Energy Poverty, Coping Mechanisms, and Its Implications for Human Well-Being: A Case Study of Adamawa State, Nigeria

e-ISSN: 3027-0650 AUN Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) 99-116 School of Arts and Sciences, American University of Nigeria, Yola ENERGY POVERTY, COPING MECHANISMS, AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR HUMAN WELL-BEING: A CASE STUDY OF ADAMAWA STATE, NIGERIA Upev Samuel Kaase1*, Amurtiya Michael2, Ocheja Theophilus Attabor3 1,3American University of Nigeria, Yola, Nigeria 2Modibbo Adama University, Yola, Nigeria Corresponding author: [email protected] (Received: 29 April, 2025; Accepted: 25 August 2025; Published on-line: 7 November, 2025) Abstract Energy poverty threatens social and economic development in Nigeria, with Adamawa State facing persistent shortages due to unreliable grid supply and dependence on traditional fuels. This study assessed the prevalence of energy poverty, its impact on households, and the coping mechanisms adopted. A descriptive survey design was employed, and data were collected from 389 respondents using structured questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse socio-economic characteristics, energy access, challenges, and coping strategies. Findings revealed that 71.5% of respondents were energy-poor, 57.8% had less than four hours of daily electricity, and 61.2% relied on firewood for cooking. About 73.5% experienced daily power outages, while 41.1% cited the high cost of alternative energy, and 40.4% reported respiratory problems linked to household energy use. Coping strategies included reliance on generators (37.3%), rechargeable lamps (29.1%), solar energy (24.4%), and deliberate reduction of electricity consumption (44 percent). The study concludes that energy poverty undermines health, education, productivity, and household welfare in Adamawa State. It recommends targeted investment in renewable energy, provision of subsidies for clean energy technologies, and improvements in grid infrastructure. Strengthening community-based initiatives alongside government-led interventions would reduce vulnerability, enhance energy access, and align outcomes with Sustainable Development Goal 7. Keywords: Energy Poverty, Socioeconomic Characteristics, Challenges, Coping Strategies, Adamawa State © AUN Journals 1. Introduction Access to affordable and reliable energy is fundamental to human development and economic growth. Yet, energy poverty persists as one of the most pressing challenges in the Global South. It is commonly defined as reliance on biomass for cooking, irregular electricity supply, and dependence on costly alternatives (Day et al., 2016). Researchers have added accessibility, reliability and security to the concepts of energy poverty (Bouzarovski & Petrova, 2015; Samarakoon, 2019). In sub-Saharan Africa, infrastructural weaknesses and poverty sustain widespread deprivation, leaving households dependent on traditional fuels that harm health and limit productivity (Hihetah et al., 2024; Riahi et al., 2014). Nigeria illustrates these concerns vividly. Despite its oil and gas resources, over 75% of the e-ISSN: 3027-0650 AUN Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) 99-116 School of Arts and Sciences, American University of Nigeria, Yola population still experiences energy poverty (Ogwumike & Ozughalu, 2016). The problems of systemic inefficiencies, poor governance and insufficient infrastructure continue to hamper any development with respect to energy access (Agba, 2011). The solutions households use to cover the blackouts, such as generators, kerosene lamps, and firewood, are cost-increasing and health-hazardous (Afaha & Ifarajimi, 2021). They are associated with respiratory infections and eye strains, and poor productivity (Nie et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2019). Meanwhile, schooling is also affected because students cannot study without light, and women are likely to experience more pressure to collect fuel (Famewo & Uwala, 2022). Such patterns confirm the multidimensional nature of energy poverty and its implications for health, equity, and the environment (Nwozor et al., 2019). Regional disparities intensify these problems. The North East, with Adamawa state among the most affected, is the most energy poverty prevalent area (Afaha & Ifarajimi, 2021). The sporadic power cuts, meagre grid-tied supply and over-reliance on firewood demonstrate infrastructural failure and abject poverty. On examining the national trend, there is limited empirical research on how households in Adamawa State experience energy poverty and the coping strategies they are taking. This disparity limits the policy formulation process because the actualities on the ground are not captured in policy formulation processes. To eliminate this deficit, it is important to conduct more specific research that would allow for connecting energy deprivation with certain social and economic consequences at the communal level (Hihetah et al., 2024; Li et al., 2023). This study concentrates on Adamawa State, where households face persistent deprivation of reliable and affordable energy despite national energy reforms. By grounding the analysis in a specific regional context, the study connects local realities to national and global discussions on energy access and human development. It also provides evidence that speaks directly to the challenges of translating policy into outcomes for marginalised communities. As Li et al. (2023) argue, addressing energy poverty is central to advancing human wellbeing and equitable development. Through empirical findings from Adamawa State, the study generates knowledge that can inform targeted policies and community-driven interventions, strengthening responses to one of the most pressing development issues in Nigeria. Specifically, the study was aimed at describing the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents, assessing the energy poverty status of the respondents, identifying the challenges posed by energy poverty in the study area, and lastly examining the coping strategies adopted by residents to address energy poverty. 2. Literature Review Energy Poverty e-ISSN: 3027-0650 AUN Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) 99-116 School of Arts and Sciences, American University of Nigeria, Yola The inability of households to obtain sufficient resources combined with affordable and reliable, safe and modern energy services stands as a complex problem which impedes decent living standards (Day et al., 2016). Energy poverty can be understood through a capabilities framework according to Day et al. (2016) since affordable and safe, reliable energy services enable higher social participation and better social well-being. It should be noted that without access to basic domestic energy needs, people are unable to meet requirements for lighting and cooking, as well as heating and cooling and acquiring information and communication. The idea differs from simple affordability known as fuel poverty, according to developed nations (which sometimes requires spending more than 10% of household income on fuel), to include complete unavailability of contemporary energy sources, which remains widespread in developing countries due to their biomass fuel use (Riahi et al., 2014; Mckague et al., 2016; Aderemi et al., 2023). From a capabilities perspective, energy poverty can be understood as the inability to achieve essential capabilities as a result of insufficient access to affordable, reliable, and safe energy services, considering available alternatives (Famewo & Uwala, 2022). This stance emphasises how energy is a tool for engagement in society and well-being. Despite using the same nomenclature, developed and developing regions have historically had different perspectives on and approaches to measuring energy poverty, sometimes moving forward independently. In addition to fuel shortages, Bouzarovski and Petrova (2015) contend that larger socio-technical inadequacies in delivering adequate household energy services are the primary cause of energy deprivation. According to empirical research such as Akintunde et al. (2024), energy poverty is very common in Nigerian rural and urban areas, especially among low-income households and those without jobs. Using NDHS data, similar results by Afaha and Ifarajimi (2021) reveal glaring geographical differences, with the North East zone experiencing the highest prevalence. These studies affirm that energy poverty is deeply entrenched in broader socio-economic inequalities and infrastructural deficits. Recent global studies document a significant link between energy access and development outcomes. Analysis across 50 developing countries from 1990 to 2017 shows that greater access to electricity correlates with improved health and education indicators, particularly in high-poverty settings (Nguyen, 2021). Geospatial models demonstrate that providing photovoltaic systems with energy storage could reach nearly all populations currently lacking electricity, around 1.1 billion people, with household-level costs of $0.20 per kW h or less (LHer et al., 2023). These findings underscore both the feasibility and urgency of expanding affordable, sustainable energy services worldwide. In Africa, studies highlight the role of institutions and finance. Across 32 countries between 2002 and 2021, stronger institutional quality and financial sector development supported access to clean fuels, especially in contexts with rising trade and urbanization (Kwakwa, e-ISSN: 3027-0650 AUN Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) 99-116 School of Arts and Sciences, American University of Nigeria, Yola 2024). Solar mini-grid implementation in rural Kenya and Nigeria benefitted more than 2,600 households, quadrupling median income in Kenyan communities and improving health through reduced use of kerosene (Carabajal et al., 2024). These results suggest decentralized renewable energy offers tangible economic and social gains at the community level. Nigeria exhibits persistent energy challenges in national and regional dimensions. A timeseries study covering 1981 to 2023 reveals that energy poverty reduces life expectancy in both short and long terms (Aina, 2024). On a household scale, 74% of urban dwellers use the traditional fuels whereas 26% utilizes modern fuels with wood most frequently used in the Northeast (Oluwoseun et al., 2024). These statistics require more investments into clean energy infrastructure, financial inclusion, and regional targeting to increase resilience and well-being. Challenges Posed by Energy Poverty Energy poverty presents substantial challenges to human well-being and sustainable development (Nwozor et al., 2019). It has serious negative effects on health, especially in the Global South, where the usage of polluting fuels causes respiratory ailments. Negative health effects are also a result of inadequate heating and cooling (Zhang et al., 2019). Empirical studies in China by Zhang et al. (2019) and Nie et al. (2021) established significant negative effects of multidimensional energy poverty on both physical and psychological health. Furthermore, energy poverty impedes educational attainment by limiting study lighting and information access. Equally, it also affects economic productivity, limiting their income generation and economic growth (Ogwumike & Ozughalu, 2016). Moreover, the inequalities that already exist are worsened leaving women the more affected by the fuel collection burden. Additionally, the enhancing use of conventional fuels is a threat to climate change and environmental destruction (Nie et al., 2021). As Ogwumike and Ozughalu (2016) note, household size, education level, the region where people live in, are the crucial driver of energy poverty in Nigeria, and more than 75% of the population is exposed to it. There is simply periodicity related to gender where deprivation of energy directly influences not only academic but also economic performance as Famewo and Uwala (2022) noted in their study of the rural Nigerian women and female students. Coping Strategies People facing energy poverty adopt different strategies to handle their situation of power deprivation according to Bouzarovski & Petrova (2015). People who face energy poverty use different solutions to decrease their energy usage by controlling heating and illumination. Biomass-derived energy remains one of the main survival strategies in developing areas, although its usage endangers human health (Hihetah et al., 2024). People who cannot afford e-ISSN: 3027-0650 AUN Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) 99-116 School of Arts and Sciences, American University of Nigeria, Yola high-end fuels often make such switches toward inferior but lower-cost energy sources. The cost-cutting measures for energy include decreasing expenses on essential items such as healthcare and food that would otherwise be used for other necessities (Amin et al., 2020). Sharing communal resources becomes vital for survival as people develop community-based solutions which serve to cope with unrelenting challenges. Local communities play a major role through their own adapted initiatives, but these prove successful at differing levels. The findings of Olurode et al. (2018) demonstrate that Lagos, Nigeria, urban residents use generators and rechargeable lamps as alternative power sources because of unreliable electricity. The selected coping strategies support immediate needs yet trap families in poverty while increasing their exposure to health problems and financial instability, indicating the importance of comprehensive governmental policy solutions. Recent studies converge on the view that energy poverty is multidimensional, affecting health, education, productivity, and equity. Global and African evidence shows that poor access to modern energy constrains life expectancy, learning outcomes, and income growth (Nguyen, 2021; Kwakwa, 2024). In sub-Saharan Africa, the reliance on biomass and kerosene remains high, with negative effects on respiratory health and time allocation, particularly among women (Hihetah et al., 2024). Empirical findings from Nigeria reinforce these patterns. Households remain highly dependent on firewood and kerosene, while electricity supply is erratic and costly (Ogwumike & Ozughalu, 2016; Afaha & Ifarajimi, 2021). Evidence from Adamawa State confirms the intensity of deprivation, as households experience prolonged outages and minimal grid supply. These findings highlight the persistence of structural inequalities in energy access despite abundant national resources. At the same time, contradictions arise in the literature regarding effective responses. Decentralised renewable energy projects in Kenya and Nigeria increased incomes and improved health outcomes (Carabajal et al., 2024), suggesting practical alternatives to grid expansion. Yet other studies stress that institutional quality and financing determine whether renewable options scale effectively (Kwakwa, 2024). In Nigeria, while solar and mini-grids show promise, adoption remains low due to cost barriers and poor government support (Oluwoseun et al., 2024). This tension underscores the need for context-specific evidence to inform interventions. By examining Adamawa State, this study responds to these gaps, aligning its objectives with the call for empirical insights into household-level realities that can guide targeted policies under Sustainable Development Goal 7. 3. Conceptual Framework This study adopts the Energy Access–Livelihood Nexus as its guiding framework, which posits that socio-economic characteristics shape both access to energy and the capacity to adopt alternative sources. Empirical research shows that income, education, and household e-ISSN: 3027-0650 AUN Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) 99-116 School of Arts and Sciences, American University of Nigeria, Yola size strongly influence energy choices, with low-income and less-educated households more reliant on biomass and kerosene (Oluwoseun et al., 2024). In Nigeria, women in rural households disproportionately bear the health burden of traditional fuels, linking gender to energy deprivation (Famewo & Uwala, 2022). Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa further confirms that institutional quality, financial access, and urbanization interact with socioeconomic factors to determine energy transitions (Kwakwa, 2024). Based on this framework, the study links the level of energy poverty to the socio-economic characteristics of households living in Adamawa State, its impact on health, productivity, and education and the strategies used to cope with this situation. This methodology places the study in context of other debates in addition to the fact provide empirical basis in the evaluation of how the vulnerability of communities to energy poverty is perpetuated by socio-economic inequality. Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 4. Research Methodology In order to achieve the set objectives of the study, a descriptive survey design was adopted to investigate energy poverty, its associated challenges, and the coping strategies adopted by households in Adamawa State, Nigeria. 4.1 Data Source Data were obtained through an online survey of 389 respondents across Adamawa State, using a structured questionnaire designed to capture socio-economic characteristics, energy access, and coping mechanisms. Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize the data and highlight key patterns. While this approach offers clarity and ease of interpretation, it limits the depth of analysis and does not establish causality. The online method also excludes e-ISSN: 3027-0650 AUN Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) 99-116 School of Arts and Sciences, American University of Nigeria, Yola households without internet access, which are often the most energy-poor, creating potential bias. Similar limitations have been noted in household energy surveys in sub-Saharan Africa where remote communities remain underrepresented (Hihetah et al., 2024). The questionnaire was subjected to validity and reliability checks to ensure data quality. Experts in energy studies and survey design reviewed the instrument for content validity, confirming that the items adequately captured socio-economic characteristics, energy access, and coping strategies. A pilot test involving 30 respondents in a comparable community produced a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81, indicating acceptable internal consistency. Ethical considerations guided the entire process. Participation was voluntary, respondents provided informed consent, and confidentiality was assured by anonymizing responses and restricting data use to academic purposes only. These measures safeguarded both methodological rigor and ethical integrity. 4.2 Sample Size and Sampling Technique In determining the sample size for this study, Krejcie and Morgan (1970) Table for sample size determination was uses and a sample size of 389 respondents was drawn from the population. This sample size was considered representative of the population of the study area. Considering the geographical scope and diversity of the state, a non-probability sampling technique (purposive sampling) was used to select respondents. This sampling technique was considered appropriate because it allowed the researchers to intentionally target individuals who had access to the internet and who were presumed to have experiences relevant to the study's objectives. The criteria for participation included residency in Adamawa State and experience with household energy usage. The dissemination of the questionnaire were made through links that were widely distributed through community networks, social media platforms, and local organisations to ensure a diverse pool of respondents across urban and rural areas. 4.3 Method of Data Analysis Data analysis relied on descriptive statistical techniques, including frequencies, percentages, and means, to summarize respondents’ socio-economic characteristics, energy access, challenges, and coping mechanisms. This approach aligns with the descriptive survey design, which emphasizes identifying patterns rather than testing causal relationships. No econometric model was applied, as the study focused on providing a clear profile of energy poverty rather than estimating determinants. Similar approaches have been used in energy poverty studies where the objective is to generate baseline evidence for policy and intervention design (Afaha & Ifarajimi, 2021; Hihetah et al., 2024). e-ISSN: 3027-0650 AUN Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) 99-116 School of Arts and Sciences, American University of Nigeria, Yola 5. Results and Discussion Table 1: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents (n=389) Variable Frequency Percentage (%) Age 18–30 years 117 30.1% 31–50 years 190 48.8% Above 50 years 82 21.1% Gender Male 233 59.9% Female 156 40.1% Marital Status Single 83 21.3% Married 261 67.1% Widowed 30 7.7% Divorced 15 3.9% Highest Educational Qualification No formal education 58 14.9% Primary education 97 24.9% Secondary education 142 36.5% Tertiary education 92 23.7% Primary Occupation Farming 174 44.7% Business/Trading 116 29.8% Civil Service 64 16.5% Unemployed 35 9.0% Estimated Monthly Income ₦0–₦50,000 201 51.7% ₦51,000–₦100,000 122 31.4% >₦100,000 66 17.0% Household Size 1–3 members 78 20.1% 4–6 members 155 39.8% 7–9 members 113 29.0% Above 9 members 43 11.1% Source: Field Survey, 2025 The socio-economic characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1. In terms of e-ISSN: 3027-0650 AUN Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) 99-116 School of Arts and Sciences, American University of Nigeria, Yola age, the majority of respondents (48.8%) were aged between 31 and 50 years, 30.1% were aged 18–30 years, and 21.1% were above 50 years. With respect to gender, males constituted 59.9% while females accounted for 40.1% of the respondents. Based on marital status, most of the respondents (67.1%) were married, 21.3% were single, and 7.7% were widowed, while 3.9% were divorced. Educationally, the highest proportion had secondary education (36.5%), with others having primary (24.9%), tertiary (23.7%), or no formal education (14.9%). Regarding occupation, farming was the predominant occupation (44.7%), business/trading were 29.8%, civil service were 16.5%, while the unemployment was 9.0%. In terms of income, over half (51.7%) of the respondents earned between ₦0 and ₦50,000 monthly, 31.4% earned between ₦51,000 and ₦100,000, while 17.0% earned above ₦100,000. According to data on household size, 39.8% of households had four to six people, 29.0% had seven to nine people, 20.1% had one to three people, and 11.1% had more than nine people. These results reflect the larger socio-economic background of Adamawa State, showing a population with a largely agrarian occupational structure, low income, large household sizes, and modest levels of education. Table 2: Energy Poverty Status of Respondents (n=389) Variable Frequency Percentage (%) Primary Source of Lighting National grid 120 30.8% Generator 80 20.6% Solar energy 92 23.7% Kerosene lamps 97 24.9% Hours of Electricity Access Less than 4 hours 225 57.8% 4–8 hours 110 28.3% 9–15 hours 35 9.0% More than 15 hours 19 4.9% Primary Source of Cooking Energy Firewood 238 61.2% Charcoal 71 18.3% Gas 54 13.9% Electricity 26 6.6% Monthly Energy Expenditure ₦0–₦5,000 208 53.5% ₦5,001–₦10,000 125 32.1% Above ₦10,000 56 14.4% Frequency of Power Outages e-ISSN: 3027-0650 AUN Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) 99-116 School of Arts and Sciences, American University of Nigeria, Yola References Aderemi, T. A., & Okey, I. B. (2024). Clean energy consumption and human welfare in Nigeria: A dynamic analysis. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 14(2), 119–126. Aderemi, T. A., Akadiri, S. S., Alola, A. A., & Osabohien, R. (2023). Renewable energy consumption and human welfare in Sub-Saharan Africa: Does health expenditure matter? International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 13(3), 493–501. Afaha, S. J., & Ifarajimi, G. D. (2021). Energy poverty, climate change and economic growth. African Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 4(3), 98–115. Agba, M. S. (2011). Energy poverty and the leadership question in Nigeria: An overview and implications for the future. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 3(13), 385–390. Aina, A. L. (2025). Energy Poverty and Life Expectancy in Nigeria. Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Studies, 8(5), 3424-3414 Akintunde, T. O., Akanbi, B. O., Adagunodo, M. E., & Akinrinde, O. (2024). Poverty and energy consumption patterns in rural and urban households of Osun State, Nigeria. EuroEconomica, 1(43), 15–27. Amin, A., Liu, Y., Yu, J., Chandio, A. A., Rasool, S. F., Luo, J., & Zaman, S. (2020). How does energy poverty affect economic development? A panel data analysis of South Asian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(25), 31623– 31635. Bouzarovski, S. (2018). Understanding energy poverty, vulnerability and justice. Palgrave Macmillan. Bouzarovski, S., & Petrova, S. (2015). A global perspective on domestic energy deprivation: Overcoming the energy poverty–fuel poverty binary. Energy Research & Social Science, 10, 31–40. Bouzarovski, S., & Petrova, S. (2021). Energy poverty and trust: Conceptualising the societal roots of energy deprivation. Energy Research & Social Science, 76, 102064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102064 Carabajal, A. T., Orsot, A., Moudio, M. P. E., Haggai, T., Okonkwo, C. J., Jarrard, G. T. III, et al. (2024). Social and Economic Impact Analysis of Solar Mini-Grids in Rural Africa: A Cohort Study from Kenya and Nigeria. Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability. Preprint available at arXiv Day, R., Walker, G., & Simcock, N. (2016). Conceptualising energy use and energy poverty using a capabilities framework. Energy Policy, 93, 255–264. Famewo, A. S., & Uwala, V. A. (2022). Socio-economic impacts of rural energy poverty on women and students in Esa-Oke, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainability and Environmental Management, 1(2), 84–93. Halkos, G. E., & Gkampoura, E.-C. (2021). Coping with energy poverty: Measurements, e-ISSN: 3027-0650 AUN Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) 99-116 School of Arts and Sciences, American University of Nigeria, Yola drivers, impacts, and solutions. Energies, 14(10), 2807. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14102807 Hihetah, C., Byrne, E., O’Gallachoir, B., & Stauffacher-Janzen, S. (2024). Lived experiences of energy vulnerability: A systematic literature review. Energy Research & Social Science, 114, 103565. Kwakwa, P. A. (2024). Addressing Energy Poverty in Africa: The Role of Institutional Quality, Trade Openness, and Financial Development in Enhancing Access to Clean Fuels and Technologies. Journal of Energy and Development, 49(2), 241–286. LHer, G. F., Osborne, A. G., Schweikert, A. E., Ramstein, C. S., Stoll, B. L., & Deinert, M. R. (2023). Potential of Photovoltaics and Energy Storage to Address Lack of Electricity Access. arXiv Li, M., Li, Q., Li, C., & Zhang, L. (2023). The impact and coping strategies of energy poverty on human well-being. Mckague, F., Lawson, R., Scott, M., & Wooliscroft, B. (2016). Understanding the energy consumption choices and coping mechanisms of fuel-poor households in New Zealand. New Zealand Sociology, 31(2), 109–126. Nguyen, N. V., et al. (2021). Energy poverty, health and education outcomes: Evidence from the developing world. Energy Economics, 101, 105447. Nie, P., Li, Q., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2021). Energy poverty and subjective well-being in China: New evidence from the China family panel studies (IZA Discussion Paper No. 14429). IZA - Institute of Labour Economics. Nwozor, A., Oshewolo, S., & Ogundele, O. (2019). Energy poverty and environmental sustainability in Nigeria: an exploratory assessment. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 331(1), 012033. Ogwumike, F. O., & Ozughalu, U. M. (2016). Analysis of energy poverty and its implications for sustainable development in Nigeria. Environment and Development Economics, 21(3), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X15000236 Olurode, L., Isola, W., & Adebisi, D. (2018). Urbanisation and Energy Crisis: the Case of Lagos State. Sociology and Anthropology, 6(11), 845–853. https://doi.org/10.13189/sa.2018.061105 Oluwoseun, T. S., Adesiyan, A. T., Ojo, T. O., & Elhindi, K. M. (2024). Drivers of Rural Households’ Choices and Intensity of Sustainable Energy Sources for Cooking and Lighting in Ondo State, Nigeria. Sustainability, 16(11), 4556. Ozturk, I. (2010). Survey of the international evidence on the causal relationship between energy consumption and growth. Journal of Economic Studies, 37(1), 53–95. Riahi, K., Dentener, F., & Smith, K. (2014). Household cooking with solid fuels contributes to ambient PM2.5 air pollution and the burden of disease. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(12), 1314–1320. Samarakoon, S. (2019). A justice and wellbeing-centred framework for analysing energy e-ISSN: 3027-0650 AUN Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025) 99-116 School of Arts and Sciences, American University of Nigeria, Yola poverty in the Global South. Ecological Economics, 164, 106385. Velasco-Herrejón, P., Lennon, B., & Dunphy, N. P. (Eds.). (2024). Living with energy poverty: Perspectives from the global North and South. Routledge. World Bank. (2012). Estimating employment effects of Powerlinks Transmission Limited Project in India and Bhutan (No. 72477). World Bank. Zhang, D., Li, J., & Han, P. (2019). 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, 131, 72–81. Zhang, Z., Shu, H., Yi, H., & Wang, X. (2021). How does multidimensional energy poverty affect health? Evidence from China. Energy Policy, 156, 112381. Zhiña, D. X., Fárez-Plasencia, M. I., Avilés-Añazco, A., Cordero-Ahiman, O. V., Vanegas, J. L., & Guanuchi-Quito, A. (2025). Exploring the dynamics of energy security and energy poverty in the Andean basin. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 44(1), 2457414. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2025.2457414