Climbing the Energy Ladder: Household Heating Fuel Choice in Jordan

Every home needs heat, but the path to getting it is rarely a straight line. In many parts of the world, families do not simply switch from one fuel to another as they earn more money; instead, they often juggle several types at once, keeping a wood fire burning alongside a gas stove or a kerosene heater. This complex behavior challenges a long-held idea in economics known as the "energy ladder." The traditional theory suggests that as households climb out of poverty, they naturally move up a single, steep ladder: starting with dirty, solid fuels like wood and dung, stepping up to intermediate options like kerosene, and finally reaching the top rung of clean, modern energy like electricity or gas. However, reality in developing nations often looks more like a tangled web than a neat staircase. Understanding exactly how and why families choose their heating sources is critical, not just for economic planning, but for public health and environmental protection. When people rely on burning wood or plastic indoors, they face severe health risks, and the smoke contributes to broader pollution. If policymakers assume everyone moves up the ladder at the same speed and for the same reasons, their help might miss the mark entirely.

A new study from Jordan, led by researcher Mohammad M. Jaber, digs into this question by looking at the actual heating habits of nearly 18,500 households across the country. Using data from a massive national survey conducted in 2023, the researcher did not just ask which fuel people used; they asked why. They tested whether the simple idea of a single energy ladder holds true, or if the journey to clean energy is actually broken into two very different stages. The study found that the ladder is indeed split in two. The first step—leaving behind the dirtiest fuels like wood, charcoal, and animal dung—is driven almost entirely by how much money a family has and where they live. The second step—moving from intermediate fuels like kerosene to fully modern options like electricity or liquefied petroleum gas—is a different story. This second leap depends less on a family's income and more on whether the local infrastructure can actually deliver the fuel.

The researcher discovered that geography is the single most powerful force shaping these choices. In the northern highland governorates of Ajloun, Jarash, and Mafraq, the use of traditional, solid fuels remains deeply entrenched. Even if a family in these areas has some money, they are far more likely to burn wood or charcoal than a family in the capital, Amman. This is not necessarily because they prefer the smoke, but because the local supply chains for cleaner fuels are weaker, and the cooler climate creates a higher demand for heat that local biomass can easily meet. In stark contrast, the port city of Aqaba shows a nearly fivefold advantage in using clean fuels compared to Amman. Here, the warmer climate and a robust commercial economy mean that modern heating is the standard, not the exception. The study suggests that in these northern highlands, the barrier is not a lack of cash, but a lack of access to reliable, clean energy infrastructure.

Money plays a crucial role, but only for the first part of the journey. The data shows a clear pattern: as a household's wealth increases, their likelihood of abandoning solid fuels like wood and dung rises sharply. A small improvement in financial standing can make a big difference in getting a family off the dirtiest fuels. However, once a family has moved past wood and is using something like kerosene, having more money does not guarantee they will switch to electricity or gas. The study found that the final push to modern energy is not about how rich a household is, but about whether the local grid is reliable and whether gas cylinders are available for delivery. This explains why some wealthier families might still be stuck using transitional fuels; they have the money, but the system to deliver the cleanest fuel hasn't reached them yet.

The type of home a family lives in also tells a surprising story. Families living in informal or non-permanent structures, such as refugee shelters or temporary housing, were found to be the most likely to use modern fuels like LPG. This seems counterintuitive, as one might expect these homes to rely on the cheapest, dirtiest options. The researcher explains that this is likely because humanitarian organizations in Jordan have successfully distributed gas cylinders to these communities, bypassing the need for fixed electrical lines or permanent plumbing. It is a rare example of a policy that works perfectly for the most vulnerable. On the other hand, families living in detached houses, often found on the edges of cities or in rural areas, were more likely to stick with traditional or transitional fuels. These homes often have the space to store wood or kerosene, making them a convenient, if dirty, choice.

The study also looked at education and family structure, finding that only a university-level education was strongly linked to using modern fuels. Having a primary or secondary education did not seem to make a difference, suggesting that the benefits of education for energy choices come from the higher income and urban stability that usually accompany a university degree, rather than just knowing more about energy. Similarly, while female-headed households were more likely to have moved away from solid fuels, they did not show a special advantage in reaching the final modern stage. This suggests that the barriers to the final step are structural, affecting everyone regardless of who leads the household.

Perhaps the most important finding for future policy is the discovery of a "lock-in" effect in certain areas. In the governorate of Zarqa, many families have successfully left wood behind but have settled permanently on kerosene or gasoline. They are stuck on the middle rung of the ladder. The study suggests that this is because these fuels are cheap and locally available due to the region's industrial presence. A standard policy that simply gives money to families might help them leave wood, but it will not necessarily push them off kerosene. To get them to the top, the government needs to fix the supply chains and ensure that clean electricity or gas is just as easy to get as the dirty alternatives.

This research confirms that the path to clean energy is not a single, uniform climb. It is a journey with two distinct challenges. The first is getting people off the dirtiest fuels, which requires helping them with their income and ensuring they have access to basic alternatives. The second is getting them to the cleanest fuels, which requires fixing the roads, pipes, and grids that deliver those fuels. By recognizing that these are two different problems, policymakers can stop trying to solve both with the same tool. In Jordan, the solution involves targeted investments in specific regions where clean fuel is missing, rather than just handing out cash. The study shows that while money can get a family off the ground, only a reliable system can get them to the top.