probit regression models (EPRMs) were
­used30. These models help to take into account for unobservable factors and improve the reliability of the study’s
estimates. These models can accommodate various endogenous covariates, including continuous, binary or
ordinal covariates, using the maximum likelihood estimation.

Inequality analysis
In this equation, CIX represents the concentration index, Ri denotes the fractional rank in the distribution of
socioeconomic position, Mi refers to the dependent variable index, and M signifies the mean of the outcome
variable within the sample.
The major purpose of this study is to calculate an approximate CIX value using the Lorenz curve, also known
as a concentration curve. If there is a discrepancy between the concentration curve and the 45° line, then there is
probably no connection between the two. The range of the CIX value spans from − 1 to + 1, with the sign indicat-
ing the direction of any association between the health variable and socioeconomic position.

Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition method

Using the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition m­ ethod38, we analyzed the factors that contributed to the average gap
in clean energy adoption between urban and rural areas. Based on the formula in Eq. (2), the following regres-
sion model was developed.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:2356 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52798-7 3

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

k
 
�Y = δ0u − δ0r + (δiu aui − δir ari ) (3)


i=1

where, a represents the average of each predictor (covariate); δ represents the predicted regression coefficient; ‘u’
represents ‘urban group’; ‘r’ represents ‘rural group’; (Y ) represents predicted mean difference in clean energy
adoption status between urban and rural groups.
The Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition method is a different approach, in which the coefficients and variable
levels of one group are swapped with the corresponding values from another (reference group). We used the
urban sample to determine what would happen to our projected mean when the rural sample was given the
urban sample’s values for the predictor variables and its regression coefficients. Decomposition models were
defined using the formula in Eq. (3),
k k k
    
�Y = δ0u − δ0r + δir (aui − ari ) + ari δ0u − δ0r +
 u
δ0 − δ0r aui − ari (4)
   

i=1 i=1 i=1

Equation (4) is a decomposition model constructed from the perspective of the rural group, using the urban
group as a point of comparison. Here, the expected mean difference (Y ) of clean energy usage status consists
of four components, as given on the right-hand side of the equation.

(a) The first component revealed the influence of hidden characteristics.

(b) The second component revealed shifts in the average anticipated value of the rural group as it reached the
factors’ level of the urban group. It revealed how much variation in the level of the independent variables
across groups may account for in the predicted mean difference (Y ). This section is called the "explained
component" or the “endowments effect” in the literature.
(c) The third component reflected shifts in the average projected value for the rural group after they received
the urban group’s regression coefficients. It comprised the percentage of the predicted mean difference (Y )
attributable to the effect of the covariate on the result that varied between the urban and rural groups. This
portion is termed the “unexplained component” or the “coefficient effect” in the academic literature.
(d) The fourth component resulted from the interaction between the effects of the differences in the endow-
ments and the coefficients.

The three-fold decomposition model was made by combining the first component (i) which dealt with dif-
ferences between two groups that could not be explained by the covariates included in the model, and the third
component (iii), which also dealt with an unexplained portion of the difference, as shown in Eq. (4), to create
­ odel38,
the three-fold decomposition m
k
 k k
   
δir aui − ari + ari δ0u − δ0r +
 u
δ0 − δ0r aui − ari (5)
   
�Y =
i=1 i=1 i=1

The first, second, and third components on the right side of the equation, respectively, reflected the endow-
ments effect, the coefficients effect, and the interaction effect.
A holistic decomposition was performed to determine the relative contributions of each independent variable
to endowments, coefficients, and interaction. This involved gradually switching out one set of levels or coefficients
for another set while keeping all other variables constant in the equation. The first, second, and third components
on the right side of the equation, respectively, reflect the endowment effect, the coefficient effect, and the interac-
tion effect. The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 25.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York,
New York, USA) was used for data administration. In this study, STATA version 15 was used for data analysis,
and R software (version 4.0.0), along with the ggplot2 package, was used to generate a map.

Ethical approval
Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) data from three different areas were utilized for the analysis; this data
is freely available at the following link: https://​mics.​unicef.​org/. Since the research was conducted using publicly
accessible secondary data, no further ethical approval was required for this work.

Results
Table 1 presents the distribution of the participants in this study, highlighting key demographic and socioeco-
nomic characteristics. The findings reveal that the highest percentage of participants came from the Dhaka
division (25.3%), while the lowest proportion came from the Barishal division of Bangladesh. Most of the par-
ticipants resided in rural areas (77.9%) and the heads of household consisted predominantly of males (87.3%).
Furthermore, the information in Table 1 shows that a higher proportion of household heads had completed
secondary education or higher (37.9%) and the majority identified themselves as Muslim (90.2%). The ethnicity
of the head of the household is also considered, highlighting the number and percentage of participants classified
as Bengali (98.8%) or belonging to other ethnicities (1.2%).
Socioeconomic status is assessed using the wealth index variable, classifying study participants as poor
(41.4%), middle (19.4%), and rich (39.1%). In terms of household size, the majority consisted of 4–5 members
(47%), and a large portion of household heads feel within the age range of 15–64 (86.9%). In terms of Internet

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:2356 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52798-7 4

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Variables Frequency Percentage

Individual Level Factor
Division
Barishal 3488 5.7
Chattogram 10,736 17.5
Dhaka 15,512 25.3
Khulna 7290 11.9
Mymensingh 4561 7.4
Rajshahi 8745 14.3
Rangpur 7229 11.8
Sylhet 3681 6.0
Residence
Urban 13,564 22.1
Rural 47,678 77.9
Sex of household head
Male 53,460 87.3
Female 7782 12.7
Household head education
No education 21,459 35.0
Primary 16,587 27.1
Secondary and above 23,196 37.9
Religion
Muslim 55,261 90.2
Non-Muslim 5981 9.8
Ethnicity of household head
Bengali 60,527 98.8
Others 715 1.2
Wealth index
Poor 25,373 41.4
Middle 11,895 19.4
Rich 23,974 39.1
Household size
<4 20,894 34.1
4–5 28,758 47.0
6+ 11,590 18.9
Age
15–64 53,243 86.9
65 + 7999 13.1
Internet
Yes 23,013 37.6
No 38,229 62.4
Dwelling
Own 51,458 84.0
Rent 7968 13.0
Others 1816 3.0
Mobile
Yes 58,054 94.8
No 3188 5.2
Clean energy adopter
Yes 12,210 19.9
No 49,032 80.1

Table 1.  Background characteristics of study participants.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:2356 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52798-7 5

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

use, the majority did not use the Internet (62.4%), but almost all household heads owned a mobile phone (94.8%).
Furthermore, most of the participants had their own dwellings (84%). Approximately one fifth of households
used clean energy sources (19.9%), while the remaining 80.1% relied on other energy sources.
Figure 1 shows the district-wise decision of the household to choose the adoption of clean energy. The district
of Dhaka and Narayongonj showed the highest levels of clean energy adoption, while the district of Lalmonirhat
and Kurigram showed the lowest levels of clean energy adoption.
Table 2 summarizes the sociodemographic characteristics of Bangladesh and the prevalence of households
using clean energy to cook. The table highlights significant associations between the adoption of clean energy
and various factors, including division, residence, sex of the household head, education of the household head,
religion, ethnicity, wealth index, household size, age of the household head, mobile ownership, Internet access,
and dwelling type (p < 0.05).
The data show that households in the Dhaka division had the highest proportion (44.4%) of clean energy
consumption for cooking, followed by households in the Chattogram division (23.8%). The adoption of clean
energy was significantly higher in urban households (59.5%) compared to rural households (8.7%). In addition,
households with female heads (24.3%) used clean energy slightly more than those with male heads (19.3%).

Figure 1.  District wise household clean energy adoption status in Bangladesh.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:2356 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52798-7 6

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Clean energy
χ2 Value
Variables Non adopter (%) Adopter (%) (p-value)
Division
Barishal 95.50% 4.50%
Chattogram 76.20% 23.80%
Dhaka 55.60% 44.40%
Khulna 91.90% 8.10%
9224.152 (< 0.001)
Mymensingh 91.50% 8.50%
Rajshahi 91.30% 8.70%
Rangpur 95.00% 5.00%
Sylhet 86.10% 13.90%
Residence
Urban 40.50% 59.50%
17,086.867 (< 0.001)
Rural 91.30% 8.70%
Sex of household head
Male 80.70% 19.30%
108.169 (< 0.001)
Female 75.70% 24.30%
Household head education
No education 90.80% 9.20%
Primary 84.50% 15.50% 4249.15(< 0.001)
Secondary and above 67.00% 33.00%
Religion
Muslim 79.30% 20.70%
181.668 (< 0.001)
Non-Muslim 86.70% 13.30%
Ethnicity
Bengali 79.90% 20.10%
80.942 (< 0.001)
Others 93.40% 6.60%
Wealth index
Poor 99.80% 0.20%
Middle 97.20% 2.80% 21,338.894 (< 0.001)
Rich 50.70% 49.30%
Household Size
<4 76.10% 23.90%
5-Apr 80.60% 19.40% 456.836 (< 0.001)
6+ 85.90% 14.10%
Age
15–64 78.90% 21.10%
325.962 (< 0.001)
65 + 87.60% 12.40%
Internet
Yes 67.00% 33.00%
3938.143 (< 0.001)
No 87.90% 12.10%
Dwelling
Own 89.30% 10.70%
Rent 18.20% 81.80% 21,946.994 (< 0.001)
Others 90.80% 9.20%
Mobile
Yes 79.40% 20.60%
337.901 (< 0.001)
No 92.70% 7.30%

Table 2.  Association between cofactors and use of clean energy in Bangladesh.

Regarding education of household heads, those household heads who had completed at least secondary edu-
cation showed a significantly higher use of clean energy (33%). Muslim households were more likely to adopt
clean energy (20.7%) than non-Muslim households (13.3%). Additionally, households belonging to the Bengali
ethnic group had a significantly higher proportion of clean energy use (20.1%) than households belonging to
other ethnic groups.
The wealth index was also an important factor, since a significant proportion of rich households (49.3%) use
clean energy, compared to only a small percentage of middle-class households (2.8%). The size of households

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:2356 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52798-7 7

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

showed an inverse relationship with the use of clean energy, households with less than four members showing
a higher percentage (23.9%) compared to households with four to five members and those with more than five
members. Mobile ownership was also associated with higher clean energy use (20.6%) compared to households
without mobile phones. Similarly, households with Internet access showed a significantly higher percentage of
clean energy use (33%). Furthermore, the type of dwelling played a role, as households living in rented dwellings
showed the highest percentage of clean energy use (81.8%).

Factors associated with clean energy adoption in Bangladesh

The parameter estimates of the extended probit regression model are shown in Table 3. In this study, we assessed
multicollinearity using the variance inflation factor (VIF) and the tolerance limit (TL). Multicollinearity is usually
identified when the variance inflation factor (VIF) exceeds a threshold of 5 or ­1021,39, or when the tolerance limit
falls below 0.1 or 0.239. Specifically, the calculated VIF values ranged from 1.054 to 2.506, which is well below the
conventional threshold of 5 and TL > 0.2. This indicates that multicollinearity was not an issue in our analysis.
The likelihood ratio test (Wald chi-squared) of the overall model was highly significant (p < 0.001), indicat-
ing that the model has a strong explanation power. In order to examine the endogeneity of wealth status and
the adoption of clean energy, we analyzed the correlations between the error terms in the equations. We found
that the correlation between the errors of our two equations was 0.883 and significantly different from zero

Clean energy adoption Wealth Index

Variables Poor (coefficient) Middle (coefficient) Rich (coefficient) Coefficient
Wealth index
Poor − 1.724***
Middle − 2.363***
Rich − 2.809***
Age
15–64 versus. 65 + (ref) − 0.136* − 0.118** − 0.047 − 0.209***
Religion
Muslim versus Non-Muslim (ref.) − 0.1 0.122* 0.220***
Household size
< 4 versus 6 + (ref.) − 0.182** 0.104* 0.347*** − 0.073***
4–5 versus 6 + (ref.) − 0.153** − 0.042 0.169*** − 0.071***
Household head education
No education versus Secondary and above (ref.) − 0.741*** − 0.706*** − 0.762*** − 0. 885***
Primary versus. Secondary and above (ref.) − 0.500*** − 0.520*** − 0.509*** − 0.615***
Sex of household head
Male versus Female (ref.) − 0.157* 0.093* 0.009
Ethnicity
Bengali versus Others(ref) 0.761*** 0.663*** 0.415*** 0.992***
Dwelling
Own versus Others(ref) 0.432** 0.253** 0.184** 0.478***
Rent versus Others(ref) 1.300*** 1.475*** 1.630*** 1.494***
Mobile
Yes versus No(ref) 0.402*** 0.435*** 0.318*** 0.565***
Internet
Yes versus No(ref) 0.800*** 0.641*** 0.591*** 0.972***
Residence
Urban versus Rural (ref.) 0.613*** 0.609*** 1.084*** 0.776***
Division
Barishal versus Sylhet (ref.) − 0.681*** − 0.783*** − 0.954*** − 0.815***
Chattogram versus Sylhet (ref.) − 0.008 0.036 0.188*** − 0.047
Dhaka versus Sylhet (ref.) − 0.006 0.068 0.421*** 0.074**
Khulna versus Sylhet (ref.) − 0.384** − 0.315*** − 0.516*** − 0.088***
Mymensingh versus Sylhet (ref.) − 0.451*** − 0.495*** − 0.285*** − 0.464***
Rajshahi versus Sylhet (ref.) − 0.302** − 0.388*** − 0.383*** − 0.189***
Rangpur versus Sylhet (ref.) − 0.598*** − 0.602*** − 0.459*** − 0.517***
Correlation between wealth index and clean energy adoption 0.883***

Table 3.  Extended probit model estimates of household clean energy adoption. Number of observations:
61,242 Wald ­chi2: 28,133.37*** Log pseudolikelihood: − 59,393.53 ref. = Reference Category; Statistical
Significance: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:2356 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52798-7 8

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

(p < 0.001), indicating the presence of endogeneity. Moreover, because the correlation is positive, we can infer
that unobservable factors that lead to an increase in wealth quintile also tend to increase the probability of
adopting clean energy.
This effect shows that when the age of the head of household increases from one age group (15–64) to the next
(65 +), the probability of adopting clean energy decreases by 13.6% and 11.8% in poor and middle households,
respectively. Muslim households from middle and wealthy families exhibited a positive and statistically significant
influence on household energy decisions toward cleaner fuels (p < 0.05). Muslim households are likelier to adopt
cleaner fuels than their counterparts.
The study found that households heads without education and primary education had a negative impact on
household adoption of clean energy compared to those with secondary and higher education (p < 0.001). For
example, the transition from lack of education to achieving secondary or higher education is associated with an
increase of 76.2% in the likelihood of choosing clean cooking fuels within the rich wealth quintiles. The study
found that the size of the household, particularly those with less than four members, has a negative and statisti-
cally significant effect (p < 0.01) on the probability that poor households choose clean energy, while it also has
significant positive effects on the probability that middle and rich households choose clean energy compared
to households with more than six members. This means that when a household moves from having less than
four members to having six or more members, the probability of adopting clean energy increases by 34.7%. For
the gender of the household head, a negative coefficient suggests that if the household head changes from male
to female, the probability of adopting clean energy decreases by a factor of − 0.157, which means a decrease in
the likelihood. In terms of ethnicity, people speak the Bengali language were likelier to adopt cleaner fuels than
their counterparts.
Renter households showed a higher preference for clean energy use compared to other types of housing
(p < 0.001). Households with mobile phones were positively associated with the adoption of clean energy in
Bangladesh. This effect implies that when switching from not having a mobile phone (no category) to having one
(yes category), the likelihood of selecting clean cooking fuels increases by 40.2%, 43.5% and 31.8% for poor, mid-
dle and rich households, respectively. Internet access significantly influenced households to adopt clean energy,
showing a positive impact on energy consumption. Urban dwellers are likelier to adopt cleaner fuels than their
counterparts. This effect suggests that the transition from rural to urban areas led to an increase of 61.3% in the
likelihood of selecting clean cooking fuels within the poor wealth quintiles. Similarly, in the rich wealth quintiles,
the probability of opting for clean cooking fuels increased by 108.4% when moving from rural to urban areas.
Unlike the wealthy category, both the poor and middle wealth quintile categories demonstrated a substantial and
negative impact on the adoption of clean energy sources by households in the Barisal, Khulna, Mymensingh,
Rajshahi and Rangpur divisions compared to the Sylhet division (p < 0.05). However, it is important to note that
households in the rich quintile of the Chattogram and Dhaka divisions showed a significantly positive impact on
the adoption of clean energy compared to the Sylhet division. However, this effect was statistically not significant
in poor and middle-class households (p > 0.05).

Socioeconomic inequalities of urban and rural groups clean energy adoption

Figure 2 shows the results of the concentration index used to assess the socioeconomic disparities in the adop-
tion of clean energy between urban and rural groups in Bangladesh. The results indicate that about 33% of the
socioeconomic inequality is observed in the adoption of clean energy in urban groups (CI = 0.33). In Fig. 2A,
the concentration curve is located below the diagonal line, indicating that the disparities in the adoption of clean
energy are more pronounced among the richest quintile in urban groups. Furthermore, approximately 73% of
the socioeconomic inequality in the adoption of clean energy among rural groups has been identified (CI = 0.73).
Figure 2B shows the concentration curve below the diagonal line, indicating that the disparities in the adoption
of clean energy are more concentrated among the richest quintile within rural groups.

Figure 2.  Socioeconomic inequalities of urban (A) and rural (B) groups clean energy adoption in Bangladesh.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:2356 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52798-7 9

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Results from Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition

Table 4 shows the results of the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition analysis conducted to investigate the patterns of
adoption of clean energy that highlight the contributions of endowments, coefficients and interactions to explain
the disparities in the adoption of clean energy between urban and rural areas in Bangladesh.
In Bangladesh, the likelihood of adopting clean energy was about 60% (0.595) among urban residents and
about 9% (0.087) among rural residents. This implies that urban residents are more likely to adopt sustainable
energy than their rural counterparts. The average general difference between urban and rural areas was 0.508
(95% CI 0.499 to 0.517, p < 0.001).
This difference is divided into three components: endowments, coefficients, and interactions. The disparity
between urban and rural areas attributed to endowments (E) accounted for approximately 80.31% (0.408) (95%
CI 0.400 to 0.415, p < 0.001) of the observed variation. This indicates that discrepancies in the characteristics
or attributes of the respondents contribute to about 80.31% of the disparities between urban and rural areas of
Bangladesh.
Furthermore, the disparity between urban and rural areas due to coefficients (C) was approximately 35.04%
(0.178) (95% CI 0.168 to 0.189, p < 0.001) of the observed variation. This suggests that differences in the relation-
ships between the characteristics of the respondents and the adoption of clean energy account for approximately
35.04% of the disparities between urban and rural areas in Bangladesh.
Finally, the disparity between urban and rural areas resulting from interactions (CE) was approximately
− 15.35% (− 0.078) (95% CI − 0.086 to − 0.069, p < 0.001). This indicates that differences in interaction or com-
binations of the characteristics of the respondents play a significant role, accounting for approximately − 15.35%
of the variances between urban and rural locations in Bangladesh.
The complete results of the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition study are shown in Table 5, which illustrates the
roles played by several groups of variables in the establishment of the endowment effect and the coefficient effect
and the explanation of the clean energy disparities between urban and rural households in Bangladesh. The
absolute and relative importance of each variable and relative importance of each category within this variable
are provided by the results. This in-depth investigation has been useful in identifying the types of variables that
have the greatest impact on the different aspects of the gap.
In terms of the effect of endowments, the largest contribution maximized the urban–rural gap of the poor
households category, accounting for 55.440% of the overall effect (p < 0.001). It was followed by the variables
dwelling ownership type rent (17.742%), middle wealth quintile household (9.892%), Dhaka division (5.584%),
household head with no education (4.237%), internet exposure (2.001%), Rangpur (1.360%), Khulna (0.993%),
household head with primary education (0.972%), Barishal (0.851%), Rajhsahi (0.492%) and household size less
than four (0.345%). These factors have played an important role in contributing to the overall endowment effect
and were the most important contributors to explaining the gap between urban and rural residences.
Similarly, with regard to the effect of the coefficients, the greatest contribution came from the ethnicity of
the head of Bengali , constituting a significant 148.457% of the effect (p < 0.001). It was followed by internet
exposure (20.421%), Dhaka division (12.938%), and Chattogram division (7.033%). These factors have exerted
considerable influence on shaping the coefficient effect. Factors such as male household head (− 21.273%), poor
household (− 20.741%) household head with no education (− 14.896%), middle class household (-13.940%),
household head with primary education (− 12.244%), household with fewer than four adults (− 10.797%), and
Rangpur division (− 2.777%) and Barishal division (− 2.768%) have a more protective effect on the adoption of
clean energy in the urban–rural gap.

Discussion
Using data from the 2019 multiple indicator cluster surveys in Bangladesh, we tried to assess what variables
could explain the growing popularity of renewable energy sources in Bangladesh. The results show that only 20%
of households use renewable energy sources, while 80% use conventional sources. Biomass accounts for 68%
­ eeds40.
of Kenya’s primary energy use and is used by almost three-quarters of the population for basic energy n
This study revealed that urban households are likelier to adopt cleaner fuels than their counterparts. It is
­ ameroon41. In developing countries, impoverished urban households
similar to previous studies conducted in C

Co-efficient Standard error p-value 95% CI

Predicted probability
Urban 0.595*** 0.005 < 0.001 (0.586, 0.604)
Rural 0.087*** 0.001 < 0.001 (0.084, 0.089)
Difference in predicted probability
Total difference (R) 0.508*** 0.005 < 0.001 (0.499, 0.517)
Decomposition
Difference due to endowments (E) 0.408*** 0.004 < 0.001 (0.400, 0.415)
Difference due to coefficients (C) 0.178*** 0.005 < 0.001 (0.168, 0.189)
Difference due to interaction (CE) − 0.078*** 0.004 < 0.001 (− 0.086, − 0.069)

Table 4.  Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition estimates of clean energy adoption status in Bangladesh.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:2356 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52798-7 10

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Variables Endowments contribution (%) p-value Coefficient contribution (%) p-value

Wealth index
Poor 55.440*** < 0.001 − 20.741** 0.006
Middle 9.892*** < 0.001 − 13.940*** < 0.001
Rich (ref.)
Age
15–64 − 0.017 0.87 − 15.46 0.145
65 + (ref)
Religion
Muslim 0.147** 0.005 7.081 0.561
Non-Muslim (ref.)
Household size
<4 0.345*** < 0.001 − 10.797** 0.008
4–5 0.052 0.327 − 3.86 0.419
6 + (ref.)
Household head education
No education 4.237*** < 0.001 − 14.896*** < 0.001
Primary 0.972*** < 0.001 − 12.244*** < 0.001
Secondary and above (ref.)
Sex of household head
Male 0.001 0.898 − 21.273* 0.033
Female (ref.)
Ethnicity
Bengali 0.049 0.088 148.457*** < 0.001
Others(ref)
Dwelling
Own − 0.517 0.802 18.899 0.2
Rent 17.742*** < 0.001 − 14.997 0.217
Others(ref)
Mobile
Yes − 0.118 0.43 − 18.421 0.487
No(ref)
Internet
Yes 2.001*** < 0.001 20.421** 0.001
No(ref)
Division
Barishal 0.851*** < 0.001 − 2.768** 0.003
Chattogram 0.274** 0.008 7.033* 0.018
Dhaka 5.584*** < 0.001 12.938* 0.042
Khulna 0.993*** < 0.001 − 2.384 0.136
Mymensingh 0.142 0.368 − 0.198 0.847
Rajshahi 0.492** 0.002 2.447 0.208
Rangpur 1.360*** < 0.001 − 2.777* 0.033
Sylhet (ref.)

Table 5.  Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition showing contribution of all categories of variables towards

endowments effect, and coefficients effect, Bangladesh MICS 2019. Significant at ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01;
*p < 0.05.

rely on solid fuels for cooking due to insufficient supplies, high costs of clean fuels and limited access to clean
energy, as highlighted by various s­ tudies34,35,42.
The level of education of household heads also demonstrated a significant and positive relationship with the
use of clean energy. On the contrary, households with lower educational levels were less likely to adopt cleaner
fuels than their counterparts. This is because a cleaner, more sustainable lifestyle can help the environment
in many ways. Previous ­studies29,43 found that household head education had a significant positive impact on
decision-making on the adoption of biogas and solar energy. Previous studies have shown a positive relationship
between educational levels and the adoption of clean energy sources, while negative associations are observed
with the use of polluting ­fuels44–46. Furthermore, education level shows positive and significant correlations with
the adoption of clean energy and a negative and significant association with the use of biomass and ­kerosene28.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:2356 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52798-7 11

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

In particular, the educational background of the head of household is directly related to the adoption of clean
energy and a reduced dependence on polluting ­fuels47. Education also has a favorable impact on the consump-
tion of clean and non-traditional fuels, mainly due to the time-saving benefits they o ­ ffer35,42. The probability of
using clean fuels increases with higher education, whereas the probability of using polluting fuels d ­ ecreases44.
The study reveals a positive and statistically significant coefficient for the education of the household head on
the preference for kerosene and natural gas as cooking ­fuels48.
Bengali families are leading in the adoption of clean energy. This study found that those ethnics who speak
Bengali language are likelier to adopt cleaner fuels than their counterparts. In terms of rich wealth quintiles, this
study found that households with a younger age between 15 and 64 were significantly less likely to use cleaner
fuels than households with an older age of 65 and over. Contrary to our findings, a previous study showed that
households with older heads were more likely to use cleaner f­ uels49. Baiyegunhi and Hassan (2014) observed that
as households in rural Nigeria get older, they tend to switch from natural gas to wood fuel for ­cooking48. Younger
farmers, particularly those under 30 years of age, show an increase of 0.27% in their willingness to adopt solar
irrigation technology in ­Bangladesh21.
This study also found that Muslim households are likelier to adopt cleaner fuels than their counterparts.
The size of the household was also significantly associated with the adoption of clean energy by households
with positive and negative effects. For example, small households were less likely to adopt cleaner fuels than
their counterparts in poor class household, while small households are likelier to adopt cleaner fuels than their
counterparts in rich class household. The marginal effect analysis indicates that for each additional member
added to the household, the likelihood of adopting clean cooking fuel increases by 2.4%32. Previous studies sug-
gest that larger households tend to adopt energy-efficient practices more than smaller ones, which is consistent
with previous fi ­ ndings50,51. Similarly, larger households prefer more efficient cooking methods due to reduced
cooking time and the preservation of wood r­ esources48. The impact of the size of the household on the adoption
of solar PV can vary, with positive and negative e­ ffects29. On the one hand, larger households are more inclined
to adopt solar PV energy due to their higher electricity consumption and the ability to distribute fixed c­ osts52.
Interestingly, women in the poor headed household favored the decision to use clean energy than the poor
male headed household. Female-led households prefer liquified petroleum gas (LPG) and electricity as cooking
fuels, while reducing their use of kerosene and coal, a finding consistent with previous ­studies28,34. Regarding solar
energy technology, male-headed households are more likely to resist its adoption compared to female-headed
­households29. Gender plays an important role in household energy decisions, and female-headed households pre-
fer modern f­ uels51, contrary to previous studies in rural Nepal, which reported a preference for traditional f­ uels53.
There was a significant and positive association between the wealth index and the adoption of clean energy.
For example, households in the poor category were less likely to adopt cleaner fuels than their counterparts.
According to the results of this study, households with higher income levels demonstrate a greater probabil-
ity of adopting cleaner cooking ­fuels32. A previous study had documented a positive correlation between ris-
ing household income and electricity c­ onsumption54. Guta (2018) has posited that an increase in household
income enhances its capacity to cover expenses associated with solar energy, thus increasing the probability of
its ­adoption29.
Furthermore, households living in rental homes were higher users of clean energy than those in other types of
housing. The choice of cooking fuel for the home is influenced by various factors such as the age of the household
head, family size, educational level, type of food preparation, fuelwood taste, and ownership of dwelling u ­ nits55.
Households residing in dwelling units are more inclined to use clean e­ nergy30. The study identified a positive
and statistically significant coefficient of household ownership that demonstrated its substantial influence on
the likelihood of switching from fuelwood to natural gas as the main cooking ­fuel48.
The home had a mobile phone that was positively correlated with the adoption of clean energy in Bangladesh.
The study shows that households with Internet access are more likely to use clean energy than their counterparts.
The impact of the use of the mobile Internet on the adoption of green technologies is significantly mediated by
factors such as information acquisition capability, risk attitude, and expected ­return56. Econometric analysis
shows that trade in ICT in South Asia has a positive impact on the energy sector by increasing renewable energy
consumption, promoting renewable sources, reducing energy intensity, promoting cleaner cooking fuels and
reducing carbon dioxide e­ missions57.
This study also found that households in the Dhaka and Chattogram divisions were more likely to use clean
energy than in the Sylhet division. On the contrary, the Barisal, Khulna, Mymensingh, Rajshahi, and Rangpur
divisions exhibited a significant negative effect on the adoption of cleaner energy sources in households compared
to the Sylhet division. Although the richest quintiles have already switched to clean energy, there are still many
people living in urban and rural areas who do not have access to cost-effective clean energy options. These indi-
viduals may find it difficult to take advantage of benefits associated with the adoption of clean energy, as a result
of various types of inequity caused by this lack of access. The study also analyzed socioeconomic inequalities in
the adoption of clean energy and found that these inequalities were more concentrated among wealthy quintiles
in urban (33%) and rural (73%) areas of Bangladesh. Poor households often rely on solid fuels such as biomass,
cow dung, and firewood and c­ hips58. As income increases, they gradually switch to clean fuels such as LPG and
electricity, according to the hypothesis of the energy ladder, according to various s­ tudies37,59.
We used the Blinder-Oaxaca approach to divide the adoption gap for clean energy into its components:
endowments, coefficients, and interaction. Important contributors to each component have been isolated. Com-
pared to urban and rural areas, the adoption rate of clean energy was 0.595 and 0.087, respectively. The difference
in the adoption of clean energy between the groups was 0.508. Rural areas often trail behind in terms of the
availability of renewable energy sources, leading to significant differences in the adoption of clean energy between
urban and rural areas. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is a feasible alternative for rural households. However,

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:2356 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52798-7 12

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

its substantial cost of refilling makes it financially inaccessible. This issue has led to the creation of improved
cookstoves, designed to improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions 60.
Many rural communities are unable to use these opportunities due to lack of resources, despite the potential
advantages of clean energy, such as reducing environmental impacts and reducing energy bills. The average vari-
ation in the attributes of the study participants (endowments) accounted for 0.408 of the clean energy adoption
gap. Equally important for the clean energy adoption gap were the disparities between groups in the impact of
coefficients and interaction (0.178 and − 0.078, respectively).
The endowments covered the fraction of the clean energy adoption gap that could be effectively closed by
raising public awareness in the rural population to reduce energy-related inequalities. Most of the impact of
endowments was driven by the following: poor class household, rented home, middle class household, Dhaka,
household head with no education, Internet exposure, Rangpur, Khulna, household head with primary education,
Barishal division, Rajhsahi division, and household size (< 4). Given the significant group disparities, especially
in the effects of predictors, it is not clear whether a policy intervention aimed at improving the level of predictors
would be adequate to reduce the adoption gap in urban and rural areas. The main causes of the coefficients’ influ-
ence were: male household head, poor household, household head with no education, middle class household,
household head with primary education, household with fewer than four adults, Rangpur division and Barishal
division had more protective effect on the adoption of clean energy in urban and rural gap. Therefore, other
variables, such as providing some economic incentives, promoting awareness, and developing infrastructure,
can play an essential role in reducing the gap in predictor impact. In addition, government policies and laws can
help bridge the gap between populations.
The present study has both limitations and strengths. It did not assess significant variables like secondary
income, economic g­ rowth61, energy use per ­capita62, political participation, and economic f­ reedom63. Further-
more, this study relied on secondary data, making it difficult to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. Despite
its limitations, this study has some strengths. The primary strength of this study was the rich database, which
included nationally representative data with a substantial sample size of 61,242 households and provided valuable
insights for policymakers and stakeholders in devising intervention strategies in rural areas of Bangladesh. This
study used extended probit regression to investigate the factors and the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition analysis
to explain the disparities between urban and rural.

Conclusion
This study identifies the potential factors associated with the adoption of clean energy by households in Bangla-
desh. To determine the factors that influence the adoption of renewable energy, extended probit regression was
used. The factors influencing the gap in the adoption of clean energy were identified using the Blinder-Oaxaca
decomposition method. Compared to rural areas, urban areas have a six fold increase in the adoption of clean
energy. The current study shows that wealth index, religion, household size, household head education, household
head sex, ethnicity, types of dwelling, mobile, Internet, residence and division were significant factors associ-
ated with the adoption of clean energy in Bangladesh households. The results showed that the richest quintile
among rural groups had a greater focus on inequalities in the adoption of clean energy along the concentration
curve. Unlike their counterparts in rural areas, urban dwellers were shown to be more likely to accept renew-
able energy based on the results of BO decomposition. According to the observed contribution, the category of
poor households had the greatest impact on endowment. The Government of Bangladesh should be cautious in
promoting the adoption of clean energy, particularly in rural areas. Policy makers can promote the adoption of
clean energy options through media and online campaigns to raise awareness and training in rural communities,
and to highlight the importance of clean energy. Additionally, efforts to increase education and reduce poverty in
rural Bangladesh can contribute greatly to the successful adoption of clean energy options for rural people. The
results of the study have an important impact on the government, policy makers, and other stakeholders in public
health to increase the use of clean energy in households in Bangladesh through increased clean energy campaigns
in rural areas of Khulna division, Barisal division, Rajshahi division, and Rangpur division to achieve the SDG.

Data availability
In this study, we used data from the 2019 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) in Bangladesh which is
available from https://​mics.​unicef.​org/​surve​ys.

Received: 6 June 2023; Accepted: 23 January 2024

References
1. Chen, G. Q. & Wu, X. F. Energy overview for globalized world economy: Source, supply chain and sink. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 69, 735–749 (2017).
2. Zhou, C., Zhao, Q., Zhang, G. & Xiong, B. Energy revolution: From a fossil energy era to a new energy era. Nat. Gas Ind. B 3, 1–11
(2016).
3. Liu, J. et al. An empirical analysis of the household consumption-induced carbon emissions in China. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 26,
943–957. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​spc.​2021.​01.​006 (2021).
4. Ma, Q., Murshed, M. & Khan, Z. The nexuses between energy investments, technological innovations, R&d expenditure, emission
taxes, tertiary sector development, and carbon emissions in China: A roadmap to achieving carbon-neutrality. Energy Policy 155,
112345. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enpol.​2021.​112345 (2021).
5. Murshed, M. Modeling primary energy and electricity demands in Bangladesh: An autoregressive distributed lag approach. Sustain.
Prod. Consum. 27(1), 698–712. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​spc.​2021.​01.​035 (2021).
6. Barai, M. K. Bangladesh’s Economic and Social Progress: From a Basket Case to a Development Model (Springer, 2020).
7. Beyer, R., & Wacker, K. M. Good Enough for Outstanding Growth (2022).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:2356 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52798-7 13

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

8. General Economics Division. Making Vision 2041 a Reality PERSPECTIVE PLAN OF BANGLADESH 2021–2041. Bangladesh
Planning Commission, Government of Bangladesh Dhaka (2020).
9. Kuepper, J. Next 11 Economies Poised for Growth: Goldman Sachs’ List of 11 Future Economic Giants (2019). The Balance.
Retrieved from: https://​www.​theba​lance.​com/​what-​are-​the-​next-​eleven-​19789​80.
10. Murshed, M. & Dao, N. T. T. Revisiting the C ­ O2 emission-induced EKC hypothesis in South Asia: The role of export quality
improvement. GeoJournal https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10708-​020-​10270-9 (2020).
11. Friedlingstein, et al. The global carbon budget 2020. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12(4), 3269–3340. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​essd-​12-​3269-​
2020 (2020).
12. Islam, M. M., Khan, M. K., Tareque, M., Jehan, N. & Dagar, V. Impact of globalization, foreign direct investment, and energy con-
sumption on ­CO2 emissions in Bangladesh: Does institutional quality matter?. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 48851–48871. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​021-​13441-4 (2021).
13. World Bank. World Development Indicators database. The World Bank (2020). Accessed on: April 01, 2020 from http://d ​ ata.w
​ orld​
bank.​org/.
14. Hassan, S. T., Baloch, M. A., Mahmood, N. & Zhang, J. Linking economic growth and ecological footprint through human capital
and bio capacity. Sustain. Cities Soc. 47, 101516 (2019).
15. Islam, M. S., Ahmed, M. K., Al-Mamun, M. H. & Islam, S. M. A. Sources and ecological risks of heavy metals in soils under dif-
ferent land uses in Bangladesh. Pedosphere 29(5), 665–675 (2019).
16. World Bank. Urgent Climate Action Crucial for Bangladesh to Sustain Strong Growth, press release (2022). https://​www.​world​
bank.​org/​en/​news/​press-​relea​se/​2022/​10/​31/​urgent-​clima​te-​action-​cruci​al-​for-​bangl​adesh-​to-​susta​in-​strong-​growth.
17. Rehman, A. et al. The dynamic impacts of C ­ O2 emissions from different sources on Pakistan’s economic progress: A roadmap to
sustainable environment. Environ. Dev. Sustain. Multidiscip. Approach Theory Pract. Sustain. Dev. 23(12), 17857–17880. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10668-​021-​01418-9 (2021).
18. Eckstein, D., Künzel, V., & Schäfer, L. The global climate risk index 2021. Bonn: Germanwatch (2021).
19. Hasnat, G. N. T., Kabir, M. A. & Hossain, M. A. Major environmental issues and problems of South Asia. Particularly Bangladesh.
In Handbook of Environmental Materials Management (ed. Hussain, C.) (Springer, 2018). https://d ​ oi.o
​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/9​ 78-3-3​ 19-5​ 8538-
3_​7-1.
20. Dagar, V. et al. Variations in technical efficiency of farmers with distinct land size across agro-climatic zones: Evidence from India.
J. Clean. Prod. 315, 128109 (2021).
21. Sunny, F. A. et al. Adoption impact of solar based irrigation facility by water-scarce northwestern areas farmers in Bangladesh:
Evidence from panel data analysis. Front. Energy Res. 10, 1101404 (2023).
22. Rana, M. D. J. et al. Influencing factors of adopting solar irrigation technology and its impact on farmers’ livelihood. A case study
in Bangladesh. Future Food J. Food Agric. Soc. 9, 14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​17170/​kobra-​20211​01448​98 (2021).
23. Sunny, F. A., Karimanzira, T. T., Peng, W., Rahman, M. S. & Zuhui, H. Understanding the determinants and impact of the adop-
tion of technologies for sustainable farming systems in water-scarce areas of Bangladesh. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 24(6), 961034
(2022).
24. Sunny, F. A., Fu, L., Rahman, M. S. & Huang, Z. Determinants and impact of solar irrigation facility (SIF) adoption: A case study
in Northern Bangladesh. Energies. 15, 2460. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en150​72460 (2022).
25. Murshed, M. & Alam, M. S. An estimation of the macroeconomic determinants total, renewable and non-renewable energy
demands in Bangladesh: the role of technological innovations. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28(23), 30176–30196. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s11356-​021-​12516-6 (2021).
26. Onyeneke, R. U. et al. Improved Cook-stoves and environmental and health outcomes: Lessons from cross river state, mhara. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16(19), 3520. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ijerp​h1619​3520 (2019).
27. Rahut, D. B., Mottaleb, K. A., Ali, A. & Aryal, J. The use and determinants of solar energy by Sub-Saharan African households. Int.
J. Sustain. Energy 37(8), 718–735 (2018).
28. Mottaleb, K. A. & Rahut, D. B. Clean energy choice and use by the urban households in India: Implications for sustainable energy
for all. Environ. Chall. 5, 100254 (2021).
29. Guta, D. Determinants of household adoption of solar energy technology in rural Ethiopia. J. Clean. Prod. 204, 193–204 (2018).
30. Huang, L., Wu, H. & Zhou, M. Implications of non-farm work for clean energy adoption: Evidence from rural China. Agriculture
12(12), 2120 (2022).
31. Uddin, G. S., Abdullah-Al-Baki, C., Park, D., Ahmed, A., & Tian, S. Social Benefits of Clean Energy: Evidence from Bangladesh (No.
685). Asian Development Bank (2023).
32. Ang’u, C., Muthama, N. J., Mutuku, M. A. & M’Ikiugu, M. H. Determinants of the sustained use of household clean fuels and
technologies: Lessons from Vihiga county, Kenya. Energy Rep. 9, 1990–2001 (2023).
33. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) and UNICEF Bangladesh. Progotir Pathey Bangladesh, Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey
2019. Survey Findings Report, Dhaka, Bangladesh (2019).
34. Behera, B., Rahut, D. B., Jeetendra, A. & Ali, A. Household collection and use of biomass energy sources in South Asia. Energy 85,
468–480 (2015).
35. Mottaleb, K. A., Rahut, D. B. & Ali, A. An exploration into the household energy choice and expenditure in Bangladesh. Energy
135, 767–776 (2017).
36. Aryal, J. P., Rahut, D. B., Mottaleb, K. A. & Ali, A. Gender and household energy choice using exogenous switching treatment
regression: Evidence from Bhutan. Environ. Dev. 30, 61–75 (2019).
37. Rahut, D. B., Ali, A., Mottaleb, K. A. & Aryal, J. P. Wealth, education and cooking-fuel choices among rural households in Pakistan.
Energy Strateg. Rev. 24, 236–243 (2019).
38. Rahimi, E. & HashemiNazari, S. S. A detailed explanation and graphical representation of the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition
method with its application in health inequalities. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 18(1), 1–15. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12982-​021-​
00100-9 (2021).
39. Haq, I., Hossain, M. I., Zinnia, M. A., Hasan, M. R. & Chowdhury, I. Determinants of the early childhood development index among
children aged < 5 years in Bangladesh, Costa Rica and Ghana: A comparative study. East Mediterr Health J. 27(11), 1069–1077.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​26719/​emhj.​21.​055 (2021).
40. Mbaka, C. K., Gikonyo, J. & Kisaka, O. M. Households’ energy preference and consumption intensity in Kenya. Eng. Sustain. Soc.
9(1), 1–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13705-​019-​0201-8 (2019).
41. Bodjongo, M. J. M., Ekome, G. C. E. & Essomme, F. K. O. E. Analysis of the gap in enterprise access to renewable energy between
rural and urban areas in Cameroon. Environ. Econ. 12(1), 39–52. https://​doi.​org/​10.​21511/​ee.​12(1).​2021.​04 (2021).
42. Rahut, D. B., Ali, A., Mottaleb, K. A. & Aryal, J. P. Understanding households’ choice of cooking fuels: Evidence from urban
households in Pakistan. Asian Dev. Rev. 37, 185–212 (2020).
43. Mengistu, M., Simane, B., Eshete, G. & Workneh, T. Factors affecting households’ decisions in biogas technology adoption, the
case of Ofla and Mecha Districts, northern Ethiopia, Renew. Energy 93, 215–227 (2016).
44. Hou, B., Liao, H., Wang, J. W., Wang, F. & Zhang, H. Cooking fuel decision-making and family structure: A field study in China.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26, 24050–24061. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​019-​05216-9 (2019).
45. Liao, H., Chen, T., Tang, X. & Wu, J. Fuel choices for cooking in China: Analysis based on multinomial logit model. J. Clean. Prod.
225, 104–111 (2019).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:2356 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52798-7 14

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

46. Rahut, D. B., Ali, A. & Behera, B. Domestic use of dirty energy and its effects on human health: Empirical evidence from Bhutan.
Int. J. Sustain. Energy 36(10), 983–993. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14786​451.​2016.​11548​55 (2017).
47. Makonese, T., Ifegbesan, A. P. & Rampedi, I. T. Household cooking fuel use patterns and determinants across southern Africa:
Evidence from the demographic and health survey data. Energy Environ. 29(1), 29–48 (2017).
48. Baiyegunhi, L. J. S. & Hassan, M. B. Rural household fuel energy transition: Evidence from Giwa LGA Kaduna State, Nigeria.
Energy Sustain. Dev. 20, 30–35 (2014).
49. Jan, I. et al. Adoption of improved cookstoves in Pakistan: A logit analysis. Biomass Bioenerg. 103, 55–62. https://d
​ oi.o
​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.​
biomb​ioe.​2017.​05.​014 (2017).
50. Ahmed, Y., Ebrahim, S. & Ahmed, M. Determinants of solar technology adoption in rural households: The case of Belesa districts
Amhara region of Ethiopia. Cogent Econ. Financ. 10(1), 2087644. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​23322​039.​2022.​20876​44 (2022).
51. Rahut, D. B., Das, S., Groote, H. D. & Behera, B. Determinants of household energy use in Bhutan. Energy 69, 661–672. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​energy.​2014.​03.​062 (2014).
52. De Groote, O., Pepermans, G. & Verboven, F. Heterogeneity in the adoption of photovoltaic systems in Flanders. Energy Econ.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eneco.​2016.​07.​008 (2016).
53. Link, C. F., Axinn, W. G. & Ghimire, D. J. Household energy consumption: Community context and the fuelwood transition. Soc.
Sci. Res. 41(3), 598–611. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ssres​earch.​2011.​12.​007 (2012).
54. Ali, S. S. S. et al. Critical determinants of household electricity consumption in a rapidly growing city. Sustainability 13(8), 4441.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su130​84441 (2021).
55. Osiolo, H.H. Enhancing household fuel choice and substitution in Kenya. Discussion paper no. 102. Kenya: Kenya Institute for
Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA) (2009).
56. Huang, Z., Zhuang, J. & Xiao, S. Impact of mobile internet application on farmers’ adoption and development of green technology.
Sustainability 14(24), 16745 (2022).
57. Murshed, M. An empirical analysis of the non-linear impacts of ICT-trade openness on renewable energy transition, energy effi-
ciency, clean cooking fuel access and environmental sustainability in South Asia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27(29), 36254–36281
(2020).
58. Rehfuess, E., Mehta, S. & Prüss-Üstün, A. Assessing household solid fuel use: Multiple implications for the Millennium Develop-
ment Goals. Environ. Health Perspect. 114(3), 373–378. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1289/​ehp.​8603 (2006).
59. Nansaior, A., Patanothai, A., Rambo, A. T. & Simaraks, S. Climbing the energy lad- der or diversifying energy sources? The con-
tinuing importance of household use of biomass energy in urbanizing communities in Northeast Thailand. Biomass Bioenergy 35,
4180–4188 (2011).
60. Shankar, A. et al. Maximizing the benefits of improved cookstoves: Moving from acquisition to correct and consistent use. Glob.
Health Sci. Pract. 2(3), 268–274. https://​doi.​org/​10.​9745/​GHSP-D-​14-​00060 (2014).
61. Chen, C., Pinar, M. & Stengos, T. Determinants of renewable energy consumption: Importance of democratic institutions. Renew.
Energy 179, 75–83 (2021).
62. Akarsu, G. & Gümüşoğlu, N. K. What are the main determinants of renewable energy consumption? A panel threshold regression
approach. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 19(2), 1–22 (2019).
63. Tu, Y. X., Kubatko, O., Piven, V., Sotnyk, I. & Kurbatova, T. Determinants of renewable energy development: Evidence from the
EU countries. Energies 15(19), 7093 (2022).

Author contributions
I.H. had the original idea for this study. I.H., M.M.R.S., and M.I.H participated in data analysis. I.H and M.I.H
participated in the statistical analysis. I.H., M.M.R.S, S.S., M.R.R. and M.S drafted the manuscript. I.H. M.M.R.S
and S.S edited and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to I.H.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

© The Author(s) 2024

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:2356 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52798-7 15

Vol.:(0123456789)